Troop Increase - Realistic or Capitol Hill talk?

[Lawman]

Mission set?

Stop with the bureau-speak gibberish. You refer to "massive numbers" -- i.e., twenty thousand (20,000) and you think that is ... "massive"??? Quit drinking the Kool-Aid. We had a headcount of over one half million (>500,000) in Vietnam alone, circa 1968-69. That doesn't even begin to take into account the rest of the world at the time.

Consider adding 500,000 trigger pullers today, now that would be "massive".

Ever heard of "90 day wonders" ??? ... while perhaps not the "ideal", when motivated and well-led, they can sometimes accomplish ... "wonders".

But ... the bottom line ... if you are going to fight an extended war and not burn out your people ... you need bodies, lots of bodies.

You need the military draft.

Believe it.

But thats just the thing, we're not over there to fight an "extended war." The administration and congressional powers that be have made it very clear that this is not the 10+ year commitment that some of the "Just another Vietnam" people have made it out to be. Every day you hear about exit strategys and if with the abismal approval rating of the war people will simply not support such a move as putting bodys in uniforms with a draft.

And thats exactly what you would need to suddenly surge 20000 troops in a matter of a few months. Most people realize that this war has through 2007 to do something drastic (i.e. either end or withdraw) and if it doesnt enough people are fed up in this country with the a non-victory (I didnt say loss just not victory) that they will vote for anyone who promises to get us out of it whether that is the smart/right decision or not. So if it cant happen all of a sudden and be the clean cut victory that we've all come to expect from the most powerful (be it politically hamstringed) military on Earth then we as a majority seem to want to take our ball and go home.

 

[A4sForever]

Eh?

Generals wary of adding troops to Iraq ...

Generals ... troopers ... different animals. They give different answers to the same question. You know the drill, I am sure.

One is "generally" (no pun) a political animal ... the other is generally at the tip of the spear.

Different priorities ... different viewpoints.

 

[A4sForever]

....we're not over there to fight an "extended war." ...

Political B.S. of the moment. But it's not your fault. You are merely repeating what some of our "leaders" have stated .... but:

Is that why the GWOT was also described as a "war that will go on for decades... "???

Is that why Iraq has been described as the central front in the "global war on terror"???

The problem is ... we never went to "war" after 9/11 ... just talk, piecemeal actions, political smoke and mirrors. No real commitment, our leadership is not in it for the "duration" in spite of the rhetoric and in spite of policies that will burn out a "too small" force with repeated deployments. What we need takes intellectual honesty, focus, and a conviction that you will get the job done, no matter what it takes or however long it takes ... turning "it" over to the Iraqis will not work any better that turning "it" over to the Vietnamese did.

If it's in OUR best interest --- then WE need to fight the fight. Not our Hessians or their present day reasonable facsimile ...

The will to win. Commitment. Pay the price and get it "done". All of which has been seriously lacking in our political and military leadership since 9/11.

That's my opinion ... you ain't gonna change it. The Vietnam war??? The Iraq war ??? Politics?? The will to win ???

Can you say .... The more things change, the more they remain the same ... ???

 

[invertedflyer]

Thanks A4s, very insightful.

 

[Lawman]

Political B.S. of the moment. But it's not your fault. You are merely repeating what some of our "leaders" have stated .... but:

Oh I totally dont agree with it or the way its being executed. Problem is if you ask the general guy on the street opinion nobody wants to continue a war for years and years on end even if it is against an enemy that is willing to prosecute the war to the last man as long as is neccesary.

Think of what happend after 9/11 yes we were all pissed and wanted to see somebody bombed but unlike Pearl Harbor you didnt see a massive drop of people just heading down to the local recruiting office and saying "I dont care what I have to do just let me do something to help us win this war." Its gone, for the most part. People just dont understand that kind of patriotism anymore and while there are people like me who want nothing more then to serve their country as the next generation they are looked at by and large as foolhardy amongst a populas more concerned with the number of O's in your pay check and what Brangolina is doing.

 

[invertedflyer]

while there are people like me who want nothing more then to serve their country as the next generation they are looked at by and large as foolhardy amongst a populas more concerned with the number of O's in your pay check and what Brangolina is doing.

I agree, the average person on the street is not a war supporter these days. Back 3+ years ago the poles were something like 60 or 70% in favor of the war. I still see A4s point as valid though, the right thing to do isn't always the most popular. If the troops seem to think that we've invested a lot into it, and want to see it done right, do we owe it to them to stay? Or, do we analyze the situation and come to the conclusion that Iraq must take charge of its own destiny? I'm at a loss.

 

[Lawman]

I agree, the average person on the street is not a war supporter these days. Back 3+ years ago the poles were something like 60 or 70% in favor of the war. I still see A4s point as valid though, the right thing to do isn't always the most popular. If the troops seem to think that we've invested a lot into it, and want to see it done right, do we owe it to them to stay? Or, do we analyze the situation and come to the conclusion that Iraq must take charge of its own destiny? I'm at a loss.

Problem is while I would venture to say that a servicemember is more likely to vote then the average citizen they are still outnumbered buy the average citizens that do vote so politicians being what they are will play to the crowd that is more likely to get them elected.

 

[invertedflyer]

Democracy hard at work

 

[Brett327]

I just wanted an answer to my question,

Asked, and answered.

Brett

 

[Cate]

Lawman - But you did see that, right after Sept. 11. Plenty of people were running down to their local recruiting offices to see what they could do to get involved; Pat Tillman gave up a hefty football contract to do just that. But volunteers who signed up immediately following Pearl Harbor had just over four and a half years of service when victory was declared in the Pacific theatre. Now, it's been over five years since 9/11, and with troops returning to Iraq three and four times and no end to the conflict in sight, people are starting to lose that passion they felt when the wound was fresh.

 

[Lawman]

Lawman - But you did see that, right after Sept. 11. Plenty of people were running down to their local recruiting offices to see what they could do to get involved; Pat Tillman gave up a hefty football contract to do just that. But volunteers who signed up immediately following Pearl Harbor had just over four and a half years of service when victory was declared in the Pacific theatre. Now, it's been over five years since 9/11, and with troops returning to Iraq three and four times and no end to the conflict in sight, people are starting to lose that passion they felt when the wound was fresh.

Pat Tillman is one of how many celebrities and sports stars that dropped what they were doing and served for their country? Name some more because honestly the only reason he is remembered is because he died a hero. What we saw after 9/11 pales in comparison to what happened after December 7. You didnt see lines of people outside the recruitment centers. Yes some men and women realized that its us or them and joined the fight but whens the last time you saw an entire street in anytown USA covered in yellow ribbons and with blue (and god forbid gold) stars in their windows. Whens the last time a GM assembly line was manned by a majority of women and old men because all the men of fighting age were "over there."

 

[Cate]

When was the last time a GM assembly line was manned by anything but robots? Apples and oranges. You're looking for an identical response, but a) that was more than half a century ago, and b) this war isn't that war. Think comparable.

 

[MasterBates]

When was the last time a GM assembly line was manned by anything but robots? Apples and oranges. You're looking for an identical response, but a) that was more than half a century ago, and b) this war isn't that war. Think comparable.

Considering I worked at Flint Truck & Bus assemby, in 1996-97, and have friends who still do. Contrary to what certain political/labor entities want you to believe, making a car is still labor intensive. It could be a hell of a lot more automated than it is.

Robots mostly replace jobs that often got people killed (press work), dismembered (steel cutting and shaping), or had long term health implications (paint).

/threadjack

 

[Brett327]

Regardless of the reasons, it seems like a draft is the least desirable way to increase the size of the military. During the 80s, we maintained a much larger force structure within the bounds of the all volunteer concept. I think increasing the size of the military makes sense, since we're essentially operating with a post-Cold War force structure and not one designed with the GWOT in mind.

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

... the military ... the all volunteer concept....

... And what's the FIRST thing you learn upon joining the military???

NEVER VOLUNTEER FOR ANYTHING !!!

I believe that is called ... irony???