Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Win for the Troops

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Win for the Troops

    What does everyone else think of the troop level increase? For me, it's been long overdue!

    Here's an oped from Ralph Peters:

    New York Post
    January 12, 2007

    Win For The Troops

    More soldiers, more Marines

    By Ralph Peters

    Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it clear that we’ve finally got a Pentagon chief who understands the global threats we face and the enduring need for more grunts.

    In a press conference with the secretary of State and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gates announced that the administration will seek a permanent increase of 92,000 soldiers and Marines. At last. Upping Army numbers by 65,000 troops and the Marine Corps by 27,000 is the best news for our national defense in 20 years. Vitally, the increases will concentrate on providing more combat forces — those who serve at the forward edge of the fight.

    To his further credit, Gates listened to the military about the smart way to grow the force: First, the temporary increases now in effect would become permanent; thereafter, the Army and Marines would increase by 7,000 personnel per year. This measured pace allows the services to methodically train, equip and integrate new recruits while standing up additional combat battalions and brigades.

    Given the current pressures on our under-strength ground forces, it’s tempting to beef up the numbers more rapidly — but “you want it bad, you’ll get it bad.” It’s essential that we don’t compromise our unmatched standards of professionalism and that units don’t have to scrounge for equipment as they head off for war.

    The proposed end-strength increase is a big victory for the common soldier or Marine — quietly disdained by Washington bigwigs — over the defense-industry aristocrats who push platinum-plated junk on the Pentagon to subsidize their fifth or sixth retirement homes.

    To someone who’s watched the corruption, Capitol Hill shenanigans and culture of lies in defense procurement for decades, it’s a great feeling to see real support for G.I. Joe (that guy John Kerry dismissed as so stupid he ended up in Iraq).

    And Secretary Gates went even further. Tearing up the destructive Rumsfeld-era rule book, he announced a commonsense policy for mobilizing reserve-component units.

    The bonds between soldiers and Marines at the small-unit level are critical to morale and combat effectiveness. Yet, in recent years, units around the country were pulled apart in ad hoc attempts to flesh out illplanned deployments. Men and women who’d trained together were thrust into war beside relative strangers.

    Now units will maintain their home-station integrity and go to war together. Initially, this will mean the early remobilization of some individuals as their units are called up, but it will be far more humane in the long run — making life more predictable for our citizen-soldiers and assuring them that, following one-year mobilizations, they really will be guaranteed at least five full years back in their communities.

    Congress also should fully fund re-equipping those Reserve and National Guard units, whose inventories — never full — have been picked to pieces during our current conflicts.

    It’s up to Congress to stop the phony gushing about how its members all “support our troops.” Put some cash on the barrelhead, Madame Speaker: Fund this vital increase in troop strength promptly.

    But wait: According to Leftie, those cradle-robbing recruiters won’t be able to find enough young patriots to expand the force without a draft. And who wants to serve in uniform, dude?

    Gates addressed that, too. It was a fine thing to watch our defense secretary announce with visible pride that all of our armed services exceeded their recruiting goals for December — with especially strong enlistment numbers for the Army and Marines.

    In 2003, we went to war in Iraq with a flawed plan rigged to show that technology alone could win future wars and that “wasteful” soldiers and Marines could be given the boot.

    Didn’t turn out that way, did it?

    Ralph Peters’ latest book is “Never Quit The Fight.”
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    Agree Major, long overdue.
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

    Comment


    • #3
      This sounds exactly like my army 5 years ago. And we're still a mess.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd like the inventory and troop numbers to go up as well, but it remains to be seen if the increased recruitment levels can be met to do so.
        Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

        Comment


        • #5
          More often than not, Ralph Peters gets it right on the money.
          In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
          The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stan187 View Post
            More often than not, Ralph Peters gets it right on the money.
            Stan,

            I'll disagree with you there. Like VDH, mighty entertaining, but not so much for me on concurrence with what he wrote. However, I do think that this oped is spot on.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #7
              Members,

              I enjoyed Mr. Peter's criticism of the defense industry appropriations, which I think is responsible for the waste of taxpayer money. Perhaps implicit in Peter's criticism was the idea the Rumsfeld's strategy of high-tech warfare, to the neglect of conventional strategies, was flawed.

              I also believe the troop increase is overdue. However, I also feel it is too late. The time for this increase was after Saddam Hussein was originally ousted. I think that the insurgency is too mature and well-funded, one might say entrenched, to be countered.

              Furthermore, this troop increase comes at a time when US domestic politics is ready for the war to end. That is does not mean that is should end, but that Bush is effectively out of time. These 20,000 troops would be effective if given support in the future. However, how efficacious is there presence if Washington pulls the plug in two years, when an anti-war Democrat will likely be elected?

              With such low approval ratings for the president and the war specifically, I don't see how the war can go on. In addition, the war has never been cheap, and more troops will certainly increase the cost of Iraqi occupation.

              What are the opinions of some of the military officials here on the points I've raised? I am interested in how the new brigades will be used, and specifically what problems more troops will solve.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus View Post
                I think that the insurgency is too mature and well-funded, one might say entrenched, to be countered.
                Everything can be beaten.
                No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Confed999 View Post
                  Everything can be beaten.
                  That kind of reply isn't helpful.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    confed,

                    the insurgency has waned and become second chair to civil war/sectarian infighting. all of a sudden, it has become far less clear whom the enemy is.

                    shek,

                    regarding the OVERALL army troop increases (not the ones in iraq), in your estimation, is 92,000 enough? certainly it will depend upon the wars we need to fight, but is there a particular "comfort zone" you'd think the US military (especially the groundpounders) would do best with?
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      confed,

                      the insurgency has waned and become second chair to civil war/sectarian infighting. all of a sudden, it has become far less clear whom the enemy is.

                      shek,

                      regarding the OVERALL army troop increases (not the ones in iraq), in your estimation, is 92,000 enough? certainly it will depend upon the wars we need to fight, but is there a particular "comfort zone" you'd think the US military (especially the groundpounders) would do best with?
                      I'm not familiar with discussions on the "best" level for the current force - I'd have to dig out some opeds by GEN McCaffrey and some others to see what some retired 4 stars have said (IIRC, he's stated that we need 600K in the active Army). However, the increase would effectively put us back at a 12 division force, which is 2 plus some change less than the Cold War force structure.

                      The question becomes how seriously are we contemplating a ground component to any Iran contingency plan, and what would the commitment in Iraq be at the time where such a contingency plan would have to be ready to be executed. I don't have the answers to either of those two questions, so sorry for not being much help on that aspect.
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus View Post
                        That kind of reply isn't helpful.
                        Why not? You say that the insurgency is unstopable, I say everything can be beaten. My statement was as helpful as yours, though mine is more true as there is very little that cannot be beaten.

                        Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        confed,

                        the insurgency has waned and become second chair to civil war/sectarian infighting. all of a sudden, it has become far less clear whom the enemy is.
                        That sounds like it's beating itself through evolution then. :) Not much is invincible, and nothing made up of people is invincible.
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes and no.

                          Troop level increase, yes! Additional brigades, no! I saw another article that said the Army was going to try to stand up six new brigades. Give as many existing brigades as possible a third manuever battalion before standing up any more HQs at any level.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Increase of troop levels will have marginal consequence. It is a mere confidence and morale builder!

                            What is important is correct deployment and employment!

                            And more important is a clear policy.

                            Already, the Iraqi govt is acting queer!

                            US and Iran spar over captives

                            Baghdad, Jan. 14 (Reuters): The US military said today that five Iranians held by its troops in Iraq are linked to Revolutionary Guards who are arming and funding Iraqi militants but Tehran called them diplomats and demanded they be released.

                            The row over the five tested the Iraqi government’s ties with Washington as President Jalal Talabani left for Syria, another foe of US President George W. Bush who this week vowed to stop the support for insurgents from both Syria and Iran.....

                            Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the Iranians were not accredited as diplomats but were working with Iraqi approval. Calling for their release, he said the incident underlined the “delicate balance” Baghdad is trying to strike

                            More at:
                            http://www.telegraphindia.com/107011...ry_7263171.asp


                            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                            HAKUNA MATATA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              confed,

                              Why not? You say that the insurgency is unstopable, I say everything can be beaten. My statement was as helpful as yours, though mine is more true as there is very little that cannot be beaten.
                              the insurgency is effectively unstoppable with the level of resources we have put into the fight. unless we're willing to grant the force structure and the resources which CI theory gives as a general rule of thumb for crushing an insurgency, then unfortunately it will remain unbeaten. but that doesn't take away from your point that anything can be beaten. ;)

                              That sounds like it's beating itself through evolution then. Not much is invincible, and nothing made up of people is invincible.
                              not particularly "beating itself"- getting superseded would be closer to the mark. there was a study awhile back (i'll see if i can pull it up) that said that the insurgency was now financially self-sustaining, and not only that, insurgents are now known to attacking US troops merely to make propaganda films/videos (which in turn are getting fancier!). that would indicate that the insurgency is far from being defeated, if it has both the resources, capability, and will for doing even piddly operations.

                              but as serious as that is, its IMPORTANCE is fading. everyone knows that the best way to crush the insurgency now is to foster a working political solution, notably through a reconciliatory government. this government is now under the dominance of sectarian forces, which have created sectarian fighting so fierce as to reduce the relative impact of the sunni insurgency.

                              this not only stops our plan to crush the insurgency, it creates multiple problems of its own. after all, the civil war is not really aimed against us, and if the shia are determined enough to crush the sunnis, they probably can, because we've given them some of the tools necessary to do so. and if we're not smooth enough in persuading the shia not to do so, then we risk a shia insurgency, which would make US presence in iraq untenable, seeing as how we have enormous problems as it is trying to crush a minority sunni insurgency.

                              would that we had say, oh, five hundred thousand troops in country at the beginning. the knots are unraveling and we've not invested the resources needed to grab them back.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X