RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,165848,00.html

we can thank slick willy for axeing a third of our armed forces during his administration

quote:

Originally posted by 7354986:
we can thank slick willy for axeing a third of our armed forces during his administration

Nice try...you can actually blame pappy Bush. You know...peace dividend. This topic should get a whole lot more play than it has to date. The administration keeps rattling sabers at Iran while knowing all the time that we can't afford to open a third front. Interesting sideline, the Maliki government (you know, our good buddies) turned to Iran to broker it's recent cease-fire. So much for hearts and minds.

Agreed, but we can spend all day bickering and point fingers, the fact is, WE NEED MORE TROOPS.

Time to pull in the Illegals and form them into a Foreign Legion force, with the Promise of legalization "AFTER" their full 6-8 year commitment is completed. And of coarse we can pay them at a lower scale (Hee Heee). And they are only deployed over seas (never Continental US).

There, I just built up our armed forces by 6 million troops!

I have been thinking and saying for at least 3 weeks now that it is time to implement the draft. If not but for the Army and Marines. We can not afford to not be ready at any give moment!


As for the Clinton comment. How dumb to blame this on Clinton when Bush has been in office for the past 7 or so years.

Gen. Shinsecki, former Army Chief of Staff, when asked how large a force we would need after we "won" the Iraq war stated that we would need a force of at least 200,000. So, they forced him to resign.

We never, even with the "surge, have approached 200,000. Consequently, our forces are strained to the limit. In order to staff the Iraq needs, we have had to rotate the same troops many times. Whenever deployments require long periods and redeployement as well, it adds to the strain.

Enlistments during such periods as this are bound to be negatively affected and so we have few new replacements. A draft is politically unacceptable -- and particularly so in an election year.

Readiness - that's a thing of the past, sadly. Solution, let's end this unnecessary war.

quote:

Originally posted by fnewt:
Gen. Shinsecki, former Army Chief of Staff, when asked how large a force we would need after we "won" the Iraq war stated that we would need a force of at least 200,000. So, they forced him to resign.

We never, even with the "surge, have approached 200,000. Consequently, our forces are strained to the limit. In order to staff the Iraq needs, we have had to rotate the same troops many times. Whenever deployments require long periods and redeployement as well, it adds to the strain.

Enlistments during such periods as this are bound to be negatively affected and so we have few new replacements. A draft is politically unacceptable -- and particularly so in an election year.

Readiness - that's a thing of the past, sadly. Solution, let's end this unnecessary war.

I don't believe he ever went on the record in answer to that question ... although I admit we would have been better served by politicians who were willing to ask it. Link, please.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:

quote:

Originally posted by fnewt:
Gen. Shinsecki, former Army Chief of Staff, when asked how large a force we would need after we "won" the Iraq war stated that we would need a force of at least 200,000. So, they forced him to resign.

We never, even with the "surge, have approached 200,000. Consequently, our forces are strained to the limit. In order to staff the Iraq needs, we have had to rotate the same troops many times. Whenever deployments require long periods and redeployement as well, it adds to the strain.

Enlistments during such periods as this are bound to be negatively affected and so we have few new replacements. A draft is politically unacceptable -- and particularly so in an election year.

Readiness - that's a thing of the past, sadly. Solution, let's end this unnecessary war.

I don't believe he ever went on the record in answer to that question ... although I admit we would have been better served by politicians who were willing to ask it. Link, please.

I gather from the below link that this statement was contributed to the General but in fact came from the Pentagon.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm

General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

To the best of my knowledge, General Shinseki (who we respect and with whom my husband twice served) never dug in his heels in the Pentagon over numbers required in Iraq, only quantifying it when pressed by Congress. What got him marginalized in the Pentagon was his difference of opinion with Rumsfeld on Army force structure.

Remember the Grace Commission? Then comes the Base Realignment And Closure Commission?
PL-100-526 1988

From 1964-1977 over 100 bases closed.
Since 1988, 200 scheduled for closing.

Who was president in 1988? Who's Commission was the Grace Commission? Who was in Congress?

It's been going on since 1964. There are plenty willing to serve, but they claim they have record re-enlistments and enlistments.

If asked I would have said "What ever it takes".

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but it seems to me thar if there is a real concern over the readiness and strength of our troops over in seas, the logical thing to do is not to try to lay blame, but to the troops the hell out of there, or take a page from LBJ and esclate,escalte,escalte, you choose. I choose for us to get out of an unwinnable situation.

I don't think the war in Afghanistan was worth it. Many die, The war is basically over religion's Hate is everywhere.
I'll be relieved when all troops come back to the US

quote:

Originally posted by stormer73:
I don't think the war in Afghanistan was worth it. Many die, The war is basically over religion's Hate is everywhere.
I'll be relieved when all troops come back to the US

you mean iraq right? because the reason why were in afganistan is to catch the bastard who was responible for 9/11.

if there is a real concern for the readiness and strains on our military then find out what's the best solution, and if ir's pulling out of iraq then do it. if al-qaida stops chanting praises and uses it as propaganda then bomb the **** out of them as a parting gift. besides if you look at it like this you get bin laden it's basically like cuting the head off the snake their just gonna be smaller factions that you can handle with ease. there you go a problem easily solved and i only have an AA degree.

It could take as much as 3 years for the land forces to recover the war-fighting capability which has been lost to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Orderly withdrawal and hand-off of our troops' responsibilities to an Iraqi federation alone would take almost 2 years. It would take a little over a year to re-man, re-equip, and re-train our units to perform full-spectrum combat. So, if the military gets seriously committed to the transition, some units could be transformed in just over a year thereafter.

One can see how depleted our military is becoming. What if we have to enter a conflict with Iran? Who will we send? That will require a very large number of troops and we could only hope we have a better plan than when we went after "Sadmaan." One wonders if the "draft" might ultimately have to be reinstated. Our problem is that the future soldier cannot be a "draftee" but requires some brains, no more "cannon-fodder." Vietnam was the last draftee's war. Now we need intelligence and as we go further into the 21st Cent. that requirement will become even more acute. We can't just re-arm, re-train, we will have to up-grade, up-arm, and "up-train" for the future.
God Bless the USA and all Wwho defend her!!!

Simply put, we tax payers and the politicos we put in office have to decide how important it is to be a first rate power in the world. If we are ok with giving up what influence we still have on world events then continue down the road we have been on. If not, then we must decide how much of our treasure we are willing to put into our armed forces to provide them with the most effective training and equipment available.