Col. Hackworth: 75% of some units leave Army. DRAFT inevitable under Bush

[Dems Will Win]

Voting with Their Feet

“We're stretched too thin,” reports a sergeant. “Our CO (commanding officer) admitted this to us during our tour in Afghanistan. He also admitted that morale is down due to the extending of tours. Yet the Pentagon insists there’s no problem with morale. We lost over 75 percent of our unit when we got back. I know other units are having the same problems. If this trend continues, we won’t have enough people to defend this country when the need arises.”

An Apache pilot in Korea says, “It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Army is going to be losing a lot of people as soon as they get the chance to vote with their feet.”

I’m sure the brass have all the paperwork to back up their propaganda campaign. But as far as the old saw that “figures don't lie” goes, I’ve been around long enough to know that liars figure and soldiers know the truth. So I’ll go with the soldiers.

Unless so-called Army short tours in the badlands of Iraq and Afghanistan become manageable based on the number of troops available – right now the Army is trying to do the work of 14 divisions with 10 under-strength, active-duty divisions – we’ll see a mass exodus from the Green Machine and the inevitable return of the draft.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=67&rnd=441.6411948845369

BUSH '04 = DRAFT '05

KERRY '04 = PNAC OUT THE DOOR!

JOHN KERRY HAS A NO-DRAFT PLAN. AS SOON AS HE IS INAUGURATED, RE-ENLISTMENT AND RECRUITMENT RATES WILL RETURN TOWARDS NORMAL AND THE DRAFT WILL BE "ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY" AS HE RECENTLY SAID

[mike_c]

1. not to thread jack, but you never responded to the points...

...I raised here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1671035 in an exchange about your sig. I'll say it again: Kerry's current Iraq plans are essentially a continuation of the PNAC agenda for Iraq.

I think another poster yesterday might have figured out the most likely course: that Kerry will really give the Iraqi government the right to decide what role Americans should play in their country. Of course, a weak puppet government with any real hope of maintaining their power will find themselves in much the same situation that the South Vietnamese government found itself in with regard to American troops, but with the added complication that the U.S. has formerly occupied Iraq.

Kerry needs to clearly state his intentions, and to the extent that he has so far, I don't think the PNAC is too worried about their colonial designs on Iraq.

[Sterling]

20. Yes Kerry is PNAC stage 2

Those of us who pay attention have been aware of this for some time now.

He can fight "THE WAR ON TERROR" better than Bush!!!!

[The Magistrate]

21. Honestly, Mr. Sterling

Destroying the radical fundamentalists of Islam in arms against the Unites States is a proper and necessary action. It is one which has, and will continue to have, the widest support of the people of the country. The claim of being able to prosecute this endeavor better than the vicious clowns currently in office can is a necessary one, and has the advantage of being true. One of the soundest arguments against the Iraqi folly is precisely that it is a calamatous cul de sac that works against success in detroying the fundamentalist enemy.

"Strike the fascist wherever you meet him."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Sterling]

23. Destroying Islam is not high on my agenda.

Over time the taste for Muslim blood will taper as the price of these misadventures becomes higher. Its a fools game. Invading Iraq is certainly not part of an agenda targeted specifically at fundi extremists yet Kerry will continue to support it?

By falling into the "War on Terror" trap Kerry is adopting the PNAC agenda of orwellian double speak. Not only will he stay Ws course but he is perfectly happy adopting the laungauge of the Neo Con con machine. He is a shill for the same interests that have driven the Neo Cons to this policy. That much is obvious to all but the members of Kerry's cult of personality.

[The Magistrate]

24. Who Said Anything About Destroying Islam, Mr. Sterling?

Would you consider Christianity destroyed if the political power of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were broken?

Destroying the armed power, and the political power, of radical Islamic fundamentalists would benefit no one more than the great mass of Islamic people themselves: though that is certainly not the motivation behind a national policy of destroying them, it will be an inevitable result of success in that policy. Collapsing the Argentine military junta was no part of Margaret Thatcher's motivations for fighting in the Falklands, but it was a result of the defeat she dealt them there just the same. The rule of unintended consequences has a long reach, and takes lurches in odd directions at times.

If recollection serves, you are not of the opinion the country was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists in 2001, and if that is the case, it is readily understandable if you do not perceive either the mood of the people, or the requirement to destroy forces which attack a country that its leadership, of whatever political stripe, necessarily labors under. If the argument is raised that the Islamic radicals perceive themselves attacked by the United States, and experience the same imperative, my answer is the simple one that they may well feel this, and act on it, which makes the thing into a garden variety contest of will and power, such as has defined the greater part of human history, and is generally resolved in favor in the more powerful side. As the fundamentalist radicals of Islam are a profoundly reactionary force, their destruction, even at the hands of a power that is merely less reactionary than they, does not bother me at all, but seems rather to be a desireable thing.

The illusion Sen. Kerry intends to prosecute the current administration's policy in Iraq is one that some splinterists eagerly comfort themselves with, but there is not much substance to it. Any disengagement from Iraq must be carefully managed, and it is far more likely to be executed successfully by a new leadership than by the same old vicious clowns who made the error in the first place.

"People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[teryang]

2. Even if anecdotal reports weren't a true indicator

...the numbers don't lie. You can't maintain so many overseas forces without a pipeline feeding the replacement troops for the timely rotation of deployed forces.

The troop movement from Korea and Fort Irwin suggest that we're eating the "seed corn" as Col. Allard said. Then you have this quote from McCaffrey:

"We are in a period of great strategic vulnerability," retired Army general Barry McCaffrey said. If current trends continue, he said, "the U.S. Army will start coming apart next year."

[mike_c]

3. personally, I would welcome this....

"If current trends continue, he said, "the U.S. Army will start coming apart next year."

The U.S. uses it's military for too many foreign policy roles, and as a consequence needs a huge military budget and a relatively large standing force (although "professionalizing" the military has held the line on the later in the absence of major campaigns during the last several decades-- but led to the current situation).

I'd welcome the collapse of military infrastructure if it led to a real analysis of the proper role of the military in national affairs and the real need for maintaining military super-power status in a world that clearly resents having a 500 pound U.S. gorilla conducting "diplomacy." Imagine having even half the Pentagon's annual budget for medical research, or energy independence initiatives.

[teryang]

6. Actually for the tremendously huge budget

...the Army is quite small. We have a Vietnam War sized budget and a puny Army in relative terms. This is due to the unbelievable amount of corruption in Pentagon expenditures. It is a contractor free for all. Big ticket items tend to go to the defense contractors serving the other two armed forces. The tooth to tail game of Rumsfeld even aims at turning Army manpower functions over to contractors. There are at least 20,000 in Iraq. The defense budget is usually about getting more dollars without turning it into Army or USMC personnel expenditures. The ground forces are cut to the bone so that contractors get the lion's share of budget.

Obviously, the defense contractors are a major component of repuke political support. The ties of the bush family and cheney and their supporters to the defense industry are well known.

I don't adhere to the view that the Army should be allowed to fall apart. On the other hand, rather than a draft, we should pull military forces out of Iraq (now)and (to be cynical) just pick a horse and back it.

[mike_c]

7. I understand...

...(hence the parenthetic expression). What I meant was relatively large in comparison to the real needs of a nation whose military's primary role is to protect it and its citizens from attack. And I wasn't speaking only about the Army, although the original quote referenced the Army specifically.

The point I wanted to make is that if we set aside the need for gunboat diplomacy and other military misadventures as essential components of U.S. foreign policy, and view the military as a strictly defensive force that must be prepared to respond to reasonably likely direct threats-- but NOT as a "force projection"-- we could significantly reduce the bore of the Pentagon's money pipeline. The diverted money could certainly be used elsewhere.

[Dems Will Win]

8. But Mike_C, with all due respect, this is what Kerry is saying

He sees al-Queda as a Special Ops and law problem not a military one. In fact, I believe he has said the word "war" when it comes to fighting terrorism is misleading.

So now I am really confused about how Kerry is supposedly a PNAC enabler by your account. By the way I did answer in the other thread finally.

Sorry but I am busy saving the world in my day job in International Development projects dealing with organic agriculture so I cannot respond quickly sometimes.

KERRY '04 = PNAC OUT THE DOOR!

[sangh0]

11. "al-Queda as a Special Ops and law problem not a military one"

No matter how many important differences between Kerry and Bush* you identify, there will still be some who insist there are no differences, or that the differences are cosmetic.

How can you hope to persuade someone who thinks "I will not institute a draft" means "I will institute a draft"?

[mike_c]

19. huh? Are we participating in the same thread?

How can you hope to persuade someone who thinks "I will not institute a draft" means "I will institute a draft"?

Where did anyone say that?

[underpants]

9. On 9/10/01 Rummy announced $2.1 Trillion missing from Pentagon

Not the cash but the things WE bought with that money. It is really hard to find an article but as I remember it included several M1A1's and a salvage barge (hard to lose). They were pretty sure they still had them they just didn't know where the stuff was.

Rummy was going to initiate a long overdue and much discussed overhaul of the Pentagon it was the way that he tried to do it that ruffled feathers, and brass.

There are 1,400 different accounting systems used in the DoD.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Mike just one tihng

Our CURRENT troops in uniform is the smallest standing force since December 6th, 1941

Most of the money goes to toys, not to train or equip forces.

[bemildred]

15. "the U.S. Army will start coming apart next year."

I always enjoy the politic optimism. We can't actually
ever say "it's coming apart now" or "it's broke now".

As a former denizen of the Defense bidness, let me say that
your comments are right on. I don't believe that ever in the
history of the Republic have we gotten so little in the way of
warmaking ability for such a high price.

[gratuitous]

4. The non-military folks in this administration . . .

These people have no clue what Hackworth is talking about. Troop strength and morale don't enter into their calculations. It's like a game of Risk writ large: We have X number of soldiers. That means we can launch our attack because the enemy has (X - Y) number of soldiers. And we'll be successful.

The real world consequences of their inexperience, however, mean more bodies coming through Dover, and more casualties piling up in Walter Reed.

[Hubert Flottz]

5. Duty Roster .......................................Company W

Monday;

Buck Pvt. Lameball .......PLO
Buck Pvt. Carlson .......Point Man on next patrol
Buck Pvt. Hannidy........... Nonstop KP
Buck Pvt. Bush............Cleaning the grease trap
Buck Pvt. Cheney............Guarding Rush Lameball
Buck Pvt. Ashcross............Dumpster Guard
Buck Pvt. Rumbo.............Shit Detail
Buck Pvt. Rice..............Road Guard
Buck Pvt. O'Really..........Trash Detail

[Streetdoc270]

10. and your source is?

"AS SOON AS HE IS INAUGURATED, RE-ENLISTMENT AND RECRUITMENT RATES WILL RETURN TOWARDS NORMAL "

How do we know this? If we 'Stay the course' and add 40k troops where will they come from, do we think people will say "Gee I think I'll go die in Iraq now that Kerry is President"

[JHB]

13. Right, StreetDoc

Even if the 'stay the course' line gets ditched later, once burned, twice shy, and a LOT of reservists have been burned by this (mal)administration.

The only way Kerry might coax a turnaround out of the "flee Army" trend is to go before the nation and lay out what the reserves are for: REAL emergencies, where sacrifice is asked of the whole nation, and the nation is behind them; not flea-brained foreign policy joyrides like Dick & Georgie's Excellent Iraq-venture.

[Dems Will Win]

14. The troops hate Bush for the most part and the whole PNAC Plan

Once they see Kerry using Special Ops and NOT the infantry and heavy divisions they will be happy to stay in because they know they will not even be deployed again.

They will trust Kerry to watch out for them. They don't mind the fighting as much as not having the bulletproof vests and enough bullets nor even enough water or toilet paper.

Not to mention the benefits Bush stole out from under them.

Kerry would never do that. They would fight even in Iraq and Afghanistan if there was a real exit strategy and not Bush's HIDDEN AGENDA (not too hidden anymore).

The Army will love Kerry as much as the French will (read French troops in Iraq).

[JHB]

12. "It's Clinton's Fault"

Never underestimate the wingers' dilligence in blaming the Mighty Clenis.

[scarletlib]

16. kick

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. The army is broken

Teh sad part is WE MAY actually need a draft in the short term
to rebuild the force.

Oh and the troops despise these damn Civilizians running the war, a war they would never put their own hide at risk.

IT is so nice to play Risk and not have to think of the consequences.

[Sterling]

22. Kerry has two choices.

abandon the PNAC plan and pull out of Iraq or start the draft. Thats it. He says he is not leaving Iraq so does that make him a liar when he says there will no draft or just stupid like the Neo Con con artists?

[mzmolly]

25. I think your absolutely right. Bush = draft!

:(

[Alerter_]

26. Why won't Bush give them a raise? Rather give it to Halliburton for FRAUD

Halliburton is using US troops as security for the truck shipments. Some poor driver and a few troops to guard "sailboat fuel" - empty trucks that Halliburton charges the US taxpayer for - money that would be going to our troops.

Bush would rather draft people than pay a decent wage to the military. What a disgrace.