• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US Army Reserve Chief: Army Reserve Nearly "broken" due to "dysfunctional policies"

Is he out of the loop, bitter, defeatist, or simply a hater of freedom.

Because we all know the administration is doing a splendid job of running the war.
 
Helmly said military leaders had rebuffed his proposals for change. The memo?s purpose was to inform Schoomaker of the Army Reserve?s ?inability ? under current policies, procedures and practices governing mobilization, training and reserve component manpower management ? to meet mission requirements? for the two wars, Helmly wrote.
Those military leaders had better start listening if his criticisms truly have weight behind them.

Realistically, though, I have to ask: I've always read that America's armed forces are built to be able to fight a war overseas while simultaneously protecting their home shores. Historically, that's supposedly been the goal. Is the American military of today unable to meet those requirements, or is this politics at work here?
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Helmly said military leaders had rebuffed his proposals for change. The memo?s purpose was to inform Schoomaker of the Army Reserve?s ?inability ? under current policies, procedures and practices governing mobilization, training and reserve component manpower management ? to meet mission requirements? for the two wars, Helmly wrote.
Those military leaders had better start listening if his criticisms truly have weight behind them.

Realistically, though, I have to ask: I've always read that America's armed forces are built to be able to fight a war overseas while simultaneously protecting their home shores. Historically, that's supposedly been the goal. Is the American military of today unable to meet those requirements, or is this politics at work here?

I don't think it is a matter of defending the homefront. More a matter of just being able to sustain this open ended commitment in Iraq which we have done up to this point by using reserves which according to the general are being taken apart.
 
The reservists are being used WAY more in Iraq and Afghanistan than they ever were in any other conflict including Vietnam. The casualties among RNGs reflects this reality:

According to figures furnished by the military branches, the active Army has sent about 250,000 soldiers to Iraq, and 622 have been killed. That works out to one death for every 402 soldiers who have deployed. About 37,000 Army Guard soldiers have been sent to Iraq since the war began, and 140 have died there -- one fatality for every 264 soldiers who have served, or about a 35 percent higher death rate.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for example, the Army Guard suffered no fatalities out of 382 U.S. deaths. Ninety-four Army National Guardsmen and no Reservists were killed out of 58,209 U.S. deaths in Vietnam.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Helmly said military leaders had rebuffed his proposals for change. The memo?s purpose was to inform Schoomaker of the Army Reserve?s ?inability ? under current policies, procedures and practices governing mobilization, training and reserve component manpower management ? to meet mission requirements? for the two wars, Helmly wrote.
Those military leaders had better start listening if his criticisms truly have weight behind them.

Realistically, though, I have to ask: I've always read that America's armed forces are built to be able to fight a war overseas while simultaneously protecting their home shores. Historically, that's supposedly been the goal. Is the American military of today unable to meet those requirements, or is this politics at work here?



Given the worldwide commitments we have, Being able to operate in two theaters would be impossible.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Is he out of the loop, bitter, defeatist, or simply a hater of freedom.

Because we all know the administration is doing a splendid job of running the war.



I bet he makes you lose more faith in America 😉
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Is he out of the loop, bitter, defeatist, or simply a hater of freedom.

Because we all know the administration is doing a splendid job of running the war.

You forgot traitor. I vote traitor.

Oh there was a few more actually: pedophile, book plug, commie...
 
Back
Top