Author Topic: Troop readiness dangerously low  (Read 4495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Troop readiness dangerously low
« 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
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2008, 02:10:56 AM »
Must be budget prep time.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2008, 10:37:58 AM »
Must be budget prep time.

Yeah, budgets are due in May.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2008, 07:42:50 PM »
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... ::)
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2008, 07:56:53 PM »
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.


_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2008, 08:23:01 PM »
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. ;)
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2008, 08:57:29 PM »
That's ok, i never mess much with the budget process.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2008, 09:34:43 PM »
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


"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2008, 10:37:23 PM »
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.  ::)
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 10:41:55 PM by Cynthia »

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2008, 10:52:02 PM »
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.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2008, 10:57:59 PM »
I think we should reinstitute the draft.

With the additional manpower the 12 on 24 off rotation will be no problem.


BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2008, 11:01:35 PM »
Oh yeah, my bad . Women should be eligible for the draft also. It's the 21st century after all.



Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2008, 11:04:48 PM »
"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.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 11:12:38 PM by Cynthia »

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2008, 11:10:32 PM »
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?


Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Troop readiness dangerously low
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2008, 11:20:59 PM »
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?