Posted on 06/17/2004 5:56:59 PM PDT by Libloather
Since when has congress cared about doing the right thing. They do only that which is politically expedient or will buy them votes. They could not care less about the troops or their effectiveness. They only want to sound as if they care.
The older I get the more cynical I get about the politicians.
Having said that, I have no idea what should be done. I simply think Rummy and the Generals know better than the congress critters.
Recruiters are turning away good men for trivial reasons, or putting them on long waiting lists. I have seen this with my own eyes, very recently.
10 years ago we had not problem mannign a volunteer military twice the size of the current one. We can add 20k easily.
he's rattled by his voting record from the past 10 years
being brought back to haunt him. it's spineless, but it
looks like his solution to this dilemma is to just stop
voting.
no votes, thus no controversy over the votes.
did I mention that this was spineless?
The older I get the more cynical I get about the politicians.
Having said that, I have no idea what should be done. I simply think Rummy and the Generals know better than the congress critters
I can relate to the cynical part. They need to realign and add infantry troops. Rummy asked for them, I'm sure. We WILL beat these terrorists.
he's rattled by his voting record from the past 10 years
being brought back to haunt him. it's spineless
If it's Kerry you're talking about, F'n Kerry did't vote on this. Are you surprized?
>If it's Kerry you're talking about, F'n Kerry did't vote on >this. Are you surprized?
that's what prompted my post.
Even the dems that have a minimum of intelligence would not be happy with F'ns lack of a voting record. How do you suppose they could find out? Suppose CNN might bring that to light? I, for one, won't hold my breath.
Are the recruiters turning them away because of budget problems?
That's just nuts.
It would help to have more troops to seal the borders with Syria and Iran, but those are big long borders and we can't put 50,000 men on each border without also having much bigger supply convoys into Iraq. More supply convoys means more vulnerable targets for attackers.
My conclusion is that our problems are caused more by a lack of technology developed for this kind of nation-building in a hostile area, rather than a simple lack of manpower. We need much better surveillance technology and intelligence tech to keep an eye on what the insurgents are doing. Our military just doesn't have the technology to complete this kind of mission without taking some serious casualties. We have not developed the technology for fighting in the 360-degree urban battlefield of Iraq. McCain is just grandstanding for media approval (as usual.) Cheney should give him a call and tell him to shut up and stop looking for scapegoats in the civilian leadership. This is just a really tough mission in Iraq, but it's vitally important that we succeed.
IIRC, this was a big plank in JFKerry's plan. Just like a new UN resolution about Iraq and his attacks against the economy ("no jobs, bad jobs, burger jobs..."), this one has been overtaken by events. Politically, he has no platform left.
Bush campaign should make some noise about how if Kerry thinks this is important, maybe he should have shown up and voted.
HMMMMMMM!! Was Kerry there to vote or did he conveniently miss this one too?
"Pull all COMBAT troops out of Germany"
I agree with your other recommendations; combat troops in Germany: IMO it has helped with Afghanistan and Iraq to have some forward-deployed troops available. It is not that we need combat troops in Europe, for Europe; but, e.g. for the Middle-East etc. It is so difficult to air life a heavy division, so it makes some sense to have some of those heavy forces closer to the strategic risk. It would be a strategic calculus to leave them there . . .
"We need at least a Corps equivalent and a hard look at our Reserve system."
Yes, you are totally correct that the active force was cut waaay too much under the Clintoon administration; and, waaay too much was expected of the reserve force. A Corps would be nice; how about a Theatre Army?? ;)
will volunteers support this 20,000-troop increase?
"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."
IMHO, it is not either/or, but BOTH. That is the approach Cap Weinberger and Reagan used.
Of course there are fiefdoms. Some suggest turning more logistics, etc. over to civilians. IMHO, working with the CONUS R&D and logistics establishment, civilians who are not rotated like troops are the nexus of these fiefdoms, and they fight HARD and POLITICALLY (e.g. through their Senators) to keep their programs and staffing and $$$, justified by military need or not. Some are of course very patriotic; but few have the empathy for the troops in the field that comes from having been there. To those who have clawed their way up the political heap, it is the MONEY.
They are turning people away because they are at maximum staffing levels in amny areas. One way they do this is by adjusting standards, say prohibiting anyone with a G.E.D. from enlisting, for example. If you wanted (and could handle) a sudden influx of recruits, you'd adjust your standards appropriately.
A friend of mine recently tried to reenlist in the AF, and was turned down because he has a tattoo visible below his elbow. That's a new standard being enforced by the AF. He ended up crossing over to the Navy, which has no such rule.
"cheaper to hire local labor."
Interesting.
When I worked at the depot in Kaiserslautern, there were labor units formed after WW II, with a quasi-military structure. E.g. uniforms and rank. Many were easterners (including Germans) displaced by the War and the Communist take-over of the east. IOW, they would have been destitute, but were formed into these labor units, and worked in the depot.
They were by-and-large more productive and loyal to the Americans, and had more of a can-do attitude, than the employees who were individuals and subject to the German labor unions and labor laws -- which made it virtually impossible to fire one of them, and gave inordinate sick time, etc.
I talked to a guy recently who just got back from 9 months in Iraq. He was in the states for three months and had been told that he would then be heading to Afganistan for a 6 month tour. He's on a stop loss and can't get out when his enlistment ends. So when it comes to that then yeah, we're streached too thin.
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.