Posted on 05/04/2005 6:15:03 PM PDT by Valin
Media connect Myers' report about strain on US military with lag in recruitment.
Media reports in the US and around the world have taken note of a new classified report from the top US military adviser, which indicates that the US military's current commitments overseas may prevent it from adequately fighting future conflicts. BBC writes that Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "has warned that ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could limit the ability of the US to fight another war."
In a yearly risk assessment report required by Congress, Myers said any future armed conflicts "may result in significantly extended campaign timelines, and achieving campaign objectives may result in higher casualties and collateral damage." Myers said the US would still prevail in any future conflict, but "may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision."
The timelines (to winning a new war) may have to be extended and we may have to use additional resources, but that doesn't matter because we're going to be successful in the end.
MSNBC called the assessment "sobering."
Some major US newspapers connected the report to lagging recruitment numbers as further evidence of strain on the military.
"Underscoring the stress facing the armed services," writes The Washington Post, "the Army reported separately [Monday] that its recruiting efforts are continuing to slip, as recruiters nationwide obtained less than 60 percent of the April goal of 6,600 new recruits into the active-duty force." The Post calls Myers' assessment "a rare open acknowledgment that the stresses on the force and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have an impact on other military operations."
A Los Angeles Times editorial suggests that Myers' admission is a refreshing change, which "indicates that common sense continues to have its place."
The blunt honesty of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, is a bracing change from repeated claims by Pentagon civilians and President Bush that everything is fine. After pointing out that "recruiting lags substantially," the Times ends with a reminder about the importance of soldiers vs. high-tech weaponry in the current conflict in Iraq. For all the emphasis in recent years on unmanned aircraft and high-tech weapons, the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq should remind US administrations of the bottom line for armies: feet on the ground. Precision-guided missiles are all but useless against improvised explosive devices at the side of the road and are of no use at all in building democratic institutions. A report from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program called "The World Today," says that "what the General told the Congress seemed at odds with what he'd told the President ... only last week ...."
The report cited Bush's quote from last Thursday night's press conference.
The person I asked that to, the person I asked that to at least, is to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military advisor. I said 'do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq', and the answer is 'no', he doesn't feel we're limited. Feels like we got plenty of capacity. White House spokesman Trent Duffy, acknowledged the report, but played down its impact.
We are at war, and that level of operations does have some impact on troops. But the president continues to be confident, as well as his military commanders, that we can meet any threat decisively. While most news sources stress Myers' findings that the Iraq war has hampered the military's ability to respond quickly to other potential foes, an article by the American Forces Information Services posted on the Defense Department's website, emphasizes that the US military can still "handle any task."
The story begins this way: "The US military can accomplish all the tasks laid out for it in the National Military Strategy, according to [Myers]."
Actually, General Myers is an Air Force general. I remember back when he commanded US Space Command.
My amateur opinion says we'd be hard pressed to occupy another country with Army or Marines.
As for the Air Force and Navy: logistically we're working a lot harder than you think. On the other hand, we could launch some pretty massive strategic attacks using conventional weapons. Cruise missiles from ships and B-52s, as well as B-2s which can hit a dozen separate targets using 2000 lb JDAMs. For attacking dug-in forces in the field or enemy air bases, a single B-2 can drop 80 (that's right, eighty) 500 lb GPS guided bombs, each one with a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of 10 feet.
We couldn't stop genocide or fight house to house, but we could lay waste to a nation, its infrastructure and military.
Of course, rumor has it the USAF is going to cut flying hours by 40% following the BRAC announcement. We don't have enough cash to keep 'em flying and maintained at the same time.
As an anecdote, my last unit cut the large majority of funding for all TDYs. Only the most necessary TDYs were approved, but only after review by the Ops Group commander.
He's an Air Force general....
BTW, I have a friend in the 3rd ID, he was there for the initial fighting and is there again...have to ask his opinion next time I speak to him.
What unit are you with and whats your AFSC?
I'm currently in tech. school at Goodfellow with the 315TRS.
Iraq should be our last "hearts and minds" campaign
It won't be. When you get right down to it the whole War On Terro is a hearts and minds campaign.
I just reckon that We will need to handle whatever gets dumped on Our plate. Sometimes, likely now, the only option left is to do, or, to die!
I really wish We would get beyond this childish little level, and cut to the damned chase.
This forum is credited, and condemned, as the last refuge of radical, conservative freemen.
If I could ever believe this to be true, I sure would sleep a lot easier.
If We ever, ever, get back to the point where freedom is no longer an issuue, I promise You that I will switch over to defending Your Fookin bottom lines.
REPUBLICAN has diddly squat to do with anything less than Liberty. You cannot buy Liberty, no more than You can own it.
As I get older, it becomes harder to distunguish the libs from those who would live free. Someone must be sending the wrong signals.
Many years ago , I raised enough Hell within the system, that little
Brother Jeb actually returned My call, one Saturday morning. I reckon that Jeb forgot about all My thougts, just as soon as political correctness would allow it.
I am a REPUBLICAN, because I absolutely must live Free.
Nothing less will do!
All You FatCats,, never, ever believe that there is any price, on this old Rednecks Freedom!
Time is to shut up, lest anyone begin to suspect that I am some kind of a rightwing radical. The last damned impression I want to leave is that, Like Hell!
Some of Y'all seem to have a "loose cannon" on Your hands, can You deal with it?
Uhh, thats a good post...but what did it have to do with the topic?
honest question..
We have got to do something about the recruiting issues. Imo the pay in the army and marines simply doesn't reflect the dangers our servicemen now face. I would just keep increasing the pay until we met recruitment goals.
Its the same as the private sector imo, when you can't fill a position you aren't paying enough. Of course its going to cost a lot of money, but I'm sure in our 2.6 trillion dollar federal budget we can find say 50 billion for higher soldier pay.
nuclear is not even necessary. loose the politically correct approach. target everything close to the leadership. end wars faster.
Go figure, I am old, ugly and pissed off, why the Hell must I be anything but?
No qualms with your arguement....
Passed over?
From what I hear, it's the intelligent, capable ones that get passed over.....the idiots up top are protecting their asses.
Isn't that how America has been described by her enemies in the past?"
One of Stalin's generals asked him about the occupation of the US. Stalin said, "You don't occupy a country that has 200 million sniper."
This is just more "Hate-America" drivel. There are no conventional land Armies anywhere to confront our troops. We had a Coalition going into Iraq for the purpose of demonstrating this was a united free world effort against tyranny and worldwide terrorism. There really was no war. The Iraqis ran away.
Read between the lines and see the liberal detractors using our free speech freedoms to spread doubt and confusion to aid the cause of worldwide terrorism.
In 1984, at the Basic Training Center at Ft. Bliss, TX, I was standing beside my Brigade Commander one day watch a company of trainees running by in formation and singing cadence. He says, "look at them Top, we are turning out good soldiers, those younger soldiers are physically tough and ready to go to war." I looked over at him said "Yes sir, but are they mentally tough enough to go to war?"
I explained to him that the Army was so scared of letting the drill sergeants yell at the troops, and giving them time out cards, that we were making cry babies out of them. He suggested I should put my retirement papers in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.