This opt-ed piece makes a good point about how the Bush policy on rebuilding Iraq is putting us in a very dangerous situation and diluting our armed forces to a dangerous level. Not mentioned in this article is the fact that we cannot rotate our guys on a reasonable cycle like 1/3 for instance and because of that many of the best and brightest career military people are now packing it in (not reenlisting). The damage that is being done by Bush and his hard-headed attitude of not accepting international support will bare a price in the future. Hopefully we do not have a real national emergency that requires a large number of troops anytime soon. If we do we could have some very serious problems to deal with. From the article: "Over a third of the Army's active-duty combat troops are now in Iraq, and by spring the Pentagon plans to let most of them come home for urgently needed rest. Many will have served longer than a normal overseas tour and under extremely harsh conditions. When the 130,000 Americans rotate out for home leave, nearly the same number will rotate in. At that point, should the country need to send additional fighters anywhere else in the world, it will have dangerously few of them to spare. This is the clearest warning yet that the Bush administration is pushing America's peacetime armed forces toward their limits. Washington will not be able to sustain the mismatch between unrealistic White House ambitions and finite Pentagon means much longer without long-term damage to our military strength. The only solution is for the Bush administration to return to foreign policy sanity, starting with a more cooperative, less vindictive approach to European allies who could help share America's military burdens. " http://nytimes.com/2003/12/29/opinion/29MON1.html This is another reason we need a change of leadership in Washington. The Wes Clark plan calls for embracing NATO assistance to broaden the effort, make it more efficient and effective and give our troops much need relief.
Hopefully we do not have a real national emergency that requires a large number of troops anytime soon. *coughnorthkoreacough*
This is exactly the same situation facing the British army, and soldiers will leave the military in their droves. Married men moved from one operational area to another with only the shortest respite, single men unable to meet single girls because they are never in the "home base". Military training suffers because the troops are always on operations. More people leave, units are under strength, Guard and other duties become more frequent meaning less free time during the short non operational periods, leading to even more soldiers quitting, a vicious circle. The cause? I can't speak for the US army but for the UK it's simple, the so called "peace dividend" at the end of the cold war. Too many units were disbanded or amalagamated. The British army was slaughtered by the pen pushing accountants in the treasury. the army was small even during the cold war, but the shrinking in size after the fall of the Berlin wall came down has nothing to do with the "new world" and everything to do with cost cutting.
But you cannot solely blame the ministry of defense for that; there are better opportunity for those men in the private sector. The government can't afford boosts in defense spending, let's be a little realistic here. The US is having a huge boost in defense spending almost doubled under Bush; the defense budget is bar none the world's largest. The simple reason why this is happening is not because of this supposed "peace dividend" it is because of an unnecessary war, Iraq was truly a waste of men and resources. What will the US do when or if the Koreans invade the other Koreans? The US would it is estimated have to field up to 300,000 men to effectively counter the North Koreans. With the waste that is Iraq that is simply not possible. Thus meaning that more American soldiers and South Koreans die. The NATO powers were right to cut their armed services; they were bulky and un-necessary in the NWO. Iraq is a relic from the past, the war on terrorism isn't. I am pretty confident that the US will cut soldiers, until more money can be poured into the techie toys. The future of the American soldier at least will be fully integrated with command, and be able to do things he/she deems important, and a larger role for UV, and UAV's.
If your going to fight terrorists, more technology is the last thing you need. To fight terrorists and to prevent them carrying out their deeds, you need good intelligence sources, and you need "boots on the ground".
To fight terrorists you need intelligence, law enforcement at home, international cooperation and some spec ops groups. Large armies are for fighting other large armies, not for fighting terrorists. If terrorists are the main (or only) threat then large standing armies are unnecessary. Training reservists and stockpiling weapons is still a smart move so you can deal with emergencies, but a major war without clear objectives and exit strategy is not one of those situations.
I smell a draft!!. Shortage of troops, no problem here America we've been atacked again we need to draft your Nintendo/PlayStation loving teenagers for the war!!. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5430.htm Godless.
Don't be so sure. We would definitely deploy the 2nd ID to shore up the UNSK and ROKA forces at the DMZ, but it would be nothing like 1950-53. The nKPA would basically send a million-man zerg rush south and be stopped at or before the Imjin river. Highway 6 and the Soukong pass is the widest point of entry, and it's mined all to hell and the bridges are wired for demolition in an emergency. Their aging armor and underfed/undertrained troops would be caught in the Imjin river valley about 15km north of Seoul and ground into bits by UNSK air support and artillery. As far as a draft goes, I'm not too concerned. People see a large troop deployment and a reserve mobilization, and they get nervous - in spite of the fact that we always mobilize reserves when we actually have to go do shit. The active units are there for the first and most intense fighting, but custodial deployments always have been relegated to reserve elements, while the active units go home and pick the enemy's guts from the soles of their boots. Although I'm with Godless in being amused by the thought of our snot-nosed kids doing a couple of years of national service. I'm off to read some Robert Heinlein.
Why on earth would you want snot nosed kids fighting a war? You and Godless should join up instead for NK I think.
Wait a minute i'm not mindless.. And neither are lots of kids, however it is not that I would support a draft, but it is amusing that the government that told us after 9-11, to just sit back, we can handle this, is now resorting to old tacktics of "forcing" a draft upon its citisens. This only shows that this administration took a bite of more than it can shew. and now it knows it!!. Most of these American kids didn't even know were the hell Afganistan was located at before 9-11, nor who the hell Osama Bin Ladden was. Though they do know of the latest PlayStation games hitting the market, or which movie has brief nudity!!. Who is at fault here? Public School!!. the government of the US for been a civilized nation, has one of the worst GPA's of high school seniors in industrialized nations. Too much Nintendo/PlayStation and MOVIES! Godless.
Just start selling the "Afgani Add on pack" for COMMANDOS on the playstation, sure way to educate the videogamegeneration, or they must solve some elementairy math puzzle to get the rocketlauncher in Doom 4, you wouldn't believe how fast the GPA would go up!
And now we know why Stokes isn't a general. It's called artillery Stokes. The nKPA have so much of it along the border that short of nuking the entire border in a massive first strike, you'd be ensuring with the first bomb dropped on the nKPA, that Soeul would be gravel within twelve hours, along with every forward airbase in range of the border. Basicly, it's not a fight that could be won, at least not in any significant meaning of the word.
The nKPA artillery threat is grossly overrated. nKPA artillery consists of mainly large-bore tube howitzers with some unguided rockets mixed in. Most of the guns are positioned statically in tunnels very close to the DMZ so that they can be concealed during loading and storage, and then rolled out during firing. This presents two problems (if you are a North Korean). First is the issue of concealment. Following the first salvo, nKPA shells would be picked up incoming by TPQ-47 Firefinder radars that the 2nd ID has positioned all along the southern line of the DMZ. The Firefinder analyzes an incoming shell's trajectory and plots its point of origin. Within a maximum of two salvos, the nKPA guns would begin being targeted and subsequently destroyed by UNSK counterbattery fire. The guns would have to retreat underground to reload, and they would probably end up being buried there. Either that, or destroyed out in the open. Second is the issue of range. Supposing the nKPA were to target Seoul, they really wouldn't be able to hit much of it - just peck on the far northern suburbs. nKPA guns consist mainly of 152mm tubes with a range of 16 miles, and a small quantity of 240mm rocket artillery with a range of around 25 miles. Even with 100% of their weapons positioned in the absolute best places to deliver a bombardment, they would not reach Seoul proper, only the northernmost suburbs. Here's a visual reference. The thick red line is the DMZ (the DML is in the center of it) and the red hue represents the operating range of nKPA artillery. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Deadwood: It was a joke. I've said before on this forum that I am a staunch opponent of conscription for several reasons.
I seem to recall that the US were very confidant going into North Korea the first time round too... and I seem to recall you getting your asses kicked in the initial attack until UN forces relieved US forces, and then a second time when the Chinese came in on the NKVD side. And I seem to recall the same level of confidence when the US went into Vietnam. And I seem to recall predictions of open-arm welcomes and friendly faces in Iraq as well. In short stokes, be as upbeat as you want to - the rational viewpoint is that it's a fight you can't win. And so far, rationality hasn't been beaten by jingoism once when it comes to predicting outcomes.
Read up on the early history of the Korean War. The US/UNSK coalition forces were fighting a reactionary and emergent battle from the very beginning, and ceded ground to the North Korean zerg rush to stave off total defeat. Nobody exuded this confidence you pretend to remember. Then read up on the composition of the UNSK alliance before you rub your crank and spout off LOL AMERIKA SUX. Finally, read up on the Inchon invasion and its impact on the entire latter half of the war. Remember that Inchon was the first major counter-offensive in the entire campaign. Red herring fallacy. Red herring fallacy. Whose rational viewpoint is this? What are your sources? From 1990-92 I was on the joint planning staff for the UNSK coalition (naval) in Uijongbu, and I worked with this contingency (and others) professionally. This "irrational" viewpoint is exactly what the US, SK, Canada, and Australia are espousing to this very day in event of Korean War II. So, Sparks, let's see some evidence.
Stokes, if you "professionally worked this contingency" with the conclusion that NK forces have such short reach, then you must also be supportive of the withdrawal of USFK. NKs bizarre situation obviously entails considerable risk of a devastating conflagration, and US forces are being beefed up to the tune of at least $11 billion. Force protection posture is now being elevated. "Red Herring Fallacy" is a very weak rebuttal in both cases where you invoked it. Unless you try again there, it is apparent you have no rational counterpoint to sparks on his reference to previous American military overconfidence. While US forces did recently resoundingly demonstrate facility in invading weaker countries, there is an undeniable thinning of forces as the size, quantity, and isolation of US garrisons multiply. It is increasingly clear that we in the US do not presently possess the human resources and political support (domestic or international) to successfully and simultaneously occupy multiple restive failed states, as we are witnessing in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is shallow and wishful thinking to dismiss the dispersion of forces into multiple wars of unpopular occupation as inconsequential. Sound leadership demands responsible organization of our forces to meet the most likely threats to US security, and this capability is being significantly degraded by the so-called War on Terror, where reserves are tied up in efforts to keep the lid on explosive civil unrest.
HEY!! VORTEX!!!.. Good Idea man!! lets start designing, writing, marketing and see if Sony will buy it?. Godless.
I am scared momma, it's north Korea! I had a weird dream last night, a really weird dream. I dreamt that the North was attacked by the US, with B-2 bombers. The North Koreans invaded South Korea with up to 700,000 men, 500,000 artillery shells per hour shelling Seoul, all 37,000 US troops destroyed in less then 30 minutes, and the South Korean's losing ground quickly. Then I dreamt that Kim Jung Il went on TV to the world, and threaten a nuclear strike on Japan, and the United States if they did not stop their aggression. To prove his point, he exploded a nuclear weapon from a defunct North Korean merchant vessel in the Sea of Japan, with North Korea's nuclear weapons (you know just to drive in the point). I seen that the Japanese pulled out of the war, and there was growing dissent in the West coast of the US to pull out of the war with North Korea. It is questionable if North Korea could actually attack the US with a nuclear weapon, but North Korea has surprised before. Mr.Tennet went in from the Senate and said that North Korea probably already possessed a nuclear missile "capable of striking the West Coast of the United States". To many American officials and to many Americans themselves that statement is enough to push the US out of a war with North Korea. Now there may be a push to nuke North Korea, but it will accomplish little, North Korea has for the last 50 years, have designed their forces for survival of a nuclear attack. Most of North Koreas units are underground, and the US doesn't even know more then 5% at best. I we know that Kim can attack all of South Korea, and Japan with a nuclear weapon, that is not in contention. Chances are that North Korea may be able to attack the US. Just the mere possibility of that would scare too many Americans, into not wanting to go into war with North Korea; by the end of this decade I can safely say that North Korea would be able to attack at least the West Coast of the United States. There is also another possibility that has been floated around by Donald Rumsfeld. The US West coast is awash with merchant ships. To Rumsfeld the North Koreans, could simply put a Scud with a range of 300 km on a ship and launch it to Los Angeles. This may sound like a Iraqi WMD lie, or machination. But there have actually been instances where there have been tests on this. Simulation of Ship attack That above simulation is provided by a neo-conservative think tank. We all know that North Korea will sweep into Seoul in a matter of hours. The question is are the Japanese, Chinese, and American publics ready for a possible nuclear attack? Their aging armor and underfed/undertrained troops would be caught in the Imjin river valley about 15km north of Seoul and ground into bits by UNSK air support and artillery. I disagree with this, because the normal army of North Korea, are well trained, and well fed. They get the best food in the country. North Korea has the world's largest Special Forces. They already have forces in South Korea to my knowledge. American air support, and artillery can't do much against a 700,000 man advance on Seoul, let's be a tad realistic here. Also the North Koreans know that American and South Korea have massive air superiority over them. They will surely destroy all air bases near the DMZ, with over 300 Scuds and Frogs ready to go. The US forces have 30 minutes to survive. Also with low flying Y-5's they can land special forces in the region quite quickly, and we forget that there are North Korean Spies within the South Korean army as well... 50 years of planning goes a long way. If the US deploys enough men (if she can *which I doubt), and stays the course she could win, but nothing is certain, and to say otherwise is foolhardy.
Back to the original point concerning the thinning of the military due to overextension. I wonder how many will stay in due to the poor economy, lack of jobs or lack of good paying jobs. Although we just hired a special forces Captain recently back from Afghanistan.. I talked with him a little about Aghanistan. He said it was the biggest F----up he has every seen. They can't find anybody and the Afghans they are training can't be trusted. He called them mercenaries that would turn on you in a heartbeat. He was very happy to get out of the service and not happy with the whole business-sounded frustrated and bitter about the whole experience. Very sharp guy and a member of the special forces-best of the best. Captains are also the heart of the officer corps. Makes me realize even though we may not hear much of Aghanistan any more, things may not be going smoothly.
Jagger Did you expect differently? The Afghans and the Iraqi's are now conquered people regardless of the spin Washington spits out on a daily basis. These regions have become nothing more then a extension of American power, and there will be bases in Afghanistan, and most likely in Iraq as well. Washington doesn't care about those soldiers, really does anyone believe as such? They are nothing but pawns in a game of imperial chess. They are there to "fight" against un-stoppable forces, and the relentless insecurity in these countries prove to the natives how much Washington wants to "free" these ppl from their lot. Your soldier friend is a perfect example of the reality, that Washington has lost control of it's policy, and is a rabid force in the international scene. I urge the US citizen to support their troops in any way they can, but supporting the troops doesn't mean supporting the war.
