Do you agree with Congressman Murtha that our military is broken? (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

Comments please.......

 

[Navy Pride]

Comments please.......

Come on people....don't be bashful.tke the poll.......

 

[Vandeervecken]

Yes, and so does the General who wrote the offical report on rediness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_breaking_point_8

 

[Navy Pride]

Yes, and so does the General who wrote the offical report on rediness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_breaking_point_8

Being nearly broken and being broken are two different things.........That said General Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs does not agree with him.

That General is probably some disgruntled lib...........

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are 520,000 regular duty personnel in the USA
There are 200,000 personnel in the USAR
There are 350.000 personnel in the ARNG
There are 360,000 regular duty personnel in the USAF
There are 107,000 personnel in the ANG
There are 365,000 regular duty personnel in the USN
There are 177,000 regular duty personnel in the USMC

There are 138,000 servicemen (Army, Marines, Air Farce, Navy, reserves of all kinds) in Iraq.

Nearly Broken? Overextended?

 

[cherokee]

There are 520,000 regular duty personnel in the USA
There are 200,000 personnel in the USAR
There are 350.000 personnel in the ARNG
There are 360,000 regular duty personnel in the USAF
There are 107,000 personnel in the ANG
There are 365,000 regular duty personnel in the USN
There are 177,000 regular duty personnel in the USMC

There are 138,000 servicemen (Army, Marines, Air Farce, Navy, reserves of all kinds) in Iraq.

Nearly Broken? Overextended?

Not that I agree the Military is broken but you also have to look at the number of bases around the world and the personal it takes to run them.

But before anything gets out of hand (lack of new recruits) you can always boost the numbers with a draft.

I know draft is an ugly word to some here but it is a necessity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not that I agree the Military is broken but you also have to look at the number of bases around the world and the personal it takes to run them.

Ok... and these troops can't be deployed from/rotate out of these bases?

But before anything gets out of hand (lack of new recruits) you can always boost the numbers with a draft.

In 1991, the reguilar army was almost wtice as big as it is now, with a smaller population base -- and we did it w/o a draft. Your notion that the only way to expand the military is by drafting people is misplaced.

 

[cherokee]

Ok... and these troops can't be deployed from/rotate out of these bases?



In 1991, the reguilar army was almost wtice as big as it is now, with a smaller population base -- and we did it w/o a draft. Your notion that the only way to expand the military is by drafting people is misplaced.

Some maybe, but not all of them. Remember you need personal in place to train new recruits.
You need to find out how many support personal it takes to keep one combat solider in the field.


In 1991 the Soviet Union itself dissolved..ie End of the cold war..:roll:


And last I didn’t say anything about expanding the Military by means of a draft.
I said it was a possible means to keep the recruits levels up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some maybe, but not all of them. Remember you need personal in place to train new recruits.

Well, sure.
But there are numerous places where we -can- pull troops -- like, oh, Europe.
And if there are places we need to keep troops, we can rotate in the reserve/guard units and rotate out the regulars.

You need to find out how many support personal it takes to keep one combat solider in the field.

About 8:1.
But thats OK, because the 138,000 number include (mostly) support troops.

In 1991 the Soviet Union itself dissolved..ie End of the cold war..:roll:

So...?
How is that relevant?

 

[FinnMacCool]

A draft would be political suicide. But I think if they re-instituted a draft, I would double my efforts against the BUsh regime

 

[cherokee]

So...?
How is that relevant?

Because you didn’t need a large military at the end of the cold war.

I don’t have the budget numbers.
What are the budget numbers of today compared to that of 1989-1990?…
The bottom line is less money equals less troops.
That’s how it matters..

Edit:.. the dates should have been 89 to 90 and not 91 to 92

 

[americanwoman]

Comments please.......

I have to agree that it is going broke and that no one wants to join anymore. My cousin who came back from Iraq after 3 tours said the army had offered him $60,000 tax free money to come back for atleast one more. He declined because he has children and said out of about 75 in his unit only 4 stayed for those and they didn't make it back home after that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because you didn’t need a large military at the end of the cold war.

Thats doesnt have anything to do with being abot to raise large numbers of troops, specifically, a larger number than we have today, w/o a draft

I don’t have the budget numbers.
What are the budget numbers of today compared to that of 1991-1992?

Defense, 1991: $319.7B
Defense, 2005: $493.6B

 

[cherokee]

Thats doesnt have anything to do with being abot to raise large numbers of troops, specifically, a larger number than we have today, w/o a draft


Defense, 1991: $319.7B
Defense, 2005: $493.6B

Ok IF I did the math right with the numbers you posted if you convert the 05 budget ($493b) to 1990 dollars I think it comes out to $332b.

Which is just above the 90 budget. Now we have to breakdown the spending to find what was earmarked for troops and troop support services.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is just above the 90 budget. Now we have to breakdown the spending to find what was earmarked for troops and troop support services.

Why?
The fact is that in 1991, we had a larger military from a smaller population base.

We were able to raise this smaller military w/o a draft.

Why can't raise a larger military than we have now w/o a draft?

 

[cherokee]

Why?
The fact is that in 1991, we had a larger military from a smaller population base.

We were able to raise this smaller military w/o a draft.

Why can't raise a larger military than we have now w/o a draft?

When I served in the 80's a lot of men saw it as a way out, to better them selves, get money for college or just to get out of the chit hole they were in.
Most of the 80’s were peaceful times. It’s a different world today.

I know I’m going to get the chit bashed out of me for saying this BUT!

I still feel the Military is a good choice for someone who wants to better himself or herself, get money for college or get a chance at a better life then flipping burgers.

 

[Stace]

Why?
The fact is that in 1991, we had a larger military from a smaller population base.

We were able to raise this smaller military w/o a draft.

Why can't raise a larger military than we have now w/o a draft?

Because fewer people are volunteering, and fewer people are re enlisting.

And to answer your earlier question about troop rotations.....that's what they're already doing. Why do you think so many troops have been to Iraq multiple times? My husband was home for less than a year before he was sent again. My brother in law was home for just over a year before he was sent back over.

I think if more services adopted a modified version of how the Air Force deploys their troops, the troops wouldn't be getting so burnt out. The Air Force has 10 AEF's , or Air and Space Expeditionary Forces. Every airman is assigned to an AEF unless they have extenuating circumstances, i.e. it would cause a family hardship if they were to deploy. Two AEFs deploy at one time.....not everyone that is assigned to that AEF, mind you, just the people that they need from certain AFSCs (Air Force Specialty Code, or MOS for most other services) that are a part of that AEF. They used to deploy for three to four months, but I believe they've now extended it to six. There is also a 12 month "rest and reconstitution" period, and I believe the training period is four or five months. Using this method, you are always prepared for when you could possibly be deployed, though people are occasionally pulled out of their normal cycle.

So, for example....AEFs 1 and 2 are in Iraq. While they're there, AEFs 3-8 are on their one year rest cycle, and AEF's 9 and 10 are training in preparation for their deployment cycle. Then 9 and 10 would replace 1 and 2, 1 through 6 would be on a rest cycle, and 7 and 8 would be training.

The system really does work, because the troops are prepared well in advance for their deployment, and they are not deploying so often as to wear them down. The Air Force has all of the troops they need at any given time, here at home AND overseas, and....everyone's happy.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Because fewer people are volunteering, and fewer people are re enlisting.

And to answer your earlier question about troop rotations.....that's what they're already doing. Why do you think so many troops have been to Iraq multiple times? My husband was home for less than a year before he was sent again. My brother in law was home for just over a year before he was sent back over.

I think if more services adopted a modified version of how the Air Force deploys their troops, the troops wouldn't be getting so burnt out. The Air Force has 10 AEF's , or Air and Space Expeditionary Forces. Every airman is assigned to an AEF unless they have extenuating circumstances, i.e. it would cause a family hardship if they were to deploy. Two AEFs deploy at one time.....not everyone that is assigned to that AEF, mind you, just the people that they need from certain AFSCs (Air Force Specialty Code, or MOS for most other services) that are a part of that AEF. They used to deploy for three to four months, but I believe they've now extended it to six. There is also a 12 month "rest and reconstitution" period, and I believe the training period is four or five months. Using this method, you are always prepared for when you could possibly be deployed, though people are occasionally pulled out of their normal cycle.

So, for example....AEFs 1 and 2 are in Iraq. While they're there, AEFs 3-8 are on their one year rest cycle, and AEF's 9 and 10 are training in preparation for their deployment cycle. Then 9 and 10 would replace 1 and 2, 1 through 6 would be on a rest cycle, and 7 and 8 would be training.

The system really does work, because the troops are prepared well in advance for their deployment, and they are not deploying so often as to wear them down. The Air Force has all of the troops they need at any given time, here at home AND overseas, and....everyone's happy.

Re Enlistment is actually over expected numbers and is up as a whole. Enlistment is off by about 15%. Not all that bad really considering there is a war going on

 

[Deegan]

Very irresponsible for a congressman to say such a thing, even if it he did have a point! This should be handled carefully, and behind closed doors, as to not show weakness to our enemies, and we have many, and especially while another more serious threat presents it's self, namely Iran. I think this man will be shown the door come election time, and for good reason, he has put partisan politics, before the safety of this country, shame on him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because fewer people are volunteering, and fewer people are re enlisting.

That's not really true.
U.S. Army Winning at Recruiting
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051213.aspx
U.S. Army and Marines Exceed Recruiting Goals
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051130.aspx
Experienced Troops Returning to Service
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051129.aspx
How the U.S. Army Replaces Wartime Losses
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051101.aspx

And to answer your earlier question about troop rotations.....that's what they're already doing. Why do you think so many troops have been to Iraq multiple times?

Most of the units going over andf going back over are stateside units.
They arent rotating (many) units in/out of Europe, Korea, etc -- and some stateside units will never leave.

 

[Stace]

That's not really true.
U.S. Army Winning at Recruiting
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051213.aspx
U.S. Army and Marines Exceed Recruiting Goals
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051130.aspx
Experienced Troops Returning to Service
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051129.aspx
How the U.S. Army Replaces Wartime Losses
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051101.aspx


Most of the units going over andf going back over are stateside units.
They arent rotating (many) units in/out of Europe, Korea, etc -- and some stateside units will never leave.

Overall, though, the military, especially the Army, missed their recruiting goals over the 2005 fiscal year - not the calendar year, but the fiscal year, which runs on an October-October schedule for the military.

And why are they being so "successful" at getting prior service members to come back? Because they are specifically targetting them. Sending them letters, calling them, offering them huge bonuses, and many are taking that offer because they're finding civilian life difficult after knowing nothing but the military for even four years. I got two letters just the other week inviting me to join Guard units in a completely different state, no less. Sorry, but I'm not moving just to join the Guard, when I'm already inactive Reserves and could be called back to active duty within the next four years if necessary. That's another thing - are you aware of that requirement? Most military members sign what we call a four by four contract (and I don't think I've ever met anyone that DIDN'T have this contract, unless they signed up for six years right away, in which case, I'm not sure what the terms are)....basically, you sign up for four years of active duty, and if you don't reenlist, you switch into inactive Reserve mode for the four years following your enlistment, and your branch of service can call you back to active duty at any time, for any reason, during those four years. Which is why I still have a military ID card.


As far as not deploying troops that are overseas....I don't know where you're getting that information, but I know many people that are stationed in Germany that have done two and three rotations already. They don't deploy a lot of people from Korea because those folks are already away from their families, they're already paying them family separation pay and such, and most tours in Korea are only a year, whereas stateside and at bases such as Germany, troops are usually at a base for two years or more. I would have stayed at my first duty assignment for my entire enlistment (after basic training and technical training, of course) if I hadn't had to apply for a join spouse assignment.

Also, I'm sure you've seen the reports that the Army, at least, has lowered their enlistment standards, allowing more people to join than they normally would.

I'm not saying that the military is in dire straights as far as recruitment and such goes. I'm just saying that with the task force already in place, the troops are being worn thin and they can't keep up this pace for much longer; some sort of deployment reform is necessary. I am in no way saying that we should pull out of Iraq; I don't agree with the reasoning as to why our troops were sent, but they were, they have a mission to do, and I'd like to see them succeed at that mission. But in order to do so, changes need to be made.

 

[americanwoman]

That's another thing - are you aware of that requirement? Most military members sign what we call a four by four contract (and I don't think I've ever met anyone that DIDN'T have this contract, unless they signed up for six years right away, in which case, I'm not sure what the terms are)....basically, you sign up for four years of active duty, and if you don't reenlist, you switch into inactive Reserve mode for the four years following your enlistment, and your branch of service can call you back to active duty at any time, for any reason, during those four years. Which is why I still have a military ID card.

yeah that happened to my brother. He was in the reserves about 7 years about and has been inactive for quite awhile. Anyway they called him up and he had to go back active and start reporting again every month. Thank God his unit did not get called up. He went back to unactive mode in December with the knowledge that he may still get called back again.