[xzins]

I like Gen Casey, I trust Gen Casey, I’m certain Gen Casey is right about the deployment and funding crisin that the army faces.

The right answer is more than just money and optempo, though:

1. First, the force is the wrong size and has been since it was cut from 18 divisions. If we currently had 18 divisions, that would spread the deployments out to once every 3 years. That would be more than sustainable.

2. The current length of deployment is 15 months for active duty. My son-in-law is on one of these deployments, and it isn’t necessary. A deployment need not be for more than 4 months if the Country felt like putting the money behind it. These guys are all so familiar with Iraq by now that they could swap out the people on the same weapons just by flying the personnel in and flying the departing out. They do it with SpecOps all the time.

[trooprally]

Prayers that your son-in-law returns safely.

[Mr] T

[trooprally]

Posting again so I didn’t mix messages with my first one. But as you mentioned, the troops are familiar with Iraq because of the length and number of times in Country. Actually that is good because it saves lives not having to “learn” a war zone every time a new soldier goes in. Experience is invaluable.

I personally don’t know what is a good length of time or number of times to be deployed, but you don’t want to replace a knowledgeable soldier with a newbie.

And I do agree with you about needing a bigger standing military, but to be used to show force in other problem areas. I doubt if Iran and North Korea would be antagonistic if we had large forces on their door step.

[Mr] T