RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,123573,00.html

Based on the current preformance in Gulf, it seems like there is ample argument for increase to four standing divisions for the Marine Corps.

Ah, did I miss it, or was the U.S.A.F. not mentioned in the article?...
This nation faces a resurgent Russia with an almost unlimited check book...
The U.S.A.F. besides it's tactical role, is this nations "Big Stick" nuclear strategic force...
If old commands are to be reactivated, what about SAC, TAC and MAC?...
To name a few...
How about more B-2s or it's replacement?...
The Navy and Coast Guard seem to not have been mentioned also...
Navy ASW assets, carriers, aircraft and above all submarines, are all long lead items...
The U.S.C.G., has stated the need for at least eight new ice breakers for the Arctic, now that the ice is retreating and the Russian Federation is making claims to what had been, with out question, Canadian territory, not to mention that the U.S.C.G. has need of more cutters of a more sophisticated nature...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

As long as they do not resurrect the old Americal Division! Not a good PR idea!!

quote:

Ah, did I miss it, or was the U.S.A.F. not mentioned in the article?...

Remember, America only prepares for the PREVIOUS war, not future ones. The war planners are looking at another Iraq-like war, not a shootout with the Ruskies.

As far as the Air force not being mentioned, this was an article focused on "boots on the ground" assets, as terrorists tend not to have air or naval assets (with the exception of the occasional 757 "Building Buster", lest we forget!).

The Air Force isn't very popular with SECDEF. It has been focused on only preparing for future wars and has neglected the current ones. The Air Force is in pretty good shape now though, only 4% of the force is deployed (and that counts UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar as deployments). The Air Force was in a self imposed drawdown, that was halted. The last four years have really hurt the USAF but it had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq, but rather poor leadership and mismanagement at the highest levels.

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
The Air Force isn't very popular with SECDEF. It has been focused on only preparing for future wars and has neglected the current ones. The Air Force is in pretty good shape now though, only 4% of the force is deployed (and that counts UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar as deployments). The Air Force was in a self imposed drawdown, that was halted. The last four years have really hurt the USAF but it had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq, but rather poor leadership and mismanagement at the highest levels.

What of the U.S.N. and the U.S.C.G.?...
There have been many U.S.N. and U.S.C.G. boots on the ground in Iraq, along with U.S.A.F. boots on the ground...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO:
As long as they do not resurrect the old Americal Division! Not a good PR idea!!

???...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
The Air Force isn't very popular with SECDEF. It has been focused on only preparing for future wars and has neglected the current ones. The Air Force is in pretty good shape now though, only 4% of the force is deployed (and that counts UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar as deployments). The Air Force was in a self imposed drawdown, that was halted. The last four years have really hurt the USAF but it had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq, but rather poor leadership and mismanagement at the highest levels.

What of the U.S.N. and the U.S.C.G.?...
There have been many U.S.N. and U.S.C.G. boots on the ground in Iraq, along with U.S.A.F. boots on the ground...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

All the services have contributed. The Navy and the Air Force both have BOG, but not in the numbers like the Army and USMC. Both of those services are strained, and need additional manpower. The Air Force got its reprieve from further cuts, but those cuts were initiated internally in order to free up money to buy more F-22s. The new CSAF is a transport guy, and has a lot of time in the Spec Ops community. Things are looking up for the Air Force, now that they have an actual leader in charge instead of a fighter pilot that initiated cutting troop levels in the middle of a two front war.

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO:
As long as they do not resurrect the old Americal Division! Not a good PR idea!!

What do the Puerto Ricans have to do with this?

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
The Air Force isn't very popular with SECDEF. It has been focused on only preparing for future wars and has neglected the current ones. The Air Force is in pretty good shape now though, only 4% of the force is deployed (and that counts UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar as deployments). The Air Force was in a self imposed drawdown, that was halted. The last four years have really hurt the USAF but it had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq, but rather poor leadership and mismanagement at the highest levels.

What of the U.S.N. and the U.S.C.G.?...
There have been many U.S.N. and U.S.C.G. boots on the ground in Iraq, along with U.S.A.F. boots on the ground...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

All the services have contributed. The Navy and the Air Force both have BOG, but not in the numbers like the Army and USMC. Both of those services are strained, and need additional manpower. The Air Force got its reprieve from further cuts, but those cuts were initiated internally in order to free up money to buy more F-22s. The new CSAF is a transport guy, and has a lot of time in the Spec Ops community. Things are looking up for the Air Force, now that they have an actual leader in charge instead of a fighter pilot that initiated cutting troop levels in the middle of a two front war.

Don't knock fighter jocks, they get the job done too!...
Just that the last guy was a "bit confused", don't make fighter jocks bad guys...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
The Air Force isn't very popular with SECDEF. It has been focused on only preparing for future wars and has neglected the current ones. The Air Force is in pretty good shape now though, only 4% of the force is deployed (and that counts UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar as deployments). The Air Force was in a self imposed drawdown, that was halted. The last four years have really hurt the USAF but it had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq, but rather poor leadership and mismanagement at the highest levels.

What of the U.S.N. and the U.S.C.G.?...
There have been many U.S.N. and U.S.C.G. boots on the ground in Iraq, along with U.S.A.F. boots on the ground...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

All the services have contributed. The Navy and the Air Force both have BOG, but not in the numbers like the Army and USMC. Both of those services are strained, and need additional manpower. The Air Force got its reprieve from further cuts, but those cuts were initiated internally in order to free up money to buy more F-22s. The new CSAF is a transport guy, and has a lot of time in the Spec Ops community. Things are looking up for the Air Force, now that they have an actual leader in charge instead of a fighter pilot that initiated cutting troop levels in the middle of a two front war.

Don't knock fighter jocks, they get the job done too!...
Just that the last guy was a "bit confused", don't make fighter jocks bad guys...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Their is a widespread leadership problem in the Air Force, and in my opinion much of it has to do with the lack of leadership opportunities for Air Force junior officers, mainly the pilots that will always be the ones picked for the top leadership positions. Take a look at the last CSAF bio, and in his 30+ year career he spent only about 6 years in command, and only 3 of those were in a deployable warfighting command. Fighter pilots have a role, but most of them have little to no preparation to be leaders of large units. General Mosely was an extreme case of lack of command, he didn't have an operational command until he was an O-6 group commander, and he only held that position for 18 months. After that his next operational command was in 2001 as the three star commander of CENTAF a position he held for less than 2 years. After having very little operational command time and a career spent entirely in air to air fighters he was supposed to lead a force engaged in a counterinsurgency war and the strategic nuclear mission. He was certainly a good fighter pilot, but also never had the experience to be an effective commander.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO:
As long as they do not resurrect the old Americal Division! Not a good PR idea!!

???...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Not quite sure why SLDO posted that comment...but here are two links about them.

They are/were unique in U.S. Military history for a couple of things (not to mention their combat service).

1st-They were formed OUTSIDE the U.S.A.. They were formed on New Caledonia during WW2 to protect the island from a Japanese invasion.

2nd- They were the first (and probably only) division to have a Name, rather than a number. Later on they were given the number 23rd I.D., but everybody always called/calls them the "Americal Division".

3rd- They have a unique shoulder patch. It is "The Southern Cross"--- The stars that you can see at night if you are near Australia,,, versus up this way where we see the Big Dipper and North Star.
{I looked them up when I saw the dress Greens of the Lt.Col. who was Base Liason for Los Alamitos AFRC---his office was next door to our maintenance office,,,I asked him about that shoulder patch, and he was happy to explain! Esprit de corps.}

SLDO--- Considering the "Americal"s war record, why not..?

http://americal.org/history.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americal_Division_(United_States)

To the Thread Topic--- Good idea! They should bring back all the ones cut by the clintonistas in the 1990's. Stop BRAC and reopen the Bases! The more Bases/Forts there are in various areas, the more quickly troops can respond to potential problems.

Get the 7th I.D. back to Fort Ord were they belong, and reopen Fort Ord. Right now there is nothing except Camp Pendleton near the coast. IF ( yes, I know it is slim, but...) an enemy invaded central California there would be no one to thwart them and they would have easy access to Rte.1 and Rte.101 and then, I-5 all North-South paved roads. If we had more Divisions/Forts in other places than Georgia/Carolina/Virginia/Texas...

...there might be more folks that would enlist,,,If they were at least within driving distance on a 3-day weekend for example, of a Base/Post/Camp near the "Home-of-record". It is especially hard on the wives (and potential wives) to be transplanted thousands of miles from Home when you are a young family in your 20's.

If the Military could RETAIN more qualified and quality people, the strain on Recruiting would slacken.

I would love to see the reactivation of divisions like 5, 9, and 24th Infantry plus 2nd Armored and 11th Airborne.

158th RCT anyone?...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

And how we do pay for this increase? Borrow money from China and Saudi Arabia?

This is crazy. I would only support an increase if we pay for it ourselves. No more borrowing money from overseas. This administration already has given us a 10 trillion dollar debt.

How about resurrecting the old 5th and 6th Marine Divisions from WW2? You may need Congress to authorize a bigger USMC though.

quote:

Originally posted by R102:
And how we do pay for this increase? Borrow money from China and Saudi Arabia?

This is crazy. I would only support an increase if we pay for it ourselves. No more borrowing money from overseas. This administration already has given us a 10 trillion dollar debt.

By cutting out all the left wing "pork" programs...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by R102:
And how we do pay for this increase? Borrow money from China and Saudi Arabia?

This is crazy. I would only support an increase if we pay for it ourselves. No more borrowing money from overseas. This administration already has given us a 10 trillion dollar debt.

By cutting out all the left wing "pork" programs...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Throw in the AF outer space toys and bridges to nowhere and we can put troops, ships and plane in force where we need them.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand_Flea:

quote:

Originally posted by SUNLINER81:

quote:

Originally posted by R102:
And how we do pay for this increase? Borrow money from China and Saudi Arabia?

This is crazy. I would only support an increase if we pay for it ourselves. No more borrowing money from overseas. This administration already has given us a 10 trillion dollar debt.

By cutting out all the left wing "pork" programs...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

Throw in the AF outer space toys and bridges to nowhere and we can put troops, ships and plane in force where we need them.

Bridges "to nowhere" I'll agree on, the defense of space is not a "toy"...
Everything runs off of satellites now, they need to be protected...
Remember the PRC just had big demonstration for the world, by shooting down one of their old "weather" satellites...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81