This is why we need the Draft!
This was sent to me courtesy of Mil.com.http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,146498,00.html?ESRC=army.nl
Army's Fighting Force Nearly Exhausted
Associated Press | August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep Soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give Soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
In Iraq, there are 18 Army brigades, each with about 3,500 Soldiers. At least 13 more brigades are scheduled to rotate in. Two others are in Afghanistan and two additional ones are set to rotate in there. Also, several other brigades either are set for a future deployment or are scattered around the globe.
Military.com's Deployment Center
The few units that are not at war, in transformation or in their 12-months home time already are penciled in for deployments later in 2008 or into 2009. Shifting them would create problems in the long-term schedule.
Most Army brigades have completed two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; some assignments have lasted as long as 15 months. The 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, has done four tours.
Two Marine regiments - each roughly the same size as an Army brigade - also in Iraq,- bringing the total number of brigades in the country to 20.
When asked what units will fill the void in the coming spring if any need to be replaced, officials give a grim shake of the head, shrug of the shoulders or a palms-up, empty-handed gesture.
"The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said last week. "Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don't go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces" for other missions.
Casey said he would not be comfortable extending troops beyond their 15-month deployments. But other military officials acknowledge privately that option is on the table.
Pentagon leaders hope there is enough progress in Iraq to allow them to scale back at least part of the nearly 30,000-strong buildup when Soldiers begin leaving Iraq around March and April.
There are 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, the highest level since the war began in 2003. That figure is expected to hit 171,000 this fall as fresh troops rotate in.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who will deliver a much anticipated progress report to Congress in September, said Wednesday he is considering possible troop cuts and believes the U.S. will have fewer forces in Iraq by next summer.
Other commanders have said the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction.
Still, Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly. In fact, an upbeat progress report in September may solidify arguments that additional troops should stay longer to ensure that positive changes stick.
"The longer that you keep American forces there, the longer you give this process to solidify and to make sure that it's not going to slide back," said Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq. "The sooner you take them out, the more you run the risk that enemies will come in and try to disrupt."
Kagan, a leading supporter of the current buildup strategy, said any decision to maintain force levels would have to take into account the effects on the Army. That would include, he said, the strains of sending Guard units back to Iraq more rapidly than Pentagon policy allows or keeping active duty units there longer than 15 months.
"You have the same tradeoff at every moment in this process, which is the institutional well-being of the Army versus what is felt is necessary to win the war," Kagan said.
According to military officials, some Soldiers in Iraq are hearing that it may not be wise to pack their bags to come home when their 15-month tour is up. But to date, Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said they have no plans to extend those tours.
National Guard officials are bracing for a new round of Guard deployments and a move to decrease their time at home between tours - despite announced plans to give the citizen Soldiers five years off for every one year served.
One Guard official said this past week that the Army is pushing to give Guard units four years or less at home in order to get access to those combat brigades sooner.
Last April the Pentagon notified National Guard brigades in four states that they should be prepared to deploy to Iraq later this year. But documents obtained by the AP show that Guard units in five states - Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Minnesota - are scheduled to deploy to Iraq before the end of the year. A New York Guard unit is set to go to Afghanistan.
The shortage of combat units will be remedied over time. The Pentagon slowly is increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 65,000 members to 547,000 by 2012. The 38 combat brigades currently available for war will expand to 48 by 2013.
The Iraqis hold the key to any U.S. withdrawals. The government in Baghdad has made little progress on political changes the Pentagon says are critical to restoring stability to the country, thus allowing U.S. troops to begin leaving.
If progress is not made and the violence does not abate, the Pentagon will turn again to the Army.
"The Army will do what's necessary and will pay a very high price if necessary," said Kagan. "but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that and I honestly don't think that it will."
This is why I think we need the draft. The National Guard and Reserves are already pushed to their brink as well. It would do alot of good for our younger people too, to have to serve.
Army's Fighting Force Nearly Exhausted
Associated Press | August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep Soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give Soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
In Iraq, there are 18 Army brigades, each with about 3,500 Soldiers. At least 13 more brigades are scheduled to rotate in. Two others are in Afghanistan and two additional ones are set to rotate in there. Also, several other brigades either are set for a future deployment or are scattered around the globe.
Military.com's Deployment Center
The few units that are not at war, in transformation or in their 12-months home time already are penciled in for deployments later in 2008 or into 2009. Shifting them would create problems in the long-term schedule.
Most Army brigades have completed two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; some assignments have lasted as long as 15 months. The 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, has done four tours.
Two Marine regiments - each roughly the same size as an Army brigade - also in Iraq,- bringing the total number of brigades in the country to 20.
When asked what units will fill the void in the coming spring if any need to be replaced, officials give a grim shake of the head, shrug of the shoulders or a palms-up, empty-handed gesture.
"The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said last week. "Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don't go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces" for other missions.
Casey said he would not be comfortable extending troops beyond their 15-month deployments. But other military officials acknowledge privately that option is on the table.
Pentagon leaders hope there is enough progress in Iraq to allow them to scale back at least part of the nearly 30,000-strong buildup when Soldiers begin leaving Iraq around March and April.
There are 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, the highest level since the war began in 2003. That figure is expected to hit 171,000 this fall as fresh troops rotate in.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who will deliver a much anticipated progress report to Congress in September, said Wednesday he is considering possible troop cuts and believes the U.S. will have fewer forces in Iraq by next summer.
Other commanders have said the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction.
Still, Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly. In fact, an upbeat progress report in September may solidify arguments that additional troops should stay longer to ensure that positive changes stick.
"The longer that you keep American forces there, the longer you give this process to solidify and to make sure that it's not going to slide back," said Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq. "The sooner you take them out, the more you run the risk that enemies will come in and try to disrupt."
Kagan, a leading supporter of the current buildup strategy, said any decision to maintain force levels would have to take into account the effects on the Army. That would include, he said, the strains of sending Guard units back to Iraq more rapidly than Pentagon policy allows or keeping active duty units there longer than 15 months.
"You have the same tradeoff at every moment in this process, which is the institutional well-being of the Army versus what is felt is necessary to win the war," Kagan said.
According to military officials, some Soldiers in Iraq are hearing that it may not be wise to pack their bags to come home when their 15-month tour is up. But to date, Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said they have no plans to extend those tours.
National Guard officials are bracing for a new round of Guard deployments and a move to decrease their time at home between tours - despite announced plans to give the citizen Soldiers five years off for every one year served.
One Guard official said this past week that the Army is pushing to give Guard units four years or less at home in order to get access to those combat brigades sooner.
Last April the Pentagon notified National Guard brigades in four states that they should be prepared to deploy to Iraq later this year. But documents obtained by the AP show that Guard units in five states - Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Minnesota - are scheduled to deploy to Iraq before the end of the year. A New York Guard unit is set to go to Afghanistan.
The shortage of combat units will be remedied over time. The Pentagon slowly is increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 65,000 members to 547,000 by 2012. The 38 combat brigades currently available for war will expand to 48 by 2013.
The Iraqis hold the key to any U.S. withdrawals. The government in Baghdad has made little progress on political changes the Pentagon says are critical to restoring stability to the country, thus allowing U.S. troops to begin leaving.
If progress is not made and the violence does not abate, the Pentagon will turn again to the Army.
"The Army will do what's necessary and will pay a very high price if necessary," said Kagan. "but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that and I honestly don't think that it will."
This is why I think we need the draft. The National Guard and Reserves are already pushed to their brink as well. It would do alot of good for our younger people too, to have to serve.
0
-
We don't need the draft, we need to double the size of the military's budget so they can pay for the people and things they need. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
We don't need the draft, we need to double the size of the military's budget so they can pay for the people and things they need.
Yup, and getting rid of ATF, DEA and IRS could do the trick.0 -
Well ,,I will get flamed for this but I have a boy almost 16,,if he wants to join I will help him anyway I can and will be proud of it,,if they try to draft him and he does not want to go,,I will give him 50k and send him north,,if it was good enough for one of our presidents it is good enough for him,,,,we do not have enough troops because of decisions made by the leadership in this government "yes I voted for him" and because we would rather give away billions of taxpayer dollars every year to countries that want to destroy us instead of spending it on our troops,,I will not let him be drafted if he does not want to go,,end of story 0 -
From what I have heard 40% of active duty army and marines have never been deployed. Also, I believe there are 35,000 troops sitting in Korea that could help out. The US military is FAR FROM being "sapped".
We dont need a draft. If the President tommorow said "we need more people to sign up and fight" then I know for a fact that there are millions of loyal Americans who would join.
In addition, we are soon going to be pulling troops OUT of Iraq.0 -
I have never understood the downsizing that has been done with our military. Closing bases and thinning down troops only leads to hardships when the SHTF somewhere. The money wasted on so many special interest activities and handout programs could be much better spent on keeping the military numbers strong. Guess our government doesn't see the need to be prepared for real emergencies such as war. 0 -
I thought the ARMY was for helpin-out after hurricanes..[V][V]
Jeff0 -
" We dont need a draft??" . You got to be kidding yourself. Looks like
we are going through a era similar to the late '30's and early '40's. To late then when we started the draft. We were way behind others who
knew better. Do you want your kids to go into battle with only 18 weeks
of training as I did? Or with longeer training to give them a better chance of survival? Even though we have " superior technowledgy ?? "
it sure aint doing much for us in fighting it seems. I feel that most all combat vets here will agree that we do need the draft to survive.0 -
Draft is unfair.
especially if there is the ability of some to dodge it. but not everyone can afford to dodge it.
I think we would be better off making it manditory that everyone serve a minimum of 4yrs in one branch of service or another. the country would then have the troops it needs and not have to worry where the next bunch is coming from. and if you leave you have just become an illegal.
We would not be against a draft if we where not at war.
the country would be stronger. everyone would be fighting for the same cause. And not fighting for their own.
and those of ya that want to leave then f---in leave. the country will be better off without ya.
If'n I had to do it again i would serve at least 4yrs.
My .020 -
Don't need the draft, just need to stop being the worlds police man 0 -
...Of course we need a draft, not a damn thing wrong with it. Manditory 2-4 years of service after high school would be a good thing.
...The worlds "policeman"?? Being the worlds only super power has some responsibilities, not least of which is protecting America.
Take the US out of past wars and we'd all be praising Hitler and/or other twit-nits.
..Fair? Fair? Get over it, nothing in life is "fair"...[;)]
0 -
We don't need a draft if the war is one that doesn't need to be fought. This war is not one fought in the name of homeland security. How were we threatened in the first place? Some people could say 9/11, but that was why we went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't see why we don't just mind our own business. 0 -
Please enlighten me as to how a "draft" is worse than every young person serving a manditory 4 years. 0 -
Having given it some thought and taking into consideration the responses so far I must say that the mandatory serving of 2-4 years is in fact a feasible solution. Of course some are thinking what about those that have limitations that would prevent serving? How about they be trained to do the office work type jobs? If they truly are physically unable to serve in any capacity then so be it, but most could do something. All that did would gain some type of work experience that might help them to be productive post military. It could be a solution to the multitudes that claim to have no ability to work in any capacity. It would also give the country the adequate military coverage we need to remain safe.
Just a few thoughts. Dave0 -
+
D.0 -
Mandatory anything doesn't lead to anything good.
Rephrase: mandatory government service will not lead to anything good.0 -
Lets start thinking about the benifits fo the draft. Have you noticed the growth of immaturity in our youth? Like it or not, they are the future of our country. Most of us grew up or at least our maturity was aided be serving in the military. Todays kids are not much more than 23 yr old high schoolers. College has become and has been for some time nothing more than high school grades 13-16. If we don't help them grow who will? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
We don't need the draft, we need to double the size of the military's budget so they can pay for the people and things they need.
Yup, and getting rid of ATF, DEA and IRS could do the trick.
Not to mention the Dept. of "Education," NEA, Dept. of Energy, HHS, the Post Office, OSHA, EPA, and all the other non-essential govt. "services."0 -
quote:Originally posted by frankcastle13
We don't need a draft if the war is one that doesn't need to be fought. This war is not one fought in the name of homeland security. How were we threatened in the first place? Some people could say 9/11, but that was why we went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't see why we don't just mind our own business.
I'll say this, that I'm glad we are fighting terrorist in Iraq, rather in America. Those people want to wipe out our kind, and it's better to fight them there than here.0 -
"If the President tommorow said "we need more people to sign up and fight" then I know for a fact that there are millions of loyal Americans who would join."
If you think there are millions of Americans who want to join to fight in the Iraq disaster, you are out of your mind.0 -
quote:I must say that the mandatory serving of 2-4 years is in fact a feasible solution.
Hitler felt the same way.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
Lets start thinking about the benifits fo the draft. Have you noticed the growth of immaturity in our youth? Like it or not, they are the future of our country. Most of us grew up or at least our maturity was aided be serving in the military. Todays kids are not much more than 23 yr old high schoolers. College has become and has been for some time nothing more than high school grades 13-16. If we don't help them grow who will?
I don't buy it that we need the military to make kids more mature. I've watched A LOT of videos of what I would call very immature US troops running around in Iraq, causing trouble and furthering hatred, just because they can. Lets just say less than professional behavior that I wasn't impressed with.
The point I'm seeing that everybody else here seems to be missing, is that I feel (stating this for the one thousandth time here) WE have given Iraq EVERYTHING! Just look at the situation people!! We've dumped a half TRILLION into this mess. We have exhausted the U.S. military on that POS country and for what? DOESN"T IRAQ have any 18,19,20 years olds that just MAYBE give a rat's ass about their own country? If not, why should we!! Why aren't our troops being replaced with IRAQI TROOPS!?!?! This isn't a US problem anymore!!!!!!! We've exhausted our efforts!!! Read the ******* story! Iraq, yes, IRAQ themselves don't want to do anything. A draft for Iraq would make the draft for Vietnam look like a brilliant idea.
I regretfully say that I'd rather join the ensuing riot against it and go to jail than FIGHT FOR IRAQ! And I consider myself to be a very patriotic American. I love this country but I will not support a draft for this Iraq BS. All I support is immediate withdrawal, reguardless of the consequenses. All the war supporter robots here can support it all they want.
Any complete dumbass can see, you either need to take over the GD country and make it a US territory or get the hell out. This inbetween BS aint working!!! It never will! It will not work to just keep throwing our kids into it and dumping all of our tax money into the rat hole and never getting anything out of it. Let alone dumping kids into it that don't want to be there. It's expensive. It's never ending. It's very clear now. Maybe someday somebody will wake up to it.
History will rake this administration over the coals over this mess. Sure, all we need is a draft now. LOL! What an easy answer.
I honestly think half the people here are all for it only because they'd be so tickled, and so giddy over watching the debacle unfold as stupid punk kids are forced into uniform again. I'd personally find it disgraceful. But to each his own. [V]0 -
I'm sure more young folks would sign up if we were ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO WIN, INSTEAD OF OUR PEOPLE BEING COURTS-MARITIALED FOR "MURDER" AND OTHER CRAP.
IT'S WAR....WIN THE DAMN THING!
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sarge_3ad Originally posted by frankcastle13
I'll say this, that I'm glad we are fighting terrorist in Iraq, rather in America. Those people want to wipe out our kind, and it's better to fight them there than here.
Oh, that's right. I forgot. This is the key argument. Well, since they'll NEVER run out, are you willing to nuke the entire place? Or, like cockroaches, should we just keep stomping on them one at a time as they appear, our entire lives instead of calling Orkin to fumigate the entire house?
IMO, the strategy in place now is no strategy at all. I'd more or less call it insane.
And if you think a handful of Saudi Arabians can't come back here to the U.S. tomorrow and cause chaos, you're insane. Iraq's not going to prevent that. Nor from any of the other God-forsaken countries over there. Some day, people may just have to start killing them over here, in spite of Iraq.0 -
quote:Originally posted by AZEX
I'm sure more young folks would sign up if we were ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO WIN, INSTEAD OF OUR PEOPLE BEING COURTS-MARITIALED FOR "MURDER" AND OTHER CRAP.
IT'S WAR....WIN THE DAMN THING!
D.
But it's not a war. It's an occupation gone bad. The war was won years ago. We can't win anything more. We're too PC to get tough in any area of our society. Be it shutting down the borders, restricting people from other countries from coming here, or threatening to use nuclear weapons if necessary. We aren't mean. We're still trying to be nice to the people that hate us.
Now we're trying to develop bomb proof humvees, AT THIS POINT, after we've already lost some 1500 soldiers to IEDs and try to do all this strategically on the ground. And we're losing far more people to IEDs now than we were at the beginning of this mess. What have we gained after this many years? Is a working government in place yet?
This is nothing more than a political occupation. No war. Everybody's trying to set themselves up to be innocent while letting the blame fall on the other party come next election. Bush can sit back and say every day that leaving Iraq would be a disaster so if the democrats do after 08, he can wash his hands of it and say 'told you so.' While the dems are trying to make sure every ounce of blame is placed in Bushes lap when he goes. It's pathetic.
People, we've got border guards in jail for shooting a scum of the Earth drug dealer, who was bringing drugs in to be pushed on our kids. You honestly think we're going to survive the terror war?0 -
Never have I heard such damn poor arguments against the draft from so many big talking gun men that are afraid of something that can and may shoot back. You guys better stick to paper targets that dont shoot back. My, my, how fearfull some have gotten. Always some excuse for not serving your country. Back in the '40's our country was not attacked as yet (like we have been and will be), but one third of us enlisted and few fled the draft. Talk like this would have given you a
ride on a fence rail and a coat of tar and feathers. But today, everyone does what is "good for them". Not the country.0 -
+1 0 -
how can the U.S. expect to capture the hearts and minds of iraqis
if it cant even compell it citizens to serv in the military.
this is an unpopular war based on greed and americans are smart enough not to put themselvs on the line needlessly
reinstating the draft would be quite a boost to the anti war movement. remember what happened last time?
we lost that one too.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sarge_3ad
quote:Originally posted by frankcastle13
We don't need a draft if the war is one that doesn't need to be fought. This war is not one fought in the name of homeland security. How were we threatened in the first place? Some people could say 9/11, but that was why we went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't see why we don't just mind our own business.
I'll say this, that I'm glad we are fighting terrorist in Iraq, rather in America. Those people want to wipe out our kind, and it's better to fight them there than here.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 -
WWII.... Entire countries under siege. Actual governments fighting. Winnable situations with real tactics. Occupied citizenry who actually liked Americans and wanted to be liberated. And a finale with two nuclear bombs in order to spare American lives. My how times change.
The military people sure are a scary bunch. I've never seen people abandon simple logic so readily. Never seen stories twisted around so hard in order to support flawed campaigns. No matter how bad the mess. Always unrelenting support with a defending America stamp on it. With such a bull-headed, 'can't lose' determination that would kill us all, 100 at a time if we all signed up and allowed the government to do so, over the next however many years they chose.
At some point you would expect a free thinking man to stand up and maybe say, "This doesn't make sense." "Why is this not working after so many years?" "What are the Iraqis doing for themselves now after we've given them everything?" "What do we have to show for our half a trillion dollars?" "Are things getting better?" "Can we actually afford to keep spending trillions on a venture that never existed before, yet we were still going bankrupt then?" "Who's profiting from the continuation of this?"
But, I guess when people are broken down and only taught what they're allowed to think for so long, you should expect to get robots with essentially no value to the debate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
quote:Originally posted by sarge_3ad
quote:Originally posted by frankcastle13
We don't need a draft if the war is one that doesn't need to be fought. This war is not one fought in the name of homeland security. How were we threatened in the first place? Some people could say 9/11, but that was why we went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't see why we don't just mind our own business.
I'll say this, that I'm glad we are fighting terrorist in Iraq, rather in America. Those people want to wipe out our kind, and it's better to fight them there than here.
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The biggest cop out in the history of mankind. What's the definition of terrorist? They're not a soldier. They're cowards that would rather kill innocent people. Why would all of them throw themselves to die in front of the US military when there's 3,000,000, defenseless civilians sitting over here with open borders?
I think I'll wait a few more years before I'll hang my hat on that assumption. [V]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
76 comments