broken military

[bigironkiller]

John McCain will break the US Military. He wants to continue the troop strength in Iraq and also double the amount of troops in Afghan to 160,000. Are military is stretch so thin right now, how can McCain justify this new action. We have the best military in the world, but we are still not equiping are troops with all the necessary equiptment. Im all for the fight against terroism, but we need to focus are efforts instead of trying to "grasp every bit of falling sand through are fingers". We are stradling a thin line between success and a complete failure of our military and national defense. As an ex-military myself, I hate to see are soldiers carry this big of a burdeon.

 

[Vermonta]

John McCain will break the US Military. He wants to continue the troop strength in Iraq and also double the amount of troops in Afghan to 160,000. Are military is stretch so thin right now, how can McCain justify this new action. We have the best military in the world, but we are still not equiping are troops with all the necessary equiptment. Im all for the fight against terroism, but we need to focus are efforts instead of trying to "grasp every bit of falling sand through are fingers". We are stradling a thin line between success and a complete failure of our military and national defense. As an ex-military myself, I hate to see are soldiers carry this big of a burdeon.

Without the draft it is indeed hard to keep up with the demands for soldiers the USA government wants to deploy. We try to do too much, and too often it is not for the right causes. Our wallets lead our nation more than our morals it seems in today's society. Before every military action one of the biggest arguements and important factors is whether it will benefit us economicaly and not whether it's the right thing or not, which is what I feel is among our biggest flaws in National Security and our relations with other nations.

I reccomend you check out the book Against All Enemies; Your Government Failed You by Richard A. Clarke. It's a great read on our national security policies and the inner workings of our system.

 

[Chub]

How are they going to manage to double troops in Afghan when there likely to roll into Iran within the next 2 years :/

 

[Vermonta]

How are they going to manage to double troops in Afghan when there likely to roll into Iran within the next 2 years :/

Since reinstituting the draft is illegal (I'm fairly certain they made an amendment of it after Vietnam) for good reason they will probably put more money into recruiting and (at least on paper) improve pay and benefits (although many never see either). The draft is simply not an option in my mind (if it is legal) because of the impact it has on a nations economy. Today is different then during Nam because most women are already working, so there are fewer to take the place of men who would be draft resulting in an even further (I cringe at this thought) damage to our economy. That is assuming they have to draft older men with families, jobs, careers, etc. and not just 18 year olds.

 

[bigironkiller]

currently in Irag, we have 140,000 US soldiers and 160,000 private security force personel.... how can that make sense?????? corporate control of America in its finest

 

[RobInKuwait]

Since reinstituting the draft is illegal (I'm fairly certain they made an amendment of it after Vietnam) for good reason they will probably put more money into recruiting and (at least on paper) improve pay and benefits (although many never see either). The draft is simply not an option in my mind (if it is legal) because of the impact it has on a nations economy. Today is different then during Nam because most women are already working, so there are fewer to take the place of men who would be draft resulting in an even further (I cringe at this thought) damage to our economy. That is assuming they have to draft older men with families, jobs, careers, etc. and not just 18 year olds.

The draft is still around, but not being used:

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Here is a brief overview of what would occur if the United States returned to a draft:

1. CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZE A DRAFT
A crisis occurs which requires more troops than the volunteer military can supply. Congress passes and the President signs legislation which starts a draft.

2. THE LOTTERY
A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted.

3. ALL PARTS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ARE ACTIVATED
The Agency activates and orders its State Directors and Reserve Forces Officers to report for duty. See also Agency Structure.

4. PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND MORAL EVALUATION OF REGISTRANTS
Registrants with low lottery numbers are ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service. Once he is notified of the results of the evaluation, a registrant will be given 10 days to file a claim for exemption, postponement, or deferment. See also Classifications.

5. LOCAL AND APPEAL BOARDS ACTIVATED AND INDUCTION NOTICES SENT
Local and Appeal Boards will process registrant claims. Those who pass the military evaluation will receive induction orders. An inductee will have 10 days to report to a local Military Entrance Processing Station for induction.

6. FIRST DRAFTEES ARE INDUCTED
According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.

 

[RobInKuwait]

John McCain will break the US Military. He wants to continue the troop strength in Iraq and also double the amount of troops in Afghan to 160,000. Are military is stretch so thin right now, how can McCain justify this new action.

The military is designed to be simultaneously engaged in two major conflicts. It will not "break" the army, but limit US options strategically. Also, as far as McCain "justifying this new action", if elected, McCain is Commander in Chief, and if authorized by congress, hes has more than enough justification to send troops wherever he wishes for however long he wishes.

We have the best military in the world, but we are still not equiping are troops with all the necessary equiptment. Im all -the fight against terroism, but we need to focus are efforts instead of trying to "grasp every bit of falling sand through are fingers". We are stradling a thin line between success and a complete failure of our military and national defense. As an ex-military myself, I hate to see are soldiers carry this big of a burdeon.

Specifically, what equipment do you feel Soldiers are lacking? If this was 2005, I'd agree with you, but now Soldiers have all the Up-Armored Humvees, NVGs, .50 Cal ring mounts and ammo they need.

As far as Soldiers "carrying this big of burden"....its their job....Soldiers go to war, thats what they train for.

 

[RobInKuwait]

currently in Irag, we have 140,000 US soldiers and 160,000 private security force personel.... how can that make sense?????? corporate control of America in its finest

What part of America do private security forces control in Iraq? No Soldiers work for them, they're in a foreign country, whats the big deal about letting former Soldiers get paid a decent wage by Blackwater?

 

[bigironkiller]

im just trying to point out how the military is being outsourced to corporations. i have nothing against ex-soldiers making high dollars, i believe the US military should be that option, taking better care of our soldiers, by raising salaries. as far as being able to fight on multiple fronts, yes we are capable, but not with the amount of men on the ground. we could run these wars using limited man power and more strategic strikes using drones and the airforce. we are past the days of WW2 were we needed men on the ground, if we used are full capabilities and fought this war "smart" we can win. if we continue to use high personel deployments the military will break. we have to fight smart....

 

[bigironkiller]

and from the soldiers i talk too, if the top commanders are indeed making all the choices on how to fight this war, we need new generals. our current approach cant be the best way to fight this war and after over 5yrs of fighting we should learn our lessons and evolve

 

[RobInKuwait]

and from the soldiers i talk too, if the top commanders are indeed making all the choices on how to fight this war, we need new generals. our current approach cant be the best way to fight this war and after over 5yrs of fighting we should learn our lessons and evolve

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The tactics used by insurgents and Soldiers change dramatically every year.

Do you even know what the current approach for the war is?

Do you think there is an easy solution for occupying a country with 26 million people who have never thought for themselves a day in their life and suddenly instilling democracy?

 

[RobInKuwait]

im just trying to point out how the military is being outsourced to corporations. i have nothing against ex-soldiers making high dollars, i believe the US military should be that option, taking better care of our soldiers, by raising salaries. as far as being able to fight on multiple fronts, yes we are capable, but not with the amount of men on the ground. we could run these wars using limited man power and more strategic strikes using drones and the airforce. we are past the days of WW2 were we needed men on the ground, if we used are full capabilities and fought this war "smart" we can win. if we continue to use high personel deployments the military will break. we have to fight smart....

We are fighting smart. This war is nothing like WW2 nor is it being fought that way. There are 26 million people in Iraq and we have about 160,000 troops. That is not a high personnel deployment. You cannot occupy a country and instill democracy with drones and strategic strikes. You need troops on the ground.

 

[bigironkiller]

plain and simple: we dont need that many troops on the ground. once iraqs military was defeated we should have been able to control the progress of the country thru diplomatic channels. as to fighting combatants with drones and the airforce: with limited troops on the ground, satallites, drones we should have been able to strategically stop any futher insurgent activity. and with our technology we shouldnt have to physically occupy a country to control it.

 

[RobInKuwait]

plain and simple: we dont need that many troops on the ground. once iraqs military was defeated we should have been able to control the progress of the country thru diplomatic channels. as to fighting combatants with drones and the airforce: with limited troops on the ground, satallites, drones we should have been able to strategically stop any futher insurgent activity. and with our technology we shouldnt have to physically occupy a country to control it.

Jesus.

Let me TRY to bring you back to reality. Once Iraq's military was defeated, there were no diplomatic channels left to "control the progress" of the country. Cities were covered in human fecis, the countries infrastucture was destroyed. Soldiers had to put in place police, act as local mayors, basically run the country on the ground. Gradually for the last 5 years, Soldiers have been training an Iraqi military and police force. They initially mirrored the American Soldiers, but they're to the point now where they are running their own operations and American Soldiers are in a support role.

No amount of technology could have established order and infrastructure in the country. Soldiers, embedded with the local populace rebuilt Iraq's infrastructure, and they did a damn good job. There are still problems there, but the country is improving.

Please, do some research before you spread misinformation.

 

[Vermonta]

The draft is still around, but not being used:

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Here is a brief overview of what would occur if the United States returned to a draft:

1. CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZE A DRAFT
A crisis occurs which requires more troops than the volunteer military can supply. Congress passes and the President signs legislation which starts a draft.

2. THE LOTTERY
A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted.

3. ALL PARTS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ARE ACTIVATED
The Agency activates and orders its State Directors and Reserve Forces Officers to report for duty. See also Agency Structure.

4. PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND MORAL EVALUATION OF REGISTRANTS
Registrants with low lottery numbers are ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service. Once he is notified of the results of the evaluation, a registrant will be given 10 days to file a claim for exemption, postponement, or deferment. See also Classifications.

5. LOCAL AND APPEAL BOARDS ACTIVATED AND INDUCTION NOTICES SENT
Local and Appeal Boards will process registrant claims. Those who pass the military evaluation will receive induction orders. An inductee will have 10 days to report to a local Military Entrance Processing Station for induction.

6. FIRST DRAFTEES ARE INDUCTED
According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.

Okay, thank you for clearing that up for me (no sarcasm). I wasn't sure if it was still around or not. Obviously the government is a lot more cautious around using it now then before Vietnam due to the general publics feelings towards it and it's effects on the nation's economy. I personally would hate to see the draft ever reinstated and hopefully the USA never goes to war on a large scale like it has in the past that we would need it.

 

[Vermonta]

The military is designed to be simultaneously engaged in two major conflicts. It will not "break" the army, but limit US options strategically. Also, as far as McCain "justifying this new action", if elected, McCain is Commander in Chief, and if authorized by congress, hes has more than enough justification to send troops wherever he wishes for however long he wishes.

I disagree strongly with this statement.

The military was and is not designed for the purpose of being engaged in two major conflicts ("major conflicts" I categorize as a large scale war, or other disasters). It was formed to protect our country if all other means of diplomancy have either failed or been exhausted.

McCain, nor any other man on this planet I feel has the right to send troops "wherever her wishes for however long as he wishes". These are not just troops, they are lives. I don't know about everyone else but I feel each life on this planet is as important as the next. The Commander in Chief, does not have justification in putting our, or any other nation's peoples in danger for any cause. Like I stated before, once all other means of diplomancy have been tried and failed, that is the time, if we must to engage in military force.

Vermonta

 

[Vermonta]

The situation in Iraq is tricky. I for one don't believe we should have gone in there to begin with, but now we are and find ourselves in a pickle. We can stay for however long it takes for us to be satisfied with conditions, government, control there, or we can leave. If we stay there is no set date by McCain for when he wants to leave and has been cited saying (hypothetically because obviously he'll only be alive for about 10 more years) that he is willing to stay there for 100 years if needed, which means we will be dragged further into depression and stretched thinner as more issues arise with other nations to the point we will have to make some heavy decisions. If we leave we risk total collapse of their society. By no means is Iraq are stable nation and, as much it pains me to say it, we do have an obligation to help them restore order.

Sometimes I think Iraq would be better off still under Saddam's rule. NOT, let me repeat, NOT because he was a good leader or person, but because they at least had structure and were a controlled nation (yes I know, shut up) where as now we, and other countries too, are trying to put them back together once we wrecked them.

Will we ever be able to put Iraq back together again?

 

[RobInKuwait]

The military was and is not designed for the purpose of being engaged in two major conflicts ("major conflicts" I categorize as a large scale war, or other disasters). It was formed to protect our country if all other means of diplomancy have either failed or been exhausted.

I'm talking about the structure of the military, not debating its intended role. The Army was restructured in the 90s to be able to handle 2 simultaneous major conflicts.

McCain, nor any other man on this planet I feel has the right to send troops "wherever her wishes for however long as he wishes". These are not just troops, they are lives. I don't know about everyone else but I feel each life on this planet is as important as the next. The Commander in Chief, does not have justification in putting our, or any other nation's peoples in danger for any cause. Like I stated before, once all other means of diplomancy have been tried and failed, that is the time, if we must o engage in military force.

Vermonta

You might disagree with it, but the commander in chief controls the military. Thats the way the country was designed in the constitution. Congressional approval is needed prior to going to war.

I think we're talking about two different things, I'm saying he could if he wanted to by merit of his position, you're saying he shouldn't. I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[RobInKuwait]

The situation in Iraq is tricky. I for one don't believe we should have gone in there to begin with, but now we are and find ourselves in a pickle. We can stay for however long it takes for us to be satisfied with conditions, government, control there, or we can leave. If we stay there is no set date by McCain for when he wants to leave and has been cited saying (hypothetically because obviously he'll only be alive for about 10 more years) that he is willing to stay there for 100 years if needed, which means we will be dragged further into depression and stretched thinner as more issues arise with other nations to the point we will have to make some heavy decisions. If we leave we risk total collapse of their society. By no means is Iraq are stable nation and, as much it pains me to say it, we do have an obligation to help them restore order.

Sometimes I think Iraq would be better off still under Saddam's rule. NOT, let me repeat, NOT because he was a good leader or person, but because they at least had structure and were a controlled nation (yes I know, shut up) where as now we, and other countries too, are trying to put them back together once we wrecked them.

Will we ever be able to put Iraq back together again?

I agree with most of what you said. I don't think the Iraq War is related to our economic woes, but everything seems pretty accurate to me.

I like Saddam in power as it put the US in a position of power in region by forcing neighboring countries to ally with the US to avoid getting their asses kicked by Saddam.

As far as putting Iraq back together again? Maybe, but it will take a real long time and require a sustained commitment.

 

[Vermonta]

I'm talking about the structure of the military, not debating its intended role. The Army was restructured in the 90s to be able to handle 2 simultaneous major conflicts.



You might disagree with it, but the commander in chief controls the military. Thats the way the country was designed in the constitution. Congressional approval is needed prior to going to war.

I think we're talking about two different things, I'm saying he could if he wanted to by merit of his position, you're saying he shouldn't. I'm not disagreeing with you.

I do think we were talking about two different things. I was talking about what the military's purpose is and you were talking about it's capabilities. And yes, the military went over a complete makeover after Vietnam due to the lack of efficiency by the military..but that is WHOLE different thread lol.

Yes I know the Commander in Chief has that power, which is scary. Luckily Congress has to approve of it as well, but Congress is usually a bunch of the Presidents buddies anyways..

 

[Vermonta]

I agree with most of what you said. I don't think the Iraq War is related to our economic woes, but everything seems pretty accurate to me.

I like Saddam in power as it put the US in a position of power in region by forcing neighboring countries to ally with the US to avoid getting their asses kicked by Saddam.

As far as putting Iraq back together again? Maybe, but it will take a real long time and require a sustained commitment.

You make good points too. reps man.

And lets hope it's sooner than later.

 

[RobInKuwait]

You make good points too. reps man.

And lets hope it's sooner than later.

Thanks, right back at ya!

 

[bigironkiller]

robinkwait, if your deployed right now i thank and support you. but i still dont believe in the approach "your" commander in chief is making. bush has never made a right move throughout the war, and since you seem to think the right decisions are being made by bush, we strongly disagree. blind obediance of the commander in chief is what led us into this war. the soliders i talk to at the VA have similiar things to say. the commander in chief has sent young men/women to there deaths on a political whim and directed this war out of pure stubborn thinking.

 

[bigironkiller]

how am i spreading misinformation???

 

[RobInKuwait]

robinkwait, if your deployed right now i thank and support you. but i still dont believe in the approach "your" commander in chief is making. bush has never made a right move throughout the war, and since you seem to think the right decisions are being made by bush, we strongly disagree. blind obediance of the commander in chief is what led us into this war. the soliders i talk to at the VA have similiar things to say. the commander in chief has sent young men/women to there deaths on a political whim and directed this war out of pure stubborn thinking.

I'm not deployed now. Was in Kuwait in '04 and will be in Iraq with my National Guard unit in 2010 or 2011.

As a Soldier, my opinion of Bush's policies are irrelevent. My job is to be the executer on behalf of the President, and by extension the US people. Every Soldier took an oath to the president and the constitution of the united states. Soldiers dying to political whims has been happening as long as this country has existed. If a Soldier doesn't like that possibility, they should have never enlisted.

 

[Vermonta]

robinkwait, if your deployed right now i thank and support you. but i still dont believe in the approach "your" commander in chief is making. bush has never made a right move throughout the war, and since you seem to think the right decisions are being made by bush, we strongly disagree. blind obediance of the commander in chief is what led us into this war. the soliders i talk to at the VA have similiar things to say. the commander in chief has sent young men/women to there deaths on a political whim and directed this war out of pure stubborn thinking.

He is speaking from a standpoint of just a Soldier, I think at least.

I do agree with you that those blinded and "brain washed" by society (and espcially the military) are fools. I hate when people think that critiquing the government is anti-American. In actuallity it is the foundation of what this country was built on, and our founding fathers new the world would change so they designed our governement to be able to.