[Anti] military operations

[KafirChobee]

Yep, the military met its enlistment quota for June ... High School graduation - you know? With no work for those not going to college, what are they suppose to do?

Still, using an essay by Ollie North to show the possitive things occurring in Iraq is the same as listening to Westmoreland 40 years ago telling us how we were winning in Vietnam. It all sounds just to familiar.

The idea that the left, liberals, are hoping this turns into another 'nam is so wrong I can't even begin the disclaimers for that. All I have heard from the left is they pray it doesn't, but acknowledge that it seems to be turning in that direction. Next, the rightwingers will be blaiming the war on the Democrats - oh, wait they've already done that (are trying too).

We won't be there for 3 or 4 more years. We will be there for the durration - 'til what ever forces us to leave occurs. After all, why else would Haliburton be contracted to build 14 (of 20) permanent American military bases in Iraq?
That is, if the mold was not already made for us staying there for a very extended period of time?

So, now it is the liberals fault for our being in Iraq. It is also their fault we are not winning. It is their fault Chenney said the populace would cover our troops with roses as liberators - not use human bombs to kill our troops, put suspicion upon their motives (i.e. giving candy to kids was really just meant to use the kids as human shields).

Step by misserable step, Iraq is turning into a quagmire. As similar as it is dissimilar to 'nam (One has nothing to do with the other, yet those of us that remember how the one was propagated recall the words being used today as being the same as those used then to justify the sending of our troops - to defend us at home going on as usual). It is really more like the USSR's experience in Afghanistan - than anuthing else, only we are the USSR (in this senario).

Bottom line: Please, don't use Ollie as the key editorialist on any issue to justify a cause you believe in - it is like using a traitor to justify patriotism.

[Redleg]

You can't even agree with yourself, so someone, Canadian, or otherwise should point out the obvious.

And you have gotten it all wrong before this conservation - and many of them are still wrong.

So Stop Loss Orders are used used to maintain force levels in selected MOS's.

Yep that is correct - not like you alluded to earlier - it is not a re-enlistment effort - its an effort to maintain the current trainedforce for a time period - which can be indefinite - for mission requirements.

Wow! What a shocker.
Re-enlistment and retention rates are vital to maintaining force levels.

Sure its a shocker to you - the bonus program has been around since the all volunteer army - and even before hand. SOmething your attacking in your posts because you dont understand there use - why else the use of the term bribe?

Why are Stop Loss Orders on the increase now, just when enlistment and re-enlistment rates are down? Just a coincidence? Enlistment, re-enlistment, and Stop Loss Orders are all directly linked to the maintainance of force levels, so to suggest that they are not connected is absurd!

Again incorrect - Stop loss was in effect back in 1991 to maintain the trained forced for the combat operations that were underway. Stop-Loss for this operation was initially drawn up to maintain the current trained force for the current operation - Stop-Loss is not a defined time period program ( the airforce by the way does do it in time period blocks the Army does not)and can be indefinite for the duration of the mission.

You might want to check out the whole context of the statement. Then you might want to check into when Stop-Loss started - another failure on your part. To say they are directly linked is more incorrect and absurd then you just accused me of. This is really getting to be fun.

Quote:
The Army missed its May recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits (75 percent). This was 8,050 until reduced, and they failed to met even this!



The shortfall, factoring in the original 8,050 leaves them short by 38 percent. And most of this came from those leaving the the combat arms. A LOT of people in the military are worried about it, and little sarcastic comments don't really address the problem.

Sure it does - when your attempting the same thing. Whats wrong - it seems to be fine for you to be sarcastic but not I. Again laughable. When you understand the complete concept come back and discuss it in a civil manner and I just make remain un-sarcastic myself. The point is - the United States Army has been undermanned since 1994 - and the Army has still accomplished the missions assigned to it. Again its not all the gloom and doom you are attempting in this little effort.

And my point was, and remains that the army did not meet the recruiting goals. Why you think that pointing this out is an attack on the American military is beyond me.

Not an attack on the military at all oh yea - just look at your use of language

There is also an increased Reliance on Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs) which is cash used to bribe the qualified personnel for reenlistment in occupational specialties that are desperately short or cost a lot to train the men doing them

Re-enlistment bonus are not bribes- but that didn't stop you from using the term now did it. Bribe is usually associated something other then honorable - the use of the term bribe shows that you are hostile to the United States Military practice of re-enlistment and enlistment bonus. Hell I even had a bonus when I started my new civilian job - was that a bribe to get me to come to work? LOL.

The Pentagon has issued Stop Loss Orders from the beginning of 2004, well over a year, preventing servicemen in units destined for Iraq or Afghanistan from retiring.

Misleading and incorrect - Stop-Loss has been going on since way before that. Try looking at what happen during operations besides Desert Storm and the recent operations in Afganstan - which also had a stop loss - and Iraq - which is what you are focusing on - Again incorrectly and shows that you have a hidden agenda in your arguement. Discuss the whole picture when you can understand it.

The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves

Again misleading and incorrect - since the military is conducting normal operations and warfare as we speak. The number of division involved is about half of the current active duty force and about 20-30% of the reserve forces last time I looked. Your statements are misleading and incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the current operations of the United States Military.

Now to draw the point home for you -

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...5_Army,00.html

Army recruiters reached their monthly target in June, but had missed those goals in the previous four months. The Army has recruited about 47,100 in the fiscal year so far, about 86 percent of its year-to-date goal and about 33,000 below its goal of 80,000 for the fiscal year, which ends in October.

Chu noted to the committee that retention data has been much more positive, with all four services above their active-duty re-enlistment goals. Marine officials announced earlier this month they have already reached their year-end goals for re-enlistments and have already begun their fiscal 2006 retention campaign.

295,000 United States Army soldiers are serving in 120 nations,

Yep its not stop-loss that is taking its toll on the Military - its something completely different. And you haven't even gotten close to touching it. I will give you a hint - it started way before 2004 and the current operations in Afganstan and Iraq.

[Redleg]

Yep, the military met its enlistment quota for June ... High School graduation - you know? With no work for those not going to college, what are they suppose to do?

Get a job. There is plently of work for anyone that wants it. To bad the nasty little liberials like yourself continue with your postion that the military is a last resort for all that enlist. Bah.

Still, using an essay by Ollie North to show the possitive things occurring in Iraq is the same as listening to Westmoreland 40 years ago telling us how we were winning in Vietnam. It all sounds just to familiar.

And the rest of the media is doing the same thing - reporting news and misleading the public also. Like only Ollie is guilty of it. Again Bah.

The idea that the left, liberals, are hoping this turns into another 'nam is so wrong I can't even begin the disclaimers for that. All I have heard from the left is they pray it doesn't, but acknowledge that it seems to be turning in that direction. Next, the rightwingers will be blaiming the war on the Democrats - oh, wait they've already done that (are trying too).

Considering that Congress voted to authorize the use of force - both parties are indeed responsible of it. Futhermore Congress is responsible for allowing the President to have greater then his Constitutional Powers when they based the Emerancy War Powers Act - a Democratic Party lead congress by the way.

We won't be there for 3 or 4 more years. We will be there for the durration - 'til what ever forces us to leave occurs. After all, why else would Haliburton be contracted to build 14 (of 20) permanent American military bases in Iraq?
That is, if the mold was not already made for us staying there for a very extended period of time?

Maybe to turn over to the Iraq government?

So, now it is the liberals fault for our being in Iraq. It is also their fault we are not winning. It is their fault Chenney said the populace would cover our troops with roses as liberators - not use human bombs to kill our troops, put suspicion upon their motives (i.e. giving candy to kids was really just meant to use the kids as human shields).

Well you said it.

Step by misserable step, Iraq is turning into a quagmire. As similar as it is dissimilar to 'nam (One has nothing to do with the other, yet those of us that remember how the one was propagated recall the words being used today as being the same as those used then to justify the sending of our troops - to defend us at home going on as usual). It is really more like the USSR's experience in Afghanistan - than anuthing else, only we are the USSR (in this senario).

Oh my bleeding heart - what abunch of claptrap if I have read in a while.

Bottom line: Please, don't use Ollie as the key editorialist on any issue to justify a cause you believe in - it is like using a traitor to justify patriotism.

Only thing you said that makes sense - just like your hero Jane Fonda is it not.

[sharrukin]

I am not going to waste a lot of time on this, so I will only point out the more obvious.


Quote:
The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves

In January (most recent data available), there were 90,000 active forces and 60,000 reserve (including National Guard) deployed in Iraq.

Again misleading and incorrect - since the military is conducting normal operations and warfare as we speak. The number of division involved is about half of the current active duty force and about 20-30% of the reserve forces last time I looked. Your statements are misleading and incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the current operations of the United States Military.

41% of the troops in Iraq are reservists. To suggest they can conduct normal operations without those troops is utterly false. My statement that the army needs it's reserve components to go to war, or to conduct normal operations is backed up by reality. If you are unaware of something so obvious, then you learned very little about your own military, during your time of service.

The Army National Guard provides 38 percent of total Army force structure and 30 percent of total personnel for 14 percent of the nonprocurement budget. The Air National Guard provides 34 percent of total Air Force aircraft and 20 percent of Air Force personnel for 11 percent of the nonprocurement budget.

The Air National Guard provides:

Aircraft Control and Warning Forces 100%
Air Traffic Control 64%
Tactical Airlift 49%
Air Refueling KC-135 Tankers 45%
General Purpose Fighter Force 32%
Rescue and Recovery Capability 23%
Tactical Air Support 16%
Weather Flights 15%
Bomber Force 11%
Strategic Airlift Forces 9%
Special Operations Capability 6%

I used the term bribe because that in essence is what it is. And yes, they use the same sort of thing in the civilian workforce for much the same reason. They are using cash incentive's to get people to re-enlist, and there's nothing wrong with doing so.

I am not hostile to the military, I don't hate America, I don't think the army is dishonourable, and I don't have a "hidden agenda".

You have been reading too many conspiracy novels!

[Redleg]

I am not going to waste a lot of time on this, so I will only point out the more obvious.

LOL - and in that you are again misrepresenting and misunderstanding the data and the arguement that has been used to counter your arguement.

Quote:
The Army as presently structured can hardly conduct normal operations, let alone go to war, without its reserves

In January (most recent data available), there were 90,000 active forces and 60,000 reserve (including National Guard) deployed in Iraq.

41% of the troops in Iraq are reservists. To suggest they can conduct normal operations without those troops is utterly false. My statement that the army needs it's reserve components to go to war, or to conduct normal operations is backed up by reality. If you are unaware of something so obvious, then you learned very little about your own military, during your time of service.

And that is not what I stated - and yes look at the statistics - the number of reservists in Iraq is not 41% of the reserve force - but 41% of the force that is there. And besides where did I say that the reserves were not part of the necessary force, or were necessary. Nice attempt to twist words - and again it shows how little you know about the AMerican Military. Nor did your orginal statement imply what you are now trying to say it did.

The statement was Again misleading and incorrect - since the military is conducting normal operations and warfare as we speakThe number of division involved is about half of the current active duty force and about 20-30% of the reserve forces last time I looked. Your statements are misleading and incorrect and shows your lack of knowledge on the current operations of the United States Military.

Now look at the numbers in the reference that I used. Some background for you since it seems you are obviousily misinformed.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...tates_army.htm

Its old data - but its good enough for this discussion (data from 2002)

The Army is the branch of the (Click link for more info and facts about United States armed forces) United States armed forces which has primary responsibility for land-based military operations. As of (Any accounting period of 12 months) fiscal year 2002 (FY02), it consisted of 480,000 soldiers on active duty and 555,000 in reserve (350,000 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 205,000 in the Army Reserve (USAR). .

90,000 of 480,000 = less then 20%, or in the way I used it 295,000 soldiers (A number that includes the reserves also) out of a total force of 480,000 + 555,000 = 1,030,000 soldiers. 295,000 divided by 1,030,000 = less then 30% of the total force is deployed.

Break it down even farther - 60,000 reservists out of a total possible for deployment of 555,000 is equal to about 10% of the reservists.

Yes indeed you have an agenda that you are attempting to hid with your misrepresentation of the facts, the statements, and the data itself.

The Army National Guard provides 38 percent of total Army force structure and 30 percent of total personnel for 14 percent of the nonprocurement budget. The Air National Guard provides 34 percent of total Air Force aircraft and 20 percent of Air Force personnel for 11 percent of the nonprocurement budget.

Like I already said - I know what there is in the military - and like I said again your attempting to twist things for your own agenda - just like the media. You are only touching the surface to support your arguement without going into the details - nice to see how baised you are.

I used the term bribe because that in essence is what it is. And yes, they use the same sort of thing in the civilian workforce for much the same reason. They are using cash incentive's to get people to re-enlist, and there's nothing wrong with doing so.

Again the word show your baised on the subject - bonus and sign-on incentives are not bribes in the true sense of the word. There is not an effort to get the individual to do something unhonorable or illegal.

I am not hostile to the military, I don't hate America, I don't think the army is dishonourable, and I don't have a "hidden agenda".

And your only presenting a very narrow view of the total picture. One that you only barely understand, and one you are attempting to use data that only represents half the picture or less as evident in your above paragraphs.

Sure you dont have an agenda: Bah

You have been reading too many conspiracy novels!

Don't read conspiracy novels - currently finish reading a book about native americans and thier ill treatment by the government, you might want to actually try reading information about the military from the military - not just the politicial baisd media sources or one hit press releases from the military to draw your conclusions.

[Franconicus]

Again the left would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam. It seems to be the only hope they have for the future.

Noone wants to have another Vietnam. Let's hope for the best.
However, I really agree that the US military is far too strong. It will bring the US in trouble.

[Roark]

Again the left would love nothing better than for this to be another Nam.

What an outrageous suggestion. You really do have that whole red corner / blue corner mentality...

[PanzerJaeger]

Its the truth..

Vietnam empowered the left and they've been defeatist from day one.

[Aurelian]

As usual, Ollie is being a little bit misleading when he trumpets the recruiting figures as 'good news'. To quote:

"According to the Pentagon, all of the services are meeting or exceeding their reenlistment requirements -- though the Army acknowledges shortfalls on new recruits. Through the end of June, the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard all "made their end strength objectives" and the Marine Corps actually went 2 percent over its new "accessions" goal... That's good news for the "All Volunteer Force" in what one recruiter called "a fairly hostile environment."

While the June figures were good for the military overall, June was the first month this fiscal year that the Army has been able to reach its recruiting goals. For the fiscal year overall it is way behind schedule, and it is unlikely to reach its overall targets. From the June 30th Washington Post:

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the Army's June success at the end of a town hall meeting at the Pentagon yesterday, calling it a "bit of good news" in what has been a troublesome topic this year. The Army missed its recruiting goals for the active duty forces by increasing margins from February through May, falling thousands of recruits behind expectations.

According to preliminary numbers cited by a Pentagon official yesterday afternoon, the Army has brought in more than 6,150 recruits this month, passing the goal of 5,650 by about 9 percent. The official released the early numbers after Myers's speech but did not want to be identified because the numbers are subject to change. The Army Reserve, which also has been affected by sluggish recruiting numbers, passed its June goal of 3,610 by about 50 recruits.

The slight surplus in June, however, barely chipped away at what has become a major gap in recruiting numbers. The Army hopes to gain 80,000 recruits this fiscal year but is well behind its target thus far.

About 48,500 recruits have joined through the first nine months of the fiscal year -- 7,800 behind the year-to-date goal, or about 86 percent of the expected numbers. The Army must now add about 31,500 recruits in the next three months, an average of 10,500 each month, to meet the annual goal. January was the only month this year in which the Army brought in more than 8,000 recruits. At the current pace, the Army would miss its goal by more than 11,000.

When you look at the numbers, it's not really very good news at all. It would be reasonable to expect that June would be the high point for Army recruitment during the year (due to High School graduation, etc.), and the Army only exceeded its June goal by 50 recruits. Overall, it looks like they are going to be 11,000 bodies short at the end of fiscal 2005. This is, of course, a serious shortfall when the Army is stretched as thin as it is currently.

As usual, Ollie is just trying to fire up the troops (meaning the ditto-heads) with this kind of editorial. It would be silly for the media to be trumpeting June's recruitment numbers as some sort of triumph when they are pretty piss-poor when taken in context. Overall, there hasn't really been much MSM coverage of recruiting issues either way.

Here's the recruiting data straight from the DoD.

As for the rest of the article: Yes, there are some Americans who think that at least some of the vast amount of resources spent on the military might be better spent on education, infrastructure, paying down the debt, etc. There are also some Americans who would rather not have US troops in Iraq, ROTC programs in their schools, or torture in Gitmo. I guess that's what you get in a democracy - differences of opinion. Boo, hoo.

Calling people who hold those views "hostiles", as Ollie does, just exposes the contempt he has always had for democracy when it gets in the way of his militarism.

[Franconicus]

Its the truth..

Vietnam empowered the left and they've been defeatist from day one.

Panzer,
what would you do if the US starts a not justified war? Would you say: well, this war is wrong but keep on fighting. Or would you say: this war is bad! Take the soldiers home as soon as possible?

[Redleg]

As usual, Ollie is being a little bit misleading when he trumpets the recruiting figures as 'good news'. To quote:

"According to the Pentagon, all of the services are meeting or exceeding their reenlistment requirements -- though the Army acknowledges shortfalls on new recruits. Through the end of June, the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard all "made their end strength objectives" and the Marine Corps actually went 2 percent over its new "accessions" goal... That's good news for the "All Volunteer Force" in what one recruiter called "a fairly hostile environment."

While the June figures were good for the military overall, June was the first month this fiscal year that the Army has been able to reach its recruiting goals. For the fiscal year overall it is way behind schedule, and it is unlikely to reach its overall targets. From the June 30th Washington Post:

And what is the attempt that you are doing here - basically the same thing that you just accused Ollie North of.

When you look at the numbers, it's not really very good news at all. It would be reasonable to expect that June would be the high point for Army recruitment during the year (due to High School graduation, etc.), and the Army only exceeded its June goal by 50 recruits. Overall, it looks like they are going to be 11,000 bodies short at the end of fiscal 2005. This is, of course, a serious shortfall when the Army is stretched as thin as it is currently.

Another doom and gloom scenerio from the left. The army has faced serious shortfalls in recuirting and manpower before. Care to guess how many divisions had just at 90% of strength in thier combat units during the 1990's.

As usual, Ollie is just trying to fire up the troops (meaning the ditto-heads) with this kind of editorial. It would be silly for the media to be trumpeting June's recruitment numbers as some sort of triumph when they are pretty piss-poor when taken in context. Overall, there hasn't really been much MSM coverage of recruiting issues either way.

Again accusing Ollie of the same thing your doing - what a hypocrit.

Here's the recruiting data straight from the DoD.

Yep and then read the data from the last 10 years, make a comparrision and draw your conclusions then.

As for the rest of the article: Yes, there are some Americans who think that at least some of the vast amount of resources spent on the military might be better spent on education, infrastructure, paying down the debt, etc. There are also some Americans who would rather not have US troops in Iraq, ROTC programs in their schools, or torture in Gitmo. I guess that's what you get in a democracy - differences of opinion. Boo, hoo.

Difference in opinion is fine and dandy - and should be encouraged.

Calling people who hold those views "hostiles", as Ollie does, just exposes the contempt he has always had for democracy when it gets in the way of his militarism.

Now look at your hypocrisy yourself - so Ollie can't have his opinions without it being against democracy. LOL your such a card. Lets keep dealing out the hypocrisy in your arguement.

Try reading the posture statements from the last several years

http://www.army.mil/aps/05/summary.html

http://www.army.mil/aps/04/

http://www.army.mil/aps/aps_ch1_7.htm

The compensation enhancements and support for Army recruiting and retention programs contained in the FY1999 supplemental funding measure as well as in the FY2000 defense legislation have been critical in helping to meet endstrength requirements. This support, along with the efforts of leaders across the Army, helped make FY1999 a tremendously successful year for retention. The Select ive Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program continues to be the Army's most effective tool for retention because it can be targeted to specific locations, as well as to specific grade and skill shortages. Retention alone, however, is not enough; we must also attract sufficient numbers of recruits. Recruiting costs have more than doubled over the past 14 years, and are now well over $12,000 per recruit. Continued support for our most effective recruiting incentives, including enlistment bonuses, the Army College Fund, and the Loan Repayment Program, will help meet future requirements.

http://www.fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec6.html

However, U.S. forces will still face myriad challenges in seeking to maintain a sufficient state of readiness into the future. Advanced joint operational concepts and new technologies will increase the complexity of operations and require new and different skills. The number of different skills required will also increase as U.S. forces are asked to be increasingly multi-mission capable, able to transition from peacetime activities and operations, to deterrence, to war. In order to maintain proficiency in the wide variety of required missions and tasks in a joint environment, units will need more effective training and careful time management. Furthermore, as lift capability increases and logistics get leaner, units will be tasked to respond to crises more quickly, and conversely, will have less time to prepare. Joint Vision 2010 calls for all military organizations to become more responsive to contingencies, with less "startup" time between deployment and employment. Finally, if not adequately managed, the demand for peacetime operations, coupled with a smaller force, could overstress personnel operating tempo and take its toll on the quality of life of military personnel that is the foundation of long-term readiness. Given these challenges, the Department intends to implement new management practices that support the defense strategy, conserve resources, and ensure our versatile forces remain prepared to carry out the multiple missions they may be called upon to perform.

Guess what year this was written?

The Army will maintain four active corps, 10 active divisions - including six heavy and four light divisions - and two active armored cavalry regiments. Within that force posture, the Army is prepared to restructure parts of its force to reflect increased efficiencies in support activities and in anticipation of further organizational change, including the redesign and downsizing of its heavy divisions as it integrates the results of ongoing warfighting experiments. Given today's regional threats, elements of the Reserve component, the traditional Cold War strategic reserve can be reduced and transitioned into capabilities that have greater utility across the entire spectrum. This transition will increase depth in the Army's support structure to better support combat operations. These actions, together with the infrastructure efficiencies described in Section VIII, will result in the following personnel reductions:

Active 15,000
Reserve 45,000
Civilian 33,700

Care to guess how many individuals were rifted in 1997 to 1998 to meet the above mentioned decreases.?

There was not a RIF - and the military just restructed some of its manning.


And here is a link to get all of the Sec of Defense reports for the last 10 years.

http://www.comw.org/qdr/offdocs.html#secdef

Yes indeed Ollie North is incorrect in some of the picture that he tried to paint - just like you and others are incorrect in the gloom and doom picture your trying to paint by only looking at the data from 2005.