You're doing a good job Georgie . . . running Guard into the ground

[BaliBabyDoc]

CNN
Good thing we don't have any active conflicts going on . . . or this might be a problem.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, mostly because of equipment shortages that will cost up to $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday.

Hmm, how much will that estate tax cut cost?

"I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just have a higher fever," Blum said.

Good thing we don't have any active conflicts going on . . . or that might be a problem.

Last week several House Democrats said publicly that two-thirds of the Army brigades are rated not ready for combat, and Army officials have not disputed that figure. On Tuesday, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Connecticut, also declined to be specific, but said the Army is "very much worse off" that it was in late 1999 when the military said two of the 10 Army divisions were ranked at the lowest readiness level, C-4. At the time, two divisions equaled six brigades.

The issue gained political momentum when then-candidate George Bush, during his nominating convention, said the Clinton administration allowed the U.S. military might to erode. Now, as the 2006 elections approach, Democrats are saying the Bush administration is shortchanging the military.

Well, Clinton ran down the military b/c he hates them. Bush . . . uh . . . is a moron?

In addition to the National Guard's needs, the Army has said it needs $17 billion this year to meet its equipment and combat needs. Dodd said Tuesday he wants to see the Army's full request met, and he plans to offer an amendment to do that later this week.

Is it just me . . . or does it appear DOD is being run by Gary Larson's School for the Gifted?

 

[Amplifier]

I just dont get it, bush wants to give all these taxes to the rich who needs more than a million dollars anyway. The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

 

[Hecubus2000]

Since when has the National Guard ever been combat ready?

 

[dahunan]

Blackwater USA and Haliburton are all the military we need .. oh.. and the Christians can all sign up

 

[wetech]

So which is it, are we spending too much on the military or not enough?

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
Since when has the National Guard ever been combat ready?

the NG can maintain a level of readiness that's on par with active units. My father is a guard member and helped train the active units that went to Iraq during Desert Storm. During their maneuvers, they scored marks that would have been high, even for an active army unit.

 

[IrateLeaf]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Blackwater USA and Haliburton are all the military we need .. oh.. and the Christians can all sign up

the christians did sign up. So whats your excuse?
Its ok to admit that cowardice is also a human trait.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Cherry picking quotes.

Either use the thread to bash Bush or analyze the issue; Doing the first corrupts the other.
It seems like you are attempting to act like a Zen or McCowen.

A major problem is that the units returning are not bringing the equipment back with them.

Therefore until they get it replentished; they are not able to properly train and are able to be up to deployment status.

The equipment is being left overseas, because it is needed.

Funds have not been used to replentish used equipment and/or the delivery of such equipment has not been accelerated.

This is a fault of the political logistics system. Attempting to do things on the cheap to cover the real costs.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Cherry picking quotes.

Either use the thread to bash Bush or analyze the issue; Doing the first corrupts the other.
It seems like you are attempting to act like a Zen or McCowen.

A major problem is that the units returning are not bringing the equipment back with them.

Therefore until they get it replentished; they are not able to properly train and are able to be up to deployment status.

The equipment is being left overseas, because it is needed.

Funds have not been used to replentish used equipment and/or the delivery of such equipment has not been accelerated.

This is a fault of the political logistics system. Attempting to do things on the cheap to cover the real costs.

It seems like the idea of not moving equipment back and forth with every guard unit is a good idea, having equipment that just stays overseas seems like a more economical solution. But that only would really work if there was available equipment back here in the states to replace what was left over there...and it seems like that is what is not happening. I know a lot of the military is done on the cheap (relatively speaking of course), but this seems like a situation where units will slowly become less and less ready to deploy the more rotations they take back home...not a sustainable solution, IMHO.

Personally I think the real solution is to cut corners (if necessary) on contractors and FIRST make sure that the soldiers have all they need. There is this fascination in the government with contracting work out, and it works great when it's a good solution, but it seems to turn into the one and only solution anyone thinks about way too often. How much money does the military waste giving no-bid contracts to the friends of those in charge when it's not even necessary?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Cherry picking quotes.

Either use the thread to bash Bush or analyze the issue; Doing the first corrupts the other.
It seems like you are attempting to act like a Zen or McCowen.

A major problem is that the units returning are not bringing the equipment back with them.

Therefore until they get it replentished; they are not able to properly train and are able to be up to deployment status.

The equipment is being left overseas, because it is needed.

Funds have not been used to replentish used equipment and/or the delivery of such equipment has not been accelerated.

This is a fault of the political logistics system. Attempting to do things on the cheap to cover the real costs.

Uh . . . who is in control of the political logistics . . . Democrats? Saddam? Al Qaeda? Homosexuals? I know its a difficult term for Bush supporters but lets just take it slowly . . . r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y. Sometimes crap just happens. Sometimes somebody messed up. It is quite easy for any nonpartisan to see Iraq is a mess - part Bush/GOP, part others. Afghanistan is a mess - part Bush/GOP, part others. The Army and National Guard are being stressed with regards to personnel and equipment . . . which is part Bush/GOP, part others.

Seems like its quite easy to analyze the readiness issues and stress on armed forces and attribute culpability to the controlling powers in the US government. But feel free to pat Bush on the back for his 'achievements.'

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Cherry picking quotes.

Either use the thread to bash Bush or analyze the issue; Doing the first corrupts the other.
It seems like you are attempting to act like a Zen or McCowen.

A major problem is that the units returning are not bringing the equipment back with them.

Therefore until they get it replentished; they are not able to properly train and are able to be up to deployment status.

The equipment is being left overseas, because it is needed.

Funds have not been used to replentish used equipment and/or the delivery of such equipment has not been accelerated.

This is a fault of the political logistics system. Attempting to do things on the cheap to cover the real costs.

Uh . . . who is in control of the political logistics . . . Democrats? Saddam? Al Qaeda? Homosexuals? I know its a difficult term for Bush supporters but lets just take it slowly . . . r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y. Sometimes crap just happens. Sometimes somebody messed up. It is quite easy for any nonpartisan to see Iraq is a mess - part Bush/GOP, part others. Afghanistan is a mess - part Bush/GOP, part others. The Army and National Guard are being stressed with regards to personnel and equipment . . . which is part Bush/GOP, part others.

Seems like its quite easy to analyze the readiness issues and stress on armed forces and attribute culpability to the controlling powers in the US government. But feel free to pat Bush on the back for his 'achievements.'

I am not please with the way Bush has handled the military action at all.

Military professional advise was ignored/rejected from the git go.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

I am not please with the way Bush has handled the military action at all.

Military professional advise was ignored/rejected from the git go.

The parallels between Robert McNamara and Rumsfeld are numerous and direct IMO. Both came from private industry and brought a businessman's we-can-get-more-for-less mentality to the position of SecDef. Both took a lot of (too much IMO) operational control away from the people in uniforms and second-guessed them when they refused to act like yes men. I think Rumsfeld is worse, actually, in that the whole OIF escapade was not even marginally based on protecting our national security, but rather on a preordained philosophy generated by himself and his PNAC cronies. President Bush, for his part, was all too willing to buy into their plans and implement them.

Unless Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al are right that the PNAC plan will create world peace and increase American power (a prospect that looks increasingly improbable), OIF will, IMO, go down in history as this nation's worst-thought-out, most foolish major military action in history.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: wetech
So which is it, are we spending too much on the military or not enough?

excellent question and i'd like to know what people think. IMHO, we should have spent more upfront and brought over more troops. that would have secured the area quicker (hopefully), would allow for less loss of life and would have brought soldiers home earlier. instead were are taking a long time and run the possibility of spending more than what could have happened. again, this is just my opinion and i'm just an office-chair-general.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: wetech
So which is it, are we spending too much on the military or not enough?

excellent question and i'd like to know what people think. IMHO, we should have spent more upfront and brought over more troops. that would have secured the area quicker (hopefully), would allow for less loss of life and would have brought soldiers home earlier. instead were are taking a long time and run the possibility of spending more than what could have happened. again, this is just my opinion and i'm just an office-chair-general.

This whole endeavor has been fundamentally flawed from conception to execution.

Shinseki . . . ridiculed.

Powell . . . ridiculed . . . ignored . . . then ridiculed. He was called a dove (as if that's a bad thing). Then he was called irrelevant (nice when your Sec of State isn't importat in foreign policy). Then it was his fault b/c Bush41/Powell should have done it in 1991.

Let me be clear, I think invading Iraq was a terrible idea. But I can buy the argument that its 'conceivable' that a democratic Iraq might create positive ripples throughout the Middle East. IMHO, we will NEVER know.

Personally, I get pissed off every time somebody claims we are about to turn the corner. It's a friggin' circle! The next six months. The next election. Just a little more training. Oops, we need $60B and its an emergency!Drink. Swish. Spit. Repeat.

The problem is that its gone beyond the point where WE can fix Iraq. Iraqis (and to a certain extent other countries in the region) have to fix Iraq. It's about the only thing I give Bushistas credit for . . . they occasionally say it. But their premise is that we have to STAY until the Iraqis can do it. But it's just as reasonable to say the Iraqis can't (or won't) do it until we leave.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

I am not please with the way Bush has handled the military action at all.

Military professional advise was ignored/rejected from the git go.

The parallels between Robert McNamara and Rumsfeld are numerous and direct IMO. Both came from private industry and brought a businessman's we-can-get-more-for-less mentality to the position of SecDef. Both took a lot of (too much IMO) operational control away from the people in uniforms and second-guessed them when they refused to act like yes men. I think Rumsfeld is worse, actually, in that the whole OIF escapade was not even marginally based on protecting our national security, but rather on a preordained philosophy generated by himself and his PNAC cronies. President Bush, for his part, was all too willing to buy into their plans and implement them.
* * *

Very interesting comparison, I hadn't really thought of that before. But I think McNamara was a far more capable executive in the private field than Rumsfield-he was the first non family member to head up Ford Motor Company, as I recall, and really helped turn it around in the late fifties before he reached the top position.

The equipment issues aside (which seems to me to be mostly a book keeping issue) doesn't the Guard have major problems in recruiting and retaining members? I'm well past military age, but for the life of me I can't think of a single rational reason to enter the Guard.