Posted on 10/25/2007 1:18:42 PM PDT by TheDon
The amount of tours is possible because before the 173rd he was in a Ranger Batt. and they have less than 6 month combat tours... of which are often more dangerous.
As a career officer, I didn’t really care what the reasons were. It was painfully obvious that manpower was ever on the decrease during my 22 years, and the needs, wants and desires of the folks controlling the military forces were not on the same schedule of decline. Not to mention the long term downsizing vis-a-vis the ability to fight the two continent conflict,and the technoligizing of the military occuring also during this period which in some minds excused the downsizing.
Personally, I have always felt there had to be a balance between tech and manpower. If your total force is 300 ships or 300 airplanes, and they have a six to one or better kill ratio, you still reach zero when the 300 are gone, and tech is very expensive compared to bare bones. Additionally one of the opponents has unlimited manpower in comparison.
“....we shouldn’t grieve over this families loss”
I cannot believe your heart even allowed you to type this. I have no words to describe how heartless and really, disgusting this comment is.
There are many things in your post that disturb me but the most obvious problem is your lack of understanding as to why someone serves.
You don’t get it at all and I’m hope you never have the opportunity to share your “belief” that we should not grieve for a Fallen Hero with their loved ones.
DISGUSTING.
Actually I found that statement HIGHLY OFFENSIVE.
My deployment to Iraq (15 months) was particularly difficult for me
...and some have had to endure not one but multiple long term deployments. During Vietnam, SAC aircrews would go on one day short of six month Arclight tours that broke many a marriage and many a back. One of my friends after serving a year in country flying combat missions, got sent to a SAC B-52 unit and after two back to back six month deployments, resigned his commission. It is a hard life for many, and yes the load needs to be shared. A balance needs to be found that will allow sufficient R and R for the troops, their families, and still provide for the needs of the nation. A seemingly impossible hurdle.
Like you say, lip service is cheap, and many of those giving you thanks have long since passed their prime, but would gladly serve in any capacity if needed, sadly older folks and their troubles aren’t needed like the young and vigorous.
I am sorry. I see that you made a correction in a comment posted later.
I am sorry I jumped on that statement but obviously saying it the first way would be highly offensive to someone that lost someone in the war.
Once again, sorry.
See #56
There is a military term or principal that explains how the loss of a any percentage of a military’s capacity is a far greater operational loss than the percentage loss. Are you aware of the term? It may even be a formula but I can’t bring it to mind.
no prob. my fault.
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.