Army nears a breaking point

San Antonio News ^ | 3/29/07 | Allard

[tcrlaf]

This is, like, "breaking point" number 37, isn't it??

We've been told that the Army was "nearing the breaking point" since the sandstorm during the initial invasion!!!

[struwwelpeter]

I don't know if I can speak for every unit, but in my reserves unit, everytime they talk about mobilizing people, they get so many volunteers that the soldiers looking forward to mob end up getting bumped.

We've got guys that keep extending and have been reserve/active for three years straight. Lots of people in our unit with over 20 - have their "20 year letters" for retirement already in their hands, and they're staying until mandatory removal date (age 60). I've got 32 years myself, and they'll have to shoot me to get me out.

I wonder what unit the retired O-6 who wrote this drivel drills with. Or is he just a "20-years-me-me-me-take-the-money-and-run" kind of patriot?

Some see "broken", others see "work to do, hoo-ah".

[SevenMinusOne]

This article is full of so much BS and half-truths it is laughable (not to mention his "nameless highranking source").

The U.S. Armed Services are more ready, more battle tested, more trained and ready to wage war the anytime in the last 40 years.

The misleading stats about "deserters" is such garbage. That statistic is nothing but white noise. People quit all sorts of jobs...(including the military...surprise, surprise). They are doing it no more often today...then ever before.

Bringing up the 82nd is no longer currently taking on the DRF status means squat (other then this guy has no clue what he is talking about). Of course some of the 101st is going to take on the DRF role while the majority of the 82nd combat arms are working OCONUS.

I could go on....but don't have the time currently....But those suggesting our military is near any breaking point are absurd and lying (or spinning for various reasons).

Do we need more soldiers. Yes.

[unkus]

You are right. A most important thing on dealing with Iran is to do it right: Hit selected targets to take out their leadership, military and nuclear facilities. Keep civilian casualties to a minimum to save the many, many pro-American Iranians. Then when the smoke settles, help them. It must be done in a WIN-WIN way for the Administration. Do not allow the Power hungry, America-comes-last leftist crowd to be able to take any credit. Make it a victory showing our moral authority over the left's immorality. A victory of Good over Evil. And RUB it in.

[jwparkerjr]

Several years ago it was decided by many fire departments to start responding an engine company on rescue calls to provide the third set of hands sometimes necessary with serious injuries. It also meant a faster response time on many calls. Sounded good and everything seemed to go along just fine but then the law of unintended consequences raised its ugly head. Big, expensive pieces of fire fighting apparatus were wearing out way more quickly than in the past. Fire trucks costing a quarter of a million dollars or more each, that in the past had simply disappeared from their station afters few runs but daily, relentless polishings from their crews were suddenly wearing out. Turns out these behemoths were never designed for the multiple runs day after day, 365 days a year. That's what happens when, no matter the good intentions, you start using a piece of equipment designed for a very specific task for an unrelated task. And that's were our armed forces are today. They were never designed for the kind of PC they have been forced to fight in Iraq, etc. As a result they, like those big shiny fire engines are wearing out long before their time.

I was a strong supporter of the invasion of Iraq. In fact, you would have to look long and hard to find anyone more ready for that action to be taken than I was. But my eagerness to rid of Saddam was based on the belief, now shown to be mistaken, that we would do the way it should be done.

My feeling now is that if we aren't going to do this thing the right way then it's indeed time to bring our troops home. I think we are moving in the right direction with 'The Surge' but the recent full court press by the MSM/Lefties to aide and abet the enemy is taking its toll on that effort. It's not even well underway yet and it's been declared a failure by the war's opponents.

If the Army is indeed nearing the breaking point the fastest way to fix is to let them do what they are trained and to and what they joined the armed services to do.

[leadpenny]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080356/

MSNBC military analysts and experts

Updated: 2:24 p.m. ET Feb 23, 2007
Scroll below to read the biographies MSNBCs military analysts and experts.

COL. KEN ALLARD

Ken Allard is a well-known commentator on international security issues. His military career as an operational intelligence officer included service on the faculty of the U.S. Military Academy as special assistant to the Army Chief of Staff and as dean of students at the National War College. In 1996, he served on special assignment with the U.S. 1st Armored Division in Bosnia. A noted author and lecturer, Allard’s many publications include two books: “Somalia Operations: Lessons Learned” and “Command, Control and the Common Defense,” which won the 1991 National Security Book Award. Allard holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and an M.P.A. from Harvard University.

WILLIAM ARKIN

GEN. WAYNE DOWNING

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA

Lt Col Rick Francona

DANIEL GOURE

COL. JACK JACOBS

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY

GEN. MONTGOMERY MEIGS

GEN. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF

Retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf


© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

[sam_paine]

And this nugget!....Tough, realistic Army training — a defining feature and secret weapon for two decades — is also coming under enormous pressure as time, money and people are siphoned off just to meet the frantic pace of current operational commitments.

Uhhhhhhhh. Instead of "tough, realistic training" they are being shot at with real bullets by real enemy with real blood in a real war zone. Yeah. Sooooo. Sounds like "tough, realistic OJT" to me.

[colorado tanker]

The last couple of weeks the Dems have made it abundantly clear that they are completely opposed to Bush's approach to the GWOT, so they would get no credit for a successful de-fanging of Iran.

IMHO, Iran is now the key to the post-Saddam situation. If we can destabilize that regime and it falls, the picture completely changes. That would leave Syria the only remaining state supporter of the various terrorist groups in the region and I do not believe they could sustain that alone, cut off from Iranian money and support.

[Larry Lucido]

Still waiting, waiting, waiting for said implosion.....

Well, they sent the Army in without armored Humvees. You know, the ones that replaced the armored Jeeps of old.

Oh, wait. The old Jeeps weren't armored. Ah, minor point.

[Doctor Raoul]

That kind of OJT will kill you when you make a mistake. In training you get a second chance.

[taxcontrol]

I have LONG contended that the Army needs 6 to 8 more combat brigades and the Marines 3 or 4 ... just to cope with the current rotation schedule in Iraq.

If we are going to take on Iran as well, we had better double the entire military.

In war, there are three thing that you are always short of, men, ammo and enemy dead.

[happygrl]

The Army must provide 33 brigades — each consisting of about 3,500 soldiers — to meet requirements from Iraq and Afghanistan to Korea and Germany

There's the problem.

Time to let the Koreans and the Europeans to ante up and protect themselves

[MalachiFourSix]

I work at an Army post and this article is NOT TRUTH. I am not a military but everything I see is not what this article indicates.

It had to be politically motivated at a time where our president is going through an attack from internal foes, for power pleasure, while we are fighting foes from without.

It is a disgrace what this liberals are doing to this country.....

We must bind together to defeat them in 08, 010!!

[ichabod1]

!Yo soy el Army!

[ichabod1]

The Army and Marines are fairly busy. Time for the Navy and Air Force to buff up their combat hardness.

[leadpenny]

It had to be politically motivated at a time where our president is going through an attack from internal foes, for power pleasure, while we are fighting foes from without.

Care to decipher that?

[ichabod1]

Worn out like a pair of old shoes, I believe was the opening salvo from the murtherer.

[leadpenny]

I have LONG contended that the Army needs 6 to 8 more combat brigades and the Marines 3 or 4 ...

I think that's in the works. May be tough to get done in time of war without a draft.

[MalachiFourSix]

Care to decipher that?

Sure!

Whoever wrote this article, it was for the purpose to discredit the president and anything he is trying to do in Iraq...the target of the liberal writing of this article is to throw another dart to the president and the GOP.

[sam_paine]

That kind of OJT will kill you when you make a mistake. In training you get a second chance.

Nobody is sending anyone anywhere "untrained." Not implying that you said that, but the author gives the impression that they're taking recruits, dressing them up, and sending them on patrol in Sadr city the following week with a Petraeus handbook.

The point is, once trained on the basics, which gives a better environment to learn "tough, realistic" training--an Army base, or a real war?

A pilot always has to solo for the first time, eventually.

A high-rise construction worker has to step out on the 34th floor eventually.

Which pilot do you want to fly with? Which construction worker do you want walking near you on a beam?

The one that's been through "tough, realistic" training for a year....or one that's been in the real world for 3 months?