Posted on 09/15/2006 12:59:09 AM PDT by neverdem
In "Reinforce Baghdad" [op-ed, Sept. 12], William Kristol and Rich Lowry argue that the United States needs to deploy "substantially" more troops to Iraq to stabilize the country. Aside from the strategic dubiousness of their proposal -- Kristol and Lowry's piece might alternatively have been titled "Reinforcing Failure" -- there is a practical obstacle to it that they overlook: Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation's all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security. This is not a risk our country can afford to take.
In their search for additional troops and equipment for Iraq, the first place that Kristol and Lowry would have to look is the active Army. But even at existing deployment levels, the signs of strain on the active Army are evident. In July an official report revealed that two-thirds of the active U.S. Army was classified as "not ready for combat." When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one-third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready brigades in reserve.
The second place to seek new troops and equipment is the Army National Guard and Reserve. But the news here is, if anything, worse. When asked by reporters to comment on the strain that the active Army was under, the head of the National Guard said that his military branch was "in an even more dire situation than the active Army. We both have the same symptoms; I just have a higher fever."
Already, the stress of Iraq and Afghanistan on our soldiers has been significant: Every available active-duty combat brigade has served at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, and many have served two...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
NATO is close to useless.
<<<<<<< RANT >>>>>> I Don't Know If The Article Has A Bunch Of Truth,,Considering,,I Do Not Like "ASSEY-METERIC" WAR,,There Is No Such Thing As This ,,If You Are Not Willing To Go All-Out To Win,,Please Call It Something Else. Please Just Call It A "Conflict",,"WEE-Don't-AGREEE", "____________________ (fill-in-blank)" What I Think As An American,,IMO,,IMHO,, This Country Needs A Larger Military,,,Plain And Simple,,,I Don't Like Smaller I Like Bigger,Badder,,Whatever It Takes,,DEGUELLO,,All-Out, Git-R-Done,A$$-Whuppin,,,etc. We Cannot Screw-Around With Those People!!<> GOD BLESS THE TROOPS.
To clarify a comment made in the article, it's not that 98% of Army Captains were promoted to Major last year, but that it was 98% of the Captains in the zone of consideration were selected for promotion. They get promoted sequentially from the promotion list. Still, an incredible number.
The desired rate is near 70%.
That said, it indicates to me that Captains are choosing to leave the Army at an astonishing rate.
If you don't have a plan to exit don't enter. Thought that's a scheme every soldier knows. I knew a Rottweiler once...
-snip-
Related Thread:
Posted by pissant
On News/Activism 09/11/2006 10:23:52 PM MDT · 89 replies · 1,176+ views
WashPost ^ | 9/12/06 | Billie Kristol and Richie Lowry
It's worse than that. It's a negative liability. Every troop sucked into being stationed in Europe, training in Europe, or deploying in Europe is a troop that could be more effectively used elsewhere. But just try to get the perfumed princes to give up their palaces and their assignments to SHAPE, USAFE, or USAREUR ...
We could do the job with HALF the current Combat Troops if the politicians, the media and the clueless handwringers would just get out of the way.
I'm with you on that. I wish the MSM would just shut the hell up. Let the boots on the ground, not the white collars in glass buildings, decide what is to be done. Let's not have a repeat of Vietnam where decisions were made from the oval office instead of from the pentagon.
The reason we deal with Pakistan the way we do is because their nuclear arsenal is balanced on the head of a pin. Kick that pinhead out or otherwise let it be tipped and we'll have to drop everthing else we're doing and keep it from disappearing into a black hole. Musharraf is the only one with a vested interest in keeping control of it, however he double-deals with everyone and everything else. I suspect we have a complicated deal going: we don't kill him, we don't make him do anything to make Al-Qaeda kill him, we give Al-Qaeda and political rivals enough reason to keep him alive by letting them know we won't invade as long as Musharraf is in control and we get kept apprised of where the weapons are in case all else fails.
And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. The media's not going anywhere. They have to be factored in to any modern conflict, as much as the weather, ammo, fuel, and spare parts.
Really??? Wow, that is very interesting. What kind? A Little Red one? A Conestoga? A Station? A Chuck?
Your screed has the strong scent of sour grapes.
There's a reason we're not sending more troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. We're doing all we can just to keep up with the current rate of deployments. While our military is a perfect size to knock out other militaries and governments, it's simply not large enough to maintain long term, large scale occupation duties.
Iraq has to use its own forces, if it is to survive long-term, so putting more US troops in there is moving in the wrong direction. I see us keeping a 'small' garrison there for many years, like Germany and Japan, but reducing, not enlarging, our presence there over the next few years.
Strongly disagree with you, friend. I have yet to run into any officer that see it as a "job". I served for 8 years, and consider it to be the most important and rewarding work I've ever done.
Never met any ticket punchers. However, I did meet quite a few "ring knockers"! :^D
Rummy has resisted increasing the size of the Army because he is enthralled with the arguments of the "transformationists". Part of the way that he is trying to address this problem is in how he has reorganized the Army into brigade combat teams. This is a good reform, but we probably should have added another 100,000 actives to the Army and Marines after 9/11 (and provided whatever incentives needed to get up to that strength). It doesn't help that it often seems like he is playing chess without looking at the pieces.
Rummy can resist all he wants if Congress authorized 1 or 100,000 more troops he would have to eat them. He is not the final word on this issue.
The question is can we add another 100,000 troops in an essentially full employment economy without increasing the pay substantially (50+%) to get the recruits or going to a draft.
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.