Planning Something Big
By California Yankee Posted in War — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Los Angeles Times reports support has coalesced behind a plan for a substantial buildup in U.S. troops to Iraq, an increase in industrial aid to create jobs, and a major anti-Sadr combat offensive.
Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory.
The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.
Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush's demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement.
Increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq will likely require a permanent increase in the size of the Army and the Marines in order to avoid remobilizing the National Guard and sending reserve combat units back to Iraq. According to the Times, a proposal is being considered to combine a surge with a quick buildup of the Marines and the Army.
Read on.
I remain one the unrepentant supporters of the war. I still firmly believe that we that there is no acceptable outcome but victory. In my view you can not declare victory and march off the field. We tried that in Vietnam and, well it didn't work. Nevertheless, I am very mindful that we must not ask our troops to fight the war if the public does not support it. The question becomes will the public rally around doing something big in the war that has a chance for victory, or have we already given up and accepted defeat.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Ooops — Comments (9) »
Planning Something Big 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Combine it with efforts to involve other US Govt agencies, (instead of letting the Army and Marines do what the Dept of Agriculture should be doing)and raise the total number of active duty troops (the total number, not the number in Iraq) and you'll really be on to something.
There's nothing quite so exhilerating as being shot at... and missed. Winston Churchill
I was against the decision to go to war, but a buildup followed by an offensive makes sense at this point given the available options. That wouldn't really solve the main underlying problems, though, which have to do with the Iraqi side of the equation. They need a new PM and there has to be some kind of comprehensive deal either with or between Sunni tribes. Corruption probably can't be fixed so incoming money to Iraq is going to wasted unless the US oversees projects directly. And there still is the problem of what happens when we leave, which has to happen eventually.
Why do you say corruption can't be fixed? [Very provocative and mean follow-up question redacted -- Neil]
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Well, what I think the OP is referring to is the fact that corruption is very much a cultural phenomenon, as is a society's willingness to deal with it. It's not something that the US can will away or, for that matter, even police into non-existence even if she had the wherewithal to.
Corruption isn't something that can just be repaired like a broken machine. Honest government has never existed in Iraq or anywhere else in the region. The very notion of honest government exists only in established democracies, and here in the US, Rep. Jefferson was just reelected. People are just prone to corruption (due to self-interest) and it takes all kinds of institutional and societal pressures just to keep it somewhat under control, even in the most democratic countries in the world.
Iraq has none of the controlling factors and many more reasons for corruption to be appealing. Unless the Iraqi people suddenly advance to a new stage of evolution, taking them far beyond anyone else in the world, there is going to be serious corruption in Iraq for a long time. Of course, reducing corruption at the margin is a reasonable enough goal, but ultimately that will happen as a consequence of improvement in other areas.
And a lot of the problems in Iraq are a different sort of corruption from just personal enrichment, whereby the government is subverted for sectarian or tribal purposes (as in Afghanistan as well). That might even be harder to limit than greed.
is a way of life in Iraq. Of all the colorful titles applied to the previous regime, "Kleptocracy" may be one of the most on-target. Iraqi contractors, among other things, will "sub-contract" to family members and overcharge for labor and materials. I'm not implying that they're crooks of any sort, rather that for years this sort of behavior was how business was done. Kickbacks were as much a part of their business culture as meeting a client for lunch is part of ours. Close American oversight of reconstruction projects (all of them, right down to repainting schools) is, IMHO, the best way to ensure that projects are completed with as much efficiency, and as little graft, as possible.
It's a futile idea to add more troops. The Iraqi masses are angry, mobilied politically and along sectarian lines, and they are well armed. There are 27 million Iraqis, and some 6 million of them in the Sunni Arab areas. 20,000-40,000 US troops is a drop in the bucket. It will only replace the other Coalition UK and Danish troops that are leaving, meaning we'll go back to the troop levels of a few months ago and no net gain.
Bush is going to ask for $100 Billion more from Congress, which unfortunately won't be counted as part of the debt.
Professor Juan Cole summed it up best:
Let me explain why it won't work. It won't work because Iraqis are now politically and socially mobilized. This means that they have the social preconditions for effective political and paramilitary action (they are largely urban, literate, connected by media, etc.) And they are politically savvy and well-connected. They are well armed, gaining in military experience, and well financed through petroleum and antiquities smuggling and through cash infusions from supporters abroad. The Mahdi Army fighters can be defeated by the US military, as happened twice in 2004. But they cannot be made to disappear, as they were not in 2004. That is because they are an organic movement springing from the Shiite poor, and are the paramilitary arm of a large social movement with a national network and ideology.
Attempts to crush popular movements once they have mobilized have most often failed. No attempts at counter-revolution in France in the 1790s were successful. Even powerful empires like Austria were helpless before the mobilized French infantry (who for the first time used large numbers of conscripts).
In 1905-1907, the Iranian public mobilized to demand a constitution and parliament from the autocratic Qajar monarchy, which the then shah granted shortly before his death. His son and successor, Mohammad Ali Shah, hated the whole idea of constraints on his absolute power, and he tried to get rid of the parliament and the constitution. He simply provoked a national revolution against himself in 1908-1909, with major crowd and paramilitary action in Azerbaijan in particular, and ended up having to flee the country.
To give another Iran example, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi tried to crack down militarily on the mobilized urban crowds demonstrating against him in 1978, and even formed a military cabinet. But hundreds of thousands were coming out for well-organized demonstrations. When the military fired on peaceful protesters in Tehran, it simply enraged the whole country further. By January of 1979 the shah, despite his powerful army, had had to flee to Egypt.
I am not saying that popular protests cannot be crushed. They can and have been. I am saying that when you have a whole country that is politically mobilized and has substantial resources, a crack-down is likely doomed unless it is almost genocidal (Saddam's use of chemical weapons in 1988 and of helicopter gunships against civilians in 1991 are examples, as is Truman's use of the atomic bomb against Japan).
The US is not going to commit the half a million troops it would take to have a chance of winning in Iraq. Nor is it going to use genocidal methods to strike absolute terror into the hearts of the Iraqi people.
The Iraq situation has gone beyond the point where 40,000 troops can retrieve it. And that is if we even had 40,000 troops to put into Iraq and keep them there any length of time, which we do not...
The fact is that if provincial elections were held today, the Sadr Movement would sweep to power in all the Shiite provinces (with the possible exception of Najaf itself). It is increasingly the most popular political party among Iraq's Shiite majority. For the US to cut the Sadrists out of power in parliament and then fall on them militarily would just throw Iraq into turmoil. It would increase the popularity of the Sadrists, and ensure that they gain nationalist credentials that will ensconce them for perhaps decades.
Come on Moe.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Clinton slashed the military during the 1990s as a "peace dividend." Right. Except for the WTC bombing, the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, and the bombing of the USS Cole as precursors to a larger war against the US by radical Islam.
Bush and the GOP should frame this issue as restoring the Clinton cuts in the military. Let the Dems, especially Hillary, try to explain why we don't need these troops in the long run, and why Bubba was right to slash several divisions.
...to the Bubba-in-Chief, he only continued the slash and burn dismemberment of the active duty US armed forces that Bush I started - and same thing that Bush II had plans for continuing when he came into office pre-9/11. W would have to frame it as, "restoring the cuts made by Bubba and my Daddy, and finally getting up to speed on something I should have started doing 5 years ago."
The original plan by Bush I was a much smaller cut. It was Bubba who added to it massively. I was in the Air Force all during the 90's and I saw it unfold. All Bush II has to do is pull out his fathers original structure and say that he is restoring the military to the way it should have been by my father's plan. That would be a major upping of the military from what we have now.
Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!
...were during each administration, it's been obvious for going on 5 years now that the current size active duty force wasn't big enough for the list of things they've been asked to do by this President...and he's done exactly squat about it...for...5...years. During which time he's constantly told us over and over again that this is a historic fight that we must win if our civilization is to survive, etc etc. Apparently not important enough to increase the size of the force being used to do it with, though. Bush I cut too much..just because Bubba was worse, doesn't mean Bush I - or sonny boy - are good on this point.
For more than 3 yrs now when he became aware that we didn't have enough troops. It just so happens to take awhile to get the resources in place to effect the kind of dramatic increase that was neccessary and is now being carried out. Simultaneously needing to reorganize the military aware from the Cold War mentality to something more able to respond effectively to the current kind of war didn't help, either.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
...in fact, he - and his people at the Pentagon - have repeatedly refused the accept the increases in end strength that Congress has tried to give them.
"He because aware that we didn't have enough troops." Give me one shred of evidence that indicates he's "become aware" of any such thing.
Yeah, it's a REALLY slow process when you never start in the first place. But when you're busy with prescription drug giveaways and anything else you can think of to spend tax dollars on, I guess it's hard to find time to actually try to win the war. Well, aside from defeating the terrorists by "going shopping" and "loving your neighbor"...sometimes I forget that's all we have to do to win. Well, that and cut taxes and spend more tax dollars at the same time. Yep, that oughta do it. "Became aware"...jeez, yeah, right.
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson - http://gamecock.townhall.com
Needs to look at the profile of the person to whom he is speaking...
You have obviously paid absolutely no attention to matters military outside dkos and the MSM and have no idea what you are talking about.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
The peace dividend was nothing more than a second mortgage on your home, spending all the equity on a drunken party and toys, and now realizing you have to make the payments.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
5 years late. But, better late than never *if* this is actually going to happen. I'm still not holding my breath waiting for 1) a Dem controlled Congress to vote the money necessary or 2) for this President to actually ask for it. I'm in "believe it when I see it" mode for the rest of W's term in office.
Admittedly, I would very much like to see the Dems attempt to fight an enlarged military: One, because it'd make Charley Rangel look like a fool in the process and two, because easing the plight of Reservists and Guardsmen has long been one of their talking points. The only way to do the latter in any kind of meaningful way is to enlarge the size of the active duty Army.
needs to be reframed. These forces were never intended as weekend social clubs or scholarship funds, the motivation of some enlistees notwithstanding. I think it is necessary, at least to an extent, to re-examine the pay structure in order to ensure that soldiers taking pay cuts to go onto active duty aren't putting their own financial well-being at risk, but as far as any other argument against "over-use" of these forces is concerned, I would point out that the nametag over the heart says "U.S. Army", not "Co-ed Softball League".
I can't figure out what your motivation for this post is. The NG and Reserve forces have stood up and answered their deployments and aquitted themselves in combat at the highest levels. The only people complaining about their service is Rangle and Kerry and Co.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I should have been more clear in my post. My six days here are far less relevant to my sentiment than my 13 months in Iraq, proudly served, as a member of the USAR, or my continued service as a Non-Commissioned Officer (very proudly) in the same. I have answered the call, and will gladly do so again. I have been decorated in combat, and have seen incredible valor and patriotism from my fellow citizen soldiers.
My initial post was in response to the attitude, expressed in the post I initally responded to, thet use of the Guard and Reserve forces should be avoided. We are soldiers, we raised our hands to defend our nation. We are not "backups", and should not be considered as such.
As long as our Active Component brothers are in harms war, the Reserve component should be called upon to support them, in harms way ourselves if need be.
I firmly believe that Reserve component soldiers should not be looked at as an option of last resort. As I said above, the nameplate says one thing: "U.S. Army".
I apologize if I came across snarky - which I probably did.
We've had so many mobys running around here I have started to assume the worst with shorttimers.
Rereading everything in context, I see your point. And thanks again.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
We are not loosing. We are not loosing. We are not loosing. Say it with me now, because it is the truth. It may not be what the MSM and surrender study group wants you to think, but none of my friends in Iraq would even suggest such a thing, and the are the ones outside the wire OPing against the insurgents everyday. They are not in the Green Zone, and they are not using “stringers” to form their opinions.
If we are loosing, who is winning? If our casualty figures are horrendous, what do they look like for these disparate terrorist groups? Is the enemy holding valuable real estate? Have they stopped commerce? Have they stopped essential services? Has the freely elected government of Iraq collapsed under the weight of their “highly successful offensive”?
If you say we are loosing, show me how and why. DU is posting opinion polls to prove we are loosing. I want to see real evidence. If all it takes are continuous, random attacks against soft targets to make us retreat, then we should disband our military immediately and all bow towards Mecca.
I want you to show me how bad it is outside of the four problem provinces. There 18 you know? Show me how Iraq is collapsing, and the people have quit fighting, and maybe I’ll agree that we are loosing.
The story is not being reported. It is not that these terrorists, who are nothing more than super violent, organized criminals, are able to strike a free society at will. We know that they can strike us similarly, and unlike our Iraqi allies, we have oceans between ourselves and the jihadis. The real story is that this morning there were dozens of people at that bus stop going to work. There are millions of people who are not intimidated, and refuse to stop living their lives because of a minority of religious fanatics will kill anyone who does not submit to their rule, and that will destroy anything in their way. That is the real story, and it is going on today is all of Iraq, but in 20% of the territory there is a small group of bastards trying to demoralize them.
This is not about the enemy being able to attack civilians at will. This is about WILL! So far the Iraqis who are under attack and being killed daily are not giving up, WHY ARE YOU? If this is defeat then the Islamists are correct, and there is no way to defeat them, because the West no longer has any will to resist their violent, viral brand of Islam, and you may as well submit now and spare us a bloody world war.
We are not even close to loosing against this rabble, but if we defeat ourselves there is every likelihood that within our lifetimes we will face them with the worst technology man has ever created, and then the prospect of loosing will not be in your mind, it will be in your front yard!
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
But we're not winning either. We're stuck in between victory and defeat and the public is growing weary of it. You're right, we haven't suffered crushing defeat anywhere, but we haven't dealt a crushing blow either. The reason why we're loosing has everything to do with those opinion polls you dismissed. If we pull out we lose, if the people don't want us there we pull out, and if the violence stays the way it is and we don't move towards victory than the people will want us out. It's already happeneing. It may not be loosing but it sure isn't winning.
International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.
Define Losing; Define Winning.
I don't mean just you personally, I mean anyone who claims either victory or defeat. The goalposts have been pulled up and moved so many times in this war that it is getting really hard to tell the difference between a touchdown and a safety.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
A governing majority of the Iraqi people, able to exercise control over Iraq’s constitutional process, must reject radical Islam.
Iraq’s security and police forces must possess the capacity and the necessary skills that will enable them to confront the insurgency, the radical Islamists and even the common criminals, and then swiftly deliver justice through overwhelming force and superior firepower.
Iraq’s military must be reconstructed, and then trained to that level of competency in which the armed services can protect the Iraqi people from external threats and control Iraq’s sovereign borders.
Of course, Iraq is but one facet of a multi-front war, and "victory" will not be realized until Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is dismantled or destroyed; in Lebanon, Hezbollah is disarmed or defeated; and in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad accepts the same fate as that of Lybia’s "dictator-for-life," Moammar Gaddafi.
In short, "Victory in Iraq" can not be characterized as an isolated event, and it will not occur in a vacuum.
That said, we are winning.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
We already won.
We're now just rebuilding. Yes, some in the press say we're losing or whatever, but they said the same thing about western Europe in 1948.
--
Run like Reagan!
We are NOT losing...militarily. There is no force in the world that can make us lose militarily.
We are at a stalemate politically in Iraq though. The Iraqi government needs to get the ball moving.
will not lose. They refuse to lose. We are going to win. And this news about the new plan is good news. I think the public will rally, incl many democrat rank and file and even some in Congress. What I do know is that there is not the backbone in Congress to fight a Bush and the troops intent on winning.
The terms with -ing on the end are quite amorphous. We don't know who was winning until there is a winner.
We will win. Bush will not quit, and with 2 more years the troops and the Iraqis will get control esp with a dead mookie.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I've been leary of the 'more troops' mantra; if 'more troops' means more soldiers and marines acting as police in Bagdad.
However, if 'more troops' means crushing Sadr's militia and a new military offensive in Anbar designed to kill Sunni killers, I am on board. Sure hope that is the way it plays out.
The Iraqis are failing to take control of their country and stabilize it. We’ve been over-generous after removing the dictatorial regime that was a threat to us and our allies. We’ve tried to hand them a democracy on a silver platter and they still can’t govern themselves. It’s clear that they need a strong-man and have very little commitment to a civilized order.
I’ve read that the Iraqis we put into power in various towns are easily removed when we are gone. The people of those towns just won’t united and support a leader who stands up to jihadi and Baathist remnants in many parts of Iraq. In Baghdad, there is the typical separation between ethnic groups that comes with the removal of a long-standing tyrant or colonial power. We’ve seen this in Yugoslavia after communism and India after British rule.
In Iraq they’ve been in a civil war for 30 years with the Baathist getting in most of the punches. Now we’ve allowed others to get a few punches in return. We can’t stop civil wars in Islamic nations. Are we going to stop them in the Sudan and Somalia? Are we going to police the whole Muslim world?
The new Iraqi order will not be to our standards nor should it be. This is a very foreign culture with different values. What it takes to stabilize Iraq will not be pretty and will cause outrage if we use those methods. It’s time for us to leave. We’ve done all we could given the rules to which we impose on our troops. I side with those who believe we should leave sooner rather than later.
in Iraq. It was, rather, the end of the beginning: that is, an acceptance of the failure of the "small footprint" strategy which followed our brilliant conquest of Baghdad in march 2003.
This policy had several components: the theory that political developments and achievements such as elections, a constitution, etc, would give people a stake in the government and therefore, that the violence (sectarian, crminal, jihadi, Baathist) would decrease as political participation increased; at the same time, we would re-constitute the Iraqi army along national lines, and as the Iraqis took over, our participation would decrease and we would withdraw troops. A third component was economic, based on the idea that its vast oil reserves would make the country economically self-sufficient. None of these assumptions has been correct, and the strategy has failed.
This does not mean it was a bad strategy -- there are reasons why it was adopted. Rumsfeld has seen his mission as SecDef to be reducing the size of the military. Hence, his famous remark "You don't go to war with the army you want; you go to war with the army you have." The Shock and awe invasion and the small footprint occupation were both signature Rumsfeld initiatives. And, while initially successful, they were not enough for the long war necessary for success in Iraq.
For that we needed a second strategic military assault, one which, ideally, would have followed the 2004 election, in which the President was given a mandate to continue the Iraq War. I frankly expected that 2005 would see the kind of review we are seeing now, with military, civilian, etc, advisers assessing the situation and making recommendations. Unfortunately, this did not take place two years ago, before the popular and political support for the war collapsed.
Instead, the president deferred to his generals, and adopted "stay the course" with disastrous results. Still, the situation can be reversed if the President decides (as I hope he will) to adopt a new course and finish the job in Iraq.
That would involve increasing our troop levels (I'm talking about significantly) in theater and also changing the mission from police action to military action in the two areas where we should, and can, fight and win -- Baghdad and Anbar province.
For this the President would have to follow his firing of Rumsfeld by also relieving his theater generals Casey and Abizaid and also probably replacing Pace at JCS with a war-fighting general.
Fortunately, George Bush, while he has serious limitations as a politician and leader, is a great Commander-in-Chief, one of the greatest we have ever had. That is, he is a political leader who understands when force has to be used. I like to compare him with Truman, who was similarly underrated while in office, but one could also compare his situation to that of Polk, who essentially fought the Mexican War without a lot of help from Congress, because he saw the danger posed to American expansion from Mexico. The danger--and the opportunity. Just as Bush saw the danger posed by Iraq, and the opportunity to place an American expeditionary force in the heart of the Middle East.
It is late in the day, but we should be thankful we have a C-in-C with such courage and decisiveness. Bush could have seized the ISG report and used it to retreat. Recall that Lyndon Johnson declined to run for re-election when he was faced with mounting political and popular disapproval such as Bush suffers today. Instead, if I read him correctly, Bush intends to use his remaining time in office to secure a victory. He knows that if we win in Iraq, none of the current criticism will matter, and if we lose, we will have far greater problems than his approval ratings.
Really? How has it failed? Is it because terrorists, who are commanded by God to destroy infidels, can murder civilians at will? Call me crazy, but in my military defeat was defined as when the enemy dislodges your forces and drives you from the field. It meant that the good guys were dead, and the bad guys were left to rape and pillage the unprotected civilians without having to worry about the good guys anymore.
Apparently the millennium has brought a new paradigm stemming from the 30 minute attention span of the average American zombie. An SS sniper killed an American GI in 1954! That was nine years after “mission accomplished”. We did not hand power over to the German government for almost ten years! For all our technological prowess and military might the success or failure of a free democracy seems to always come down to will and patience. We used to have enough of them to take on all comers.
Now it appears from the posts on Redstate that the words of our enemies, when assessing the will of the American people, are spot on. They claim that they are undefeatable because of their belief that God is on their side, and their belief that if they die in jihad it means a ticket to paradise. They say that Americans haven’t the will to resist their divinely inspired murder. They claim that they do not have to win a single battle, hold a single piece of ground, stop a single political process, or make any kind of measurable gain. They claim that we are so weak, decadent, and unsure of ourselves, not to mention our lack belief that we might actually be on God’s side, that they simply have to keep hitting us, and we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and hand them what they are after.
George Bush never said that this was going to be over soon. In fact, he promised a very long struggle against an intractable enemy. If the press has convinced you that we have lost this war, only by refusing to report on the other 88% of the country, and creating hysteria about casualties when these are among the lowest of any war we have ever fought, and certainly don’t add up to freeing 25 million people, then everything that the Islamic fascists say about you is absolutely correct. Furthermore, they are absolutely right, according to their culture and doctrine, to despise and dispose of you, exactly as they have promised.
I contend that you have absolutely no idea what defeat looks like or will entail for you and your family, but I can assure you that you that if you think we are loosing in Iraq, and this is all they have to do to defeat us, you are certainly going to find out.
This is a battle of wills, and we are loosing because our enemy has far more than we do. It is unfortunate, but it is going to take millions of dead Americans you wake this country up to the threat.
The enemy is rearming the Ruhr. They can be crushed if we act decisively when possible and do not loose our will to persevere in the face of their senseless attacks. If your defeatism wins politically I expect to find myself beside the American version of Nicholas Graf von Salm long after you have renounced your religion and submitted to Islam.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I said the strategy we have been pursuing for the past two years has not been successful. The stated aims were to bring about a decrease in violence through political participation, and to pull out American forces as Iraqi forces took over. The violence has increased rather than decreased, and we have not started pulling out our troops.
I'm saying that on its own terms the current strategy has failed. For it to have succeeded, the violence would have to decrease and our forces would be leaving. Have either of these happened?
It's hard for me to take anyone seriously who keeps saying we are not "loosing."
"losing" is what you do in sports and war when you aren't winning.
"Loosing" is what you do with the hounds of war or with arrows when firing a bow...
"Lose" is the opposite of "win" and "loose" is the opposite of "tight"
...What Are they teaching in school these days?
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
First, because of the apparent plan for increasing the size of the military.
In a country as hostile to its own survival as America, it seems that we recruiters have down too bloody well at our jobs. I sure hope they increase the number of recruiters out here if they want a faster build-up of the military (and they need to make it nicer out here. A large minority of us, if not the majority, would rather be in combat than recruiting).
Second, at so many of the misconceptions of the military STILL presented by those who are Supposed to be on our side.
Namely:
1)Renovating the image of the Guards and Reserves. Already been done. People don't join thinking they'll never deploy. No scholarship club here.
2)Taking pay cuts to be deployed. For starters, Most Reservists aren't taking a pay cut at all. Between the Tax-free status for deploying to a combat zone (Bosnia still counts as a combat zone, btw), and the Housing Allowance for rent/mortgage for maintaining the family residence, and hazardous duty pay and family separation pay and, and, and... Furthermore, in those uncommon cases where all that does Not add up to what these Reservists/Guardsmen are making in the Civilian world, they will receive up to an Additional $1,000/month in order to match their "lost" salary (and that's not even counting how Most large companies will still pay Reservists and Guardsmen at least partial salaries for part of the time they are deployed).
3)Growing the Army is 5 years late. In 2003, it was decided to start a rebuilding of the military (particularly the USMC and USArmy, the 2 most heavily needed forces). By 2005, the resources had finally been assembled and emplaced to begin that build-up and the recruitment quotas went up for the first time in nearly 15 years and while we didn't meet that goal, we still recruited a net increase in the size of the Army and USMC.
In FY2006, the increased quotas were met and even exceeded the quotas and the Army alone increased in size a Net 5%. That doesn't sound like much, but that is the Net Increase after calculating the number of recruits who shipped to Basic Training minus the number of retirees, wounded, killed, soldiers choosing not to reenlist and all others discharged from the Army for various reasons. That was a significant increase and is projected to continue for the forseeable future.
So, that's it. I hope people read this and learn a little something.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Definitely we should have started adding troops earlier. I think a lot of people look at the total number of troops in the armed forces but don't realize how many are really support personnel, as opposed to combat.
Our military is still mainly designed to fight technological foes... we do need to be able to fight that kind of war, but at this point it's dubious whether the entire military should be built around that concept.
I never claimed that "most" Reservists are taking a paycut. I deployed with alot of people for whom deployment actually represented a raise.
That said, I also deployed with an individual who made six figures civilian side, only to deploy as an E-5 making, well, E-5 pay. His company was not one of the good ones who made up the difference, and the extra $1000 only made up a part of the gap. That most of his fellow soldiers did not take a similar pay cut was of little comfort to him in the obvious financial bind this put him in. He wasn't the only one, just one of the most extreme.
All I'm saying is that, for soldiers who find them in this type of situation, some support should be built into the system.
Keep up the good work, brother- yours is the one job in the Army I wouldn't want.
-D
And this is what I get for volunteering to deploy to Iraq...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Pouring in treasure and troops years after the end of the major combat operations is unpecedented! Clearly we're losing!
Except for the Marshall plan. But that was against the Nazis, and the Communists said it was OK (they even called it Patriotic), so that was an exception.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge