Troop Increase - Realistic or Capitol Hill talk?

[Conaway]

I've been watching news clips lately talking about the president presenting the idea of increasing the size of the Marine Corps by 20,000 and the Army also by a considerable amount. They are saying Bush wants to send in 30,000 more troops to help stabalize and control Iraq better in exchange for a larger force 4-5 years down the road.

After hearing this, I was thinking, how is this going to affect those of us who are trying to get into OCS and earn our commission? For instance, I'm in a bind where my OSA has told me there are no pilot slots for 195 in ATL and only two available for 196 in Oct. I want a pilot slot for 195 because I am graduating in May. Can I expect for this to turn around if they decide to increase the size of the Marine Corps? Would it increase my chances of coming across a pilot slot for 195 knowing there are none right now for my location? Would it lessen the competitiveness of getting a pilot contract because the Corps is in more need or should I expect it to stay basically the same?

I have a few articles to help, I'll see if I can find specifically what I saw. It's kind of late so I'm going to bed right now, I'll post the other info later.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237097,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/pentagon

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230702,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/pentagon

 

[Lawman]

Seeing as how the Chief of the Army has said that at the currant rates with all the extra incentives they are throwing in to new enlistment bonuses the absolute maximum they could increase their total man power would be roughly 8000 troops per year.

Now figure in that the Army is a hell of a lot larger then the Marine Corps and trains a lot more people per year, also their basic training is shorter. So your not going to see a massive swing in the amount of slots available for training unless you did something similar to what happened during Vietnam and start shortening training and lowering standards. Most people would tell you that would be the dumbest thing we could do right now. Yes it will put boots on the ground but they will be less effective thus requiring even more of them.

Fact of the matter is this year is a bad year for flight slots, last year was what most OSO's would call a good year. It could change in the next year or two without having anything to do with a man power increase. You just apply and you get a slot or you dont given the number available. Waiting on some magic increase in the number of slots would be like waiting for it to rain in the desert it might happen, but do you want to stake your life on it. Just apply and spend 2 months driving yourself crazy like the rest of us.

 

[Brett327]

Short term flight slots will not be affected by long term force structure changes or surge type plus-ups in Iraq.

Brett

 

[Stubby]

I would also suspect that the majority of build up will be the foot soldiers... infantry, special forces etc... and that specialties like pilots will be proportionately much less.

 

[Conaway]

So your not going to see a massive swing in the amount of slots available for training unless you did something similar to what happened during Vietnam and start shortening training and lowering standards. Most people would tell you that would be the dumbest thing we could do right now. Yes it will put boots on the ground but they will be less effective thus requiring even more of them.

I agree with your statement. However, the Army has already lowered their standards to increase personnel. The Army met their goal of 80,000 recruits last year and they did so by increasing the enlistment age to 42, lowering physical requirements and others and allowing over 8,000 moral waivers. Sounds like your "like Vietnam" description is already underway to me.

 

[Brett327]

I agree with your statement. However, the Army has already lowered their standards to increase personnel. The Army met their goal of 80,000 recruits last year and they did so by increasing the enlistment age to 42, lowering physical requirements and others and allowing over 8,000 moral waivers. Sounds like your "like Vietnam" description is already underway to me.

Don't be difficult.

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

....unless you did something similar to what happened during Vietnam and start shortening training and lowering standards....

Don't be foolish. You demean the successes and sacrifices of the Vietnam era vets with your foolishness.

To use your reasoning: How in the hell did we ever win WW2 with all of those dullards in uniform ... ???

 

[Lawman]

Don't be foolish. You demean the successes and sacrifices of the Vietnam era vets with your foolishness.

To use your reasoning: How in the hell did we ever win WW2 with all of those dullards in uniform ... ???

No I make the statement that mearly putting bodies in uniforms should not be the goal of any military branch. And by doing so we would fail to learn from the hard fought sacrifices and successes just because it was done that way does not mean it is the best way. '

My Grandfather was a DI during the closing years of the Vietnam tour and he will tell you that he recieved better training when he went to Korea then the average Marine was getting during his time on the field. Why? Because it was shorter and too concentrated to have been as effective. Could you potentially shorten OCS and boot and squeeze more men and women through per year, yes but you wont see that much differnce in troop numbers. Could you do it in the massive numbers it would take to make a 20000 personel increase in a time table of the immediate future, not without making major sacrifices and compromises in the level you expect to train your troops to. Then you need to ask the question can you lower the training level of your troops and expect them to accomplish the current mission set.

 

[A4sForever]

...you need to ask the question can you lower the training level of your troops and expect them to accomplish the current mission set.

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.

 

[Conaway]

Don't be difficult.

Brett

Don't be difficult? Tell that to NBC Nightly News, the origin.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure my topic is, well, off topic. I just wanted an answer to my question, not a firey debate.

All I wanted to know is, could there be a chance of more pilot slots opening up if the expansion goes into effect? Yes, there will more enlisted for the majority, but more enlisted means the more officers and NCO's are needed too, ehich is why the question came to mind. I never wanted to talk about Vietnam, or the credibility of combat vets of the time. Vietnam vets earned their just recognition and we're not here to debate that. Focus!

 

[invertedflyer]

It appears to me that many of the troops in Iraq seem to think that a massive increase of troops immediately would "let them get the job done" ... while many politicians argue that the smartest move is to hand over responsibility of the country to the Iraqis. Afterall, we've trained thousands of their ING troops. Who do you think has the most useful perspective, or should it be a combination of both? I don't know the answer to this, just wondering what some of you veterans think. Many if not most of you that have gold under your handles have deployed to Iraq, so your perspective is very valuable.

EDIT: I lost focus Conaway!

 

[Conaway]

edit

 

[A4sForever]

.... many of the troops (seem to think) ... while many politicians argue ....

The verdict is in. You need read no further ...

 

[Flash]

Don't be difficult? Tell that to NBC Nightly News, the origin.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure my topic is, well, off topic. I just wanted an answer to my question, not a firey debate.

All I wanted to know is, could there be a chance of more pilot slots opening up if the expansion goes into effect? Yes, there will more enlisted for the majority, but more enlisted means the more officers and NCO's are needed too, ehich is why the question came to mind. I never wanted to talk about Vietnam, or the credibility of combat vets of the time. Vietnam vets earned their just recognition and we're not here to debate that. Focus!

There is very little chance that you or anyone on this board is going to see any real effect from the proposed increase in troop levels for the Marines and Army anytime soon. There is almost no chance that they will increase pilot slots, especially in the short term. Like someone said before, you will see most of that increase in ground pounders, aviation will be a lot lower on the priority list than grunts.

One thing you have to keep in mind is that this proposed increase will likely take place over several years, like 5 or more. That is if the increase is actually approved. Even if it is approved in the next year it will take another year for it to be seen at the worker-bee level, it takes time for the money to make it to the lower levels.

 

[Flash]

The verdict is in. You need read no further ...

Eh?

Generals wary of adding troops to Iraq

"WASHINGTON - A White House laboring to find a new approach in Iraq said Tuesday it is considering sending more U.S. troops, an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash.

The military's caution is based on two chief fears — that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the already stretched Army and Marines Corps even thinner once the surge ended.

They also worry that it feeds a perception that the strife and chaos in Iraq is mainly a military problem; in their view it is largely political, fed by economic distress."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq