Army Finds Troop Supply 'Getting Thin'

[RamboLiberal]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_re_us/iraq_stretched_thin_1&printer=1

The Army could have a tough time finding more combat troops if they are needed in Iraq (news - web sites). Of the service's 10 active-duty divisions, all or parts of nine are either already in Iraq to serve 12-month tours of duty, or have just returned home in recent weeks after a year's duty.

If extra troops are needed, soldiers may get less time at home before going back, one top general says. The Army might also have to consider sending troops now in South Korea (news - web sites). National Guard and Reserve combat forces would simply take too long to train.

"It's getting thin," said Pat Towell, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

It's not yet certain that U.S. commanders in Iraq will ask for more troops, beyond the 135,000 there now, although it appears increasingly likely with violence high. But if they do, the Army would have to resort to extreme measures to answer the call.

It would even be more difficult to keep the force at the current level beyond June or so, when 20,000 soldiers whose yearlong Iraq tours were extended by three months are due to go home. The Army has not said which units it would call upon if it must replace those 20,000 this summer.

Don't forget to rate the story.

[RobertSeattle]

1. Memories...GW GOP Convention 2000

"If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ..., 'Not ready for duty, sir.'"

(This was a lie BTW...Now it is true)

[MissMarple]

2. So, could we have taken hundred's of thousands of soldiers to Iraq

as Gen. Shensiki suggested? It doesn't sound as though we have them. How big is our military, anyway? It sounds like Rumsfeld's approach to promote a smaller, faster army was just camouflage to hide the inadequate resources. Not that I think that more mobility is a bad thing, but we weren't up for this.

[mulethree]

5. 1.4 million ? active military

So we put 125,000 in Iraq
and have another 125,000 who have come home.

Makes 250,000 - oops those are 40% Guard and reserves so the
proper number here is 150,000 active duty military involved in Iraq.

1,400,000
- 150,000
___________
1,250,000 non-iraq active duty?

maybe the 1.4 is off a bit, its been 1.3 - 1.6 over the last 15 years or so.

Anyway I try to imagine what else we have, troops in korea, germany, troops at home, troops at 700 or so other overseas bases, Marines at every embassy, sailors, NORAD/SAC guys, pentagon people. Its easy to make 1 million from that, not hard to stretch it to 1.25 million.

Still it seems odd that we send 10% to Iraq, call up guard and reserve and have some kind of shortage?

[hang a left]

6. You know, I have wondered about that from time to time.

Is that story of no troops true? Alot of people believe that here. Maybe it is just that we need another million or so soldiers for our Middle East adventures. Current and future ones.

[legin]

10. That may be the three services

Air Force, Navy and Army.

I think the army is about 450,000.

Rotation figure is 3:1. 1 in the field, 3 doing other things (returning home, debriefing, resting, training for going into the field, I assume).

[TahitiNut]

14. That's about right. "Troops" aren't militarily fungible.

The current military is far more staffed, relatively speaking, for stand-off warfare than ground-pounding.

That's the beauty of conscription: infantry is more easily increased than pilots or sonarmen.

[atreides1]

3. The Commanders On The Ground

Got the memo from Rummy, "don't ask for more troops". Remember it was,
"I never wore a uniform" Wolfowitz who chastised General Shinseki, when the he told Congress that at least 250,000 ground troops would be needed to control Iraq.

But Congress listened to an idiot and not to a combat veteran, this has always been one of my problems with a military controlled by civilians. Because it's the civilian government that sends the military into harms way with either crappy equipment, or as is the case now with no equipment.

And instead of letting the commanders on the ground make the decisions
based on military need, some smirking chimp, along with his circus of rictus grinning clowns, is making decisions based on his own political agenda.

The term Commander in Chief, should only allow the President to send the military into the field with the approval of Congress. Once the troops are fighting the only involvement that the civilian government should have is making sure that the commanders have what they need to fight and win, also, to insure that the military is abiding by the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

Personally if Bush wants to give the orders, Bush should be there to give them.

[mulethree]

4. remember they needed a new plan?

because the one on the shelf called for 500,000 troops? Presumably it dated back to 1990 or so.

[NMDemDist2]

7. Gee ya think?? you knew they were thin if they had to call up

the guard and the reserves. And since we have already done that it makes sense the well is drying up.

[AndyTiedye]

8. do you feel a draft?

[midnight armadillo]

9. yes

Good thing at 29 I'm past draft age...right?!?

[NMDemDist2]

15. as long as you're not a policeman or IT pro n't

[mulethree]

19. Seems like we need to draft police

to train the Iraqi policeforce, though in NYC at least police can retire after 20 years so theres probably plenty of 40-50 year old police veterans available as contractors to run multiple Iraqi Police Academies.

Not sure what you meant about IT pro's.

[Scooter24]

21. oh no...

LOL. I'm doomed.

I'm 24 and have an AAS degree in IT (Also a BA in Political Science). I can also speak semi-fluent Arabic and Korean. I hope they would at least let me finish law school first, but it looks doubtful.

We'll just have to wait and see.

[legin]

11. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

got Frank Gaffney's sister, Devon Gaffney Cross, on the board of directors along with Woolsey:
http://www.csbaonline.org/
(click 'about us')

More on Devon Gaffney Cross:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/cross/cross.php

--------------------
If these bastards are getting paid for every board of advisors that they sit on then I'm turning neo-con because they must be raking it in.
:evilgrin:

[legin]

12. If there is going to be a draft

It's going to have to be fairly soon.

The earlist you are going to get conscipts into Iraq is March/April 2006. The bills have got to go through congress, (perhaps), set the thing up (training camps etc), drag all the people in, 3-6 months training, move them out there.

Logistically waiting till mid 2005 to set the ball rolling is going to be too late for March/April 2006.

[Scooter24]

20. SSS

After the finished reorganization of the SSS this year, and after all the fine tuning and practice tests, the new "draft" induction system would have troops entering basic within 75 days of the presidential order. This is to be completed by mid-March 2005.

So you could very well see conscripts reach the battlefield by September or October 2005 if a draft is called in March.

March Draft Announced + 75 Days Process + 12 Weeks Basic + 10 Weeks Advanced Training (I could be wrong on this)

[rocktivity]

13. Made this banner for my web site

(which you're free to borrow) and linked it to BushDraft.com.



By the way, didn't somebody at BushCo lose his job for saying that the war on terror would require at least 250,000 U.S. soliders?

:headbang:
rocknation

[alcuno]

16. Yikes! I heard tonight 60% NG and Reserves this summer.

If they keep with the current plan.

[RamboLiberal]

17. Time Magazine reported this week that they were considering

putting sailors and airmen in to Iraq as truck drivers. That's on hold for now, but wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

[Nuclear]

18. The draft...

Maybe it's time everyone does their part... If either candidate is thinking it, we won't hear about it until next year, whoever it is. This would kill a candidate if they so much as hinted at it.