[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Chub

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]

Originally Posted by Vermonta

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by bigironkiller

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RobInKuwait

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 requ