We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:48:30 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification by Staff Sgt. Russell L. Klika September 13, 2006 Spc. Danell Herd and Pfc. Michael Ferryman, from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, greet Iraqi children during a roadside break while looking for smuggling routes along the Syrian/Iraqi border. This photo appeared on www.army.mil. "These readers just don’t get soldiers or soldiering." Over at National Review, they've been having a discussion of troop levels, both in Iraq and in the services in general. Rich Lowry posted an email from an officer, which I've excerpted here and interspersed comments - to get the whole gist you need to... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:52:34 -0600 I'm afraid to even say anything on this subject. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50558 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50558 Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:55:20 -0600 Rey: I'm not sure that having these formations CONUS doesn't mean we aren't at max commitment. Say, since it is one that I do look at, we had to give help to Taiwan? Those brigades ready to do that? They ready to go back up the ROCA? I doubt it. (Yeah, Taiwan is going to be a sea-air battle predominately, at least on the US side. But if the ROCA crumbles the game is over. Would be nice to have some American troops on the ground to stiffen the spine and reassure the ROC gov't though. Fire brigade, essentially.) I really don't think they are. Not if we're having to leave gear pre-positioned in the ME. That's still the 'hava-no'-Task Force Smith situation since things needed to kill PLA tank Armies(what they call divisions) isn't available. Or say if Cartman Jong-Il finally nuts and sends his forces forward. Sure, SouKor forces can handle it, having paid a high bloodprice for it. Would be a much smaller price if we could help in a serious way---and i don't think they've forgotten how staying off the roads and moving light helped in 1950, so I don't think airpower is all that in this situation. In this sense I agree with those who claim the military, the Army in particular, is stretched thin. We can't do what the leadership has said it wants the military to be able to do and what the govt's policies are. There's a whole list of goats going to hell over that one. We're supposed to be able to do 1-4-2-1(the current admin) and fight 2.5 wars ( that's what the prior admin claimed it could do). But we can't. That means someone needs to be pimp slapped. Just because Big Nasty is gone, that there really isn't a near peer competitor, that we don't need manpower and money for gear. We need to get real about what's necessary from the public and what's necessary from the military. Sorry, Big War needs to stay, but not the only thing we do. Sorry, I know many of my countrymen don't like it, but we still need to give a healthy chunck(more than the 3-5%) of our budget to defense so it can do its job when asked to properly. Adding troops now doesn't do the job. They aren't going to be online fast enough to matter---sending a half trained troopie is more trouble than he's worth. 3-1 rule of logistics. Then add to that the trouble of how to down size afterwards so we can replace equipment as it reaches end of lifespan(which is happening as we speak. How many platforms are on their second or third Life Extension Program?). People are still pissed about the RIF after Vietnam you know. In my opinion, from my studies, if anyone declared war on the military, it was John Q. Taxpayer. He did that in 1919. He did it again in 1946. He did it again in 1975. He tried to do it thruought the 80s. He succeeded in doing it from 1993 to about 2002. BUt that's me. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50457 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50457 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:49:11 -0600 Before you write something Jack, let me give you a caution, since I've been working on this for months: there's tons of reading, literally, in like that many pounds of pages that need to be read, before you can say much at all intelligent on the subject. There's been something I wanted to write on just this subject but I've put off because the research necessary to do it properly is mountainous. Be careful. Don't be a hack using ad hoc arguments to justify being against the Iraq Campaign. Don't degenerate into a hack. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50446 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50446 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:24:54 -0600 I read the two linked articles. I'm trying to figure out something related today, and the two articles play into that. I'm searching to get the real story on the Army after reading a left-leaning columnist who asserted that President Bush had "declared war on the Army" and justified it by listing a lot of negatives regarding recruiting. I'm getting a bit concerned that we as a nation have not gotten on a war footing and we may be straining our military too much for too little in the way of results. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50440 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50440 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:25:50 -0600 First to the not often mentioned detail. The US armed forces ARE NOT stretched today. Look at who is actually deployed and for how long. During WWII Soldiers deployed for 4-5 years. Whole units whent from theater to theater. Here we have the Corps deploying for 4-6 months at a time, same with the Navy. The Air force is basically none existant in theater (except the medical personel and some ground support people and of course the emabsy flights and liberty flights and cargo flights) The Army, who stays a year, is only 30-40 % deployed. Look, right now you have 82nd ABN stateside and 101st deployed. You have 3rd INF stateside and 4ID deployed. You have 1 CAV and 3rd ACR stateside and some 2ID deployed. The striker Bde is in theater but there are several Bdes that are not. We tend to count as deployed or commited not just the units that are in theater or enroute but also the ones that are notified to go or recovering stateside. Lets see, We could deploy the Air Force for airstrikes in Iran. A MEF to take the ports and the first 50 miles and the oil platforms. The 82nd ABN, 2nd ACR, a striker Bde and 3 ID can take Tehran. The rest of the country is immaterial. Take and occupy the city and let the population rise against the muhllas. Or... wait until Ahmadinejad and the ayatohllas do one of their scheduled "death to America" rallies and have a dozen cruise missiles pay them a very public visit. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50410 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50410 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:41:32 -0600 Bush may be trying to "gin up" more support right now because he recognizes that "diplomatic" efforts to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuke issue will not work and because it does not appear as though the Iranian people will overthrow the mullahs themselves, as hoped. He may understand that the US will be compelled to take some kind of military action in Iran soon. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to do anything without running into an American election cycle, or some other "media event" or "scandal", that critics will use to make a "wag the dog" claim. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50406 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/09/lets_have_a_debate.html#comment-50406 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:24:36 -0600