DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on April 02, 2008, 02:06:22 AM
-
washingtonpost.com > Nation
Heavy Troop Deployments Are Called Major Risk
Readiness Is Dangerously Low, Army Chief Says
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 2, 2008; Page A04
Senior Army and Marine Corps leaders said yesterday that the increase of more than 30,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years.
In a stark assessment a week before Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is to testify on the war's progress, Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, said that the heavy deployments are inflicting "incredible stress" on soldiers and families and that they pose "a significant risk" to the nation's all-volunteer military.
"When the five-brigade surge went in . . . that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army," Cody testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee's readiness panel.
He said that even if five brigades are pulled out of Iraq by July, as planned, it would take some time before the Army could return to 12-month tours for soldiers. Petraeus is expected to call for a pause in further troop reductions to assess their impact on security in Iraq.
"I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.
Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, one of the chief architects of the Iraq troop increase, has been nominated to replace Cody. Odierno is scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing tomorrow.
The testimony reflects the tension between the wartime priorities of U.S. commanders in Iraq such as Petraeus and the heads of military services responsible for the health and preparedness of the forces. Cody said that the Army no longer has fully ready combat brigades on standby should a threat or conflict occur.
The nation needs an airborne brigade, a heavy brigade and a Stryker brigade ready for "full-spectrum operations," Cody said, "and we don't have that today."
Soldiers and Marines also lack training for major combat operations using their entire range of weapons, the generals said. For example, artillerymen are not practicing firing heavy guns but are instead doing counterinsurgency work as military police.
The Marine Corps' ability to train for potential conflicts has been "significantly degraded," said Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps.
He said that although Marine Corps units involved in the troop increase last year have pulled out, new demands in Afghanistan, where 3,200 Marines are headed, have kept the pressure on the force unchanged.
"There has been little, if any, change of the stress or tempo for our forces," he said, calling the current pace of operations "unsustainable."
Magnus suggested that if more Marines are freed from Iraq they could also go to Afghanistan. Marines "will move to the sound of the guns in Afghanistan," he said. But he said it would be difficult to keep the force split between the two countries because the Marine Corps has limited resources to command a divided force and supply it logistically.
The Marine Corps is "basically in two boats at the same time," he said.
Both the Army and Marine Corps are working to increase their ranks by tens of thousands of troops -- to 547,000 active-duty soldiers and 202,000 Marines -- but newly created combat units will not be able to provide relief until about 2011.
U.S. soldiers are currently deploying for 15-month combat tours, with 12 months at home in between. Marines are deploying for seven-month rotations, with seven months at home.
Both services seek to give their members at least twice as much time at home as time overseas.
"Where we need to be with this force is no more than 12 months on the ground and 24 months back," Cody said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102444.html?hpid=topnews
-
Must be budget prep time.
-
Must be budget prep time.
Yeah, budgets are due in May.
-
Sure, none of it could be that the Army really is struggling?
That at mobilization points, many female soldiers are "open" for business? That at those same stations, many male soldiers fail the drug tests? That their is a heavy reliance on the Guard and Reserves? That folks with criminal records, no diploma or GED, or past disbarments to enlistment are being heavily recruited?
No. It must be because it is budget time... ::)
-
Every year at this time the issue comes up.
The military wants more money.
The anti-military wants redeployment and/ or force reduction.
It's seasonal, like weed and feeding the lawn and prepping the veggie garden.
-
Every year at this time the issue comes up.
The military wants more money.
The anti-military wants redeployment and/ or force reduction.
It's seasonal, like weed and feeding the lawn and prepping the veggie garden.
I never mess with my lawn that much. I just mow when I have to. ;)
-
That's ok, i never mess much with the budget process.
-
i think it's more of the "lets fight elsewhere, lets get ready for another battle, lets fight the real war on terror"
which is a fraud
always words but no action
they dont wanna confront the enemy anywhere
-
Interesting article, Lanya.
Senior Army and Marine Corps leaders said yesterday that the increase of more than 30,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years.
Seems that the message here is clear... We're planting all of our eggs in one terra cotta pot, which isn't a good idea.
In a stark assessment a week before Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is to testify on the war's progress, Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, said that the heavy deployments are inflicting "incredible stress" on soldiers and families and that they pose "a significant risk" to the nation's all-volunteer military.
Well, I can see why. That pressure, that risk, those stresses are only natural when we remain in a war that wasnt' supposed to last this long.
"I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.
Of course it is lacking strategic depth. This "strategy" from the beginning was set up to win a vote of confidence for Bush, he saw his opportunity to invade, and he took it for daddy's sake? Who knows why. He stepped into this conflict with both hands, when he should have tiptoed with both feet back to the chalkboard.
The testimony reflects the tension between the wartime priorities of U.S. commanders in Iraq such as Petraeus and the heads of military services responsible for the health and preparedness of the forces.There is usually tension between those who are on the battle field and those who are preparing for the battlefield. This makes sense to me. Win at all cost. Don't back down...until you see the whites of their eyes....or you die first. To hell with preparing..we never planned this war well from its "getgo"...why worry now.
Cody said that the Army no longer has fully ready combat brigades on standby should a threat or conflict occur.
And.........D'oh
Soldiers and Marines also lack training for major combat operations using their entire range of weapons, the generals said. For example, artillerymen are not practicing firing heavy guns but are instead doing counterinsurgency work as military police.
Hmm, and yet they were trained! Who trained these boys? They have had five good years to prepare for that desert offensive action. HEavy guns.....Policemen? Hmmm, what did they think was going to be needed in this conflict?
Keystone military. sad. What is the problem? Trillions have been spent. Hmmm, Do they need more money too? Look out teachers, tell them that you don't know how to use a pencil.
The Marine Corps' ability to train for potential conflicts has been "significantly degraded," said Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps.
He said that although Marine Corps units involved in the troop increase last year have pulled out, new demands in Afghanistan, where 3,200 Marines are headed, have kept the pressure on the force unchanged.
Just pour more money into the pit.
Ah heck, it's only about a seasoanl budget problem....what else is new, right?
"There has been little, if any, change of the stress or tempo for our forces," he said, calling the current pace of operations "unsustainable."
as in........UNnecessary? UNjust? UNbelievably stupid this war has been since its inception?
The Marine Corps is "basically in two boats at the same time," he said.
Eating cake and rubbing the tummy at same time, too? OR having cake at same time as patting head.
My gosh, listen to this article's plea for reality check. My gosh. I think we will probably ignore what has been written here, overall and put it aside as a flippant lawn mowing problem, in the end.
Ooops duh, that's what has happened here. ::)
Both the Army and Marine Corps are working to increase their ranks by tens of thousands of troops -- to 547,000 active-duty soldiers and 202,000 Marines -- but newly created combat units will not be able to provide relief until about 2011.
Heck, we've got time. ..go ahead make their day! It's only a war....we can afford a few lives in the meantime.
"Where we need to be with this force is no more than 12 months on the ground and 24 months back," Cody said.
And don't forget to train the soldiers properly in the 24 month stay at home!!
Seems the military is a bit behind in that dept.
Why not just keep the soldiers in Iraq and send all the families to enjoy the "new Iraq", that is clearly happening as we speak.... according to some. (cough and grimace)....Then the soldiers dont' have to come home AT ALL. Plan a Badhdad vacation on cheap tickets. com. ::)
-
I can't understand why we as a country treat our soldiers this way.
They are tremendously important, they're there for our national defense.
Reading stuff like this is so frustrating.
<<"I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.
Of course it is lacking strategic depth. This "strategy" from the beginning was set up to win a vote of confidence for Bush, he saw his opportunity to invade, and he took it for daddy's sake? Who knows why. He stepped into this conflict with both hands, when he should have tiptoed with both feet back to the chalkboard. >>
Yes, "strategy"...it's horrible to think this actually is the way they want it.
I heard the other day someone say that they're using our soldiers like rich kid's toys. It breaks, send it back. It breaks again, send it back again. It breaks, send another one. And so on. 4 and 5 re-ups.
-
I think we should reinstitute the draft.
With the additional manpower the 12 on 24 off rotation will be no problem.
-
Oh yeah, my bad . Women should be eligible for the draft also. It's the 21st century after all.
-
"Yes, "strategy"...it's horrible to think this actually is the way they want it.
I heard the other day someone say that they're using our soldiers like rich kid's toys. It breaks, send it back. It breaks again, send it back again. It breaks, send another one. And so on. 4 and 5 re-ups.
And that is what is outrageous about all of this. ...The lack of respect for the lives of so many,involved. There are so many men/women and their direct families suffering in all of this. It is one thing to "call a war, a war" and deploy troops in a popular conflict such as WW2...and then applaud them, support them on so many levels, and reward them --as we must....but to treat lives as if they are just numbers or toy soldiers just to support a political platform?. all the time saying; "Hey, ALL AGAINST TERRORISM RAISE THEIR HAND", mentality...That is so sad.
Too many people in this country view the military as playing pieces, or budget dollars, or ....hey just part of the scenery that makes their point come to life, like a garden or lawn needing to be mowed. hmmm, We hear such flippant remarks often in the country. Instead we should need to have more of a clear focus on what the hell this article is SAYING!!!
What? When I read this, I was shocked at its content, Lanya.
I think it's time that we pay more attention to such details in this war. Our nation has become more complacent veggies and that's a shame.
Thanks for the article.
-
Cynthia,
If you were so concerned you would be aware that this scenario repeats itself every year.
If we need more troops, they have to come from somewhere.
How do you suggest we fill the ranks.
Do we appropriate more for retention, do we appropriate more for recruiting, do we raise staffing requirements?
Or do we redeploy.
I say we reinstitute the draft.
What say you?
-
I say no way to the draft.
No way.
But, of course you would say such a thing, BT.
I say pull back the troops instead of plant more.
I say, focus more on the issue of forcing the Iraqis to take care of their own problems now.
I also say, that if we have to fight this thing for years to come, I will be there to support any troop...I just got a call from an organization the VA. I try to do my part, when it comes to supporting any soldier.
The article Lanya posted is clearly an slap in the face to our military. Then there are flippant remarks made by someone like you, BT....which aren't funny.
I thought we were here to discuss and debate...not make a joke about the "my bad" women need to be called to the draft as well?
You certainly did not respond to the article that was posted.
Nice try, BT. Nice Try.
Side step to the issue of A DRAFT., go ahead..that's not what what I care to discuss about this issue....it was spot on for me in terms of our treatment of so many lives at risk.
So,you go ahead and try to make a person bend in your direction. I disagree with your flippant remarks and your patronzing tone to address me personally in this thread. I thought you did't want to reply to me... You have your way of ignoring me and making me seem as though I am not important enough. You will not hear me out when it comes to issues, as you blatantly challenge me with pitiful remarks. I stepped aside from the other thread in order to discuss an issue with Lanya becuase I kjnew that she would hold a decent conversation, not come in to attack me--as you have done here. Seems you are on me for some reason. Do you sincerely care how I feel?
-
The crux of the article was staff shortage. Re-instituting the draft is one solution, redeploying and slowly building troop strength is another.
You obviously choose to cut and run.
I don't.
You accuse me of attacking because i respond to your posts? Was it not you i was discussing homeschooling, NCLB and the state of public education ?
And no, i don't care how you feel.
I will, however, evaluate what you think.
-
but isn`t draftee`s more disposable than enlisted?
I know many veteran talking about nam how at the beginning how effective the soldier were compared to later on with draftee`s which pretty much are cannon fodder.
meaning if we do the draft ,we must draft in large numbers to compensate for large number of casualties cause by these less careful kids.
-
Enlistees and draftees take the same training.
They did back then and they do now.
Advanced training might be available to an enlistee as part of their contract. But that doesn't mean draftees wouldn't be eligible if they showed aptitude.
-
the training is the same but the caliber will be different.
a draftee isn`exactly going through the same selection process as a enlisted.
so shouldn`t there be a higher mortality rate for the drafted?
-
the training is the same but the caliber will be different.
a draftee isn`exactly going through the same selection process as a enlisted.
What makes you think that?
Both my brothers went through army basic training, my older brother was drafted. My younger enlisted. Both had the same training, same caliber.
-
BT,
The way I see it is this. Just because you are the "administrator" here, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are always correct. When you post, you have a sort of tone that patronizes a bit. I have known this since we started out in teh saloon...and that's ok...but, there are times, when it's not so comfortable for me, and I have to say something about it here.
I had suggested, albeit IN THE WRONG AVENUE, that I thought perhaps that we could explore the debate posts/threads in a format of more of a "discussion" tone . instead of
===
a --- YOU're Wrong..
I'm RIGht---- kind of tone.
Anyway, When you post something to a person..ok, to me....I get the feeling that you are SETTING ME STRAIGHT all according to BT! Instead of engaging me in a discussion respecting me as a free thinking individual who happens to disagree with you.
No damn big deal...but I had to express my thoughts here about this..lest you blast my butt for speaking up a bit.
I have had a lot to say about my passions in many a venue especially education. We disagree, but when you speak up about the topic, you are there for the "kill", as I sense it. I would just like to be respected more as a person who has experience or knowledge in my own right....in this saloon.
I am not here to bash you. I admire you, Bill, I do.
But, sometimes, it's just hard for me to go up against you because I feel that there's no way to stop on the break without getting a ticket for running a red light that I clearly did NOT RUN.
You are a security guard of sorts here, sure you have to be. You are the administrator...but that's your job description and there it should stop.
I know others will not agree with me here, because you probably don't talk down to them as I FEEL you do to me. Your need to fight to the last bite in order to stay on top has just been a bit difficult for me sometimes..that's all I am saying.
I know you call it like you see it.....but you know what, so do I.
I learn so very much on this board.
I am not the smartest brick on this wall, but I have no problem admitting so.
Ok....For what it's worth, I hope I dont' get fired for these remarks. ha!
Now, I want to be able to talk with others in this forum and disagree, as I am sure we will. Perhaps, I just need to take your posts with more caution.
You're not being anything other than yourself. I know.
Ok just some thoughts,
Thanks for your time, BT
Cindy
-
Sorry, but there is no way there will be a draft until Al Qaeda comes swarming over the boarders, a-waving their scimitars to the cry of Allahoo Akbar!
There are two choices.
Leave Iraq and military imperialism and save whatever shreds of dignity they can in Afghanistan. or keep losing troops with a shrinking army as smarter young people decide that this is just not worth dying for. Untied Christians and RR could always enlist, but somehow, I doubt that their patriotism surpasses dialing in Rush.
Iraq: a bad idea to start with, a worse idea to continue. TWO turds in a punchbowl, two farts in a diving bell do not make for better punch.
-
i think it's more of the "lets fight elsewhere, lets get ready for another battle, lets fight the real war on terror"
which is a fraud
always words but no action
they dont wanna confront the enemy anywhere
What enemy?
The problem is very, very low morale primarily thanks to your buddies at KBR and Blackwater and Donnie Rumsfeld. The Democratic Congress really f***ed up with their good intentions and shortening the active duty time for the Reservists. It basically forces them to do all of the necessary training right before they mobilize.
Iraq is an incredibly boring duty with extremely mundane activities that just happen to get very dangerous every once in a while. There is no booze or pornography allowed on post and MP's contantly do searches and seizures. The only prostitution is from a few female soldiers who are making a fortune with some "capitalist enterprise." It is hot as hell, sand fleas, ticks, and an all-around shitty duty where if you over-eat you can gain enough weight, get a discharge, and take a job doing the exact same work for KBR or Blackwater and make 3-6 times what you made "defending our freedom."
Nice.
So yeah, there are serious problems in the US Army. Likely they aren't budget problems, I'll grant that. But this war is killing the Army.
-
"What enemy?"
she says it better than me:
WHAT PART OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM DO THEY SUPPORT?
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror "absolutely in favor of that war" they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember ? the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music ? more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" , a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry, the man they wanted to be president called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.
-
I'm not going to address the above as it will lead to an amazing amount of questions and tangents. It never answered my question.
What enemy?
-
It never answered my question. What enemy?
Oh yes it absolutely did answer the question.
Just maybe not to your liking.
while they're all for the war against terror "absolutely in favor of that war" they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists.
I would be interested in your answer to this too:
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support? That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
-
It never answered my question. What enemy?
Oh yes it absolutely did answer the question.
Just maybe not to your liking.
while they're all for the war against terror "absolutely in favor of that war" they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists.
I would be interested in your answer to this too:
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support? That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
It is not that it isn't to my liking, it is that we're talking cross purposes. I'm asking you a question. You're giving me an answer in the frame of how the Democrats think.
I don't care about that. The Democrats and Republicans are political parties. Despite what their loyal supporters say, they both watch the public opinion polls like hawks watching a field mouse. You're trying to apply logic to a system (the US political system) that doesn't function within a rigid logical framework. It functions just as the Roman Republic functioned - mob rule. Welcome to democracy. It is insidiously stupid and incredibly irrational.
Still, I'll answer your questions to the best of my ability.
1. We're not killing "thousands of terrorists" in Iraq. We're killing insurgents. If that is too much semantics for you, consider the fact that none of these "terrorists" would have ever been a threat to the United States (or anywhere) had we never invaded Iraq. Note the name of General Petraeus' field manual for the US Army: Counterinsurgency not Counter-Terrorism. This is not a "War on Terror."
Does that make the Democrats right? No, because it goes back to politics. Someone needs the grapes to say that the entire concept of a "War on Terror" is ridiculous.
2. Some of the counter-terrorism bullets you mentioned are too broad, others are just flat out immoral. Profiling Muslims? What does that even mean? Are you going to strip search Muhammed Ali? Gitmo is a farce and defies everything this country has ever stood for (even at a facade level). The people that were "released" as you say, were released after years of imprisonment. They weren't allowed contact with spouses, lawyers, anyone. Many were detained on evidence that would have never stood in a court of law or even a military court. We destroyed lives and what compensation did these individuals get (got to love the "individual liberty" of the right wing)? A form letter with a half-ass apology. Sometimes not even that.
And yet, Christians supported this as well as extraordinary rendition? Nice. WWJD indeed!
-
God, I love this board.
March on....guys...March on.
;D
-
We're not killing "thousands of terrorists" in Iraq. We're killing insurgents.
If that is too much semantics for you, consider the fact that none of these "terrorists" would have ever been a threat to the United States (or anywhere) had we never invaded Iraq.
#1.
I dont think that is true.
I think we are in WW3 being currently fought primarily by proxies of the two sides.
So I believe we are killing the enemy in Iraq.
We can fight them in Iraq or some place else.
They are not going away.
#2.
Even if that were true "if we had not invaded Iraq"
But we did!
We are in Iraq.
al-Qaida is now in Iraq that is reality ("if we hadn't invaded" is not reality)
al-Qaida is constantly announcing how important the battle of Iraq is.
The Left said "see we shouldn't have invaded the enemy wasn't in Iraq.
Ok, but we did, and the enemy is there.
But the Left still wants to "cut & run".
So in reality, it doesn't matter whether the enemy is there or not.
The Left wants to run away.
Where does the Left want to confront the enemy?
Should we allow the other side of the proxy war to topple Israel?
Topple Saudi Arabia?
Topple Egypt?
Topple Kuwait?
Topple UAE?
Topple Lebanon?
Should we allow the other side of this proxy war to roam freely toppling governments?
Lets say all the above happens over the nexxt decade after we "pull back".
Then what?
Whats your plan then?
There is one Islamic Theocracy now.
Exporting terror, military might, insurgency, ect...
Whats gonna happen if instead of 1 Islamic Theocracy doing it, we have 10 Islamic Theocracies doing it?
Maybe all with nukes.
What then?
Note the name of General Petraeus' field manual for the US Army:
Counterinsurgency not Counter-Terrorism. This is not a "War on Terror."
Are you denying that counterinsurgency can not be a part of the War on Terror?
which by the way should be re-named the The War With Radical Islam.
The name of the Petraeus manual is a name for a specific battle strategy within the War on Terror
but could also probably be used in other situations. It's basically a game-plan within a larger
picture.
Someone needs the grapes to say that the entire concept of a "War on Terror" is ridiculous.
So what is your solution to a movement called radical Islam that threatens governments all over the world?
What specifically would you do to counter radical Islam and Iran?
I know, I know, deny it exists.
It'll all just go away, yeah sure.
2. Some of the counter-terrorism bullets you mentioned are too broad, others are just flat out immoral. Profiling Muslims? What does that even mean? Are you going to strip search Muhammed Ali? Gitmo is a farce and defies everything this country has ever stood for (even at a facade level). The people that were "released" as you say, were released after years of imprisonment. They weren't allowed contact with spouses, lawyers, anyone. Many were detained on evidence that would have never stood in a court of law or even a military court. We destroyed lives and what compensation did these individuals get (got to love the "individual liberty" of the right wing)? A form letter with a half-ass apology. Sometimes not even that.
Yes sometimes when under attack people do what the have to do.
See Abe Lincoln:
That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission
And yet, Christians supported this as well as extraordinary rendition? Nice. WWJD indeed!
Yes absolutely, and proudly I might add.
I think surrender is a disgrace.
-
There is no such thing as a "war on terrorism", anymore than there could ba a 'war on poverty', a 'war on drugs', or a 'war on cholesterol'
You cannot fight a war on an abstract noun. Removing the Taliban from Afghanistan was a piece of cake, because medieval Muslims can't actually run a country or defend it. What these bozos CALL the 'war on terrorism' is a war to deprive citizens of their rights and privacy under the pretext that they are being protected, ad it's pretty much bogus. Had the Sup[reme Court not stuck a moron on the throne, and had anyone of reasonable competence been National Security Advisor other than obsolete Soviet Scholar Condi Rice, there would have been no 9-11.
-
"had anyone of reasonable competence been National Security Advisor other
than obsolete Soviet Scholar Condi Rice, there would have been no 9-11"
XO was Condi Rice in charge when the IslamoNazis struck the World Trade Center the first time
on February 26, 1993 with a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds of explosives opening a 100 foot hole through 5 sublevels of concrete? The presiding judge said the conspirators' chief aim at the time of the attack was to destabilize the north tower and send it crashing into the south tower, toppling both landmarks. Get a grip dude.
-
hope this makes it
for some reason when I respond my internet get disconnected
this happens several times for the past few months on both my work and home computer
anyway
what I was trying to say is the fact that draftee generally are unwilling participants can be a factor for them to be less effective than enlisted.
I`m not sayong your brother would be less effective because he was drafted
I`m saying thier would be a higher probabilty that draftees would be less receptive to training than a person who is willing to learn.
you gotta admit a draftee is most likely to be less motivated than an enlisted person
not your brother ,but possibly some of his comrades
-
Kimba,
I understand your latest point and concede that an unmotivated person rarely takes advantage of the training offered even when it is in their own best interest. But your previous points seemed to imply that there was a separate training regimen for draftees vs enlisted personnel and i know from the experience of family members that isn't true.
-
then I mis-wrote
that was never my intention
My point was totally about the differing motivation between a draftee and enlisted
I could of swore I stated the training is the same,I never even thought any of them would be short changed .
just trying the state a volunteer is different from a non-volunteer
-
just trying the state a volunteer is different from a non-volunteer
To a degree perhaps. In my case i wasn't interested in doing the things that would go towards military career advancement as that wasn't my intention.
But i did do the things that would either keep me safe or out of the brig.
If you are going to do the time, doesn't hurt to do it well.
-
a friend of mine says staying alive is a rare art form.
he knew someone who did 3 tours in nam and was forbidden to do a 4th.
and was asked to instead go to DI school
he`s more valueable teaching soldiers not to get killed.
-
XO was Condi Rice in charge when the IslamoNazis struck the World Trade Center the first time
on February 26, 1993 with a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds of explosives opening a 100 foot hole through 5 sublevels of concrete? The presiding judge said the conspirators' chief aim at the time of the attack was to destabilize the north tower and send it crashing into the south tower, toppling both landmarks. Get a grip dude.
============================================
This was what you might term the "Wake Up Call": the Juniorbushies should have known that there was not only a plan to wreak havoc on the US, but specifically on the WTC. But Condi snoozed, and did not ask the question "Hmmm... how else could they try to blow up this building?"
There is no such thing as an "IslamoNazi", please. Condi did not get a grip, and you still haven't gotten one.
-
Had the Sup[reme Court not stuck a moron on the throne, and had anyone of reasonable competence been National Security Advisor other than obsolete Soviet Scholar Condi Rice, there would have been no 9-11.
I find this extremely difficult to believe. There were failures and mistakes all through the intelligence community prior to the terrorist attacks. There were mistakes made before Bush the Younger took office. I am no fan of this administration, but I think you're completely wrong, and I don't believe you can find any evidence to back you up.
-
I think that's because it's supposed to be "obvious" for us all to see. Much like Cheney's theft of millions of "our" dollars :-\