Does Rumsfeld understand the risk he puts us in

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
L A Times

CLIP:
With the war in Iraq severely straining the military, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this week ordered radical changes that, if adopted, would dramatically reshape the military services and the reserves to create a force that could mobilize for war within 15 days.

In a memo Wednesday to the secretaries of the Air Force, Navy, Army and to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rumsfeld called for shifting a broad range of professional specialties from the reserves to active-duty military.

The proposal is running into opposition from senior Navy and Air Force officials, who warn that moving these jobs into the active-duty force would drive up costs. Reserve officials say they were stunned by the proposal, which they fear would shrink the role of citizen soldiers into irrelevance. Rumsfeld's office could not be reached for comment.

Calling the effort "a matter of the utmost urgency" in the memo obtained by The Times, Rumsfeld ordered that plans for carrying it out be drawn up by the end of the month.

Senior military officials who are working to respond to Rumsfeld's order expressed some concern Friday that he is not allowing enough time to produce a thoughtful plan.

"There's a very tight timeline to do it right," said one senior military official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Rumsfeld's action was a direct result of the crisis in force strength caused by the deepening violence against U.S. forces in Iraq, sources close to him in the Pentagon said.

Before and during the war, Army officials had planned for no more than 50,000 soldiers to still be in Iraq at this point. But 148,000 are still there, and with attacks against them growingin number and sophistication, senior Pentagon officials say they expect troop numbers in the country will remain at or near the same level for years to come.

As the war on terrorism continues, more than 370,000 Army troops are deployed away from home and family in 120 countries around the world. About 138,000 are reservists, many in certain specialties that are being called up again and again. Another 67,000 reservists from the other military services are also deployed. Current and former army officials and military experts are warning, with growing urgency, that the all-volunteer military, 30 years old this month, cannot long tolerate the pressure.

"The U.S. Army in particular is at serious risk, because it's increasingly clear, and the administration increasingly acknowledges, that we're in Iraq for a long haul, with a large force, and the Army is being given most of, if not all of, the responsibility," said Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon.

"This volunteer military we've built up is one of the best military institutions in human history, and the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now my say,

One of the failures from the 'Nam was multiple rotations through the country. After a tour and a troop was sent stateside,
there was no way of knowing how long before he or she may be rotated back for another year. Those who had 9 months
or less were given an option of extending for 6 months and getting out 3 months early, or going back to term out.
Quite a few took the out, including those who had longtime years of service. The early outs and the lack of re-enlistments
overstressed the Militarys capability to deliver fresh troops, even with the draft. As servicemen returned from a second,
third, or fourth or more deployment, fewer and fewer were re-upping, as the pay was terrible and the risk was excessive.
And this stressed the situation even more.

With the emminent return of many of our soldiers, many will get out, as they do understand that we're in a long haul - again.
We do not have a draft now, and out of todays society we have one of the smallest headcounts of active military personel we have ever seen.
Another thing that will be adding to this stress situation that we are re-entering, is we have a lot of reservists over there on active duty,
and they knew the risk accepting the guard hitch, but you can bet that there will be a drop in their re-enlistment as well.

And so goes the vicious cycle - those who come home either Active or Reserve will elect to depart service, or take the risk
of a re-deployment to the same region, or there could be a rotation through the hell-hole we left in Afganistan, or some of the
other resorts in Asia or Europe. Europe, being tamed, is a cakewalk compared to other countrys there's Asia with the Middle East
that blends from Iraq to Iran (Not a 5 star rating) into Afganistan to Pakistan (Am I seeing a pattern here ? Horsebackistan & Dahmfeekistan)
and the next thing you know you're leaving India approaching French Indochina ! Siam (Thailand) Laos, Cambodia,
and we're right back in Viet Nam ! (Come on people - follow the humor)

There is quite a risk in what appears to be about to happen - we're over stretched now, about to stretch more, and if
we stretch the pipline of manpower, the stretch might just break it.
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
Well that makes it pretty obvious who is the commander in chief.

Bleep
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
And ya know what - Bush is out of the country while this is goin' down.

Civilian workforce ? Where do you get 300,000 workers that will take $ 2.40 an hour to provide logistical support, Micronesia ?
Why would we trust them ? Would they be supplied from Haliburton - or Enron.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Rummy dosn't put his life at risk----he puts others. he hasn't got the guts to do the job he asks the military soldiers to do. He is a real POS.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126
Rummy dosn't put his life at risk----he puts others. he hasn't got the guts to do the job he asks the military soldiers to do. He is a real POS.
Seems as though Rummy already served his time:
"Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."
Oh well, you know flying those military aircraft is just as safe and risk-free as being in Canada smoking pot and burning your draft card. Its the same.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Didn't Bush say in one of his patriotic speeches that we're not alone in this?

Think Australia might have a Few, Good Men left to field? Oh, Canada, oh Canada whereforart thou Canada? Etc.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Calling the effort "a matter of the utmost urgency" in the memo obtained by The Times, Rumsfeld ordered that plans for carrying it out be drawn up by the end of the month.

Does anyone else find that quote a bit un nerving given the fact that they have much more complete information than we do, and also given the current situation in North Korea? We need to be ready for an all out war in 15 days from initialization? That bothers me a little bit...
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
What's so controversial about this plan? It is patently obvious that certain military specialities which are EXCLUSIVELY (or nearly so) within the Reserves or the Guard need to be put into active service evidenced by the number of times those specialities have been called to active service in recent years. PSYOP and Civil Affairs come to mind. Certainly, it may prove to be a burden on the active forces because it will divert some money from other projects, but it should also be accompanied by a movement of money from the Reserves and Guard to the active military (which won't happen because Congressional representatives will be more concerned with their home districts than national security).

Nevertheless, budgeting problems should not be the basis for denying reality. Certain occupations should not be represented only in the Reserves or Guard when they are required very often in active service. It not only places a burden upon those doing the job, but it also perverts the purpose of the Reserves and Guard which are to act as reserves, not to serve essential functions not duplicated by the active services.

Now, if you want to critisize the force levels of the military or the manner in which the military is being used, then do so. But this plan put forth by Secretary Rumsfeld is hardly the basis for such criticism.

We need to be ready for an all out war in 15 days from initialization? That bothers me a little bit...

Why, because it's safer for the United States to take 6 months to prepare for a war? If anything, having the capability to go to war in two weeks is a huge deterrent to North Korea, who would then see that's it's futile to "go south" with a US force looming on the horizon.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Because 15 days to respond to ramping up for an all out war is 14 days too late.

Well it is not one day now and it is much longer than 15 days now.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Rummy dosn't put his life at risk----he puts others. he hasn't got the guts to do the job he asks the military soldiers to do. He is a real POS.

How did you get to be elite? Rumsfeld served in the Armed Forces directly or indirectly for over 30 years

How many Presidential Medal's of Freedom do you own?
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Because 15 days to respond to ramping up for an all out war is 14 days too late.

Have you ever been involved in a major logistics operation or spoken to anyone involved in logistics? If you don't see any improvement from the buildup for Desert Storm compared to a 15 day preparedness for "all out war" then perhaps you need to step away from the keyboard for awhile. Unit generation does not happen as portrayed in Command & Conquer.

We will not be caught unawares should certain countries decide to wage war against us.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What is the realistic timeframe for American response right now.

1) Dave's equipment can put a Westinhouse MKII anywhere within a CEP of 100 yards within 15 minutes from 4,000 miles out.

2) My equipment can put the weapon on the ground at any point on the world in less than 35minutes from launch

It's not 15 days to prepare for war, it's 1/2 hour - then the rest of the time is to prepare to access ground zero and mop up.

If you want to launch one missle it is a 1/2 hours. If you want an extended campaigh you need to move stuff......
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Because 15 days to respond to ramping up for an all out war is 14 days too late.

Have you ever been involved in a major logistics operation or spoken to anyone involved in logistics? If you don't see any improvement from the buildup for Desert Storm compared to a 15 day preparedness for "all out war" then perhaps you need to step away from the keyboard for awhile. Unit generation does not happen as portrayed in Command & Conquer.

We will not be caught unawares should certain countries decide to wage war against us.

But wouldn't said countries have to build up & move their own troops and equipment? Surely we are so ahead of the game with our military as is that our response to this initial movement would still put in much better position than them. But maybe I'm assuming too much in that it will take an aggressive move on another countires part to start an all-out war then with this admin running things.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
What's so controversial about this plan? It is patently obvious that certain military specialities which are EXCLUSIVELY (or nearly so) within the Reserves or the Guard need to be put into active service evidenced by the number of times those specialities have been called to active service in recent years. PSYOP and Civil Affairs come to mind. Certainly, it may prove to be a burden on the active forces because it will divert some money from other projects, but it should also be accompanied by a movement of money from the Reserves and Guard to the active military (which won't happen because Congressional representatives will be more concerned with their home districts than national security).

Nevertheless, budgeting problems should not be the basis for denying reality. Certain occupations should not be represented only in the Reserves or Guard when they are required very often in active service. It not only places a burden upon those doing the job, but it also perverts the purpose of the Reserves and Guard which are to act as reserves, not to serve essential functions not duplicated by the active services.

Now, if you want to critisize the force levels of the military or the manner in which the military is being used, then do so. But this plan put forth by Secretary Rumsfeld is hardly the basis for such criticism.

We need to be ready for an all out war in 15 days from initialization? That bothers me a little bit...

Why, because it's safer for the United States to take 6 months to prepare for a war? If anything, having the capability to go to war in two weeks is a huge deterrent to North Korea, who would then see that's it's futile to "go south" with a US force looming on the horizon.

Never been in the military, but that makes sense to me. If you are going to use reservists continuously, they should be in the active military,and not the reserves, which I think are more of an insurance policy for temporary emergency needs. It's a bit late for insurance, since Iraq is now a preexisting condition. I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, but since we are there now, we need to adjust to the current reality until we reach some sort of a conclusion to this fiasco.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
I thrive on Logistics, but the move to war would be either a Defensive Counterstrike or a Pre-Emptive Action.
Logistics to move a pipeline of equipment and personel would be too damn late in a build up to war action,
not to be confused with a 2 year run up to invade a small, comparatively defensless country like Iraq.
Realistically the only 2 countries that we would have to contend with in an actural set peice battle war
would be China and the remains of what was the Soviet Union, and they would be throwing nukes.

It shouldn't take us 15 days or 15 weeks or 15 months to launch an attack on something as
huge and threatening as say, Syria or Coney Island.

If a large threat comes from a nation it will be a major hit, and response will be of a major appropriate type.

India, Mexico, Second or Third World Nations aren't that stupid, our threat is from rouge nations,
but we seem to be willing to ignore the likes of North Korea when we have oil to liberate.
And North Korea is a REAL THREAT, but it would involve us directly in opposition to China.
Any run-up would be reactionary and after the fact.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Rumsfeld doesn't give a crap about anything other than his own grandeur, getting his rocks off being a bully, and $lining his buddie's pockets.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Rummy dosn't put his life at risk----he puts others. he hasn't got the guts to do the job he asks the military soldiers to do. He is a real POS.


You are an uninformed pos.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Rumsfeld doesn't give a crap about anything other than his own grandeur, getting his rocks off being a bully, and $lining his buddie's pockets.

Don't forget that he is intoxicated with his own power. I cannot believe that man. He loves to hear is own voice so much it's painful. On top of that, he's an idiot coupled with Bush, we'd be better off with a llama.