Army Overstretched

[RunInRed 16,489]

Is not the commander in chief supposed to be able to manage the military? Of course this would require the foresight to not invade countries who posed no imminent threat to the U.S. I would not let dubya manage my dog's house. What an incompetent disgrace this President has been and what a mess he has made of our military in his attempt at conducting foreign policy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332771,00.html

WASHINGTON — Top Army officials told a Senate panel on Tuesday that the Army is under serious strain and must reduce the length of combat tours as soon as possible.

"The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future," said Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army.

[Ranger12 46]

Hey bud, you don't want to get me started on why the military is overstretched. I served in the 90's when alot of downsizing of the full time personnel was going on and also when the Guard and Reserves were being "restructured". Do you you remember who was the President of the United States back then? Our Guard and Reserves have been hurting from that decision ever since then because that certain Democratic president did not think we would never have to use them in the capacity we are having to use them now because even after his full time military cutbacks, he thought we would still have enough personnel to do the job.

As far as your comment about invading other countries. You sound like another liberal that forgot that the same liberal leaders, before even 9/11 happened, has been on the record as saying that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. I assume you also forgot that they also voted to go into Iraq after reading the same intel that Bush had received. Oh, wait a minute, Obama has said he would not have voted for it if the junior Senator would have been in office then. Easy to say that now since you have no record to rely on isn't it. Oh, wait a minute again. Wasn't he quoted on MSNBC one time as saying he did not know how he would have voted? So, who knows what Obama would have done, right? Well, like I said, it is much easier to waffle when you have no record to go on because you have not been a Senator that long, compared to the last Democratic presidential candidate.

Do you want to bother to look up what the Pentagon's budget was under Clinton compared to what Bush has proposed for them every year since he has been in office? Again, we are still trying to play catchup from the 90s.

With all of that said, there are times that programs in the military need to be cut because they are useless and wasting money and manpower. Though Clinton screwed the military, there were some programs he rightfully cut because they were just hogging money that was needed for more useful projects. Bush has had to do the same thing, but unfortunately the Pentagon can be stubborn because some 4 star general gets favors from some contractor if he pushes their pet projects. Clinton fought against the Osprey, and rightfully so if you ask me, but for some reason, the PTBs at the Pentagon kept on trying to revive it.

[RunInRed 16,489]

#1 - If you are looking at me to defend Clinton you are barking up the wrong tree. As your good friend Bill O'Reilly often pontificates: "you don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior."

#2 - Obama is clearly on record in 2002 about his opposition to Iraq. To deny such is to not accept the truth.

[Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.]

"Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."

"He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[autigeremt 6,714]

I, a veteran of the U.S. Army myself, and another "victim" of the 90's downsizing, understand why my beloved Army is strained at the moment. The war is a big factor, but we are also in Afganistan. A two front battle in a war for stabilization. Cut and run, and we will be forced to fight a mighty enemy no one has seen before. Hitler will be forgotten in my opinion.

But let me add to say that most Americans are cheerleaders from the stands, and not players on the field! They are the first to cheer when things are "perfect", and the first to boo when things are not to there mindless standards (hard to swallow considering most of them would run like hell instead of fight).

It takes a few, small % of men and women to give themselves up for the posibility of death for the USA. Sad, but true. I'm not so sure the USA will survive for another 200 years the way our culture is headed.

[Ranger12 46]

Hmmm...

Link

President Bush on Monday released a $3.1 trillion budget plan for fiscal 2009 that, if approved, would raise military spending to inflation-adjusted levels not seen since World War II.

Now if we can just make sure this money is spent wisely and we get more money for our troops in the Middle East.

Also some good reading for those that have the time:

Report on the QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review) on why the 90s post-Cold War plan failed

For those that don't have the time to read that much, basically says that Bush Sr., Clinton, along with the Pentagon's post-Cold War strategy failed.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I don't like long post so I will keep this as short as I can.

Before I am called a "bed wetting libbie",I'm x-military too.

First.

the 3 reasons for going to war

1.weapons of mass destruction-none

2. trying to acquire nuclear technology/wapons- the weakest of all evidence of all 3

3. Iraq's ties to 9/11 -none

We actually supported the Saddam regime.We provided weapons,technology,money and chemical/biological capabilities during Iraq's war with Iran.We even gave him some of the chemical weapons after we learned of his gassing the Kurds with them.We basically supported Sadam up until the day he invaded Kuwait,

As far as the intel,there was plenty provided that he didn't have them,wasn't trying to get them.Anything counter to what the Administration wanted to hear was discounted,changed,etc...

None of the attackers on 9/11 were from Iraq,no evidence to support that they had ever been there.Saddam did not like Al Qida or Bin Lauden.Most of the attackers had ties to Yemen, Saudia Arabia,etc... Why not invade them.This is where they came from?

Second

We go to war,reasons why are still very unclear,but we are

The Occupation-what can you say-ineptitude by the administration that goes beyound belief

The de-Bathification of the country-hey lets throw everybody out that actually knows how to run s*^&t

Not using the Iraqi military to help secure the country-we had the offer for like 20 dollars a week per soilder.but turned it down.

Putting people(26 year olds) who had know qulifications to run,rebuild,make the trains run on time,etc.. other than that they were good Bushes

.Bob Woodruff's book State of Denial is a good read on the early occupation

Bringging Decomcarcy to the Middle East

Saudia Arabia,Syria,Jordan,Egypt,etc are not Democracys.Why not invade them too.Come to think of it neither is China or Cuba.Let's invade them while we are at it.They need democarcy too

Sometimes the stable evil genuis is better than the unkown.We are blessed in this country to have a great sense of country.No matter where we are from geographically,no matter what we believe politically, we are Americans.We love our country and would give our life defending it.

Some parts of the world are not that way.Their country is just lines drawn on a map by some colonial power years ago.Their alligence is not country,but tribal,ethnic, or religious.They don't give a S(*&T about country.

The Shia' and the Sunni have been waging a war with each other since the death of Mohammed over who should be his succesor.Once the strong man is removed(minority ruler in a majority country) guess what?They pick up where they left off-settling this thousand year score.

I'm sorry this has gotten long.I did not go into detail othrwise it would have been a book.

I did have a young Army sniper stay at our farm this weekend.He was interviewing for a job.Common friends hooked him up with us for a couple of days while he interviewed,looked around the town,etc.

His most interesting comment,amoung many about Iraq was this."There not really shooting at us,they are shooting at each other.As both Shia and Sunni said to me"we have no problem with America,but you are standding between us"

His comment after 2 tours."we never should have been there to begin with"