Study: Army Still Stretched By Iraq

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Army Still Stretched By Iraq
United Press International
October 20, 2004
Military.com

WASHINGTON - More than 27 percent of the military's active duty troops are overseas, and more than half of them are in combat zones, numbers not seen since the Vietnam War, a new study shows.

The study from a consortium of security policy think tanks and advocacy groups warns that the stress the Iraq war is placing on the military's personnel and equipment could reach a breaking point in as little as two years.


"We haven't seen a split like that since Vietnam," said Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives.

U.S. forces are probably going to continue to be in Iraq in those numbers for the long haul, which raises concerns about readiness, morale and retention, according to defense analysts involved in the Security Policy Working Group.

A much greater percentage of the force is deployed overseas than it was for the last decade, from 1992 to 2002, the study shows. It also questions whether adequate preparations were made to support such a deployment.

"The fact that we are doing it doesn't mean we can do it," Conetta said. "What was the preparation that allows for this? There hasn't been the preparation. It doesn't mean people are revolting in the field (leaving the military). You're not going to see a problem right away. ... My concern is that it might be soon."

The Pentagon may regard these numbers less pessimistically. While the data reflects similarities to the Vietnam era, there are important differences in the quality of the force. Vietnam was a war fought by conscript, rather than by a volunteer military.

The re-enlistment rate among active-duty forces deployed to combat is historically the highest of any group in the military -- a trend that is apparently continuing.

Furthermore, the Pentagon's stated intention is not to deploy troops less but to deploy them more, a necessary adjunct to its plan to bring back to the United States more than 70,000 troops permanently based overseas.

The study points to other indicators of possible trouble to come in the Army, which it argues is going to be stretched to the breaking point by an extended Iraq deployment.


etc.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
We have a lot of troops in Germany and Europe who serve no purpose. It is not like the soviet union is likely to attack Europe. I think we use Europe more for training. Europe claims it can defend itself, even though they cant. However, Since Germany and France dont like us anyway why not just pull out of those areas? We can train in the mountains of Afganistan or some place else. We still have plenty of Camps in South Korea, or we can practice shooting mexicans every day as they come accross the border.

---

Your post may be intended as sarcasm, but it is extreme, and it is racist. An apology in this thread would be appropriate. Please do so.

AnandTech Moderator
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
We have a lot of troops in Germany and Europe who serve no purpose. It is not like the soviet union is likely to attack Europe. I think we use Europe more for training. Europe claims it can defend itself, even though they cant. However, Since Germany and France dont like us anyway why not just pull out of those areas? We can train in the mountains of Afganistan or some place else. We still have plenty of Camps in South Korea, or we can practice shooting mexicans every day as they come accross the border.

OMG...
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.


What do you think the national guard's role should be then?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.


What do you think the national guard's role should be then?
Same as it has always been--a state quick reaction force

Remember though, the Army Reserve's units are mostly "Combat Support and Combat Service Support" while the Guard is organized into Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support units

I'm sure you know the difference so I won't go any deeper.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.
Same as it has always been--a state quick reaction force

Remember though, the Army Reserve's units are mostly "Combat Support and Combat Service Support" while the Guard is organized into Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support units

I'm sure you know the difference so I won't go any deeper.

A state quick reaction force for what kind of threat?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.
Same as it has always been--a state quick reaction force

Remember though, the Army Reserve's units are mostly "Combat Support and Combat Service Support" while the Guard is organized into Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support units

I'm sure you know the difference so I won't go any deeper.

A state quick reaction force for what kind of threat?
For fires, earthquakes, and what-not.

What precedence do you cite for the limited federal role you suggest?
 

Klixxer

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2004
6,149
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
We have a lot of troops in Germany and Europe who serve no purpose. It is not like the soviet union is likely to attack Europe. I think we use Europe more for training. Europe claims it can defend itself, even though they cant. However, Since Germany and France dont like us anyway why not just pull out of those areas? We can train in the mountains of Afganistan or some place else. We still have plenty of Camps in South Korea, or we can practice shooting mexicans every day as they come accross the border.

It is not like the SU even exists, but of course, you don't know that, you don't know anything, do you?

Oh, and the tenths of thousands that demonstrates against the US in SK, yeah, that means nothing.

Europe can defend itself, pull your troops home, we are tired of the rape statistics around the US bases anyway.

Bye now.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.
Same as it has always been--a state quick reaction force

Remember though, the Army Reserve's units are mostly "Combat Support and Combat Service Support" while the Guard is organized into Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support units

I'm sure you know the difference so I won't go any deeper.

A state quick reaction force for what kind of threat?
For fires, earthquakes, and what-not.

What precedence do you cite for the limited federal role you suggest?

That was the kind of thing I was talking about. I was over-simplifying before. I think the national guard should stay within the US territory and not be used abroad.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.
Same as it has always been--a state quick reaction force

Remember though, the Army Reserve's units are mostly "Combat Support and Combat Service Support" while the Guard is organized into Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support units

I'm sure you know the difference so I won't go any deeper.

A state quick reaction force for what kind of threat?
For fires, earthquakes, and what-not.

What precedence do you cite for the limited federal role you suggest?

That was the kind of thing I was talking about. I was over-simplifying before. I think the national guard should stay within the US territory and not be used abroad.
It's pretty arbitrary to suggest that the national guard should be the one to do that as they receive the same initial training as their reserve and active brethren. Maybe it's because "national guard" is sort of a misnomer...

The guard has been called up many times to deploy during all of the US's major conflicts, playing a role its members should definitely be proud of

And I'm going to work...in the meantime, feel free to look up the guard's involvement in the 19th century when regular forces were small in practice...or the guard's official use as the primary reserve after 1903's Dick Act. And for fun, you can look up the French :Q origins of the title, National Guard. :)
 

Darthvoy

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2004
1,825
1
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
We have a lot of troops in Germany and Europe who serve no purpose. It is not like the soviet union is likely to attack Europe. I think we use Europe more for training. Europe claims it can defend itself, even though they cant. However, Since Germany and France dont like us anyway why not just pull out of those areas? We can train in the mountains of Afganistan or some place else. We still have plenty of Camps in South Korea, or we can practice shooting mexicans every day as they come accross the border.


Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me....
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.
Same as it has always been--a state quick reaction force

Remember though, the Army Reserve's units are mostly "Combat Support and Combat Service Support" while the Guard is organized into Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support units

I'm sure you know the difference so I won't go any deeper.

A state quick reaction force for what kind of threat?
For fires, earthquakes, and what-not.

What precedence do you cite for the limited federal role you suggest?

That was the kind of thing I was talking about. I was over-simplifying before. I think the national guard should stay within the US territory and not be used abroad.
It's pretty arbitrary to suggest that the national guard should be the one to do that as they receive the same initial training as their reserve and active brethren. Maybe it's because "national guard" is sort of a misnomer...

The guard has been called up many times to deploy during all of the US's major conflicts, playing a role its members should definitely be proud of

And I'm going to work...in the meantime, feel free to look up the guard's involvement in the 19th century when regular forces were small in practice...or the guard's official use as the primary reserve after 1903's Dick Act. And for fun, you can look up the French :Q origins of the title, National Guard. :)

You are talking in positive terms. I'm talking in normative terms. I think we need some amount of military forces that do not leave the territory unless it's to secure some point right across the border or something.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
First of all it is not racists to shoot people crossing your own border illegally. If someone crosses from Mexico in an illegal manner, it is a relatively safe bet they are Mexicans. That is not racist it is just common sense. US Citizens are always complaining about sending jobs overseas. Using your logic that is a racist remark also. It is not racist to protect what belongs to yourself. In fact it is more racist to say that you hate Bush because he is not a democrat. However, no one is telling people not to use curse words or demeaning speach for that.

It is more wrong to treat Mexican nationals as second class citizens and to use them when it is convenient while we have laws against even hiring a person that is not a US Citizen or a documented worker. Some upstanding Mexicans are documented workers.

The Mexican Army is posted along its southern border and they shoot everyone that crosses illegally. I am only suggesting we treat them the same way they treat others. I am only suggesting equal treatment.

Arent you for Equal Opportunity?

We have a border patrol and their basic job is to arrest and deport illegal immigrants. Is this a racist comment too? I have no hate for Mexican people I just feel the USA has a right to protect its own border.

You may disagree and you have that right.

I will not cave in because you call me a racist when I am not. I have a right to defend myself, and the US has a right to shoot and/or apprehend criminals. I say lets lay down some mine fields in unpopulated border areas! If you had to wake up with all kind of thugs and illegal aliens roaming about while your 8 year old child was waiting for the school bus you may feel the same way.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I am all for deporting illegals but I think the fact you suggest to shoot them so nonchalantly suggests you have the kind of disregard for others that many racists do. I'm not saying you're racist, just that it's an attitude a lot of racists would have.
 

Darthvoy

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2004
1,825
1
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
First of all it is not racists to shoot people crossing your own border illegally. If someone crosses from Mexico in an illegal manner, it is a relatively safe bet they are Mexicans. That is not racist it is just common sense. US Citizens are always complaining about sending jobs overseas. Using your logic that is a racist remark also. It is not racist to protect what belongs to yourself. In fact it is more racist to say that you hate Bush because he is not a democrat. However, no one is telling people not to use curse words or demeaning speach for that.

It is more wrong to treat Mexican nationals as second class citizens and to use them when it is convenient while we have laws against even hiring a person that is not a US Citizen or a documented worker. Some upstanding Mexicans are documented workers.

The Mexican Army is posted along its southern border and they shoot everyone that crosses illegally. I am only suggesting we treat them the same way they treat others. I am only suggesting equal treatment.

Arent you for Equal Opportunity?

We have a border patrol and their basic job is to arrest and deport illegal immigrants. Is this a racist comment too? I have no hate for Mexican people I just feel the USA has a right to protect its own border.

You may disagree and you have that right.

I will not cave in because you call me a racist when I am not. I have a right to defend myself, and the US has a right to shoot and/or apprehend criminals. I say lets lay down some mine fields in unpopulated border areas! If you had to wake up with all kind of thugs and illegal aliens roaming about while your 8 year old child was waiting for the school bus you may feel the same way.


I agree with you, but it is wrong to kill someone who is trying to get into the country to better their lives. All of our ancestors did that from Europe. What we should do is have a better system that detects them coming in, not shoot them and kill them
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is bad because if we ever have to fight a legitimate war we won't have enough troops for that. Also, we need more troops guarding our borders. Maybe the national guard could actually be a national guard...
Or we could use border patrol for that.
Same as it has always been--a state quick reaction force

Remember though, the Army Reserve's units are mostly "Combat Support and Combat Service Support" while the Guard is organized into Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support units

I'm sure you know the difference so I won't go any deeper.

A state quick reaction force for what kind of threat?
For fires, earthquakes, and what-not.

What precedence do you cite for the limited federal role you suggest?

That was the kind of thing I was talking about. I was over-simplifying before. I think the national guard should stay within the US territory and not be used abroad.
It's pretty arbitrary to suggest that the national guard should be the one to do that as they receive the same initial training as their reserve and active brethren. Maybe it's because "national guard" is sort of a misnomer...

The guard has been called up many times to deploy during all of the US's major conflicts, playing a role its members should definitely be proud of

And I'm going to work...in the meantime, feel free to look up the guard's involvement in the 19th century when regular forces were small in practice...or the guard's official use as the primary reserve after 1903's Dick Act. And for fun, you can look up the French :Q origins of the title, National Guard. :)

You are talking in positive terms. I'm talking in normative terms. I think we need some amount of military forces that do not leave the territory unless it's to secure some point right across the border or something.
I assume you want someone here in case we get invaded or to be flexible in case American troops are needed nearby and you want to nominally call them the "National Guard"? What would the practical difference be between this permanently home force and divisions that are currently in a home rotation like the 4th Infantry, 3rd Infantry, and 101st Airborne?

BTW, I personally think you're tap-dancing after incorrectly guessing on the origins and history of the national guard but I'm above yelling "pwn3d!" ;)