so the US is out of troops

[alien42]

many have been saying for years that one of the major problems with this waste of a war in iraq that it is depleting our military. if our troops are needed for actually protecting our freedom then we would be spread too thin to do so without a draft which no one wants.

several weeks ago i watched some of the confirmation hearings for general casey and one of the senators stated/asked that the only reason bush was requesting 20,000 additional troops in iraq is because that is all we had available. the general basically brushed it off and stated he did not know (this is the future chief of staff of the army, i would hope he would know).

and now today i read this article:

"U.S. troops to forgo training in rush to Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's special training range in California.

They are now making preparations to leave their home bases.

Some in Congress and others outside the Army are beginning to question whether that decision means the Army is cutting corners in preparing soldiers for combat.

The desert training was designed specially to prepare soldiers for the challenges of Iraq.

Army officials say the two brigades will be as ready as any others that deploy to Iraq, even though they will not have the benefit of training in counterinsurgency tactics at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, which has been outfitted to simulate conditions in Iraq for units that are heading there on yearlong tours."

 

[lozina]

After all that partisan rhetoric about how the Democrats don't support the troops... After getting up on their moral pedastal high up above the clouds... they rush troops into Iraq without proper training!!!

Let this be a lesson to those naive enough not to have realized the irony earlier, and needed something as glaringly obvious as this

 

[palehorse]

Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

 

[ProfJohn]

Let us not forget that despite all the stories our military is the best train, best equipped and most capable force in the history of the planet.

Would the additional training have helped? Yes, of course it would have, but any of our military members will tell you that they train constantly.

Also did you notice that this will be the third deployment for one of these groups? I would guess that as many as half the soldiers in that group were there for the first two deployments.

For the record, the thread title is utterly ridiculous and totally off base. Changing the way troops train is not a sign that we are ?out of troops.? The change in training is most likely a factor of them going to Iraq a month earlier than planned than a sign we are out of troops. The training and troop deployment schedules are done years in advance. I would be willing to bet that the group going to Iraq for their third deployment can already tell you when their forth deployment is scheduled.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let us not forget that despite all the stories our military is the best train, best equipped and most capable force in the history of the planet.

Would the additional training have helped? Yes, of course it would have, but any of our military members will tell you that they train constantly.

Also did you notice that this will be the third deployment for one of these groups? I would guess that as many as half the soldiers in that group were there for the first two deployments.

For the record, the thread title is utterly ridiculous and totally off base. Changing the way troops train is not a sign that we are ?out of troops.? The change in training is most likely a factor of them going to Iraq a month earlier than planned than a sign we are out of troops. The training and troop deployment schedules are done years in advance. I would be willing to bet that the group going to Iraq for their third deployment can already tell you when their forth deployment is scheduled.

Wrong.

Gates and Pace are saying that we would have difficulties meeting our obligations if another conflict were to arise, which means we are at our limit and do not have any troops to spare. i.e. we are out of troops.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

An added bonus for those stationed everywhere EXCEPT Iraq, where I would think training like that would be a necessity. But don't let your politics get in the way of what's necessary in this "GWOT".

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let us not forget that despite all the stories our military is the best train, best equipped and most capable force in the history of the planet.

Would the additional training have helped? Yes, of course it would have, but any of our military members will tell you that they train constantly.

Also did you notice that this will be the third deployment for one of these groups? I would guess that as many as half the soldiers in that group were there for the first two deployments.

For the record, the thread title is utterly ridiculous and totally off base. Changing the way troops train is not a sign that we are ?out of troops.? The change in training is most likely a factor of them going to Iraq a month earlier than planned than a sign we are out of troops. The training and troop deployment schedules are done years in advance. I would be willing to bet that the group going to Iraq for their third deployment can already tell you when their forth deployment is scheduled.

Wrong.

Gates and Pace are saying that we would have difficulties meeting our obligations if another conflict were to arise, which means we are at our limit and do not have any troops to spare. i.e. we are out of troops.

Not many conflicts could crop up that require significant ground forces even if we were that severely short (which I doubt we are).

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

..says the armchair general Bush Administration Super Apologist

 

[MedicBob]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

..says the armchair general Bush Administration Super Apologist

How about this... I agree with him. I have deployed twice and never went to NTC or 29 Palms. It is not required training, it is an additional training evolution that is currently being handled at other mob sites.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Wrong.

Gates and Pace are saying that we would have difficulties meeting our obligations if another conflict were to arise, which means we are at our limit and do not have any troops to spare. i.e. we are out of troops.

The Army and the Marines combined have around 650,000 soldiers.
Only 150,000 are stationed in Iraq at this time.
That leaves another 500,000 soldiers sitting around some place. (There is also 200,000 Army reservists plus National Guard etc.)
If we are ?out of troops? please explain what these 500,000 soldiers are?

As explained in an article I read a while back: For every brigade that is in Iraq there is essentially another brigade that has just returned from Iraq and is cycling down, and a third brigade that is preparing to deploy to Iraq. (cycling up)

Now we have this nice deployment cycle that gives our members of the military time off in between deployments. However, in an emergency we could shorten that time off and deploy them longer and with shorter rest periods. We could probably double the number of troops in Iraq, but that would require a drastic change in our deployment cycles and greatly hurt moral. So while we may be stretched a little thin, we are certainly not ?out of troops.?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

An added bonus for those stationed everywhere EXCEPT Iraq, where I would think training like that would be a necessity. But don't let your politics get in the way of what's necessary in this "GWOT".

I made the important parts bold so that you can't ignore them this time...

GG.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Wrong.

Gates and Pace are saying that we would have difficulties meeting our obligations if another conflict were to arise, which means we are at our limit and do not have any troops to spare. i.e. we are out of troops.

The Army and the Marines combined have around 650,000 soldiers.
Only 150,000 are stationed in Iraq at this time.
That leaves another 500,000 soldiers sitting around some place. (There is also 200,000 Army reservists plus National Guard etc.)
If we are ?out of troops? please explain what these 500,000 soldiers are?

As explained in an article I read a while back: For every brigade that is in Iraq there is essentially another brigade that has just returned from Iraq and is cycling down, and a third brigade that is preparing to deploy to Iraq. (cycling up)

Now we have this nice deployment cycle that gives our members of the military time off in between deployments. However, in an emergency we could shorten that time off and deploy them longer and with shorter rest periods. We could probably double the number of troops in Iraq, but that would require a drastic change in our deployment cycles and greatly hurt moral. So while we may be stretched a little thin, we are certainly not ?out of troops.?

Most members of the US military are not grunts. It takes a lot of people to support tanks, jeeps, trucks, apcs, copters, etc...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let us not forget that despite all the stories our military is the best train, best equipped and most capable force in the history of the planet.

Said Constantine right before the Roman Empire fell.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

..says the armchair general Bush Administration Super Apologist

How about this... I agree with him. I have deployed twice and never went to NTC or 29 Palms. It is not required training, it is an additional training evolution that is currently being handled at other mob sites.

Same here. I went over as well and never spent a day at one of these places.

 

[Fern]

so the US is out of troops

Nah, I think we've got a bunch in storage - in places like Korea, Japan & Europe.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush appealed to millions of Americans and was once very popular. What he appealed to in the American public is the disease of the American public. If you find Bush appealing just look at the damage that has done. Start the vital work to understand your disease. It is killing us all. Understand that the north end of your compass needle is pointing south and that your understanding of reality is upside down. Try to be more modest. Let go of your opinions. Go out and feed the birds. Get some sun. Hug a tree. Our real job is to turn self hate into love. There is only one enemy and you do not need an army to face it. You only need a mirror.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush appealed to millions of Americans and was once very popular. What he appealed to in the American public is the disease of the American public. If you find Bush appealing just look at the damage that has done. Start the vital work to understand your disease. It is killing us all. Understand that the north end of your compass needle is pointing south and that your understanding of reality is upside down. Try to be more modest. Let go of your opinions. Go out and feed the birds. Get some sun. Hug a tree. Our real job is to turn self hate into love. There is only one enemy and you do not need an army to face it. You only need a mirror.

puffpuff give homie!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush appealed to millions of Americans and was once very popular. What he appealed to in the American public is the disease of the American public. If you find Bush appealing just look at the damage that has done. Start the vital work to understand your disease. It is killing us all. Understand that the north end of your compass needle is pointing south and that your understanding of reality is upside down. Try to be more modest. Let go of your opinions. Go out and feed the birds. Get some sun. Hug a tree. Our real job is to turn self hate into love. There is only one enemy and you do not need an army to face it. You only need a mirror.

puffpuff give homie!

I did give. You are not able to take because you don't want to let go of your illusions. Behind your illusions is your certainty of your worthlessness and behind that is God. You have to die to go to heaven. Sorry. I am just telling you. I didn't make it that way. There's nothing we can do to change the facts. It's as tough for me as it is for you. We're all in the same canoe.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let us not forget that despite all the stories our military is the best train, best equipped and most capable force in the history of the planet.

Would the additional training have helped? Yes, of course it would have, but any of our military members will tell you that they train constantly.

Also did you notice that this will be the third deployment for one of these groups? I would guess that as many as half the soldiers in that group were there for the first two deployments.

For the record, the thread title is utterly ridiculous and totally off base. Changing the way troops train is not a sign that we are ?out of troops.? The change in training is most likely a factor of them going to Iraq a month earlier than planned than a sign we are out of troops. The training and troop deployment schedules are done years in advance. I would be willing to bet that the group going to Iraq for their third deployment can already tell you when their forth deployment is scheduled.

Wrong.

Gates and Pace are saying that we would have difficulties meeting our obligations if another conflict were to arise, which means we are at our limit and do not have any troops to spare. i.e. we are out of troops.

Our doctrine since WWII has been to have a standing army that can fight I believe 2.5 front war. We are in 1.5 fronts right now. The General is probably concered because if another war did brew up then we would be at our doctrines limit. Which is the way it is designed. I think you are taking them out of context when they say we are at our limits right now.

 

[HannibalX]

I will take the word of guys who are ACTUALLY IN THE MILITARY over the ANYLISATION from a CIVILIAN who doesn't know ANYTHING about how the military actually trains soldiers.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let us not forget that despite all the stories our military is the best train, best equipped and most capable force in the history of the planet.

Would the additional training have helped? Yes, of course it would have, but any of our military members will tell you that they train constantly.

Also did you notice that this will be the third deployment for one of these groups? I would guess that as many as half the soldiers in that group were there for the first two deployments.

For the record, the thread title is utterly ridiculous and totally off base. Changing the way troops train is not a sign that we are ?out of troops.? The change in training is most likely a factor of them going to Iraq a month earlier than planned than a sign we are out of troops. The training and troop deployment schedules are done years in advance. I would be willing to bet that the group going to Iraq for their third deployment can already tell you when their forth deployment is scheduled.

Wrong.

Gates and Pace are saying that we would have difficulties meeting our obligations if another conflict were to arise, which means we are at our limit and do not have any troops to spare. i.e. we are out of troops.

Our doctrine since WWII has been to have a standing army that can fight I believe 2.5 front war. We are in 1.5 fronts right now. The General is probably concered because if another war did brew up then we would be at our doctrines limit. Which is the way it is designed. I think you are taking them out of context when they say we are at our limits right now.

I don't agree, there is a huge difference between looking at numbers on a piece of paper and being able to field an effective force. Readiness levels and equipment shortages are a serious problem right now as well as fatigue from extended and repeated deployments.

Numerically out of troops? No. Out of rested, fully equipped and trained troops? Yes.

 

[daniel49]

We had 18 divisions in the active Army at the end of the first Gulf war. President Bill Clinton reduced these to 10.
that was his mistake.

Bush and Rumsfield did not take the appropriate steps after 911 to rebuild it that was their mistake.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: daniel49
We had 18 divisions in the active Army at the end of the first Gulf war. President Bill Clinton reduced these to 10.
that was his mistake.

Bush and Rumsfield did not take the appropriate steps after 911 to rebuild it that was their mistake.

Invading Iraq against published reports was "their mistake"

 

[Moonbeam]

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. We have one great weapon and it is our notion that all men were created equal and have rights that are fundamental. That is the weapon that can conquer the world because it is true and everybody knows it. All souls yearn for it. All humanity climbs toward God or if you wish, what God really is.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: daniel49
We had 18 divisions in the active Army at the end of the first Gulf war. President Bill Clinton reduced these to 10.
that was his mistake.

Bush and Rumsfield did not take the appropriate steps after 911 to rebuild it that was their mistake.

...and was a factor in actually getting the budget balanced. After the Cold War we didn't need such a large army, nor do we now.