Iraq Duty Stretches U.S. Army to Danger Point

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-troops6dec06,1,103850.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WASHINGTON — Its equipment and troops battered from fighting in Iraq, the Army will allow four of its divisions returning from combat duty to fall to readiness levels that would make them unprepared for conventional warfare for as long as six months, a senior Army official said Friday.

The divisions -- which together make up more than 100,000 soldiers, 40 percent of the army's combat troops -- are reeling from year-long deployments fighting first a war, then a counterinsurgency that have wreaked havoc with everything from tank treads to helicopter roters to nerves.

By permitting the units to, in effect, drop their guard and recharge, the Pentagon is taking a calculated risk that it won't be forced to fight a war with a major adversary such as North Korea on short notice. Not since the all-volunteer military was established in 1973 has the army allowed so many of its units to fall to such low readiness levels.

"We have a non-negotiable contract with the U.S. people that our army will always be ready to fight and win its wars," said the senior army official who briefed a small group of reporters on the plans Friday on condition of anonymity, after the Army's plan was disclosed in the Wall Street Journal. "But this is a fact of life. What we are seeing now is the operational tempo of our army is going to require time to reset our equipment, reset our training, reset our soldiers so we can build this army back up."
<snip>

[bluestateguy]

1. Drafty in here!

It's time to demand all chickenhawks prove their support for the military by helping to solve this problem and ENLISTING.

I will NOT be conscripted into George W. Bush's mercenary army. I could never trust my life in the hands of a commander in chief who lies the nation into war. Not a blow job, mind you, but a war, where people are actually killed.

[teryang]

2. Bigger defense budget than the biggest of Vietnam

...war; smallest force and least preparedness since before Vietnam. This isn't dangerous for just the armed forces, it is dangerous for the nation and the world.

That's leadership for you, lining their pockets, wasting lives and jeopardizing world peace. Way to go, Alpha Hotel! Numerous DUers predicted this months before the war began.

[ex_jew]

4. But where did the money go ?

the 400+ billion dollar question.

[UpInArms]

3. the realities of what was said then and the truth now

http://slate.msn.com/id/82762/

Ready or Not?
Has Clinton weakened America's defenses?
By Michael O'Hanlon
Posted Friday, May 19, 2000, at 12:00 AM PT

Congressional Republicans would have you believe that the Clinton administration has gutted the U.S. military. Citing a "severe drop in overall military readiness," Rep. Duncan Hunter says U.S. forces are being pushed "to the breaking point" and "could not fight and win against Iraq today as we did in 1991." Sen. Trent Lott alleges a similar "downward spiral." Sen. Bob Smith and others complain of a "readiness crisis."

But the Republicans are wrong. On a per-person and per-weapon basis, U.S. armed forces are very good, and by some measurements they've never been better. Readiness levels have dropped a bit from their historic peaks during the Bush administration, and strains on troops are excessive in some cases. But overall, readiness remains comparable to the levels of the Reagan years and far superior to the 1970s, when Gen. Shy Meyer warned about the nation's "hollow military."

...more...

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

5. A make-believe war against a piddly-shit broken-down country

and we've just about run out of everything and everyone the U.S. has in its military inventory? What would have happened had we been attacked by a well-armed, well-trained military? Like Canada?