I do know the drill, unfortunately......but sometimes you can see the trees without seeing the forest. That is the case here I believe.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Troop Increase - Realistic or Capitol Hill talk?
- Thread starter Conaway
- Start date
I do know the drill, unfortunately......but sometimes you can see the trees without seeing the forest. That is the case here I believe.
^^^Agree that an increase in force size to deal with a more Global/widespread threat and response requirement is a must. We are still operating with the post cold-war force structure level, which was a significant draw-down from the 80's. The problem is that many in postitions of authority have become enamored with the theory that technology and tactics can make it a cleaner, more sophisticated warfighting experience. War is a tough business, and if you are going to engage in one, than it takes full commitment and that means troops on the ground, grinding it out and overwhelming the oppostition. It cannot be done solely from the air, and it cannot be done quickly by trying to figure out the minimum number of troops on the ground that you think can get it done if you plan on getting it done quickly.
Of the troops over there, how many are national guard and reservists and augmentees? I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but it is a significant percentage of the total. We have been backstopping the actve duty units with the national guard from the outset. The problem is not that the active duty forces are having trouble making there quota or are seeing a dramatic increase in those getting out, it is that the active duty ground force numbers in the military are not big enough to meet the requirement any more. The area that is seeing the biggest losses in numbers is the national guard and reserves. The "citizen soldiers" that have been deployed to OIF are seeing a lot of reduction in their numbers as they come home, and less people joining up, and without them the active duty force is not big enough to pick up the slack. The draft may not be the best or most popular option to make up the difference, and may not be necessary to increase the force size to the necessary level in the long term, but may be the only way to stop-gap the shortage in the short term. We used to have a force structure that would allow us to fight war on two seperate fronts.....not so much now. Are we going to increase the amount of guys on the ground in Iraq...I don't know. Depends on whether the leadership feels that is in our best interest or if they feel that giving it over to the Iraqis is the best solution. Those Iraqi forces that we have trained are in no way ready to fight this themselves, at least not with what they have shown thus far.
Either way, I think that the discussion on whether we are going to increase the troops on the ground in Iraq by 20K is seperate from whether or not we are going to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps long term. I don't know on the first, but I think that this experience has shown that we need a bigger ground force, and thus a permanent increase in the force size that we maintain to deal with our commitments and the threats around the world. Also agree that this applies to ground troops, so no, you won't see an increase in aviation slots. The shortage is on the ground.
Of the troops over there, how many are national guard and reservists and augmentees? I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but it is a significant percentage of the total. We have been backstopping the actve duty units with the national guard from the outset. The problem is not that the active duty forces are having trouble making there quota or are seeing a dramatic increase in those getting out, it is that the active duty ground force numbers in the military are not big enough to meet the requirement any more. The area that is seeing the biggest losses in numbers is the national guard and reserves. The "citizen soldiers" that have been deployed to OIF are seeing a lot of reduction in their numbers as they come home, and less people joining up, and without them the active duty force is not big enough to pick up the slack. The draft may not be the best or most popular option to make up the difference, and may not be necessary to increase the force size to the necessary level in the long term, but may be the only way to stop-gap the shortage in the short term. We used to have a force structure that would allow us to fight war on two seperate fronts.....not so much now. Are we going to increase the amount of guys on the ground in Iraq...I don't know. Depends on whether the leadership feels that is in our best interest or if they feel that giving it over to the Iraqis is the best solution. Those Iraqi forces that we have trained are in no way ready to fight this themselves, at least not with what they have shown thus far.
Either way, I think that the discussion on whether we are going to increase the troops on the ground in Iraq by 20K is seperate from whether or not we are going to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps long term. I don't know on the first, but I think that this experience has shown that we need a bigger ground force, and thus a permanent increase in the force size that we maintain to deal with our commitments and the threats around the world. Also agree that this applies to ground troops, so no, you won't see an increase in aviation slots. The shortage is on the ground.
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
I think we've all come to the conclusion that an increase in the size of our armed frorces seems to be the most feasible way to bring something productive out of this conflict. This seems to be the perseptive of many individuals on the ground... and I consider that to be the most important perspective. However, I think that a draft might create more problems than it solves. I agree with Brett in that an all-volunteer force has been a successful concept so far. Now the question becomes...how do we increase the size of our military with recruitment in the red and reduced popularity from the public with regard to this conflict?
I wouldn't say recruitment is in the red, as some communities have undergone "right-sizing" in the last 6 years. Increasing the size of the military isn't rocket science, it's just something you have to decide on, then do. The hard part is convincing the people who pay the bills.
Brett
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
^^ concur, popularity is a chief concern. However most recruiters haven't been making mission. How would we work to increase the number of volunteers?
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
Just gouge I hear from the news and from recruiters that I know... not the most reliable, but according to reports numbers are down, especially for the Army.
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
I just thought it was commonly known I guess, I've heard it from a number of different places, I could be wrong.
And in 1953, 12 years after Pearl Harbor, troops were STILL fighting in the Far East!! Never-ending war!!!
First troops we sent to Korea came from Japan. Wanna take a stab why they were there. :icon_smil
Uhhhhh ... because we like fish heads & rice ... ???
Sapporo ??? Kirin ??? Gyoza ??? Tonkatsu ??? Yakisoba ??? Sushi ??? Onsen ??? Geishas ??? Cameras ???
Am I gettin' close ... ???
Here fishy fishy... here fishy fishy... come on, liberals, bite on the ol' bait TB55 is laying out for ya 
