Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

It's a double header...
1 posted on 01/13/2004 3:57:04 PM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: inPhase
Pull em out of Europe and S Korea...problem solved!
2 posted on 01/13/2004 3:59:16 PM PST by kaktuskid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inPhase
8 1/2 of the Army's 10 divisions will have been involved in Iraq by the time the next troop rotation takes place (and 4 or 5 NG brigades) and Rumsfeld still doesn't believe that we need more troops?

Starting to lose patience...

3 posted on 01/13/2004 4:00:08 PM PST by 91B (NCNG-C/Co 161st ASMB-deployed to theater since April 19th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inPhase
I go with Congressman Duncan Hunter's assessment that we need a larger ground force. He is Chairman of the HASC.

The case is not one of needing troops only for "spikes" but to be ready come what may and especially since we are obviously in a "stretched" Army situation and giving the rest of the world a lot of credit to behave.
4 posted on 01/13/2004 4:07:25 PM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inPhase; All
I believe re-configuring the military is the answer.

If we did away with certain support functions that civilians could perform we could make more ground troops available while maintaining the current numbers.

Offer tax breaks and contracts to corportations/companies that privately supply these civil functions.

Rumsfeld is a very intelligent man; I don't believe we are maintaining current levels for political reasons.
5 posted on 01/13/2004 4:12:57 PM PST by Loc123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: inPhase
It would take at least a couple of years to increase troops strength by enlarging military end strength. You've got to ratchet up recruitment, and then you've got to train them. And its not like all those extra troops can be run through in one massive training cycle. It would take a lot of time.

The thing that is causing the current crunch is the high committment of troops to Iraq. And honestly, whatever the rhetoric, I think its very unlikely that's going to continue for more than another year. We've already committed to elections, and a return of sovereignity to Iraq in 2004. Once Iraq is "sovereign", we can't stay there except at their express invitation. And no Iraqi government is going to be able to maintain credibility if it lets large numbers of U.S. troops stay.

So, they're going to ask us to leave, probably in late summer/early fall of next year. Troops are going to start returning, and I'll bet that less than half the current number will be in country by Jan. 1, 2005. The personnel crunch will be ending, and be completely over not long after that. Right about time those two extra divisions would have come online....

The good thing is that the images of large numbers of returning troops and the apparent end of significant involvement in Iraq isn't going to hurt Dubya one little bit.

11 posted on 01/13/2004 4:42:22 PM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson