GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Army troops, budget stretched to the limit

• 1587
  

  Well done and thought-provoking. The discussion of "TipFid" and the just-in-time war were informative and made me wonder whether this approach could have been what doomed Jessica Lynch's unit. Can't say I follow the logic, though, of how combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are making us a "hollow force" by interfering with "realistic" training stateside. Am I missing something?

  John Wood Posted September 11, 2003 4:12 AM
• 1582
  

  The claim that it will take five years to form two new divisions is absurd. The problems are motivation and money. The Army could find officer cadre for two divisions out of overhead by cutting into redundant staffs. The NCOs might be harder, though, and absent any sustained political mobilization of the country and public opinion it may be impossible to recruit the privates if enlisting means a couple of Iraq or Afghanistan tours. I suggest that whoever is inaugurated in January 2005 is going to face a hard choice: whether to reinstate the draft or declare a victory in Iraq and pull out.

  LtCol Terence J. Daly USAR (Ret) Posted September 10, 2003 11:14 AM
• 1567
  

  Great article, shows the facts as they stand. The one thing that stands out is that you can bomb a enemy and their country until it is flat, but in the end only ground troops can insure victory. That has been a fact since time began. The article also shows that there is a need for a larger standing Army. The Reserves were designed to be that reserves not for an active duty mission. The National Guard is to defend our country on our home soil not on active duty missions. But............Rumsfeld and Bush have decided to fight "their" war at everyone else's expense. How many people know that Rumsfeld lobbied Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998? I congratulate Clinton for turning Rumsfeld down. This leads to the one key factor in the article, the change that needs to be made is remove Rumsfeld. He was no good as the secretary of Defense before and is even worst now. Left in office we will shortly have a totally destroyed military. Rumsfeld is an old man that needs to go back to his retirement home and stay there before he starts a global confrontation, everyone against the US. One more thing lets contract more support so the troops get even fewer meals, ammunition, and mail. Never before have the troops had to do with out so much until this administration and its contracting mindset. Of course you do not hear of the problems because the troops have been warned (do not speak out if you do we will take disciplinary action). The media does not cover this part of the action, maybe they have been warned also. Talk to the troops themselves and they will tell you. Hey it is great, one meal a day of hot Ramen, but no more then two meals per day per person. Give me a break.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 9, 2003 8:28 AM
• 1566
  

  There is great respect for the military troops and what they are doing in Iraq. However, the leadership is a totally different situation. The war was a political decision made by a President that had no other tool in his political box. Sept. 11 made Bush feasible, but he has done everything wrong. EPA designation of ground zero as safe to work in when it was not, institution of steel tariffs that drove auto production out of the USA, tariffs on wood from Canada, going to war in Iraq without international support! Bush found out he cannot do it by himself and now wants the rest of the world to shoulder the burden he created - it is not likely to happen. Others may send troops as long as the USA pays for them. Turkey surely will send troops to control the Kurds in Iraq and keep them out of Turkey.

  I don't understand why the Army thinks that a 15 month break is too short for returning troops to the battle field - isn't that what they volunteered for? I think a 6 month break should be enough. Why is a year in theather too long? In WWII men were in theater for many years! Why are we sending weekend soldiers to the field when there are full timers sitting home doing things that civilians not only could do, but could do better! I sit with ten officers rank of Major or above that sit here for four years doing nothing "military" - they all should be in Iraq!

  Also, why assume we need more troops in Iraq, maybe we would be better off with fewer troops there. Our high visability is a problem and less visibility might help. Reduce the troops there and change their function to protecting the Americans there rather than trying to play cop on the beat for everything in Iraq.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 9, 2003 7:23 AM