Who's in the Army Now?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Funny how poeple are complaining about Bush's handling of Iraq yet seem to forget that 40 years ago, the Dems were doing the same thing. The death toll then was much higher.

Selective memory?

And? The death toll really climbed under Nixon.

But check this out...

U.S. toll in Iraq over 500 -- Count matches Vietnam in 1965

It sounds like a re-run of what they're saying today. Only today there are 1,748 U.S. troops dead because
'Bush lied, thousands died in Bushgods illegal and unjust war.'

LBJ:
Dec. 1967: U.S. military personnel in Vietnam reaches 485,600; 16,021 killed to date.

Nixon:
Dec. 1971: U.S. military strength declines to 156,800. U.S. death toll, 45,626.

In less than 2 years in office, Nixon reduced the number of soldiers in Vietnam by greater than 2/3. LBJ just kept throwing more and more men at the VC. Deaths under Nixon were a result of LBJ's ignorance.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
OK, you never bothered to really read the article or analyze it. Here is the real low down for those that know BBond is full of it.


There are 37 Active Combat Brigades in the ARMY. ARMY, this does not include the MARINES, NAVY, and AIR FORCE units on the ground.

Out of them 10 are in SW Asia, which includes our garrisons in and around the entire region. SW Asia goes from Turkey to China. This would include the soldiers in Turkey, Abu Garcia, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Turkmenestan, Khasikstan, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, 33% of the ARMIES combat brigades are on the ground somewhere in SW Asia, not necessarily Iraq.


Here is where BBond increases the fleecing.

He never mentions that the reserves account for another 39 brigades of Active Combat Soldiers (in the ARMY). There is no mention of the reserves (another 300,000 or so troops) because the are probably not being used. Which would make sense since all of my reserve friends have not even been close to going anywhere.

Out of the 39 Guard brigades, 3 are in SW Asia, and I suspect most of them are probably in Afghanistan.



So, for the ARMY, without reserves there are 76 total brigades. 13 of them are in SW Asia, with I suspect about 8 in Iraq. Leading to about a 10 - 12% utilization of the Army's COMBAT FORCES. Now, we cannot forget about the other forces that they have. If you add in the guard, total ARMY forces in the SW Asia region probably peak at 8% or less.

WOW, 8% of available combat forces are in Iraq. It is the next Vietnam... We need a draft...



*** He also fails to mention that by 2007 there will be 47 ARMY Combat Brigades as many are being retrained for Stryker duty. So percentages drop even further.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how the Dems blame Vietnam on Nixon when he was the one who started the downsizing after Johnson and Kennedys presidencies.

If Hillary gets elected in 2008 and the death toll climbs I doubt they'll do the same. :disgust:

Are we going to rehash Vietnam now too? I thought the Bushies said Iraq and Vietnam aren't comparable.

In March 1968, Johnson decided that the size of the U.S. effort in Vietnam had grown as large as could be justified. Prompted by a request from Westmoreland and JCS Chairman General Earle G. Wheeler for 206,000 more men, the president asked his new secretary of defense, Clark Clifford, for a thorough policy review. Johnson's sense that a limit had been reached seemed confirmed when the "Wise Men," a group of outside advisers including such elder statesmen as former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Gen. Omar Bradley, recommended against further increases. The president authorized only 13,500 more soldiers and bluntly informed Thieu and Ky that their forces would have to carry more of the fighting. He then announced on television on 31 March 1968 that the United States would restrict the bombing of North Vietnam and pursue a negotiated settlement with Hanoi. Johnson also revealed that he would not seek reelection.

...

When Richard M. Nixon became president in 1969, the U.S. war effort remained massive, but the basic decision to de-escalate had already been reached. Nixon owed his political victory to voter expectation that somehow he would end the war. He and his principal foreign policy adviser, Henry Kissinger, rejected precipitate U.S. withdrawal. With the ground war stalemated, the new administration turned increasingly to air bombardment and secretly expanded the air war to neutral Cambodia. Publicly the White House announced in June the first withdrawal of 25,000 U.S. troops and heralded Vietnamization as effective. In fact, South Vietnam's armed forces remained problem-plagued. To bolster the South, the administration leaked to the press dire threats of a "go for broke" air and naval assault on the North--possibly including nuclear weapons. Kissinger also began secret meetings with North Vietnamese representatives in Paris hoping to arrange a diplomatic breakthrough.

The morale and discipline of U.S. troops declined in 1969 as the futility of the ground war and the beginnings of U.S. withdrawal became more obvious. After an intense ten-day battle in May, infantrymen of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Mobile) took a ridge in the A Shau Valley that they had dubbed Hamburger Hill. Having fought bravely and suffered significant losses, the soldiers were bitter when the site soon was abandoned. Such inability to see progress, and an awareness among the troops that politicians back home were giving up on the war, helped undermine military effectiveness. Simple survival of their twelve-month tour of duty became the only motivation for many soldiers. Incidents of insubordination, mutiny, fatal assaults on officers, drug use, racial tensions, and other serious problems increased.

Faced with mounting public dissatisfaction, the slow pace of Vietnamization, and diplomatic frustration, Nixon boldly sent U.S. units into Cambodia in April 1970. U.S. military leaders had long complained about the sanctuary that neutral Cambodia provided Vietcong and NVA forces. This Cambodian incursion lasted until the end of June and provided some tactical gains, but it also sparked sharp controversy and demonstrations by the Vietnam antiwar movement in the United States over what seemed an expansion of the war to another country. U.S. troop reductions continued with only 334,600 in the South as 1970 ended.

Nixon stuck with more of the same in 1971. Responding to domestic critics, he continued to order U.S. troops home, leaving only 156,000 by December. To support Vietnamization, heavy U.S. air attacks continued against Communist supply lines in Laos and Cambodia, and so-called protective-reaction strikes hit military targets north of the Demilitarized Zone and near Hanoi and its port city of Haiphong. Tactical air support continued, with the heaviest coming in March during a South Vietnamese assault into Laos. Code named Lam Son 719, this operation ended in a confused retreat by the ARVN that further sullied the notion of Vietnamization.

During 1971, Kissinger made progress in the secret negotiations by offering to separate the arrangement of a ceasefire from discussion of the future of the Saigon government. In 1972 Nixon traveled to China and the USSR in diplomatic initiatives, trying to isolate Hanoi from its suppliers. With the shrinking American forces nearing 100,000 (only a small portion being combat troops), General Giap launched a spring 1972 offensive by Communist forces against the northern provinces of South Vietnam, the Central Highlands, and provinces northwest of Saigon. In most of the battles, the ARVN was saved by massive B-52 bombing, Nixon also launched the heavy bombers against North Vietnam itself in a campaign called Linebacker, and the United States mined the harbor at Haiphong. Over the course of the war, total U.S. bombing tonnage far exceeded that dropped on Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II.

Wearied by the latest round of fighting, the United States and North Vietnamese governments agreed in October on a ceasefire, return of U.S. prisoners of war (POWs), at least the temporary continuation of Thieu's government, and, most controversially, permission for NVA troops to remain in the South. Objections from Thieu caused Nixon to hesitate, which in turn led Hanoi to harden its position. In December, the United States hit North Vietnam again with repeated B-52 attacks, code-named Linebacker II and labeled the Christmas Bombing by journalists. On 27 January 1973, the United States, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government representing the NLF signed the Paris Peace Agreements Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, which basically confirmed the October terms.

By 1 April 1973, U.S. forces were out of Vietnam (except for a few embassy guards and attaches) and 587 POWs had returned home (about 2,500 other Americans remained missing in action). Congress cut off funds for the air war in Cambodia, and bombing there ended in August. Over Nixon's veto, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in November 1973. It limited presidential power to deploy U.S. forces in hostile action without congressional approval.

Nixon characterized the Paris Peace Agreements of 1973 as "peace with honor," but primarily they allowed the U.S. military to leave Vietnam without resolving the issue of the country's political future. Without U.S. air and ground support, South Vietnam's military defenses steadily deteriorated. In the spring of 1975, an NVA thrust into the Central Highlands turned into an ARVN rout. On 30 April, as NVA and Vietcong soldiers entered the city, the last remaining Americans abandoned the U.S. embassy in Saigon in a dramatic rooftop evacuation by helicopters.

The United States failure in Vietnam raised important questions. Should the United States have fought the war at all? Did the United States fight the war the wrong way? Many analysts believe that the strategic importance of Vietnam was vastly exaggerated and, furthermore, that the nationalism driving Vietnam?s history and politics could not be altered by U.S. military power, no matter how great. An alternative view is that even if the odds were poor for U.S. success, the United States had to make the effort to maintain its moral and strategic credibility in the world. On the question of how the war was fought, the debate centers on whether the United States used its military power adequately and effectively. Assuming that more is better, some critics argue that a greater use of U.S. force, either against North Vietnam or to isolate the battlefield in South Vietnam, would have produced victory. Throughout the conflict, however, the Saigon regime proved incapable of translating military success into political success. Also, massive U.S. assistance seemed to prove North Vietnam's and the Vietcong's claims that South Vietnam was not a Vietnamese but an American creation. Finally, a larger war would have risked a dangerous military conflict with China and the Soviet Union. Most scholars conclude that the Vietnam War was a tragic event whose costs far exceeded any benefits for the United States.

Far more details http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/anderson.htm

PS Expect a like outcome from Bush's unnecessary, unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Vietnam didn't start with LBJ, but nonetheless, his handling of that war was atrocious. But unlike today's Republican party, the Democratic party told LBJ to take a hike and that they would not support him for reelection.

Nixon continued the ridiculousness. I don't blame Nixon for Vietnam, never have and I don't know many that blamed him for starting that damned war.
 

phantom309

Platinum Member
Jan 30, 2002
2,065
1
0
Originally posted by: irwincur
Fact is, 7% of TOTAL AVAILABLE forces are in the Middle East at the moment - that includes Afghanistan. Total available forces include reserve and national guard - because well, they are available.

The only reason the left wants more troops is to give more name for CBS or NBC to read on the nightly news. They know that the only way to make this another Vietnam is to get Vietnam like death tolls. To this point, it has not happened, so they hard on the number of dead Iraqis with false and misleading numbers. Then they call for more soldiers - not because they actually want us to win the war faster, they want us to lose more men, and as a result LOSE the war faster.

The left has a single goal, lose the war in Iraq and try to pin it on Bush. A sad attempt at legacy destruction, since well, their last guy doesn't have a legacy, the Republican president also should not.

Childish, pathetic, and totally sad.
I'd love to write a reply here to illustrate how bizarre, paranoid and irrational the thinking of many Republicans has become. But I think your post shows it more eloquently than I ever could.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: BBond
...He dropped the ball in Afghanistan ...

Pure ignorance that this statement gets thrown around so much. Pretty pathetic really.

Heres a clue; just because its not in front of your face on your favorite cable news channel as much as it once was, does not mean nothing is going on.

Do you really think that if we HADN'T invaded Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan would be ANY different than it is now? If you say yes, youd would have some serious explaining to do.

 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: irwincur
The only reason the left wants more troops is to give more name for CBS or NBC to read on the nightly news. They know that the only way to make this another Vietnam is to get Vietnam like death tolls. To this point, it has not happened, so they hard on the number of dead Iraqis with false and misleading numbers. Then they call for more soldiers - not because they actually want us to win the war faster, they want us to lose more men, and as a result LOSE the war faster.

Dont be stupid. Please, dont be stupid. Uh, wait, i guess you cant help it. Sorry. Sucks to be you. :(

BTW, the subcontext here is that you neocons CONSTANTLY accuse liberals of wanting to see more deaths, anti-American, pro-terrorism, BS. PUHLEASE... :roll: