Posted on 06/17/2004 5:56:59 PM PDT by Libloather
"Every man an 11B as a primary MOS is definitely a major part of the solution"
of course, it helps to have the Navy sitting their to supply their transportation and logistical needs . . .
Agreed with regards to spending more on defense. Should we have a larger military? Well, it can't hurt; but the last I heard, ever since 9/11, recruiters have no problems meeting their quotas. What I'd like to know is this: are quotas simply being increased, or is this going to lead to a reinstatement of the draft?
"unnecessary personnel"
well Ramstein is an AF base, and the AF gets better (funding) treatment than the Army, so maybe they have a few more folks than the Army would get for doing the same job . . .
but would you want them in ground combat? ;)
"The whole "stretched thin" business is just more electioneering."
There are places in the world our forces should probably not be; e.g. wasn't Bosnia supposed to be a 6 months commitment?
But GIVEN our forces are deployed in so many places, they actually ARE stretched too thin; and it is not right for our nation to short-change the people wearing the boots on the ground, by expecting more of them than they can do with the resources they have . . .
Unfortunately, this is not entirely a myth. By any reasonable standard we are stretched thin. We will continue to succeed, mission after mission, but the margins will start to slip unless we can find a way to get the optempo back under control. This is true in an operational sense, and in a morale sense.
Reorganization would be a better way to solve this problem, including converting more non 'military' MOS billets to civilian ones. We have a lot of bodies that are not as gainfully employed as they could be.
Two: let's say we're stretched thin. Okay, let's reassign troops from areas where they just take up space to areas where they're needed We have troops deployed to, what, over 100 countries? Why the hell haven't we cleared out the base in Germany, for example?
This is a good idea, and alludes to force reorganization. We have a lot of structure that is still Cold War focused, and old habits die hard. After the coming troop shuffles you'll see a far more flexible force.
There are good reasons, on a geopolitical level, to demonstrate that you can flatten governments halfway across the world while lowering taxes and not breaking a sweat while doing it. Such a demonstration of force sends a message, and it carries with it great credibility. Still, that case can be made that we've made our point, and now it makes sense to take an honest look at our current operational requirements.
"... Well, I can dream, can't I?"
apparently! ;)
Senate votes to cut committe staff by 20,000....hmmmm? is there a connection?
T"here are good reasons, on a geopolitical level, to demonstrate that you can flatten governments halfway across the world while lowering taxes and not breaking a sweat while doing it. Such a demonstration of force sends a message, and it carries with it great credibility."
Good analysis. That seems to be Rummy's approach. We in the force LOVED Cap during the Reagan years, because we were being appreciated and resourced . . . after the absolutely abysmal and humiliating Carter years . . .
As a geo-strategist, one might go for Rummy's approach. Filling boots on the ground, one might go for Cap's! ;)
You're correct.
Pull all COMBAT troops out of Germany. The only people we need there are depot repair, transportation/shipping, air transport, and Landstuhl Med center.
Pull every single US military person out of Bosnia, Kosovo, ad-nauseum. NATO and the UN didn't want to help us in Iraq so we don't need to help out Europe. The Yugoslavian disaster is a European problem so let the French, Russians, and Germans fix it.
Reduce the number of US GROUND COMBAT troops in South Korea by half. They are only there as a show of support for the ROK anyway and the ROK military is plenty capable of winning a war with the North with US Air Force help. Not many people know it but the ROK Army is pretty darn good.
Besides, last week Kerry says that he'd increase the army by 40,000 without it costing the govt a penny, yet a 10,000 increase will cost 1.7 B. Must be some sort of majic on Kerry's part huh?
I have a problem with that statement. The moment our troops are involved in combat, the American People are involved.
The Army was cut back under the 'toons to the point where many support activities did not exist outside of the Reserves or the Guard. If my experience, in the Mass Guards, short after Viet Nam, I did a couple of tours, the training sucks, the discipline sucks, it is a club.
We need at least a Corps equivalent and a hard look at our Reserve system.
Okay, let's reassign troops from areas where they just take up space to areas where they're needed We have troops deployed to, what, over 100 countries? Why the hell haven't we cleared out the base in Germany, for example?
That is happening already, but.......These troops need to be replaced periodically-12 months is not unreasonable. We have troops in Afghanistan, who need replacing too...and in several other countries in support of terrorism. They all need replacing at some point. The Klintooms dessimated the Army and then handed this administration a war on terror. They are now feeling the effects of these decreases. We need an increase of MUCH more than 10,000 to maintain...AND to invade IRAN when the time comes.
So, I'm deployed a lot. I've seen Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, from Zamboanga in the southern Philippines, to Dahuk in northern Iraq. Between the people in my office we've been everwhere there is to be in this war.
On one hand, I'm tempted to say, yeah, we need more troops, we're obviously stretched thin. I know this for a fact, since I've seen it all over the place. It's bad for SOF, and it's even worse for the conventional units. It pains me to see reservist units with sixty year old looking staff sergeants in combat. We look and feel stretched. I know what the generals are saying, and why, but that doesn't mean I'm going to drink the kool aid myself.
On the other, I'm thinking, will those new troops be trained and ready in time to even make a difference? Wouldn't I be happier with more stuff now than a slightly lower optempo in three or more years? Money that gets thrown at 20k newbies doesn't help me any, now does it? That money could be going to fix the helicopter I'll be riding in, or more ammo and spare parts, or a million other things that I'll now be doing without.
No easy solutions, to be sure.
It seems to me that there are still a good many sacred cows that have yet to be gored, as far as troop strength goes. I'm sure that reorganization has a horde of internal enemies.
I realize that if we close down a lot of units, a lot of officers will lose out, and that won't necessarily translate into new opportunites for them. We've got a lot of dead weight brass that won't go quietly into this Force XXI night. Same goes for the little OCONUS fiefdoms that may be past their glory days. I'm suprised that Germany and Korea have stayed so intact this far. There are other places where we simply don't need the numbers and types of troops we have, but they remain there because of what I'd call 'political considerations'.
Same BS, different war, I guess.
In Iraq we are using people untrained in Infantry type stuff to make up for the lack grunts.
And how many divisions did Bill and Hillary delete from our Army?
Yeah, but where are we going to literally GET them from?
i haven't seen a recruitment ad in ages, and i have heard people signinging up is lower than it had been....
What I'd like to know is this: are quotas simply being increased, or is this going to lead to a reinstatement of the draft?
Bet the draft issue will be back on the table after the election.
Reduce the number of US GROUND COMBAT troops in South Korea by half. They are only there as a show of support for the ROK anyway and the ROK military is plenty capable of winning a war with the North with US Air Force help. Not many people know it but the ROK Army is pretty darn good.
As I post you from Seoul, Korea, can only say that I agree.
Well the problem with just "adding" 20K or 30K to the end strength of the Army ignores how you are going to use these people. You must designate a warfighting force structure to which these people will be assigned. You must decide if they are to be Infantry battalions, supply companies, engineer battalions, or a mess kit repair company - this also requires equipment (trucks, guns, radios, etc.) and physical space (billets, supply rooms, motor pools, family housing) for these forces. The Army always has a priority list for more units to meet the warfighting strategy, but I'm not sure that that is what the Congress is doing. I think the Congress is just throwing an extra 30K bodies that the Army without the accompanying force structure, pay, operations and maintenance and construction dollars. If that is the case, then the Congress is just STUPID.
Well the problem with just "adding" 20K or 30K to the end strength of the Army ignores how you are going to use these people. You must designate a warfighting force structure to which these people will be assigned. You must decide if they are to be Infantry battalions, supply companies, engineer battalions, or a mess kit repair company - this also requires equipment (trucks, guns, radios, etc.) and physical space (billets, supply rooms, motor pools, family housing) for these forces. The Army always has a priority list for more units to meet the warfighting strategy, but I'm not sure that that is what the Congress is doing. I think the Congress is just throwing an extra 30K bodies that the Army without the accompanying force structure, pay, operations and maintenance and construction dollars. If that is the case, then the Congress is just STUPID.
Realligning is going on NOW. Reductions in Germany, Korea and Europe. 20,000 new troops is a small START to the number needed though.
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.