Fears Grow As Military Thins

[Scooter24]

Chicago Tribune
December 5, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's announcement last week that it will increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 150,000 to provide more security for the Jan. 30 national election highlights a growing concern that America's armed services are dangerously overextended and possibly nearing a breaking point.

With nearly all of the Army's 10 divisions serving in Iraq, preparing for deployment there or refitting from a combat tour in that country, there are few forces available to deal with a new major threat or emergency, military experts say.

As Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said at a congressional hearing last month, "I'm committed to providing the troops that are requested (for Iraq). But I can't promise more than I've got."

The Army is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and maintaining a military presence in the Balkans, Germany, South Korea and other foreign countries with a total force of just under 500,000. It had more than 800,000 under arms when it waged the brief Persian Gulf war in 1991.

"You need a bigger Army if you're going to carry out the Bush national security strategy," said Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "Right now, you're really using the reserves at an unsustainable pace, and you're violating the norms that you have for deploying people overseas that you've established not only for equity but for retention."

...

"While I don't think we're going to invade countries and attempt regime changes as a matter of routine," Flournoy said, "I do think it is likely that we'll need to engage in more than one theater at once, and the force we have today in terms of ground forces is not large enough."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_military_120604,00.html
--------

It's just a matter of time until we see the draft. :(

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. A draft will be a nightmare for them.

There is a juncture when a country's policies and the people's will reach their own breaking point.

[Scooter24]

2. But

what if the last two choices on the table were

A. End the occupation, cancel all Iraqi operations, bring the troops home

or

B. Start a draft, use a psuedo "patriotic" name to market it, and continue full-speed ahead

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Didn't you hear Bush?

If you voted for Plan A, you voted for Kerry. But if you voted for Bush it meant that you approved of his national security policies which means, you approved Plan B.

[luaneryder]

11. I'm picking "B"

I don't see the BFEE and cabal admitting to a mistake and that's what they would be forced to do in "A" or perhaps they could find a way to blame it on Clinton.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. This is one of the reasons why * won't move back the date for Iraqi

national elections. Our military probably won't "hold" much longer than that. (Postponement would probably necessitate a draft.)

Following the pattern, the interests of * prevail over the country it invaded. If Iraq's elections are compromised by the populace unable to vote its will because of destabilization, and * certifies the results nonetheless, the results will be far worse than postponing the elections as the government won't represent the citizens (just like here).

[EVDebs]

18. You are soooooo right

The war effort in Iraq was always sold by the neocons as a long term occupation without effort...the oil revenues were going to pay for it all etc. etc. PNAC BS.

When asked this summer on CNN, Sen John McCain, a supposed moderate, said that we could be stuck in Iraq for "ten to twenty years". Gen Tommy Franks' book says we'll be there for "five" more years.

Houston, we've got Vietnam part deux here. No one will admit it.

This time around the Republicans have outdone themselves. All this about "We've got to win over there" is just the same inability of our military to IMPROVISE, ADAPT, OVERCOME. They are so addicted to Middle Eastern oil that they can't see that alternatives to it are needed and needed NOW. We are at the point of a Churchillian-style decision in the early 20th century when the British navy went from coal to oil fuelled ships.

When guys start coming back and joining the Democratic party in droves, just like after the Vietnam lies, then we will begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

"U.S. Military Stretched Dangerously Thin"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=85338

[MatrixEscape]

4. Oh gosh! MiniTruth Strikes

"While I don't think we're going to invade countries and attempt regime changes as a matter of routine," Flournoy said, "I do think it is likely that we'll need to engage in more than one theater at once, and the force we have today in terms of ground forces is not large enough."

Some more of that black psy-ops mis-info crap? Read your PNAC primer, my good sir -- you know the plan. What you think and what you KNOW are two different things, I suppose? Ask Rummy if you are not sure.

Ah, that damn draft is chilly and it's picking up.

[ET Awful]

6. As we know, there are known knowns

there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know

[soothsayer]

10. thanks, rummy

[blackangrydem]

5. Is a draft necessary to increase the size of our military?

If Congress authorizes a larger force I'm sure we could increase by 25% simply through recruiting incentives and bonuses. Right now the Army requires a HS diploma to enlist (a fairly recent development). If that were waived we would get a lot more recruits.

[greenman3610]

7. or another terrorist attack could happen, or be made to happen

which would give the GOP political
cover for reinstating the draft.

[insane_cratic_gal]

8. If Bush-economics

Keep going as they are, you might very well see an increase in recruiting.
The cut of college money, the lack of funds to send our kids to college. Lack of healthcare
Not to mention they are considering dropping the standards in recruiting to beef up the army.

the military knows with a good economy, recruiting goals are not met.

however, they haven't had enlist people in a time of war, an unpopular war. So we shall see how they handle this crap.

Each army recruiter is suppose to enlist 2 people per month. They have 7,400 .. adding another 1,000. If they meet goal: the simple math is 16,800 in the army alone per month.. a yearly goal of 201,600. just for the army.

I just don't see that as possible even with a pay increase, and housing allowance. 30,000 sign on bonus. To risk death or limbs.

[blackangrydem]

12. Your facts are wrong.

The military exceeded it's recruiting and retention goals througout the 90's when the economy was booming.

[insane_cratic_gal]

13. Actually I'm not wrong

<snip>

During
the exceptionally strong U.S. economy of the late 1990s, most of the
services missed their overall recruiting goals.
<snip>
Only in FY 1998 and 1999 did the pattern change. In Fiscal Year 1998, active Army recruiting fell 801 short of the goal of 72,550, a shortfall of slightly more than one percent. And in FY 1999 the real anomaly occurred, with active Army recruiting falling 6,290 short of the goal of 74,500, a shortfall of about 8.4 percent

It wasn't until 2001 did it meet or exceed it's recruiting goals with ease.

[blackangrydem]

19. "most of the services" missed their "overall" recruiting goals?

post or send a link please.

[insane_cratic_gal]

20. Links for you

http://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/99D1/lit.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/30/army.recruitment/#1

http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2001/0101chart.pdf

[shadowgrouse]

14. You are correct

although I don't think dropping the high school diploma/GED requirement would be necesary. Retention is still quite good in the Army and the Air Force is actually letting some people take early outs. Recruiting is still doing well also. All this draft business is just a silly rumor. The real problem is end strength, but the problem is an increase to end strength is EXPENSIVE, not only do you need to pay say 25,000 more troops (close to 2 divisions worth right there) you also need to equip them and that is where the big bucks start.

[insane_cratic_gal]

15. expenses

also take into consideration hazardous duty pay.. seperation pay they pay each military w/family. (married) 60 percent of the armed forces are married.
tax free while they are on duty in Iraq..

Factor in the expense of covering medical bills of 15,000.

Yet Bush allows 2 million for a yacht?? wouldn't 2 million at least provide some add on kits for vechiles?? a sloopy soultion but better then the sandbags and boards they are using on them now to deflect bullets.


hrmm while trying to find out about how much an armor kit costs.. I just discovered that MDT is an israel company providing the kits Arco reports sales are up in 2004 by 159 percent. ? Anyone with a business mind actually figure out what this blabber means?
$4.8 million for the Armored Vehicle Division (compared to $1.8 million in the first half of 2003, an increase of $2.9 million, or 159%, due primarily to increased revenues from MDT Armor

Link
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040816/artx10-q.html

[insane_cratic_gal]

16. digging a bit more

Ok i see they recieved 4 million Nov. 30th



Says "Us" plants is well established to meet the demand?? MDT

M.D.T Protective Industries Ltd. is nowadays one of the leading companies in Israel
in the field of vehicle armouring and is a qualified supplier to the Israeli Defence and
Transportation Ministries and to the Police Department. It has been active since its
establishment in 1989 by Yosef Bar
Established: 1989
Ownership: Private
Parent: Arotech Corporation

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041129/295407_1.html

http://www.matimop.org.il/newrdinf/company/c5326.htm#general

[Contrary1]

17. Another Soldier From Indiana Died

over the weekend for Shrub's war. He had gone to Iraq
just after Thanksgiving...to begin his **3rd** TOUR THERE.

Nope...no draft. Maybe we can start propping up our dead troops
in tanks and hummers to give the illusion of a larger presence.

[AwakeAtLast]

21. My husband is on his way.

He is part of a National Guard unit that will leave after the first of the year. He's going to support some combat units over there. He should not see actual combat in his duties, but I don't think any place in Iraq is safe. Not a happy time for me :(

BTW, if they are sending his unit, they are desperate. There will have to be a draft if we stay in Iraq much longer.