Study: Army Stretched to Breaking Point

[CycloWizard]

The current focus of military spending is the development of technologies that serve two primary purposes:
1. Deter anyone from wanting to fight us
2. Make sure we have the upper hand against anyone stupid enough to fight us

Both of these theoretically serve to decrease the number of troops needed and the number of casualties that result from any conflict. However, the direction taken since WWII (and even well before it) has been towards development of technology useful in head-to-head fighting. Only recently has it shifted towards more versatile technology. Once this aim is furthered, the number of troops needed in a situation like Iraq will be diminished. This is important because it's fairly obvious that no one wants a stand-up fight against us - we're just too technologically superior for them to have a chance. This is exactly why Iraq buried its planes in the sand rather than actually try to use them against us. Our greatest asset has also become our greatest drawback because it is not readily adopted to new tactics.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
There are roughly 25% of our military active troops deployed to Iraq. The problem is all the other places they are deployed around the world, the number of places we have troops deployed and the number of troops we actually have would surprise you....

Found this after I posted so I thought I'd post it.........this is as of 8/2005

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D?lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

I see a list of countries, but have a hard time believing US Troops are deployed to all of them. Venezuala stands out as 1, others seem rather questionable. Where'd you find the list and what exactly is it a list of?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The current focus of military spending is the development of technologies that serve two primary purposes:
1. Deter anyone from wanting to fight us
2. Make sure we have the upper hand against anyone stupid enough to fight us

Both of these theoretically serve to decrease the number of troops needed and the number of casualties that result from any conflict. However, the direction taken since WWII (and even well before it) has been towards development of technology useful in head-to-head fighting. Only recently has it shifted towards more versatile technology. Once this aim is furthered, the number of troops needed in a situation like Iraq will be diminished. This is important because it's fairly obvious that no one wants a stand-up fight against us - we're just too technologically superior for them to have a chance. This is exactly why Iraq buried its planes in the sand rather than actually try to use them against us. Our greatest asset has also become our greatest drawback because it is not readily adopted to new tactics.

They've been saying the same thing since VietNam - hey, look at all of our NEW, improved anti-guirilla warfare technology. Remote sensors for the jungle floor, nightvision, etc.

It all helps, to some degree or other (the remote sensors were a joke in Vietnam, and often used to feed us false information, but nightvision is a great aide). But anti-insurgency ALWAYS requires boots on the ground, in large numbers. Mostly I think that's due to the fact that enemy fighters are part and parcel of the native population, and no remote drone is going to help you find them when they are carrying a shopping bag through a downtown street in broad daylight. It's just too hard to replace humint sources, and a conversation with people on the streets. And looking into their eyes, which no drone will ever do well enough to judge intent.

I wouldn't put too much stock in technology - it does give us an edge, but it will always require lots of manpower in country to fight insurgencies.

Future Shock

 

[Lemon law]

A number of things are being missed here.

1. Its one thing to fight a war--our armed forces are very good at breaking things and killing people.
Its quite another thing to be an occupying power---where different skill sets are required.

2. Bush has destroyed the reserve systemand maybe the volenteer army---that neculus of ready reserves needed to get a nation on a war footing-----young people will no longer sign up as civilians when a high probability exists they will be called up and sent away for six months or more.--------we had a similar situation when we entered WW2----and it took near forever to get on a war footing as a result.

3. Public revulsion to the Iraq war has not yet reached critical mass-----it took at least four years in the case of VietNam-----but it took the US army 20 years to rehabitate its public image---as many young people then hated the armed forces and all it stood for. Armies may good for occupying a foreign capital but are just plain lousy at winning hearts and minds----------pair that with Bush diplomacy and you have the blind leading the blind.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
A number of things are being missed here.

1. Its one thing to fight a war--our armed forces are very good at breaking things and killing people.
Its quite another thing to be an occupying power---where different skill sets are required.

2. Bush has destroyed the reserve systemand maybe the volenteer army---that neculus of ready reserves needed to get a nation on a war footing-----young people will no longer sign up as civilians when a high probability exists they will be called up and sent away for six months or more.--------we had a similar situation when we entered WW2----and it took near forever to get on a war footing as a result.

3. Public revulsion to the Iraq war has not yet reached critical mass-----it took at least four years in the case of VietNam-----but it took the US army 20 years to rehabitate its public image---as many young people then hated the armed forces and all it stood for. Armies may good for occupying a foreign capital but are just plain lousy at winning hearts and minds----------pair that with Bush diplomacy and you have the blind leading the blind.

There will always a segment of soceity that's economically desprate enough to enter the military and it's jobs programs. If the current and economy continues there will be even more.

 

[DickFnTracy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
There are roughly 25% of our military active troops deployed to Iraq. The problem is all the other places they are deployed around the world, the number of places we have troops deployed and the number of troops we actually have would surprise you....

Found this after I posted so I thought I'd post it.........this is as of 8/2005

Afghanistan
Zimbabwe

I see a list of countries, but have a hard time believing US Troops are deployed to all of them. Venezuala stands out as 1, others seem rather questionable. Where'd you find the list and what exactly is it a list of?

That list is always trotted out by the ignorant who are trying to make a point about troop deployments. Many countries are only on that list because we have an embassy there and the accompanying Marine guard force.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DickFnTracy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
There are roughly 25% of our military active troops deployed to Iraq. The problem is all the other places they are deployed around the world, the number of places we have troops deployed and the number of troops we actually have would surprise you....

Found this after I posted so I thought I'd post it.........this is as of 8/2005

Afghanistan
Zimbabwe

I see a list of countries, but have a hard time believing US Troops are deployed to all of them. Venezuala stands out as 1, others seem rather questionable. Where'd you find the list and what exactly is it a list of?

That list is always trotted out by the ignorant who are trying to make a point about troop deployments. Many countries are only on that list because we have an embassy there and the accompanying Marine guard force.

Yeah it's pretty silly since were in about 50 countries as part of normal deployment. That's all you'd need to show to make the point about our interventionist FP not embassy numbers.

 

[SMOKE20]

The "list" that you claim as "silly" or "trotted out by the ignorant" is directly from the WAFB site. It's always there since I was staioned there and shows total deployment of our forces throughout the world. Yes it encompasses embassy guards but still involves a tremendous number of personell.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: conjur

This country cannot afford another war in the Middle East.

I don't believe that the Bush Administration would even consider enacting a war against Iran as another 'War'.

Most likely they would consider it joining the Western Territorial Democracy War in Iraq and the Eastern
Democracy War in Afghanistan by consolidation of the Undemocratic Central Dividing Region.
That would consolidate it into a single geographical Middleastern War to establish a Democratic National
Region that spans all three countries, and engages the periferial borders of Pakistan,
Kuwait,Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.
Just one big expansive block of land mass in the war against Islamic Terrorists.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SMOKE20
There are roughly 25% of our military active troops deployed to Iraq. The problem is all the other places they are deployed around the world, the number of places we have troops deployed and the number of troops we actually have would surprise you....

Found this after I posted so I thought I'd post it.........this is as of 8/2005

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D?lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

I see a list of countries, but have a hard time believing US Troops are deployed to all of them. Venezuala stands out as 1, others seem rather questionable. Where'd you find the list and what exactly is it a list of?

Marine Guards at our Embassy's?

 

[Uhtrinity]

Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty



By Will Dunham Sun Jan 29, 10:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.

The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.

Edit: Article was misleading, current number is actually 12,500, 50,000 is the number since the war started. - damn Liberal media

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty



By Will Dunham Sun Jan 29, 10:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.

The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.

Edit: Article was misleading, current number is actually 12,500, 50,000 is the number since the war started. - damn Liberal media

The article title is misleading only if you make assumptions! The title just says the Army forced 50,000 soldiers into extended duty. The title never said "recently". But 12,500 men and women that want to go home and signed a contract that said they should be going home are now being kept longer. I hope for their sake that the contract they signed doesn't specifically mention Stop Loss. Because if it doesn't they can sue to be released based on contract violation law. If it does mention Stop Loss, I feel sorry for those soldiers and hope they are lucky enough to remain safe until the Army lets them free.

I totally agree that this is just a back door draft. We really shouldn't start wars that we don't have the forces to fight.

 

[irwincur]

There are roughly 25% of our military active troops deployed to Iraq.

Yeah, but less than 4% of the total strenght of the armed forces is there. In the entire Middle East, there is something like 7%.

Not really stretched that thin...

 

[Engineer]

New government stop gap measures holding back 50,000 troops from leaving the military. (per CNN).

 

[maluckey]

Nobody seems to mention the added $$ for involuntary extension. Last I checked it was substantial (and tax free).

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Engineer
New government stop gap measures holding back 50,000 troops from leaving the military. (per CNN).

More short sighterd thinking by the current admin. How many guys and gals really going to join the way stop gap is being used all the time these days? Sign up for a one year extension do three. Sign up for 4 do 7. These two examples lost in court recently -effectivly making those 50K soldeirs SOL.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: irwincur

There are roughly 25% of our military active troops deployed to Iraq.

Yeah, but less than 4% of the total strenght of the armed forces is there. In the entire Middle East, there is something like 7%.

Not really stretched that thin...

Until you consider personel men can't route out insurgents. Hence the stop gaps for anyone in combat arms/infantry.