Running The Numbers
I had a very interesting and rather disturbing conversation with a friend of mine lately regarding Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the issue of military reserves in general. My friend is pretty conservative but at times goes off the reservation and in this case I believe he has broken down the fence and is wandering in the middle of the road! Apparently he has an "issue" with Rumsfeld and believes that the Secretary of War (my preference) believes it's a mistake to "downsize" the military and organize the army to fight more asymmetric enemies as opposed to organizing the army to fight more conventional forces such as China or Russia. He feels the army in Iraq should be increased and reserves should be sent home or scaled back so the active component takes on a bigger role. As for Iran, forget it, we can't invade it with our current force structure as he sees it.
Well, there are number issues above that I believe are purposely being exaggerated to mislead the general public as to the efficacy of our cause in Iraq and ultimately the GWOT (Global War on Terror). Its my personal belief that this current Secretary of War is the most articulate, intelligent, forward-thinking member of Bush's cabinet. His expertise in his field is exceptional and his ability to the handle the media and politicians is a gift rarely seen in Washington these days. Frankly, I think he would make an exceptional President as it is my belief that in order to truly perform the role of President, a military background is required. Lets also not forget that of all of the Presidents' cabinet, it was Donald Rumsfeld who was at the Pentagon the day that it was attacked on September 11th, 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld therefore is an eyewitness to the destructive power of International Islamic Terrorism that reared its ugly head on that other day of infamy.
In regards to the number of troops in Iraq, my question to him was "how many do you want?". I mean really, we have approximately 140,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq. Do we need 200,000? 300,000? 500,000? And for what purpose? To man a post on every corner in Baghdad? He couldn't tell me the exact or approximate number he would like to see nor could he or would he tell what their mission would be if he did get the desired number. I believe the number of troops was clearly sufficient to overthrow the Baathist regime and is currently plenty to dispatch any armed force willing to tangle with us. The current "chaotic" situation in Baghdad is a direct result of Syria's interference and until we invade Syria, will not stop. Our current mission in Iraq is one of pacification not occupation or war. Thus, more troops for that kind of mission is not required considering we are raising Iraqi troops to be the military presence needed to keep the "peace".
Every General since George Washington has demanded more troops but the number of troops has more of a political bearing than a military one. Ultimately, Congress must answer to the people for their conduct, safety and general welfare and it is Congress along with the President that tells the generals what would be a "politically correct" troop level in any given war. It has been this way since 1775. Which by the way leads me to the issue of recruitment. Apparently there is a mistaken belief perpetuated by anti-war types that recruitment is not keeping up with demands overseas. Funny how the media is not covering this topic very consistently but who says they have a constitutional right to tell the truth? The military has indeed exceeded retention and recruitment of its forces with the exception of the reserve components for other obvious reasons.
As to the number of reservists serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't know the exact ratio of active duty personnel to reserve personnel for the US Army in this theatre of war, however, I believe it runs 2 to 1 in active duty for Air Force and 3 to 1 for the Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a number of reasons why we are relying on so many reservists as it is directly related to how our military was designed after the Vietnam War. Recently a congressionally-appointed commision reviewed the "Ready-Reserve" concept and its ramifications on the GWOT:
The National Guard and reserves are being employed as an operational force in the global war against terrorism, necessitating change in how they are structured and funded, the chairman of a Congressionally-appointed commission looking into the services' reserve-component operations said here yesterday.
The situation has far-ranging implications and a bearing on how reserve-component personnel are organized, trained, equipped, compensated and supported, said Punaro, a retired major general in the Marine Corps Reserve and a former chief of the Corps' Reserve Affairs Directorate.
The Army general responded first, noting Punaro's question "gets to the heart of the issue." Cody recalled how the Army had fielded an active-duty force of 1.3 million soldiers and a 670,000-member reserve-component contingent in the 1970s during the Cold War. "We had a deep, active-component well in which to dip into during the Cold War, as well as fighting in Vietnam," Cody said.
Much of that force was deployed overseas to Vietnam, Germany, South Korea and elsewhere around the world, he said. "We had hundreds of thousands of soldiers on active duty in Europe; we had almost two divisions in Korea; and you know the commitment we had in Southeast Asia during that timeframe," Cody said.
All of that changed with the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which presaged the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Cold War was over, and America didn't need such a large military. The U.S. Army reduced its ranks across the board by 42 percent, Cody recalled.
Thank you, Bill Clinton. Moron!
Cody then fast-forwarded to Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked the United States and the war on global terrorism began. At that time, he said, the Army had about 480,000 active-duty soldiers, around 350,000 guardsmen and about 205,000 reservists.
The war against terror and subsequent deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq necessitated "that we had to look at the Army National Guard and the Reserve as an operational force," Cody said.
Complicating matters, he said, was the fact that both the reserve components and the active forces were under funded throughout the 1990s. That included a $54 billion shortfall of equipment across the active Army, National Guard and Reserve, he said. "We never resourced them," Cody said, noting that as the United States entered the war against terror it was apparent that the Army needed to revamp its force structure.
The unwieldy division structure the Army used during and after World War II has been in the process of being jettisoned over the past five years in favor of lighter, more mobile combat brigades that better fit current and envisioned missions in the 21st century. Those brigades will be similarly equipped and trained, Cody said, whether they are active duty or reserve component. "This is about taking a force that was not very useful, that was hollow, that was under equipped, undermanned, and restructuring it in a way to meet the future (security) requirements of this nation," Cody said.
I'm all for a larger military in both personnel and equipment. I have always believed that the war (defense) budget should be at least 3 times its current allocation to meet our offensive and defensive needs on sea, air and ground. But, alas, its only a dream. The political climate will not allow for such a fattened defense budget until things get worse. Much worse. The opposition political party including all leftwingers whether in academia or media are trying to convince the public our military is overstretched and can't perform the job. Thus, by Machiavellian means, they wish to introduce the Draft as a way to undermine support for this all-volunteer force. Not to say we don't need one but for different reasons than what the Left wants it for. But push has not come to shove just yet. But leave it to a Democrat to introduce it all the same in a vain attempt at trumping up dissent in the War on Terror.
Well, there are number issues above that I believe are purposely being exaggerated to mislead the general public as to the efficacy of our cause in Iraq and ultimately the GWOT (Global War on Terror). Its my personal belief that this current Secretary of War is the most articulate, intelligent, forward-thinking member of Bush's cabinet. His expertise in his field is exceptional and his ability to the handle the media and politicians is a gift rarely seen in Washington these days. Frankly, I think he would make an exceptional President as it is my belief that in order to truly perform the role of President, a military background is required. Lets also not forget that of all of the Presidents' cabinet, it was Donald Rumsfeld who was at the Pentagon the day that it was attacked on September 11th, 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld therefore is an eyewitness to the destructive power of International Islamic Terrorism that reared its ugly head on that other day of infamy.
In regards to the number of troops in Iraq, my question to him was "how many do you want?". I mean really, we have approximately 140,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq. Do we need 200,000? 300,000? 500,000? And for what purpose? To man a post on every corner in Baghdad? He couldn't tell me the exact or approximate number he would like to see nor could he or would he tell what their mission would be if he did get the desired number. I believe the number of troops was clearly sufficient to overthrow the Baathist regime and is currently plenty to dispatch any armed force willing to tangle with us. The current "chaotic" situation in Baghdad is a direct result of Syria's interference and until we invade Syria, will not stop. Our current mission in Iraq is one of pacification not occupation or war. Thus, more troops for that kind of mission is not required considering we are raising Iraqi troops to be the military presence needed to keep the "peace".
Every General since George Washington has demanded more troops but the number of troops has more of a political bearing than a military one. Ultimately, Congress must answer to the people for their conduct, safety and general welfare and it is Congress along with the President that tells the generals what would be a "politically correct" troop level in any given war. It has been this way since 1775. Which by the way leads me to the issue of recruitment. Apparently there is a mistaken belief perpetuated by anti-war types that recruitment is not keeping up with demands overseas. Funny how the media is not covering this topic very consistently but who says they have a constitutional right to tell the truth? The military has indeed exceeded retention and recruitment of its forces with the exception of the reserve components for other obvious reasons.
As to the number of reservists serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't know the exact ratio of active duty personnel to reserve personnel for the US Army in this theatre of war, however, I believe it runs 2 to 1 in active duty for Air Force and 3 to 1 for the Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a number of reasons why we are relying on so many reservists as it is directly related to how our military was designed after the Vietnam War. Recently a congressionally-appointed commision reviewed the "Ready-Reserve" concept and its ramifications on the GWOT:
The National Guard and reserves are being employed as an operational force in the global war against terrorism, necessitating change in how they are structured and funded, the chairman of a Congressionally-appointed commission looking into the services' reserve-component operations said here yesterday.
The situation has far-ranging implications and a bearing on how reserve-component personnel are organized, trained, equipped, compensated and supported, said Punaro, a retired major general in the Marine Corps Reserve and a former chief of the Corps' Reserve Affairs Directorate.
The Army general responded first, noting Punaro's question "gets to the heart of the issue." Cody recalled how the Army had fielded an active-duty force of 1.3 million soldiers and a 670,000-member reserve-component contingent in the 1970s during the Cold War. "We had a deep, active-component well in which to dip into during the Cold War, as well as fighting in Vietnam," Cody said.
Much of that force was deployed overseas to Vietnam, Germany, South Korea and elsewhere around the world, he said. "We had hundreds of thousands of soldiers on active duty in Europe; we had almost two divisions in Korea; and you know the commitment we had in Southeast Asia during that timeframe," Cody said.
All of that changed with the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which presaged the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Cold War was over, and America didn't need such a large military. The U.S. Army reduced its ranks across the board by 42 percent, Cody recalled.
Thank you, Bill Clinton. Moron!
Cody then fast-forwarded to Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked the United States and the war on global terrorism began. At that time, he said, the Army had about 480,000 active-duty soldiers, around 350,000 guardsmen and about 205,000 reservists.
The war against terror and subsequent deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq necessitated "that we had to look at the Army National Guard and the Reserve as an operational force," Cody said.
Complicating matters, he said, was the fact that both the reserve components and the active forces were under funded throughout the 1990s. That included a $54 billion shortfall of equipment across the active Army, National Guard and Reserve, he said. "We never resourced them," Cody said, noting that as the United States entered the war against terror it was apparent that the Army needed to revamp its force structure.
The unwieldy division structure the Army used during and after World War II has been in the process of being jettisoned over the past five years in favor of lighter, more mobile combat brigades that better fit current and envisioned missions in the 21st century. Those brigades will be similarly equipped and trained, Cody said, whether they are active duty or reserve component. "This is about taking a force that was not very useful, that was hollow, that was under equipped, undermanned, and restructuring it in a way to meet the future (security) requirements of this nation," Cody said.
I'm all for a larger military in both personnel and equipment. I have always believed that the war (defense) budget should be at least 3 times its current allocation to meet our offensive and defensive needs on sea, air and ground. But, alas, its only a dream. The political climate will not allow for such a fattened defense budget until things get worse. Much worse. The opposition political party including all leftwingers whether in academia or media are trying to convince the public our military is overstretched and can't perform the job. Thus, by Machiavellian means, they wish to introduce the Draft as a way to undermine support for this all-volunteer force. Not to say we don't need one but for different reasons than what the Left wants it for. But push has not come to shove just yet. But leave it to a Democrat to introduce it all the same in a vain attempt at trumping up dissent in the War on Terror.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 10:22 PM
1 Comments:
I too agree that Rummy is an exceptional member of the Cabinent. I think he's the one who wants to tell from the mountain his thirst for arab blood. He has contempt for the media who dance around the elephant in the room and do not ask him about his true intentions and wishes for Mesopotamia. I like him for the same reason I like you...you're no politician and you speak what you believe.
Regarding troop forces and a draft...this war is being fought in the same way the war on drugs has been fought fog +20 years. The endgame is the war and not the victory. The mission is constantly being underminded by those who orchestrate it and "winning" will only create a void that must be filled (ie. The Cold War/GWOT).
If there was a draft, this war will crumble from within. You know that this war cannot be won in the desert but amongst the purple mountaintops and ample waves of grain that Ray Charles once sung about. This war is holding on by threads the likes of bikini bottoms on Britney Spears' expansive bottom aka not by much.
Post a Comment
<< Home