Wield The U.S. Forces

NY Post ^ | September 28, 2003 | Staff Editorial

[Ex-Dem]

You hear a lot these days that U.S. armed forces are "overstretched" for their current commitments. Some, though not all, of this comes from those who mistakenly - or malignantly - claim to see a developing "quagmire" in Iraq.

There is no quagmire.

[Kaslin]

Great editorial by the NY Post and as always thy hit the nail right on the head.

[Kaslin]

thy=they

[SamAdams76]

I agree with the article. It is time to take our military out of the "World War II" era. It's time to focus on World War III - which is the war on terror, still in its beginning stages in my opinion.

BTW, I am very bullish on our military. With all the experience they are getting in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, we are developing an awesome amount of battleground experience. The young men fighting these battles today will be the leaders of our military over the next two generations. If you remember, during the 1980s, as Vietnam-era vets were retiring, there was concern that soon there would be nobody left in the military with any real "battle experience." Well we certainly don't have that problem anymore!

Also, the military is meeting all its recruiting goals. There are many fine young Americans signing up to serve their country. This is very encouraging for the future.

[KriegerGeist]

"You hear a lot these days that U.S. armed forces are "overstretched" for their current commitments."

The U.S. have committed several divisions (20+thousand) troops to garrison in Germany. The U.S. has thousands of troops in Japan, Korea, Balkans, Egypt, and various other places throughout the world so as to honor our obligation on prior U.N. “peace-keeping” resolutions our government feels obligated to honor.

In my opinion, the 37+ thousand troops in S. Korea and the 20+ thousand from American-hating Germany could do nicely in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is just a start from places that we could draw troops and leave the reserves and National Guardsmen at home and working.

South Korea, Japan and Germany are well populated, and very well off financially to defend themselves with both men and equipment. We could then take our troops and equipment and money from those areas and put it where needed most: in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our soldiers don't need to be deployed for a year. But, what do I know?

[omega4412]

We need more troops to be able to deal with certain emergencies without taking troops from Iraq or Afghanistan:

-- intervention in Pakistan if there is a fundamentalist coup. We need to be able to seize the nukes immediately and on a longer scale clean out the Taliban from the tribal areas.

-- intervention in Saudi Arabia if there is a more-fundamentalist coup. (And a battalion of forensic accountants to trace the money flows from the Saudis to the terrorists.)

-- closing off the US borders in the event of another major terrorist attack. (Clearly we ought to do this now, but it seems unlikely we will.)

And we need to plan for the reservists who will not be reenlisting on account of the length of overseas deployments. They will decide that their family responsibilities make it impossible to re-enlist.

[.cnI redruM]

I feel vindicated. I said months ago, we needed to reactivate the 7th and perhaps the 24th. 40,000 more troops would, if nothing else, get the attention of certain individuas in Iran and Syria....

[LenS]

Your last point would require millions more troops. On the DMZ in Korea, it takes an entire US infantry battalion just to patrol and maintain the guardposts in a small area around Panmunjom (which itself is guarded by another half US/half ROK battalion). Our borders with Mexico and Canada absolutely dwarf the DMZ. And there isn't vast armies of NKPA across those borders patrolling to keep people from heading south.

Plus, you'd have to monitor thousands of airfields and tens of thousands of places where boats can dock. Patrolling the border is a job best left to the police anyway.

[omega4412]

I agree with you that we can't seal the Mexican border in the same way we defend the ROK border. But we could make it a lot harder for smugglers of drugs/people/terrorists.

In the event of a terrorist attack that came through Mexico, we'd have to do something about the border. And under military rules of engagement, not civilian.

So increase the Border Patrol now, but also begin raising and training the troops.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

There is no question that troop deployments based on a Soviet threat should be changed. The military is a very conservative organization all in all. Having said this, I have for about a decade questioned the need to deploy troops, in large numbers, in Germany (and perhaps in South Korea). The Germans certainly should be capabable of defending themselves from any currently perceived foe. When one factors in the cost of US troop deployments in Europe, the Federal defecit goes away (this was about 10 years ago).

IMHO what we need are methods of deploying large number of troops, support personnel, and materials quickly. There is an old saying that goes something like this: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics.

[WOSG]

As late as this June there were still 60,000 U.S. troops in Germany - and more than 100,000 in Europe overall.

A shocking misallocation of our money, effort and resources! Send these soldiers to Iraq or bring 'em home!

[WOSG]

" In my opinion, the 37+ thousand troops in S. Korea and the 20+ thousand from American-hating Germany could do nicely in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is just a start from places that we could draw troops and leave the reserves and National Guardsmen at home and working."

Dittos - agreed.

[Major_Risktaker]

Agreed! What is going on at the Pentagon.

I would have transferred 35,000 out of Europe and another 15,000 on rotation weeks ago. Then bring in 15,000 from Asia just to protect oil pipelines to start making some money for these people.

Iraq is pre-war was pumping 3 million barrels a day, now with the pipelines sabotaged, 1 million barrels a day.

Just 5 million barrels a day at $28 a barrel is $140 million dollars a day or $51 billion a year. In a year double production and everybody wins.

The men and women in the service should get a bonus for risking their lives also.

[WOSG]

BTW, the production is above 1 million barrels a day already, and the production plans are for 3 million/day by late 2004. Bremer said in a press conference that at 3 million/day, Iraq can generate over $20 billion in revenue and pay for their own Govt, which has a 'run rate' of $15B.

Expanding oil to 5 million or more would take some number of years, exploration and new drilling etc. It also need to wait for the new govt to get on its feet to sign off on major deals.