Full Version: The state of the Military Reserves
Most of you probably heard about the soldier who asked the Defense Secretary about why they had to dig in landfills for scrap metal and the like to armor their vehicles.
Most of you probably heard Secretary Rumsfeld's answer that amounted to saying that we are never going to be perfectly equipped for war and you have to work with what you have.
Some of you might not have heard another part of his answer where he points out that the military is upgrading armor at a rate of 400 vehicles per month.
Most have probably heard at this point that the soldier asked that question at the request of a reporter.
OK, first lets ignore the fact that a reporter asked the guy to ask this. I highly doubt the soldier would have asked the question if he thought it was untrue, and I doubt that the entire hanger would have cheered if it was untrue, so this is really a none issue.
Some suggest that Rumsfeld's answer was basically saying "tough, deal with it." While others seem to think it was an example of brutal honestly with complete disregard for the possible press back lash, in favor of being honest with the troops.
The problem I have with this issue is FAR bigger then who said what to who. Speaking as a Former member of the US Active Duty Military and A Desert Shield / Desert Storm Veteran, as well as a Current (for a little while yet) Member of the the US Military Reserves who was deployed to Kuwait and conducted several operations in Iraq during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom I see it like this.
Over the past 16 or so years we have massively reduced the size of the US military. We did so because we were no longer fighting a cold war, and because Desert Storm suggested that future conflicts would be world wide efforts.
However, when you are conducting Military planning, you have to consider all possibilities, including having to go it alone at times.
The Military Strategists shifted ALOT of responsiblity for future conflicts to the Reserves. Whole units and job classifications exist in the Reserves now that no longer exist in the active duty military (Like my unit for example).
This was a reasonable approach considering the state of the world at that time. Expected needs would be handled by the active duty with a small amount of reserve units used as well. Critical needs could be met by active duty and reserves combined.
Where they failed was in not changing how they handled the reserves to meet the new need. There was no massive budget increase for the reserves, and no surge in new equipment or training. As a matter of fact most units are severely underfunded in these regards.
For example, the Navy requires that my unit for X number of sailors qualified in XI number for special jobs from X number of military schools. However, our funding for training is so low it is impossible for us to meet these requirements as we do not have the ability to pay for them.
My unit uses very sophisticated sensor suites to do it's job. The sensor platforms are the key components that allow us to do the job we are designed to do. More importantly, no active duty unit is setup to do this job. So, if it needs do be done, one of the units like mine is activated. Yet there is not even enough funding for every one of these units to each have the needed sensor platforms.
As a result, some units have them and can train while others cannot, until that unit transfers the equipment to the next. And when units are mobilized there are that many fewer platforms for training purposes because some go to the field.
The Navy decided my unit needed automatic grenade launchers (Mark 19s) to better do our job. We got several. However, they apparently saw no reason to also give us an allotment of ammo for them. As a result these weapons were never unpacked from the grease, plastic and crates.
My unit conducted security patrols and convoy escorts both as secondary missions. We didn't deploy with Armored HUMVEES, we didn't deploy with unarmored ones, we deployed with an unarmored 3/4 ton truck.
The only reason we had a HUMVEE there, was because we found one, abandoned as a combat casualty, fixed it up, spray painted our unit insignia on it and made it "ours".
Which brings us to another point. This is not new. For example, the Sherman tanks we went to WWII with were KNOWN to be completely inadequate for the war with the Germans. The problem with then? Inadequate armor.
Also, you can't read a story about troops in combat without hearing about their unit "Scrounger". Military units have NEVER had everything they needed when in a combat zone. They have always had to scrounge up what they needed.
In my unit, I was a "Member" of what we called the "C.R.A.P. team". Creative, Requisition, Allocation and procurement. It was the C.R.A.P. team that got us the HUMVEE and later "made" armor for it. It was the C.R.A.P. team that got the unit Camo netting and razor wire for our security positions, canvas, cord and caulk to seal the bottoms of the tents from sand and critters, a third generator to power one of the outer positions, and it was the C.R.A.P. team that kept the unit in fresh fruit, toiletries and other little bits of home.
(No we did not try to C.R.A.P. ammo for the Mark-19. "acquiring" Ammo is a good way to become a friendly fire casualty).
Scrounging has ALWAYS been part of the military life.
Question for Debate:
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
QUOTE
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday faced open criticism from his own U.S. troops, who complained about inadequate armor for Iraq
"Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" the soldier asked.
Reuters"Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" the soldier asked.
Most of you probably heard Secretary Rumsfeld's answer that amounted to saying that we are never going to be perfectly equipped for war and you have to work with what you have.
QUOTE
But Rumsfeld added, "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
ReutersSome of you might not have heard another part of his answer where he points out that the military is upgrading armor at a rate of 400 vehicles per month.
QUOTE
Rumsfeld conceded that "not every vehicle has the degree of armor that it would be desirable for it to have," and said the Army was hurrying to provide more armored vehicles, adding 400 per month.
ReutersMost have probably heard at this point that the soldier asked that question at the request of a reporter.
QUOTE
In a related development, it was revealed Thursday that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla., published on its Web site an e-mail attributed to reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press, which states that Pitts worked with the soldier because he was not allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.
“Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have,” said the e-mail, which was sent to newspaper colleagues.
“I have been trying to get this story out for weeks — as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck,” the e-mail said.
MSNBC“Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have,” said the e-mail, which was sent to newspaper colleagues.
“I have been trying to get this story out for weeks — as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck,” the e-mail said.
OK, first lets ignore the fact that a reporter asked the guy to ask this. I highly doubt the soldier would have asked the question if he thought it was untrue, and I doubt that the entire hanger would have cheered if it was untrue, so this is really a none issue.
QUOTE
Hundreds of troops applauded a comrade who complained to Rumsfeld that U.S. forces were being forced to dig up scrap metal to protect their vehicles in Iraq because of a shortage of armored ones.
ReutersSome suggest that Rumsfeld's answer was basically saying "tough, deal with it." While others seem to think it was an example of brutal honestly with complete disregard for the possible press back lash, in favor of being honest with the troops.
The problem I have with this issue is FAR bigger then who said what to who. Speaking as a Former member of the US Active Duty Military and A Desert Shield / Desert Storm Veteran, as well as a Current (for a little while yet) Member of the the US Military Reserves who was deployed to Kuwait and conducted several operations in Iraq during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom I see it like this.
Over the past 16 or so years we have massively reduced the size of the US military. We did so because we were no longer fighting a cold war, and because Desert Storm suggested that future conflicts would be world wide efforts.
QUOTE
Post-Cold War force reductions reduced Army and Air Force end-strength by about 36 percent each. These reductions targeted major operational formations. For example, the active Army was reduced from 16 Divisions, 3 Armored Cavalry Regiments (ACR), and 2 Separate Brigades to 10 Divisions, 2 ACRs, and no separate brigades. The Air Force reduced from 239 to 198 squadrons of all types (17%) and from 76 to 55 total fighter and heavy bomber squadrons (28%).
Source (sources Source = “USAF Almanac 1998,” Air Force Magazine, Arlington, VA, Vol. 81, No. 5, May 1998, and “USAF Almanac 2002,” May 2002, USAF Almanac 2002)However, when you are conducting Military planning, you have to consider all possibilities, including having to go it alone at times.
The Military Strategists shifted ALOT of responsiblity for future conflicts to the Reserves. Whole units and job classifications exist in the Reserves now that no longer exist in the active duty military (Like my unit for example).
This was a reasonable approach considering the state of the world at that time. Expected needs would be handled by the active duty with a small amount of reserve units used as well. Critical needs could be met by active duty and reserves combined.
Where they failed was in not changing how they handled the reserves to meet the new need. There was no massive budget increase for the reserves, and no surge in new equipment or training. As a matter of fact most units are severely underfunded in these regards.
For example, the Navy requires that my unit for X number of sailors qualified in XI number for special jobs from X number of military schools. However, our funding for training is so low it is impossible for us to meet these requirements as we do not have the ability to pay for them.
My unit uses very sophisticated sensor suites to do it's job. The sensor platforms are the key components that allow us to do the job we are designed to do. More importantly, no active duty unit is setup to do this job. So, if it needs do be done, one of the units like mine is activated. Yet there is not even enough funding for every one of these units to each have the needed sensor platforms.
As a result, some units have them and can train while others cannot, until that unit transfers the equipment to the next. And when units are mobilized there are that many fewer platforms for training purposes because some go to the field.
The Navy decided my unit needed automatic grenade launchers (Mark 19s) to better do our job. We got several. However, they apparently saw no reason to also give us an allotment of ammo for them. As a result these weapons were never unpacked from the grease, plastic and crates.
My unit conducted security patrols and convoy escorts both as secondary missions. We didn't deploy with Armored HUMVEES, we didn't deploy with unarmored ones, we deployed with an unarmored 3/4 ton truck.
The only reason we had a HUMVEE there, was because we found one, abandoned as a combat casualty, fixed it up, spray painted our unit insignia on it and made it "ours".
Which brings us to another point. This is not new. For example, the Sherman tanks we went to WWII with were KNOWN to be completely inadequate for the war with the Germans. The problem with then? Inadequate armor.
Also, you can't read a story about troops in combat without hearing about their unit "Scrounger". Military units have NEVER had everything they needed when in a combat zone. They have always had to scrounge up what they needed.
In my unit, I was a "Member" of what we called the "C.R.A.P. team". Creative, Requisition, Allocation and procurement. It was the C.R.A.P. team that got us the HUMVEE and later "made" armor for it. It was the C.R.A.P. team that got the unit Camo netting and razor wire for our security positions, canvas, cord and caulk to seal the bottoms of the tents from sand and critters, a third generator to power one of the outer positions, and it was the C.R.A.P. team that kept the unit in fresh fruit, toiletries and other little bits of home.
(No we did not try to C.R.A.P. ammo for the Mark-19. "acquiring" Ammo is a good way to become a friendly fire casualty).Scrounging has ALWAYS been part of the military life.
Question for Debate:
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles and body armor) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
Interesting story and analysis. I've heard similar stories about "scrounging" in the military all my life. It does seem to be a tradition. However, the level of preparedness of the military seemed to be quite appropriate during previous administrations. At least, I've never heard about similar circumstances during combat situations in Bosnia or Desert Storm.
Iraq seems to be different because of the naive belief that Iraqis were going throw flowers before the "liberating" US military, that there would be no subsequent insurgency after a foreign power had invaded and occupied. In this sense, the logistical planning for the necessary materials did not happen in an anticipatory manner: it takes time for such things (like armored vehicles) to be manufactured. Instead, the necessary preparations were not made until after the insurgency was well under way since the belief was that the invasion and occupation could be done "on the cheap". Unfortunately, the consequence of this view resulted in things like inadequate armor. Of course, they are remedying the situation (or I'd like to believe so), but it takes time and the soldiers are paying the price now.
So, for responsibility, I'd have to place it squarely on the current administration and not previous administrations. There was time to ramp up production before the war and before the insurgency. It just wasn't done.
Interesting story and analysis. I've heard similar stories about "scrounging" in the military all my life. It does seem to be a tradition. However, the level of preparedness of the military seemed to be quite appropriate during previous administrations. At least, I've never heard about similar circumstances during combat situations in Bosnia or Desert Storm.
Iraq seems to be different because of the naive belief that Iraqis were going throw flowers before the "liberating" US military, that there would be no subsequent insurgency after a foreign power had invaded and occupied. In this sense, the logistical planning for the necessary materials did not happen in an anticipatory manner: it takes time for such things (like armored vehicles) to be manufactured. Instead, the necessary preparations were not made until after the insurgency was well under way since the belief was that the invasion and occupation could be done "on the cheap". Unfortunately, the consequence of this view resulted in things like inadequate armor. Of course, they are remedying the situation (or I'd like to believe so), but it takes time and the soldiers are paying the price now.
So, for responsibility, I'd have to place it squarely on the current administration and not previous administrations. There was time to ramp up production before the war and before the insurgency. It just wasn't done.
QUOTE(logophage @ Dec 9 2004, 10:07 PM)
Interesting story and analysis. I've heard similar stories about "scrounging" in the military all my life. It does seem to be a tradition. However, the level of preparedness of the military seemed to be quite appropriate during previous administrations. At least, I've never heard about similar circumstances during combat situations in Bosnia or Desert Storm.
During Desert Shield, Right When Kuwait was Invaded my Battle Group was in the Med on deployment. I was stationed on an Ammunition Ship at the time. The Battle Group was ordered through the Suez Canal. Several ships in the battle group did not have complete stocks of CBR (Chemical, Biological, Radiological) Defense gear for their sailors. Thinking an Ammo Ship would never be allowed into the Suez we gave all of our gear to the other ships. Later we were given authorization to go through the Canal.
It happens. There is Story after Story of Marines during the Island Campaigns in WWII not having proper gear, enough Ammo, etc. There were Troops at the Battle of the Bulge without boots and many without cold weather gear.
QUOTE
Iraq seems to be different because of the naive belief that Iraqis were going throw flowers before the "liberating" US military, that there would be no subsequent insurgency after a foreign power had invaded and occupied. In this sense, the logistical planning for the necessary materials did not happen in an anticipatory manner...
Lets take Armored HUMVEES as an example. A HUMVEE is designed to be fast, agile and able to be deployed via helicopter. It is also designed so that the troops can fight from the inside. When you armor a HUMVEE you can't deploy it by most helicopters, and the troops can no longer fight from the inside, though someone can stand through the top hatch to fight, or use a mounted weapon if they have one, but then they are not armored.
No one foresaw the roadside bomb problem. Poor planning, perhaps. But they didn't see it.
You are correct, IMHO when you say that the Administration didn't properly plan for what to do after the "war". This is one of the problems I have with them. However, the issue I am presenting here goes much farther.
QUOTE
So, for responsibility, I'd have to place it squarely on the current administration and not previous administrations. There was time to ramp up production before the war and before the insurgency. It just wasn't done.
You don't seem to see the scale of the problem. I am NOT absolving the current Adminstration, I have my own issues with them, as well as this war.
What I am saying is that when the previous adminstrations decided we no longer needed a large standing army because it was unlikely we would ever have a need for such troop numbers. They also planned so that if that need ever did come to pass they could meet it by activating Reserves and National Guard troops to increase the size of the force. What they didn't do is prepare for that possibility by increasing the funding of the reserves so that they could have the training and equipment to fill this need. This problem exists in EVERY reserve unit in the US.
Unless we face this issue, we are doomed to deal with it again and again in the future.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Dec 9 2004, 05:59 PM)
Most of you probably heard about the soldier who asked the Defense Secretary about why they had to dig in landfills for scrap metal and the like to armor their vehicles. ...
Question for Debate:
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
Interesting post, OS. It seems like a strange situation to me. Sure, we've always had to scrounge, and relying on predictability and orderliness wouldn't do. Question for Debate:
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
But shoe-horning reserves into serious applications for which they are neither prepared nor supported? What's with that? Running National Guard in the ground? Gracious.
There is always the possibility that all is not as it seems (I know, they have medications for this problem..
). I mean, what a heartache, to see our guys & gals rooting like scavengers for parts & material. "C'mon America, you just going to let this go on...?" 
$$$$ This fairly remarkable exchange with Rumsfeld in the hangar ... now it's supposed to have been a media-manipulation. But the Intel spooks and contractors outnumber reporters many to one, and what a choice chunk of PR, in many ways. These people are professionals - they couldn't think up something like this?
Shift gears. Most of us realize what an awkward tool the conventional military is, for cracking the terror nut. We have also heard repeatedly how the modern soldier on the ground is no longer just an order-follower, that they have to operate with more independence, figure things out for themselves ... no kidding, huh?
In many ways, tackling the terror problem is properly an Intelligence job. Operatives are like soldiers, but with extreme independence. In our current situation, we have many Humint acting more like boots than normal for them, and we have boots acting a lot more like Humint.
This strange perception that I seem to be noticing, of a blurring of the spy-soldier roles, does actually fit what should happen, to effectively tackle terrorism in the big picture and long term. Maybe I should have the nurse check my medication again ...
QUOTE(overlandsailor)
No one foresaw the roadside bomb problem. Poor planning, perhaps. But they didn't see it.
Haven't there been other wars where the enemy has used IED's? I don't have any real evidence, but I'm sure it's happened before Iraq. Maybe it's just one of the weapons of choice in Iraq. One example that pops into mind is the scene in Saving Private Ryan (which may not be 100% accurate) that showed the US soldiers making IED's with their socks, C4 (or some explosive), and axel grease.
I would think that the military would have foreseen this type of tactic used and planned appropriately, but maybe it was unforseen somehow.
As for the blame, I would put more of it on the current admin. for one reason: they decided to go to war. If the other administrations scaled down the military because it was too large, that's fine. The thing is, if we were planning on going into Iraq, shouldn't we have prepared more for it? I don't see how one can blame the Clinton and Bush admin for making it smaller, when if the current Bush admin decided to go in with what we had instead of stocking up or, really, getting to an appropriate point of preparedness. Something tells me if we had invaded Iraq 6 months later it would have been a very similar situation.
Also, as a side note, wouldn't we be having more success, or possibly just have less US troops over there, if we hadn't alienated some nations or had involved the UN?
This is not a new issue. And poor planning is the least of the problems. We have thousands of people in the Pentagon planning for war, and somehow they have yet to comprehend the fact that the people of eastern cultures just don''t think like us westerners.
In WW1, the first American troops going over to France were given weapons made by the French. They were junk. The first chance the doughboys got, they chucked the french rifles in favor of German weapons. Why did they not have American weapons? Because our leaders didn't want our newest and best weapons to fall into the hands of the germans. IIRC, it was the Browning BAR that was available back in the states, in warehouses. An alternative would have been getting suitable weapons from the British, but politics were such that no British officer was willing to share their more reliable weapons with Americans. Saw that on the History channel a few weeks ago.
From my experience of 12 years active duty, and 10 years in the reserves, I think that too many officers have a cavalier, if not callous, attitude towards the enlisted ranks. Our officers are more interested in getting their points and their ribbons that will help them get promoted. As long as they don't do anything too stupid, it works for them.
Got a neighbor who was in WW2. He saw many officers come up to the front, do a few patrols in relatively safe parts of the area, then got reassigned to the rear echelon. They did just enough to be able to say they were in the war, but not enough to face any real danger. I saw identical situations when in Vietnam. Only one of our officers was an Academy graduate, he was with us only a few months, and left with ribbons on his chest that the rest of was were not supposed to wear yet, as the authorization date had not arrived. He saw NO actual combat, but he was with us within the requisite time frame to qualify for certain ribbons/medals.
I suspect the officers who are doing the real fighting are the ones we enlisteds can trust to care about us, and the rest are in it for unearned glory.
In WW1, the first American troops going over to France were given weapons made by the French. They were junk. The first chance the doughboys got, they chucked the french rifles in favor of German weapons. Why did they not have American weapons? Because our leaders didn't want our newest and best weapons to fall into the hands of the germans. IIRC, it was the Browning BAR that was available back in the states, in warehouses. An alternative would have been getting suitable weapons from the British, but politics were such that no British officer was willing to share their more reliable weapons with Americans. Saw that on the History channel a few weeks ago.
From my experience of 12 years active duty, and 10 years in the reserves, I think that too many officers have a cavalier, if not callous, attitude towards the enlisted ranks. Our officers are more interested in getting their points and their ribbons that will help them get promoted. As long as they don't do anything too stupid, it works for them.
Got a neighbor who was in WW2. He saw many officers come up to the front, do a few patrols in relatively safe parts of the area, then got reassigned to the rear echelon. They did just enough to be able to say they were in the war, but not enough to face any real danger. I saw identical situations when in Vietnam. Only one of our officers was an Academy graduate, he was with us only a few months, and left with ribbons on his chest that the rest of was were not supposed to wear yet, as the authorization date had not arrived. He saw NO actual combat, but he was with us within the requisite time frame to qualify for certain ribbons/medals.
I suspect the officers who are doing the real fighting are the ones we enlisteds can trust to care about us, and the rest are in it for unearned glory.
QUOTE(overlandsailor)
No one foresaw the roadside bomb problem. Poor planning, perhaps. But they didn't see it.
QUOTE(Devils Advocate @ Dec 9 2004, 11:05 PM)
Haven't there been other wars where the enemy has used IED's? I don't have any real evidence, but I'm sure it's happened before Iraq. Maybe it's just one of the weapons of choice in Iraq. One example that pops into mind is the scene in Saving Private Ryan (which may not be 100% accurate) that showed the US soldiers making IED's with their socks, C4 (or some explosive), and axel grease.
I would think that the military would have foreseen this type of tactic used and planned appropriately, but maybe it was unforseen somehow.
I would think that the military would have foreseen this type of tactic used and planned appropriately, but maybe it was unforseen somehow.
That is true it has happened before. But I do not believe it had ever happened with such frequency. An isolated incident here or there but I don't recall any conflict where such tactics were nearly daily occurrences.
QUOTE
As for the blame, I would put more of it on the current admin. for one reason: they decided to go to war. If the other administrations scaled down the military because it was too large, that's fine. The thing is, if we were planning on going into Iraq, shouldn't we have prepared more for it?
ABSOLUTELY!!
You hit the nail right on the head as far as I am concerned. This is my primary problem with the Admin's handling of Iraq.We could have ramped up production of various equipment and materials and used the time to increase training and try to keep working with the UN to get it's support. In the interim we could have continued to contain Saddam, and if we felt there was a greater risk of materials exiting the country we could have increased the forces there to maintain that containment.
If in the end we did not get UN support, we would likely have gone in, and, based on the info we had at the time it would be a reasonable thing to do. If we did gain UN support, which would be quite possible if Saddam continued to obstruct inspections and the like since All of the worlds major Intelligence services were sure he has WMDs (though they disagreed on how much, where and what types),we would not be having troop strength problems right now.
QUOTE
I don't see how one can blame the Clinton and Bush admin for making it smaller, when if the current Bush admin decided to go in with what we had instead of stocking up or, really, getting to an appropriate point of preparedness. Something tells me if we had invaded Iraq 6 months later it would have been a very similar situation.
You can blame them because they made the decisions that resulted in the smaller military without properly planning and budgeting for various contingencies.
If this had been a conflict we could not avoid. Say for hypothetical purposes, Spain was behind the 9/11 bombing and for political reasons we could not get UN support to take action. Add to that Intelligence Data suggesting that Spain was producing missiles capable of hitting the US. In other words we had to go now. Would we not then blame this problem on the people who created it though poor planning and lack of foresight? Namely, the previous Administrations that made the cuts. (yes I know Iraq did not have a role in 9/11 or missiles to hit the US, this is a hypothetical
).The current Administration is certainly not blameless here, but the previous administrations put the wheels in motion that lead to this problem.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Dec 9 2004, 11:23 PM)
I think that too many officers have a cavalier, if not callous, attitude towards the enlisted ranks. Our officers are more interested in getting their points and their ribbons that will help them get promoted. As long as they don't do anything too stupid, it works for them.
From my experience this problem seems worse in the reserves. This is due to the fact that Reserve officers have so few opportunities to prove their leadership skills and show that they can handle command and tough assignments in order to get their next promotion. The result is that many Reserve officers will take risks and make decisions that most Active Duty Officers would not.
QUOTE(Devils Advocate)
I don't see how one can blame the Clinton and Bush admin for making it smaller, when if the current Bush admin decided to go in with what we had instead of stocking up or, really, getting to an appropriate point of preparedness. Something tells me if we had invaded Iraq 6 months later it would have been a very similar situation.
QUOTE(overlandsailor)
You can blame them because they made the decisions that resulted in the smaller military without properly planning and budgeting for various contingencies. If this had been a conflict we could not avoid. Say for hypothetical purposes, Spain was behind the 9/11 bombing and for political reasons we could not get UN support to take action.
What if China had been behind 9/11? Could we even begin to plan for a contingency like that, or keep up a military that big? I mean, if we're going to plan for all contingencies then we need plan for the worst possible attack.
QUOTE(overlandsailor)
The current Administration is certainly not blameless here, but the previous administrations put the wheels in motion that lead to this problem.
I would think the size of the military increases and decreases depending on the political climate, so I wouldn't blame the previous admins as much as the current. Has the military always been at the same size since its inception? We're the previous admins. the ones who deviated from the usual course, making the military smaller than usual? I feel that just like the armored vehicle idea, having enough personal runs along the same vein. If the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq and occupy it, we should have recruited or obtained the correct number or troops to do so, which I understand is easier said than done. But as Bill55AZ said:
QUOTE(Bill55AZ)
We have thousands of people in the Pentagon planning for war...
So the only two ideas I see here that could cause our estimates of troops and equipment necessary was either the Pentagon sucks at planning, or we expected an easier fight.
QUOTE
I would think the size of the military increases and decreases depending on the political climate, so I wouldn't blame the previous admins as much as the current. Has the military always been at the same size since its inception? We're the previous admins. the ones who deviated from the usual course, making the military smaller than usual? I feel that just like the armored vehicle idea, having enough personal runs along the same vein. If the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq and occupy it, we should have recruited or obtained the correct number or troops to do so, which I understand is easier said than done.
So then are you saying that when the previous adminstrations decided they could reduce the size of the active military and count on the reserves to cover any shortfalls but then didn't bother to increase the funding in the reserves to allow them to be prepared for that contingency by having up to date equipment and training, that was not a strategic error or a problem, if not a part of the cause of what we are seeing today?
I agree with you that the timing of the invasion is the fault of the Bush adminstration. However, if the previous adminstrations had properly handled the transition of responsiblities to the reserve units, then the problems we are now having with a reserve units being under equipped and under trained would likely not exist. I jut don't understand how you could not see this.
Trying to paint a picture to depict the scale of the problem, for my unit to be fully equiped and trained it would likely require an increase of funding of 50-60%. If we use this as a model, the reserve budget needed to be increased by at least 50%. This is something that would have likely required incramental increases. It could not be done in a year or two it would likely take several administrations to get to that point.
QUOTE(Devils Advocate @ Dec 9 2004, 08:46 PM)
I would think the size of the military increases and decreases depending on the political climate, so I wouldn't blame the previous admins as much as the current. Has the military always been at the same size since its inception? Were the previous admins. the ones who deviated from the usual course, making the military smaller than usual? I feel that just like the armored vehicle idea, having enough personal runs along the same vein. If the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq and occupy it, we should have recruited or obtained the correct number or troops to do so, which I understand is easier said than done.
The size of the military has certainly had its ups and downs. But, I only know of one time when an administration simultaneously drastically increased the number of military deployments while cutting personel and funding. This happened with the prior administration. Deployments increased 500 percent, and troop numbers were decreased by a third.
QUOTE
Washington Post 8/13/98 Bradley Graham and Eric Pianin "The Marine Corps is using retreads on its armored vehicles. Rising numbers of Air Force and Navy jet fighters are being grounded by spare-parts shortages and maintenance backlogs, and pilots fed up with repeated duty in the Persian Gulf are bailing out of military service in droves. At Army training facilities, commanders report that units arriving for exercises have shakier combat skills than in years past. Throughout the military, there is mounting evidence of erosion in America's combat strength and troop morale. A decade of downsizing and reduced post-Cold War defense spending has coincided with a sharp jump in the number of troop deployments to Bosnia, the Middle East and elsewhere, straining the armed forces in ways unseen since the last wave of defense budget cuts after the Vietnam War"
QUOTE
Florida Times/Union 9/1/98 "The American military is on the verge of a major crisis. U.S. Rep. Tillie Fowler, RJacksonville, notes that deployments have increased dramatically under the Clinton administration. The Army, she says, has been assigned 26 non-routine ''operational events'' since 1991. There had been only 10 in the preceding 31 years. The Air Force has undertaken 500 humanitarian missions to former Soviet states alone since 1992. But funding has not kept pace."
QUOTE
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 10/26/98 Ed Offle ".When one of its carrier-based electronic warfare squadrons returned from six months overseas a year ago, the first thing headquarters did was hold a homecoming party with families, champagne and balloons. Its second action, hours later, was to take away half the squadron's EA-6B Prowler aircraft and give them to other units, leaving the squadron unable to meet training requirements. The Electronic Attack Wing has 57 aircraft to divide among a training unit and 14 operational squadrons-19 aircraft less than the authorized inventory of four aircraft per squadron and 20 for the training unit..Squadrons in training that have to borrow other units' aircraft have to spend extra hours conducting the detailed maintenance to certify the aircraft. This overworks experienced technicians while cutting into the training time for junior sailors, officials said. Squadron commanders at Whidbey say there has been a recent exodus of experienced technicians from the service, partly because of these added pressures..Even when operating with a full load of aircraft, Prowler squadrons are frequently short of spare parts and must cannibalize planes to keep the maximum number flying..For budgetary and political reasons, the Navy this year severely cut back on low-level training flights and high G-force flight maneuvers that Prowler aviators say is essential to survive in combat.."
QUOTE
Investors Business Daily 12/7/98 Brian Mitchell ".A reporter recently asked Adm. Harold Gehman, commander of the U.S. Atlantic Command, about the Navy's mission and how the Navy planned to accomplish it with just 330 ships afloat. Gehman answered, ''It all depends on what the definition of 'it' is.'' During the Reagan administration's buildup in the '80s, the fleet had more than 550 ships. The Navy can't get any smaller with all that it's doing now, Gehman said. ''On the other hand, if the world turns into a peaceful place, we can afford a smaller Navy,'' he said. Today's U.S. military strategy is unclear.."
I agreed with the cuts, but not the ops tempo at the time. Without the previous dilapidation caused by large cuts combined with dramatic increases in deployments, we wouldn't be facing as many problems today. So, yes, previous administrations share some culpability there.
Speaking of equipment.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/09/survi...s.ap/index.html
A 90 percent survival rate is phenomenal. I do not believe that has ever been achieved.... ever.
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
I agree with overlandsailor that the previous administration cut the military down in a way which have caused a problem with the allocation of supplies and resources. If you take a look at the chart in the link below the DOD budget has increased tremendously in the past four years.
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/budget_analysis.htm
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/images/us_spending2.gif
The military commanders in the Pentagon as well as the administration didn't plan for a pro-longed insurgency on the scale in which it has accumulated to (they have admitted this). The up-armored Humvee's are nothing new and if the forsight of the military would have been better in estimating the guerrila war that followed perhaps the military would have deployed more up-armored Humvee's.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-...ored-humvee.htm
As the article state's the US Army considered the Humvee primarily for "utility and cross-country transportation". This would not have been a problem, but as a result of the insurgency simple "cross-country" daily transportation, even within the land that we control, has become the war. You wont see a "Humvee" attack squadron during a major conventional war, they only tag along in support (except for special operations). But to use M-1's and Bradly's primarily to transport troops from one place to another is not very practical. The lack of forsight ultimately is the culprit. If the military would have looked to Israel for experience they would have seen the value of the up-armoured Humvee's but they simply didn't think they would need them until it was allready happening.
But since the insurgency began to take root the military has fought back. One vehicle that went largely unnoticed was the deployment of a new variation of the Stryker.
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarAp...NEWS_M_A_04.htm
What they did to these APC's is put up re-enforced steel around the vehicle that looks like a fence. Shortly the additional armour variation will be deployed.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slat-stryker.htm
This has had limited success from what I have read. RPG's and IED's are what military needs to defeat. The latest technology to be deployed shortly is called "the prophet".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/prophet.htm
Ive also read about microphones being installed in Humvee's connected to a laptop. When an explosion or gunfire occurs it will display the approx. location of were the sound came from.
The previous administration caused the problem with the reserves due to the cut down in military strength and not increasing funding to the proper branches. The current administration as well as the military planners caused the lack of up-armoured Humvee's because of a lack of thorough contingency plans for a pro-longed guerrila war in Iraq. Which should have included increasing the production capability to produce up-armoured Humvee's.
I believe another major mistake was highering contracters from outside the country to build basic services. This resulted in a lower employement rate which is a key factor to corroding the support for the insurgents. Also dissolving the Iraqi military in one swift pen stroke as opposed to assimilating them into a new security force given proper screening procedures.
Of course these problems are easy to isolate in hindsight. Fortunately all of these problems are being addressed. More soldiers from the previous Iraqi military are being allowed to join the security forces, the up-armoured Humvee's are now being produced at a rate of 450/month and more local contracters are being highered.
http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/News/November/.../Article_64.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-...ored-humvee.htm
Mistakes at high level's can result in bloody consequences. It happened in WWI, WWII, Vietnam and every major war in the history of mankind. The key is to fix it and move on.
That said, overall the military has done a good job with keeping it's men and women alive.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/09/survi...s.ap/index.html
QUOTE
(AP) -- For every American soldier killed in Iraq, nine others have been wounded and survived -- the highest rate of any war in U.S. history.
It isn't that their injuries were less serious, a new report says. In fact, some young soldiers and Marines have had faces, arms and legs blown off and are now returning home badly maimed. But they have survived thanks, in part, to armor-like vests and fast treatment from doctors on the move with surgical kits in backpacks.
...
Kevlar helmets and vests are one reason for the high survival rate.
...
By mid-November, 10,369 American troops had been wounded in battle in Afghanistan or Iraq, and 1,004 had died -- a survival rate of roughly 90 percent. In the Vietnam War, one in four wounded died, virtually all of them before they could reach MASH units some distance from the fighting.
It isn't that their injuries were less serious, a new report says. In fact, some young soldiers and Marines have had faces, arms and legs blown off and are now returning home badly maimed. But they have survived thanks, in part, to armor-like vests and fast treatment from doctors on the move with surgical kits in backpacks.
...
Kevlar helmets and vests are one reason for the high survival rate.
...
By mid-November, 10,369 American troops had been wounded in battle in Afghanistan or Iraq, and 1,004 had died -- a survival rate of roughly 90 percent. In the Vietnam War, one in four wounded died, virtually all of them before they could reach MASH units some distance from the fighting.
A 90 percent survival rate is phenomenal. I do not believe that has ever been achieved.... ever.
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
I agree with overlandsailor that the previous administration cut the military down in a way which have caused a problem with the allocation of supplies and resources. If you take a look at the chart in the link below the DOD budget has increased tremendously in the past four years.
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/budget_analysis.htm
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/images/us_spending2.gif
The military commanders in the Pentagon as well as the administration didn't plan for a pro-longed insurgency on the scale in which it has accumulated to (they have admitted this). The up-armored Humvee's are nothing new and if the forsight of the military would have been better in estimating the guerrila war that followed perhaps the military would have deployed more up-armored Humvee's.
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-...ored-humvee.htm
QUOTE
Unlike the US army that considering the vehicle mainly for utility and cross-country transportation, the Israeli Army planned more tactical roles for the Humvee, which required higher level of protection. The heavier armor protection required further automotive and structural modifications stretching these M-1113 ECV designated vehicles to their limits. However, during the Lebanon conflict and fighting urban guerilla warfare in the occupied territories, the up-armored IDF Humvees, demonstrated their capability to withstand most types of attacks successfully.
As the article state's the US Army considered the Humvee primarily for "utility and cross-country transportation". This would not have been a problem, but as a result of the insurgency simple "cross-country" daily transportation, even within the land that we control, has become the war. You wont see a "Humvee" attack squadron during a major conventional war, they only tag along in support (except for special operations). But to use M-1's and Bradly's primarily to transport troops from one place to another is not very practical. The lack of forsight ultimately is the culprit. If the military would have looked to Israel for experience they would have seen the value of the up-armoured Humvee's but they simply didn't think they would need them until it was allready happening.
But since the insurgency began to take root the military has fought back. One vehicle that went largely unnoticed was the deployment of a new variation of the Stryker.
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarAp...NEWS_M_A_04.htm
What they did to these APC's is put up re-enforced steel around the vehicle that looks like a fence. Shortly the additional armour variation will be deployed.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slat-stryker.htm
QUOTE
The interim slat armor solution forms a metal frame barrier 50 cm ahead of the APC. The cage detonate anti-tank shaped charge warheads such as RPG away from the vehicle and prevent its hot chemical reaction from boring through and causing burns, shock and shrapnel wounds. General Dynamics, the Stryker manufacturer, is also developing an add-on plate armor that will defeat RPGs, planned for deployment by 2005. The slat armor weighs about 5,200 pounds, about 3,000 pounds lighter than the add-on anti-RPG add-on armor plates. The idea behind the cage armor goes back to World War II and Vietnam. Troops in that war improvised with chicken wire and other means to counter the RPG threat.
This has had limited success from what I have read. RPG's and IED's are what military needs to defeat. The latest technology to be deployed shortly is called "the prophet".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/prophet.htm
QUOTE
Signals Mapping (Electronic Mapping) (Primary Mission)
Electronic Attack (EA)
Navigation Warfare (NAVWAR)
More precise locationing techniques to assist in the targeting process
Selected signals internals exploitation (either directly from the Ground or remotely from Air)
Electronic Attack (EA)
Navigation Warfare (NAVWAR)
More precise locationing techniques to assist in the targeting process
Selected signals internals exploitation (either directly from the Ground or remotely from Air)
Ive also read about microphones being installed in Humvee's connected to a laptop. When an explosion or gunfire occurs it will display the approx. location of were the sound came from.
The previous administration caused the problem with the reserves due to the cut down in military strength and not increasing funding to the proper branches. The current administration as well as the military planners caused the lack of up-armoured Humvee's because of a lack of thorough contingency plans for a pro-longed guerrila war in Iraq. Which should have included increasing the production capability to produce up-armoured Humvee's.
I believe another major mistake was highering contracters from outside the country to build basic services. This resulted in a lower employement rate which is a key factor to corroding the support for the insurgents. Also dissolving the Iraqi military in one swift pen stroke as opposed to assimilating them into a new security force given proper screening procedures.
Of course these problems are easy to isolate in hindsight. Fortunately all of these problems are being addressed. More soldiers from the previous Iraqi military are being allowed to join the security forces, the up-armoured Humvee's are now being produced at a rate of 450/month and more local contracters are being highered.
http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/News/November/.../Article_64.htm
QUOTE
Just weeks after the Bradley’s 25mm guns were clearing Anti Iraqi Forces from the streets of Samarra and restoring order, economic activity was climbing to new heights, store fronts booming with goods for sale, market places bustling with movement, and decades old trash, rubble, and graffiti disappeared as it was being carried away by a robust and motivated work force. To many, it had transformed itself into a new city, made up of smiling faces that showed few signs of lingering animosity. Some locals were even complimenting the achievements of the Iraqi National Guard soldiers who successfully expelled the parasitic terrorists from the belly of the Golden Mosque. It appeared that the people of Samarra were ready to move on and break away from their previous chains of dependence. The ultimate question is, how did we do it and how do we continue to do it?
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-...ored-humvee.htm
QUOTE
Among the most dangerous are the IED ambush and roadside bombs. In autumn 2003, responding to urgent calls from the field, requesting armor suits for the soft vehicles, the US Army launched a crash program to protect many of Humvees. The program proceeded in two parallel directions – accelerated delivery of highly protected up-armored vehicle, and implementation of improvised near-term solutions adding some protection levels to the crews. Makeshift armoring of vehicles, and ad-hoc in-the-field solutions became temporary measures by the forces in situ.
On May 2004 the US Senate approved US$618 million funding for the production of 300 M1114s per month from May through October, and 450 per month, from October 2004 till March 2006. $610 million were also allocated for armor kits for existing tactical vehicles. According to Major General John Sattler, Director of Operations for CENTCOM, the US Army initial assessments were that 1,000 up-armored Humvees will be sufficient for patrol, convoy protection and transportation in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, as opposition forces in both countries changed their ambush tactics and IED techniques, the numbers where updated, calling up for 2,500 more M-1114 up-armored Humvees. Currently, production of 2,000 more vehicles are on contract, and expected to be delivered in theater by December 2004, with approximately 4,500 up-armored humvees scheduled to be operational in the theater. In addition, 8,000 up-armored kits are on ordered and being installed to protect windshields and doors for additional vehicles, including trucked and soft skinned Humvees.
On May 2004 the US Senate approved US$618 million funding for the production of 300 M1114s per month from May through October, and 450 per month, from October 2004 till March 2006. $610 million were also allocated for armor kits for existing tactical vehicles. According to Major General John Sattler, Director of Operations for CENTCOM, the US Army initial assessments were that 1,000 up-armored Humvees will be sufficient for patrol, convoy protection and transportation in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, as opposition forces in both countries changed their ambush tactics and IED techniques, the numbers where updated, calling up for 2,500 more M-1114 up-armored Humvees. Currently, production of 2,000 more vehicles are on contract, and expected to be delivered in theater by December 2004, with approximately 4,500 up-armored humvees scheduled to be operational in the theater. In addition, 8,000 up-armored kits are on ordered and being installed to protect windshields and doors for additional vehicles, including trucked and soft skinned Humvees.
Mistakes at high level's can result in bloody consequences. It happened in WWI, WWII, Vietnam and every major war in the history of mankind. The key is to fix it and move on.
That said, overall the military has done a good job with keeping it's men and women alive.
I would have to opt with direct selection in this case. The type war in iraq was something the army did not evolve its forces for. its rather simple to me in that regard. The force initiative was to structure the forces of america to counter or be able to deal with such a threat. This was not reached when we engaged in a war that is of that type of threat. This can lead to many shortcomings in a varity of areas despite particular label of shortcoming. The reserves have one weekend a month and two weeks a year to train in order to fall into accord with any mission they may have, active duty is typically all year in regards to training. Then you have to factor in equipment, such as what would work better, and m4 rifle or an m16 rifle or mp5's, so on. I think the acronym for such is MTOE, then you may also have TTP, which falls in line with strategic, operational and tactical thinking, etc.. You can find that many soldiers or just members of the armed forces are not doing directly what they have spent time in training for in regards to the iraq war.
The u.s never lost the ability to defend itself in war, but the question is about force in regards to conflict like vietnam or iraq. You can read about many things soldiers have done that they would never have done in training, and having to shore up for certain environments and so on. Then there is also various aspects they did train for, in which this lead to more success in the giving environment they have to occupy. I know that for my experience of being trained in my job never covered anything i had to adapt to and or function with, and most everything was new to me. I also got a lot of equipment i had never used in a training environment(on a side note, i am in no real danger) Overall though, having new equipment and or new procedures to follow quickly in a high stress environment is not the best route to follow. When reacting to fight or flight, thought can become hard and so on, like if you have ever been in a car wreck or something else scary to such a degree.
I think the problem of such all goes back to management of force in terms of application for any giving environment. I doubt i would spend years training a force for operation in urban or desert environments to throw such into open field war in the artic, with equipment that is alien to them for the most part along with procedures for operation. Its not a winning formula really. You can find a massive quick thrust of change all through the army now, even in regards to how people are trained in basic training and a multitude of programs to come. Various structures or force in the army or so on that have been trained for scenarios or environments like iraq have done well, like the striker brigade. So it would be daft in light of such evidence to say a majority of problems in such arose from bad management and decision in use of force initially, which then brought the various problems that have stemmed from such. In regards to the reserve, its the same issue. You would have to manage the reserve in the optimal fashion in order to prepare them for the mission they are to take. That is all you can really do, and if such is not being met, and they are being deployed anyways, then you are really setting yourself up for failure. Much of this thought was of the same in various levels of army managment alone that has left such posts....
The u.s never lost the ability to defend itself in war, but the question is about force in regards to conflict like vietnam or iraq. You can read about many things soldiers have done that they would never have done in training, and having to shore up for certain environments and so on. Then there is also various aspects they did train for, in which this lead to more success in the giving environment they have to occupy. I know that for my experience of being trained in my job never covered anything i had to adapt to and or function with, and most everything was new to me. I also got a lot of equipment i had never used in a training environment(on a side note, i am in no real danger) Overall though, having new equipment and or new procedures to follow quickly in a high stress environment is not the best route to follow. When reacting to fight or flight, thought can become hard and so on, like if you have ever been in a car wreck or something else scary to such a degree.
I think the problem of such all goes back to management of force in terms of application for any giving environment. I doubt i would spend years training a force for operation in urban or desert environments to throw such into open field war in the artic, with equipment that is alien to them for the most part along with procedures for operation. Its not a winning formula really. You can find a massive quick thrust of change all through the army now, even in regards to how people are trained in basic training and a multitude of programs to come. Various structures or force in the army or so on that have been trained for scenarios or environments like iraq have done well, like the striker brigade. So it would be daft in light of such evidence to say a majority of problems in such arose from bad management and decision in use of force initially, which then brought the various problems that have stemmed from such. In regards to the reserve, its the same issue. You would have to manage the reserve in the optimal fashion in order to prepare them for the mission they are to take. That is all you can really do, and if such is not being met, and they are being deployed anyways, then you are really setting yourself up for failure. Much of this thought was of the same in various levels of army managment alone that has left such posts....
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Dec 10 2004, 01:59 AM)
I agree with overlandsailor that the previous administration cut the military down in a way which have caused a problem with the allocation of supplies and resources. If you take a look at the chart in the link below the DOD budget has increased tremendously in the past four years.
QUOTE
The previous administration caused the problem with the reserves due to the cut down in military strength and not increasing funding to the proper branches. The current administration as well as the military planners caused the lack of up-armoured Humvee's because of a lack of thorough contingency plans for a pro-longed guerrila war in Iraq. Which should have included increasing the production capability to produce up-armoured Humvee's.
Well, remember that this "downsizing" of the US Military started under President George HW Bush. Most of the downsizing at that time was reducing the number of bases in the US, but they also began the personnel reductions. I was still in the Navy when the first batch of early retirement offers began, that was around 1990-1991. I have several friends who took advantage of those programs.
This is evident in the chart you provided at this link: your link
By the chart, it looks like the cuts in the military bedget actually began in the late 80s. So obviously it is something that was done by more then just the Clinton Administration.
So the cause of this is the result of the previous administrationS, not just the Clinton Administration. For the most part, the Clinton Administration was simply continuing a policy that was enacted by the previous administration.
QUOTE
I believe another major mistake was highering contracters from outside the country to build basic services. This resulted in a lower employement rate which is a key factor to corroding the support for the insurgents. Also dissolving the Iraqi military in one swift pen stroke as opposed to assimilating them into a new security force given proper screening procedures.
That's an interesting point. It is likely that there are those who are Insugents because they could financially take care of their family before the war, and now for one reason or another cannot. It is true that we hire outside contractors to do alot of work, but many of these contractors hire local Iraqis to work on their projects. Though usually the Iraqis are in the minority and hired mainly for unskilled labor as most of the successful skilled labor contractors in Iraq prior to the fall of Saddam were Saddam supporters (as they had to be to get any work). It's an issue of who can you trust?
It could be that the some Insurgents would not be insurgents if they were gainfully employed. However, some Insurgents are from outside Iraq as well. The majority of Insurgents are Iraqis that have been convinced by religious extremists and outside influences that the US is an evil empire attempting to take Iraq from them. Then you have the smaller group of Insurgents that are blinded by the rage of loosing loved ones, and the larger group of insurgents that were members of Saddams party and the elite of Iraq who, as a result of US action are now out of power.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Dec 10 2004, 03:28 AM)
Well, remember that this "downsizing" of the US Military started under President George HW Bush. Most of the downsizing at that time was reducing the number of bases in the US, but they also began the personnel reductions. I was still in the Navy when the first batch of early retirement offers began, that was around 1990-1991. I have several friends who took advantage of those programs.
The downsizing in and of itself wasn't a bad idea. The cold war was over, and it was time to cut expenses. The problem is, when you downsize you can't overtax what you have remaining. We have a large problem now with airplanes at training bases. Often, no one can train because they are all down for maintenance. When those planes get up in the air, they are failing at unusually high rates because they were strained from doing so many missions. This has been happening for years and has been getting worse and worse. There's only a certain amount of funding. When you tax the equipment, you need to put money back in to replacing it or getting fixed. It's a vicious cycle. If this isn't done, it becomes a huge problem later which takes a massive amount of money and years to overcome. Again, increasing deployment rates 500 percent while cutting manpower and financial support drastically is a bad idea. That happened on Clinton's watch. You might argue that Bush senior would have done the same (I disagree), but he didn't.
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
Short answer, a little of both. Actually Rumsfeld was correct in his statement that 'we go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we want'. The rate of new equipment getting to the troops, especially in the form of RFI, (Rapid Fielding Initiative) has been phenomenal.
The rate in which I have seen gee-whiz cool-guy gear coming to my units in the last few years dwarfs the previous decade when I was a young trooper during the Cold War. It's never going to be enough, or get to us fast enough to quiet the griping, but an objective look by those in the foxhole will bear out a marked improvement.
I would most certainly like to go to war with the M8 Assault Rifle, next gen Night Vision Devices and integrated GPS/Comms for all soldiers. That stuff is coming, but R&D, testing, budgeting and fielding takes some time. What also takes time is shifting dynamics such as IED's, which were never seen in past conflicts as we see them now. The HMMWV was never designed to be armored, nor were most vehicles. If they were, we'd simply put everyone in tanks. But we're adapting. And with that comes added problems, like final drives and transmissions wearing out at a faster rate due to the increased weight of the armor. The Stryker is a great vehicle, but we have to remember, the doctrine for how to employ and fight the Stryker was being tested just three years ago. Rare is the case where we throw into combat untested equipment and doctrine.
Speaking to the scrounging aspect........it has always been a part of military life and it always will be. Soldiers often fight boredom by trying to better their life in terms of creature comforts, and are always ingenious in devising ways to improve their survivability.
The reason so many Guard and Reserve units have deployed to OIF and OEF is this, in the eighties and early nineties (if not before, to an extent), the Army shifted a large portion of the support functions from the active duty component to the reserves. Whether or not this was a good idea can and will remain to be debated. The problem I see, and from the experiences of myself and my wife, is the attitude of soldiers and leaders in the reserves. These soldiers go through basic training/AIT and get to their unit and civilian job........and get 'unmilitary'. When deployed, many of them cop the attitude that they shouldn't be held to standards, regulations and typical duty hours.......
Obviously that's not the case across the board, so no offense to our reservists here, but I have seen this phenomenon first hand, and it's distressing.
Short answer, a little of both. Actually Rumsfeld was correct in his statement that 'we go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we want'. The rate of new equipment getting to the troops, especially in the form of RFI, (Rapid Fielding Initiative) has been phenomenal.
The rate in which I have seen gee-whiz cool-guy gear coming to my units in the last few years dwarfs the previous decade when I was a young trooper during the Cold War. It's never going to be enough, or get to us fast enough to quiet the griping, but an objective look by those in the foxhole will bear out a marked improvement.
I would most certainly like to go to war with the M8 Assault Rifle, next gen Night Vision Devices and integrated GPS/Comms for all soldiers. That stuff is coming, but R&D, testing, budgeting and fielding takes some time. What also takes time is shifting dynamics such as IED's, which were never seen in past conflicts as we see them now. The HMMWV was never designed to be armored, nor were most vehicles. If they were, we'd simply put everyone in tanks. But we're adapting. And with that comes added problems, like final drives and transmissions wearing out at a faster rate due to the increased weight of the armor. The Stryker is a great vehicle, but we have to remember, the doctrine for how to employ and fight the Stryker was being tested just three years ago. Rare is the case where we throw into combat untested equipment and doctrine.
Speaking to the scrounging aspect........it has always been a part of military life and it always will be. Soldiers often fight boredom by trying to better their life in terms of creature comforts, and are always ingenious in devising ways to improve their survivability.
The reason so many Guard and Reserve units have deployed to OIF and OEF is this, in the eighties and early nineties (if not before, to an extent), the Army shifted a large portion of the support functions from the active duty component to the reserves. Whether or not this was a good idea can and will remain to be debated. The problem I see, and from the experiences of myself and my wife, is the attitude of soldiers and leaders in the reserves. These soldiers go through basic training/AIT and get to their unit and civilian job........and get 'unmilitary'. When deployed, many of them cop the attitude that they shouldn't be held to standards, regulations and typical duty hours.......
Obviously that's not the case across the board, so no offense to our reservists here, but I have seen this phenomenon first hand, and it's distressing.
Everybody wants to have the latest and greatest gear, especially when either training or going into combat.
Do our troops have that equipment, obviously they do not. Why not? For several reasons the current administration is partly to blame, the same for previous administrations. And let's not forget Congress, they too have a lot to answer for.
Not only are the troops short on the proper equipment and will be for a long time, because not only was in not purchased in the correct amount, there are other reasons. Such as the fact that spare parts inventories were not high on the list of requirements so not all of the gear can be repaired. Many of the companies are no longer around to make those parts because of the previous lack of spending has forced them out of business. Nor was training especially of National Guard and Reserve units placed at a high level.
The number of forces were cut way to quickly, the Congress and Administration wanted the so-called 'Peace Dividend' far faster than it materialized. They also closed the bases needed to train those forces. The facilities left are not up to the task of providing the needed training areas, housing for our troops in inadequate, medical care is good, but more is needed.
There is a lot of blame to go around, the real question is what do we do now? Where do we go from here?
Do our troops have that equipment, obviously they do not. Why not? For several reasons the current administration is partly to blame, the same for previous administrations. And let's not forget Congress, they too have a lot to answer for.
Not only are the troops short on the proper equipment and will be for a long time, because not only was in not purchased in the correct amount, there are other reasons. Such as the fact that spare parts inventories were not high on the list of requirements so not all of the gear can be repaired. Many of the companies are no longer around to make those parts because of the previous lack of spending has forced them out of business. Nor was training especially of National Guard and Reserve units placed at a high level.
The number of forces were cut way to quickly, the Congress and Administration wanted the so-called 'Peace Dividend' far faster than it materialized. They also closed the bases needed to train those forces. The facilities left are not up to the task of providing the needed training areas, housing for our troops in inadequate, medical care is good, but more is needed.
There is a lot of blame to go around, the real question is what do we do now? Where do we go from here?
I think it is quite understandable that our forces did not have all of the equipment that would be needed in the initial months of fighting. As the reality and risks of fighting in Iraq became apparent, quickly the shortage of body armor and the need to either use tanks or reenforce Humvees arose.
My greatest concern here is that this issue was not seized on quickly and fast-tracked to become a priority. In wartime we have the ability to jump start production. Does anyone on this site argue that we couldn't have produced enough body armor and humvee armor for every soldier we have in Iraq by now if it had become a priority in March of 2003?
My greatest concern here is that this issue was not seized on quickly and fast-tracked to become a priority. In wartime we have the ability to jump start production. Does anyone on this site argue that we couldn't have produced enough body armor and humvee armor for every soldier we have in Iraq by now if it had become a priority in March of 2003?
The issue of body armor comes up frequently, and if I'm not seeing something here, somebody please direct me to some sources.
I do not know of a unit in the Army that deployed to OIF without body armor. Armor has been in the inventory for virtually every unit since Vietnam. I don't know maybe some postal units didn't have any........
To keep the issue clear, the body armor many units had was the kevlar fabric anti-fragmentation vests form early 80's technology. The Interceptor Body Armor had been in the supply pipeline since the late 90's and had arrived to most light infantry and other combat arms units by the time they deployed to Iraq for the commencement of hostilities. It would of course be great if all units had this equipment prior to deployment, but you'd find yourself in a perpetual cycle of never being ready for war if you always had to wait for that next generation item of equipment.
I personally know of an Army Reserve Quartermaster Company (hardly a front line unit) that had the Interceptors (with ceramic plates) at the beginning of OIF 2. I recognize shortages and wish we lived in a perfect world, but I think that the body armor issue has been blown out of proportion and used as a political football for two long.
I do not know of a unit in the Army that deployed to OIF without body armor. Armor has been in the inventory for virtually every unit since Vietnam. I don't know maybe some postal units didn't have any........
To keep the issue clear, the body armor many units had was the kevlar fabric anti-fragmentation vests form early 80's technology. The Interceptor Body Armor had been in the supply pipeline since the late 90's and had arrived to most light infantry and other combat arms units by the time they deployed to Iraq for the commencement of hostilities. It would of course be great if all units had this equipment prior to deployment, but you'd find yourself in a perpetual cycle of never being ready for war if you always had to wait for that next generation item of equipment.
I personally know of an Army Reserve Quartermaster Company (hardly a front line unit) that had the Interceptors (with ceramic plates) at the beginning of OIF 2. I recognize shortages and wish we lived in a perfect world, but I think that the body armor issue has been blown out of proportion and used as a political football for two long.
QUOTE(overlandsailor)
So then are you saying that when the previous adminstrations decided they could reduce the size of the active military and count on the reserves to cover any shortfalls but then didn't bother to increase the funding in the reserves to allow them to be prepared for that contingency by having up to date equipment and training, that was not a strategic error or a problem, if not a part of the cause of what we are seeing today?
What I was saying is that the previous administrations should not be held accountable for making the military smaller when it was deemed necessary. On the other hand, if our plan was to give more of the fighting responsibility to the reserves then we should blame the previous admins for not properly allocating funds and keeping them up to date.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Dec 9 2004, 07:40 PM)
You don't seem to see the scale of the problem. I am NOT absolving the current Adminstration, I have my own issues with them, as well as this war.
What I am saying is that when the previous adminstrations decided we no longer needed a large standing army because it was unlikely we would ever have a need for such troop numbers. They also planned so that if that need ever did come to pass they could meet it by activating Reserves and National Guard troops to increase the size of the force. What they didn't do is prepare for that possibility by increasing the funding of the reserves so that they could have the training and equipment to fill this need. This problem exists in EVERY reserve unit in the US.
What I am saying is that when the previous adminstrations decided we no longer needed a large standing army because it was unlikely we would ever have a need for such troop numbers. They also planned so that if that need ever did come to pass they could meet it by activating Reserves and National Guard troops to increase the size of the force. What they didn't do is prepare for that possibility by increasing the funding of the reserves so that they could have the training and equipment to fill this need. This problem exists in EVERY reserve unit in the US.
I think I understand what you're getting at here. When large deployment conflicts (like Iraq) are not happening, the military (like any bureaucracy) will use administrative and logistical tricks to support the "latest thing" at the expense of more traditional aspects of the military (such as foot soldier armaments). I don't know whether to blame the previous administrations or just the military itself for this. I tend towards the latter since it is reasonable for those administrations to trust the military to determine what the appropriate emphasis should be.
During a time of war (and/or large scale deployments), however, there is no excuse for sending soldiers into harm's way without the armaments and protections at the technological and manufacturing capabilities of the time. In the case of Iraq, I think there is ample evidence to suggest that the current administration is to blame, that the military was at least partially ignored in this regard.
That said, if you're asking whether or not a better job could have been done during previous administrations, then, sure, I'd have to say: yes. Yet, if there is no war and no reasonable prospect for war, then it is easy to see why certain actions (like you've cited) were not taken. It's easy to see why scaling back efforts (such as Mrs. P cites) were done. The questions remain: (1) how large should the armed forces be, (2) how combat ready should they be and (3) what is appropriate benefit/cost ratio?
Under Bush I and Clinton, the thought was that future wars would not involve invasion and mass occupation of another nation. Thus, the type of military was scaled to fit the model. Clearly, there were problems; the execution was far from perfect. Nevertheless, applying the strategies of today retroactively on the strategies of yesterday is a logical fallacy.
QUOTE
Unless we face this issue, we are doomed to deal with it again and again in the future.
I couldn't agree more with this statement.
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
The issue is deeper than soldiers scrounging for materials. Previous administrations did not start an unnecessary war with a shortage of the proper equipment. If this administration felt duty-bound to do so, then they are similarly duty-bound to be sure they were prepared for it.
I found Rumsfeld’s comments condescending and disrespectful of legitimate problems the soldiers in Iraq are facing. It sounds to me as if he’s telling them, tough luck, boys, deal with it; don't be wusses. I’d be willing to bet Rumsfeld never travels in anything less than a fully armored vehicle during his “morale-boosting visits.” Who's the wuss here?
The other question posed has been lost in all the hysteria over whether or not a reporter helped the soldier formulate his question about armoring. When another soldier questioned how long they were going to be held over via the stop loss policy, Rummy was put on the spot. This wasn’t the unconditional love (or fear) he has come to expect from the armed forces. And after getting all testy, he rambled on and on about how it was nothing new, it’s an understood policy, etc., but NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
I think the whole issue speaks to the incompetence of this Secretary of Defense, and his lack of regard for the troops as human beings, not just "units" or "troops". I'd like to see him read his dismissive quote about armored vehicles to some 19-year old kid who has had his legs blown off by a roadside bomb. The only armor kept in tip-top shape is the armor Rumsfeld seems to have protecting his job.
His arrogance and lack of planning are key to the mess in Iraq. He's a cold war fossil with no clue how to fight a guerrilla war in an urban environment in a foreign culture.
This is a man whose “accomplishments” include:
Poor planning (if any) for the Iraqi invasion, occupation and security
Underestimating troop strength needs
Underestimating equipment needs
Underestimating his adversary
Alienated Iraqi people
Along with Bush, managed to turn the world’s good will toward us after 9/11 to disgust
Disregarded advice from generals
Disregarded the Geneva Convention guidelines
Lied about torture
No plan for the peace
No plan for transition
No regard for the soldier on the ground
Put the stop-loss policy in place
1,400 American deaths
He has proven himself to be a horrible war planner, and an even worse peace planner (and his personality ain’t winning him any prizes, either). His only virtue seems to be his yes-man relationship with Bush. Of all the cabinet members who are leaving, the worst of the worst is the one who is proudly kept on.
And I’ll conclude with this Rumsfeld Yogi Berra-esque quote:
I know that he knows he thinks he knows what he thought he said, but WTF????
The issue is deeper than soldiers scrounging for materials. Previous administrations did not start an unnecessary war with a shortage of the proper equipment. If this administration felt duty-bound to do so, then they are similarly duty-bound to be sure they were prepared for it.
I found Rumsfeld’s comments condescending and disrespectful of legitimate problems the soldiers in Iraq are facing. It sounds to me as if he’s telling them, tough luck, boys, deal with it; don't be wusses. I’d be willing to bet Rumsfeld never travels in anything less than a fully armored vehicle during his “morale-boosting visits.” Who's the wuss here?
The other question posed has been lost in all the hysteria over whether or not a reporter helped the soldier formulate his question about armoring. When another soldier questioned how long they were going to be held over via the stop loss policy, Rummy was put on the spot. This wasn’t the unconditional love (or fear) he has come to expect from the armed forces. And after getting all testy, he rambled on and on about how it was nothing new, it’s an understood policy, etc., but NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
I think the whole issue speaks to the incompetence of this Secretary of Defense, and his lack of regard for the troops as human beings, not just "units" or "troops". I'd like to see him read his dismissive quote about armored vehicles to some 19-year old kid who has had his legs blown off by a roadside bomb. The only armor kept in tip-top shape is the armor Rumsfeld seems to have protecting his job.
His arrogance and lack of planning are key to the mess in Iraq. He's a cold war fossil with no clue how to fight a guerrilla war in an urban environment in a foreign culture.
This is a man whose “accomplishments” include:
Poor planning (if any) for the Iraqi invasion, occupation and security
Underestimating troop strength needs
Underestimating equipment needs
Underestimating his adversary
Alienated Iraqi people
Along with Bush, managed to turn the world’s good will toward us after 9/11 to disgust
Disregarded advice from generals
Disregarded the Geneva Convention guidelines
Lied about torture
No plan for the peace
No plan for transition
No regard for the soldier on the ground
Put the stop-loss policy in place
1,400 American deaths
He has proven himself to be a horrible war planner, and an even worse peace planner (and his personality ain’t winning him any prizes, either). His only virtue seems to be his yes-man relationship with Bush. Of all the cabinet members who are leaving, the worst of the worst is the one who is proudly kept on.
And I’ll conclude with this Rumsfeld Yogi Berra-esque quote:
QUOTE
“I don't know what the facts are, but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him [Wilson] and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know, and that's a good thing," Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday … LA Times
I know that he knows he thinks he knows what he thought he said, but WTF????
As an update to this thread, I thought I'd cite this article: Six Army reservists court-martialed for scrounging equipment in Iraq.
Apparently, overlandsailor, there's a backlash happening against "scrounging".
QUOTE(from article)
...six Ohio-based reservists were court-martialed for taking Army vehicles abandoned in Kuwait by other units so they could carry out their own unit's mission to Iraq.
Apparently, overlandsailor, there's a backlash happening against "scrounging".
One more nail in the coffin of good relationships between the lower ranks and the officers. The individuals should have been rewarded for their initiative. It has to have been one of the desk warriors who pushed for punishment.
Oh, yeah, I wonder if the recruiters are going to have to answer any questions about this. This is not the way to entice our young people to sign up.
Oh, yeah, I wonder if the recruiters are going to have to answer any questions about this. This is not the way to entice our young people to sign up.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Dec 13 2004, 07:43 PM)
One more nail in the coffin of good relationships between the lower ranks and the officers. The individuals should have been rewarded for their initiative. It has to have been one of the desk warriors who pushed for punishment.
Oh, yeah, I wonder if the recruiters are going to have to answer any questions about this. This is not the way to entice our young people to sign up.
Oh, yeah, I wonder if the recruiters are going to have to answer any questions about this. This is not the way to entice our young people to sign up.
Actually, the commanding officer, a Major, was fined and jailed as well. This article provides more details. This is truly awful.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 14 2004, 04:12 AM)
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Dec 13 2004, 07:43 PM)
One more nail in the coffin of good relationships between the lower ranks and the officers. The individuals should have been rewarded for their initiative. It has to have been one of the desk warriors who pushed for punishment.
Oh, yeah, I wonder if the recruiters are going to have to answer any questions about this. This is not the way to entice our young people to sign up.
Oh, yeah, I wonder if the recruiters are going to have to answer any questions about this. This is not the way to entice our young people to sign up.
Actually, the commanding officer, a Major, was fined and jailed as well. This article provides more details. This is truly awful.
I know, and as I said in a previous post, the REAL officers who are deserving of respect are the ones in the field doing the fighting. It is the rear echelon officer, the desk warrior, who comes up with this kind of stupidity. The President needs to step in as Commander in Chief and correct this.
I expect to see more about this on 60 minutes or 20/20.
QUOTE(logophage @ Dec 13 2004, 06:20 PM)
As an update to this thread, I thought I'd cite this article: Six Army reservists court-martialed for scrounging equipment in Iraq.
Apparently, overlandsailor, there's a backlash happening against "scrounging".
QUOTE(from article)
...six Ohio-based reservists were court-martialed for taking Army vehicles abandoned in Kuwait by other units so they could carry out their own unit's mission to Iraq.
Apparently, overlandsailor, there's a backlash happening against "scrounging".
Read it again, they were not punished for "scrounging".
QUOTE
The soldiers say they needed the vehicles, and parts stripped from one, to deliver fuel to Iraq, but their former battalion commander said Sunday the troops should at least have returned the vehicles to their original units.
...
Birt, a former chief warrant officer, and the others were charged with theft, destruction of Army property and conspiracy to cover up their crimes. Birt said he and two others pleaded guilty and the other three were convicted. All received six-month sentences.
...
"Instead of taking the trucks back to their rightful owners, the first thing was erasing the identity marks and dumping them off at bases," Wicker said. "They destroyed it. They did the enemy's job. ... Those trucks could be used for other units."
...
Wicker ordered the investigation of the thefts, which occurred before he assumed the battalion post.
"Taking the trucks in my mind was not the worst thing they did," Wicker said from Fort Hood, Texas, where he is now with the Army's 13th Corps Support Command.
...
Birt, a former chief warrant officer, and the others were charged with theft, destruction of Army property and conspiracy to cover up their crimes. Birt said he and two others pleaded guilty and the other three were convicted. All received six-month sentences.
...
"Instead of taking the trucks back to their rightful owners, the first thing was erasing the identity marks and dumping them off at bases," Wicker said. "They destroyed it. They did the enemy's job. ... Those trucks could be used for other units."
...
Wicker ordered the investigation of the thefts, which occurred before he assumed the battalion post.
"Taking the trucks in my mind was not the worst thing they did," Wicker said from Fort Hood, Texas, where he is now with the Army's 13th Corps Support Command.
QUOTE(logophage @ Dec 13 2004, 06:20 PM)
Apparently, overlandsailor, there's a backlash happening against "scrounging".
This is insane. The fool behind this has done serious damage to the service. And what is gained from it? I have no clue.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Dec 14 2004, 01:22 AM)
Read it again, they were not punished for "scrounging".
That is exactly what scrounging is. Taking what others discarded and using it to inprove your units capabilites.
QUOTE
the troops should at least have returned the vehicles to their original units.
The other units abandoned these vehicles. And more then likely wrote them off on paper as combat losses. My unit did the same thing with a HUMVEE that had been abandoned in a ditch along the fence line of Kuwait naval base for months. Which is better? A giant piece of litter, or a vehicle being used to help a unit complete it's mission?
QUOTE
Birt said he and two others pleaded guilty and the other three were convicted. All received six-month sentences.
More then likely they plead guilty because they would have received years not months if they did not. They all admitted what they did because prior to this case, this was how things worked in the military. One unit's trash is another units treasure.
QUOTE
"Instead of taking the trucks back to their rightful owners, the first thing was erasing the identity marks and dumping them off at bases," Wicker said. "They destroyed it. They did the enemy's job. ... Those trucks could be used for other units.
They took trucks that were not mission capable and made other truck mission capable with the parts. They should have been commended not condemned.
QUOTE
Wicker ordered the investigation of the thefts, which occurred before he assumed the battalion post.
Theft? These vehicles were ABANDONED. Taking trash is not theft. It is salvage. Or at least it was until some idiot in the Pentagon decided he / she wanted to get themselves noticed. After reading this story I am no longer upset about having to get out of the Naval Reserves this month because of too much time in rate.
I guess I would be guilty of this as well. Well screw them. The military has always had a culture of "Adapt and Overcome" and scrounging of trash, materials, abandoned vehicles, etc has ALWAYS been a part of that.
And then the military chooses not to punish soldiers who refused to do their mission, even though other soldiers in their same unit, living under the same conditions and using the same equipment managed to complete it.
So what is the new message from the military? What replaces ADAPT and OVERCOME? Hmmmm, how about:
DON'T FIX IT, JUST REFUSE THE MISSION UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE DOES.
God help us. It is considered treason to purposely prevent a military unit from competing it's mission in a time of war. The idiot behind this policy should be shot for it, as they just drastically reduced the effectiveness of the entire military with one idiotic idea.
This is a very interesting thread. Thanks for raising the subject Overland Sailor.
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
Given what I have read here, I would have to say that burden of responsibility rests with the current administration. For, although I understand what has been said with regards to the previous US administrations having cut back on military spending, it must be taken into consideration that these decisions were then undertaken against the political backdrop of the eighties and nineties and could not have foreseen the 'War' on terror or the rise of the neo-con agenda which has created the current situation in Iraq.
I have often wondered at why Donald Rumsfeld was so adamant at using so small a force, and I think now I spy the reason. Obviously, due to the cut backs of the previous administrations, there simply was not the man power to field the much larger force that had originally been called for. Rumsfeld, as he has said, used the army he had.
I don't doubt that this is also why GW Bush has kept Rumsfeld on and speaks so highly of him given GW Bush's often stated personal drive to invade and oust the the Hussein regime in Iraq. I can imagine the generals telling him that it couldn't be done, and then Rumsfeld telling him it could, but with a much smaller force. I'm guessing now, but it all fits the pattern.
The end result however is the situation we see today and I still believe this came about due to poor planning. Bush and Rumsfeld couldn't have waited a half year before launching their attack because that would have given Blix plenty of time to hand in his report that there were no WMD's in Iraq and then Saddam hussein could have demanded the sanctions be lifted and the chance at ousting him might have been lost forever. Also the 'coalition of the willing' would not have existed at all. I seriously doubt that the British could have managed to take part without the credible threat of WMD's and despite the American claim that the US could have gone it alone, I think the loss of the British forces would have made it even more difficult to maintain the peace.
Perhaps with hindsight the problem really lies in the whole post cold war perception America has of its self and its global role? A lot is made of Reagan's policy of having driven the USSR into the ground by means of massive military spending. Whilst many (mostly) Americans attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union to this policy, has any one ever considered just how much the burden of military spending was having on America? I can't but help wonder at how the European nations seem to have blossomed once our military spending was cut back in the early nineties, and this seems to reflect the rise in American affluence that took place under Clinton. Is all this talk of cutting back not simply what had to be done at the time? Did Bush snr and Clinton really have any choice in the matter? Looking at how the US economy is faring under the sudden increase in spending during the current Bush administration, I can't help wondering if the real problem is not one of funding, but one of ambitious neo-con goals being pushed by an administration that can't actually afford such ambitions?
Only today for example, with regards to Iran's nuclear potential we see how the US government refuses to accept its inability to deal with its impotence in the face of mounting international pressures. Apparently the real problem here is not that the USA cannot afford to wage war in Iraq, but that given the current economic and political global reality, even the USA has only limited resources and it cannot prevent other nations from moving to fill the power vacuum that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The conclusion I draw from what I've read here is that the USA has tried to consolidate its geo-political hold on the post cold war world but due to the costs of such an exersize, it cannot do so and has become out maneuvered by the Iranians*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Devils advocate
Roadside bombs have also been used by the IRA against British military vehicles which led to the armoured Land Rovers/ armoured carswhich were once so common in Northern Ireland so once again, the use of such weapons is hardly an innovation that should have caught the US military by surprise.
*To which I refer to Achmed Chalabi
editted for spelling
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
Given what I have read here, I would have to say that burden of responsibility rests with the current administration. For, although I understand what has been said with regards to the previous US administrations having cut back on military spending, it must be taken into consideration that these decisions were then undertaken against the political backdrop of the eighties and nineties and could not have foreseen the 'War' on terror or the rise of the neo-con agenda which has created the current situation in Iraq.
I have often wondered at why Donald Rumsfeld was so adamant at using so small a force, and I think now I spy the reason. Obviously, due to the cut backs of the previous administrations, there simply was not the man power to field the much larger force that had originally been called for. Rumsfeld, as he has said, used the army he had.
I don't doubt that this is also why GW Bush has kept Rumsfeld on and speaks so highly of him given GW Bush's often stated personal drive to invade and oust the the Hussein regime in Iraq. I can imagine the generals telling him that it couldn't be done, and then Rumsfeld telling him it could, but with a much smaller force. I'm guessing now, but it all fits the pattern.
The end result however is the situation we see today and I still believe this came about due to poor planning. Bush and Rumsfeld couldn't have waited a half year before launching their attack because that would have given Blix plenty of time to hand in his report that there were no WMD's in Iraq and then Saddam hussein could have demanded the sanctions be lifted and the chance at ousting him might have been lost forever. Also the 'coalition of the willing' would not have existed at all. I seriously doubt that the British could have managed to take part without the credible threat of WMD's and despite the American claim that the US could have gone it alone, I think the loss of the British forces would have made it even more difficult to maintain the peace.
Perhaps with hindsight the problem really lies in the whole post cold war perception America has of its self and its global role? A lot is made of Reagan's policy of having driven the USSR into the ground by means of massive military spending. Whilst many (mostly) Americans attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union to this policy, has any one ever considered just how much the burden of military spending was having on America? I can't but help wonder at how the European nations seem to have blossomed once our military spending was cut back in the early nineties, and this seems to reflect the rise in American affluence that took place under Clinton. Is all this talk of cutting back not simply what had to be done at the time? Did Bush snr and Clinton really have any choice in the matter? Looking at how the US economy is faring under the sudden increase in spending during the current Bush administration, I can't help wondering if the real problem is not one of funding, but one of ambitious neo-con goals being pushed by an administration that can't actually afford such ambitions?
Only today for example, with regards to Iran's nuclear potential we see how the US government refuses to accept its inability to deal with its impotence in the face of mounting international pressures. Apparently the real problem here is not that the USA cannot afford to wage war in Iraq, but that given the current economic and political global reality, even the USA has only limited resources and it cannot prevent other nations from moving to fill the power vacuum that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The conclusion I draw from what I've read here is that the USA has tried to consolidate its geo-political hold on the post cold war world but due to the costs of such an exersize, it cannot do so and has become out maneuvered by the Iranians*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Devils advocate
QUOTE
Haven't there been other wars where the enemy has used IED's? I don't have any real evidence, but I'm sure it's happened before Iraq. Maybe it's just one of the weapons of choice in Iraq.
Yes there have. Roadside bombs have been used extensively in Chechnya by the Islamic forces there against the Russians, and the tactic of using a roadside bomb was also used in Afghanistan against the Soviets by pretty much the same people. Its a testament to the lack of planning that these people and their tactics were not considered a sufficient threat by the US/ coalition forces. After all, it is these same mujahideen/ al qaeda forces that are said to constitute the main enemy of the 'War' on terror and any reasonable plan for the future of Iraq should have anticipated they would come to Iraq to try to fight back against America. Roadside bombs have also been used by the IRA against British military vehicles which led to the armoured Land Rovers/ armoured carswhich were once so common in Northern Ireland so once again, the use of such weapons is hardly an innovation that should have caught the US military by surprise.
*To which I refer to Achmed Chalabi
editted for spelling
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Dec 13 2004, 10:22 PM)
Read it again, they were not punished for "scrounging".
Sigh... Yes, they were really punished for not returning the equipment to the rightful owners: the owners who abandoned their equipment. It wasn't that they used the equipment but that they didn't give it back. The end result is the same though, correct? It's not like you can guarantee that equipment being used in a combat situation will remain pristine.
Are the problems (like armor on vehicles, and body armor,) that are facing our troops in the field today just the result of the poor planning on the part of the current administration, or do the last several administrations share equal responsiblity when in comes to poor planning in regard to the new, smaller military?
I agreed with the peace dividend but I think we are overdue in dramatically expanding our regular military forces. I think this should have been done as soon as we went in Afghanistan.
I think we have dramatically misused the national guard in terms of relying on the guard for extended tours of duty abroad. The reserves system makes sense to me in terms of planning and training, but the guard seems to be a much more appropriate force to rely on at home and for temporary emergency situations.
We are long past an emergency.
The present use of the national guard may have broken the system entirely. It places a tremendous burden on our guards and their employers. It appears to me that the commitment to keep the armed forces light and rely on outsourcing to contractors where possible has not been wholly successful. In this I think Rumsfeld's vision of the lighter army is not a success. We should have gone in troop heavy and shocked and awed Iraq in our massive reconstruction and stable security efforts.
I see no reason that we couldn't and shouldn't have moved to a much larger force in light of our activities in the WOT and Iraq and our large list of existing commitments and deployments around the world.
Instead we have tried to get too many jobs done with too few people and our military personnel have paid for it by being placed in too heavy of a rotation cycle and the national guard has been overused to the point where I wonder how they will get future recruits and cooperation with employers in the future.
Instead there has been a growing industry for contracted services in a strange (IMO) privatization of our provisions for national security.
I do grant that my opinions are that alone and that others on this site have vastly more experience and knowledge in these areas. But I have yet to be convinced that our present use of personnel in deployments is in the best interests of those wearing the American uniforms.
I agreed with the peace dividend but I think we are overdue in dramatically expanding our regular military forces. I think this should have been done as soon as we went in Afghanistan.
I think we have dramatically misused the national guard in terms of relying on the guard for extended tours of duty abroad. The reserves system makes sense to me in terms of planning and training, but the guard seems to be a much more appropriate force to rely on at home and for temporary emergency situations.
We are long past an emergency.
The present use of the national guard may have broken the system entirely. It places a tremendous burden on our guards and their employers. It appears to me that the commitment to keep the armed forces light and rely on outsourcing to contractors where possible has not been wholly successful. In this I think Rumsfeld's vision of the lighter army is not a success. We should have gone in troop heavy and shocked and awed Iraq in our massive reconstruction and stable security efforts.
I see no reason that we couldn't and shouldn't have moved to a much larger force in light of our activities in the WOT and Iraq and our large list of existing commitments and deployments around the world.
Instead we have tried to get too many jobs done with too few people and our military personnel have paid for it by being placed in too heavy of a rotation cycle and the national guard has been overused to the point where I wonder how they will get future recruits and cooperation with employers in the future.
Instead there has been a growing industry for contracted services in a strange (IMO) privatization of our provisions for national security.
I do grant that my opinions are that alone and that others on this site have vastly more experience and knowledge in these areas. But I have yet to be convinced that our present use of personnel in deployments is in the best interests of those wearing the American uniforms.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.