tired troops

[Harlan Huckleby]

General: far more US troops needed in Afghanistan

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 16, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Even after an extra U.S. Army brigade joins the fight against the insurgency here in January, three times that many reinforcements will be needed shortly thereafter, the highest-ranking U.S. general here said Tuesday.

Gen. David McKiernan, commander of NATO-led international forces in Afghanistan, told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the brigade arriving in January is an urgent requirement based on an assessment that fighting in eastern Afghanistan is tougher than believed six months ago.

''There are an additional three brigade combat teams'' that have been validated by the Pentagon as a requirement, McKiernan said. He would not say exactly how many extra soldiers that entails, but said that it was more than 10,000 -- beyond the roughly 3,700 in reinforcements that are scheduled to arrive in January.

There currently are about 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and about 146,000 in Iraq.

Gates arrived in the Afghan capital Tuesday evening after presiding at a ceremony in Baghdad where Gen. Ray Odierno took over for Gen. David Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Gates was meeting over dinner in Kabul with McKiernan and was to hold talks with senior Afghan officials on Wednesday.

More U.S. forces have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year than in all of 2007 as a resurgent Taliban-led insurgency has adopted bolder and often deadlier tactics. U.S. officials say the insurgency cannot win a conventional war, but its persistence has left U.S. and NATO leaders seeking reinforcements and has eroded the credibility of Afghanistan's fragile elected government.

McKiernan said he had no doubt that the insurgency could not win in Afghanistan, but he did not say U.S. forces are assured of victory, either.

''We are not losing, but we are winning slower in some places than others,'' he said.

In the interview, McKiernan also disclosed that he recently issued a revised order meant to govern the tactics and procedures followed by U.S. forces when engaging in air and ground fights against the insurgents. The revision, issued Sept. 2, was in response to a series of attacks that resulted in civilian deaths -- most notably the highly publicized allegations that a U.S. attack on an Afghan village compound on Aug. 22 killed as many as 90 Afghan civilians, including women and children. The U.S. military has disputed the allegation but also has launched a new investigation in light of emerging evidence.

McKiernan said 90 percent of his new directive is meant to re-emphasize existing procedures.

''We've put an increased focus on partnering with Afghan security forces,'' he said in explaining the main change. ''In other words, we want to run more and more operations that are combined operations with the Afghan army and/or the Afghan police. That's probably a new emphasis on this tactical directive.''

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.

[sheepshead]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.

Barry want's none of it. He says they all must stay until HE says it's okay to come home.

[packinpatland]

Perhaps if our troops had not been sent to Iraq......instead gone to Afghanistan......

[Scott Campbell]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.


I just don't see how we can keep fighting conventionally. The cost in lives, and dollars is not sustainable. And screwing around like this only serves to embolden our enemies. If you're going to fight a war, obliterate the crap out of them in 2 weeks, or don't fight at all.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Perhaps if our troops had not been sent to Iraq......instead gone to Afghanistan......

Leaving Hussein in power, followed by his sons, carried great risks. He had essentially beaten sanctions and diplomacy, the argument that he was contained is not true.

I'm not saying your point is wrong, but its not so simple.

[hoosier]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.


I just don't see how we can keep fighting conventionally. The cost in lives, and dollars is not sustainable. And screwing around like this only serves to embolden our enemies. If you're going to fight a war, obliterate the crap out of them in 2 weeks, or don't fight at all.

How exactly do you propose to "obliterate the hell out of them" when you're talking about partisan warfare where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms or stay in one place?

[hoosier]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.

And then you suddenly noticed you have a nose between your eyes? This is not exactly earthshaking news, my blue friend.

[Harlan Huckleby]

what is the answer, hoosier? what do you suppose Obama intends to do?

[sheepshead]

Perhaps if our troops had not been sent to Iraq......instead gone to Afghanistan......

Ratified by congress and the UN. That's a representative of every breathing human on the planet. History will show after we're long gone that it was the right thing to do, no matter much the left wants to politicize it.

[Freak Out]

Wait a minute...we've won right? The surge worked to perfection in Iraq and the Taliban and Bin Laden were defeated in Asia long ago.

[packinpatland]

Perhaps if our troops had not been sent to Iraq......instead gone to Afghanistan......

Ratified by congress and the UN. That's a representative of every breathing human on the planet. History will show after we're long gone that it was the right thing to do, no matter much the left wants to politicize it.

All lemmings feel they're doing the right thing............as they fall over the cliff :wink:

[Freak Out]

Perhaps if our troops had not been sent to Iraq......instead gone to Afghanistan......

Ratified by congress and the UN. That's a representative of every breathing human on the planet. History will show after we're long gone that it was the right thing to do, no matter much the left wants to politicize it.

As far as UN1441 I don't think it authorized an invasion of Iraq. (Was 1441 the 2002 resolution? :lol: )

[bobblehead]

Perhaps if our troops had not been sent to Iraq......instead gone to Afghanistan......

the corrupt UN would still be stealing from the world thru the oil for food program???

[bobblehead]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.


I just don't see how we can keep fighting conventionally. The cost in lives, and dollars is not sustainable. And screwing around like this only serves to embolden our enemies. If you're going to fight a war, obliterate the crap out of them in 2 weeks, or don't fight at all.

How exactly do you propose to "obliterate the hell out of them" when you're talking about partisan warfare where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms or stay in one place?

You use the military to cripple their economy then you don't care....oh wait..we need oil.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.


I just don't see how we can keep fighting conventionally. The cost in lives, and dollars is not sustainable. And screwing around like this only serves to embolden our enemies. If you're going to fight a war, obliterate the crap out of them in 2 weeks, or don't fight at all.

How exactly do you propose to "obliterate the hell out of them" when you're talking about partisan warfare where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms or stay in one place?

You use the military to cripple their economy then you don't care....oh wait..we need oil.

Oil that we were told would be up and pumping right away...and would pay for the war. Oh well.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I know Ty's friend who is in the NG and going back for his second tour isn't tired. :roll:

I know all the soldiers stop lossed aren't tired.

[MJZiggy]

Its my impression that the country is pretty exhausted by the Iraq War. And its not done yet.

Are we going to draw-down troops in Iraq, and just keep the military in overdrive mode in Afghanistan? The few military families I have contact with are already maxed-out. Afghanistan/Pakistan could be hot for far longer than it took to pacify Iraq.

Considering we went into Afghanistan before Iraq, I'd guess you're right...

[Freak Out]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/pakistan.usforeignpolicy

Pakistani tribal chiefs threaten to join Taliban

A controversial new US tactic to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistan has met with fresh hostility, it emerged yesterday, as Pakistani tribesmen representing half a million people vowed to switch sides and join the Taliban if Washington does not stop cross-border attacks by its forces from Afghanistan.

Reacting to American missile attacks in north Waziristan last week, which followed an unprecedented cross-border ground assault earlier this month, tribal chiefs from the area called an emergency meeting on Saturday.

"If America doesn't stop attacks in tribal areas, we will prepare a lashkar [army] to attack US forces in Afghanistan," tribal chief Malik Nasrullah announced in Miran Shah, north Waziristan's largest city. "We will also seek support from the tribal elders in Afghanistan to fight jointly against America."

The development threatens to widen the conflict, with previously moderate people from Pakistan's tribal border region with Afghanistan in danger of joining Taliban militants based in the area. They have reacted furiously to intensified American missile attacks on targets in the tribal territory in recent weeks.

The issue is likely to feature in talks between Gordon Brown and Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, this week. Zardari, who is on a private visit to Britain, is due to meet Brown tomorrow. The prime minister is likely to press for greater Pakistani action against militants in the tribal area and may go along with US calls to integrate the tribal territory into the conflict in Afghanistan as one theatre of war, an idea Pakistan will fiercely resist.

Zardari and Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said in a joint statement at the weekend: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country should be respected at all cost." During the past month, there have been seven US missile strikes in the tribal area, about the same number as in the whole of last year. A US ground assault in south Waziristan provoked a sharp rebuke from the Pakistan army.

Washington believes that Taliban and al-Qaida militants fighting the western coalition in Afghanistan are using Pakistan's tribal area as a safe haven.

But Ayaz Wazir, a retired Pakistani diplomat who is a tribal chief from south Waziristan, warned: "If the Americans are coming to sort it out with force, they would create more enemies. The Americans might have supersonic jets and we might have to fight with stones in our hands, but we will stand up."

Up to now, only a tiny minority of the tribesmen have joined the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban movements, but incursions by the US could ignite the area.

The heightened US activity comes just as some Pakistani tribes have risen against the Taliban in the border areas of Dir and Bajaur. But hatred of America would far surpass any dislike for Islamic extremists.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That aint' good news. We are operating there under the strat of small bases. We easily could be overrun.

Seb Junger's reports have been very enlightening.

[hoosier]

what is the answer, hoosier? what do you suppose Obama intends to do?

I don't know what Barack has in mind. I haven't gotten that text yet. I suppose it's too late to call a Mulligan, huh? In that case, I guess Colin Powell was wrong on one little detail: W may have broken it, but we all own it. Ah, fuck.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Gospel according to Associated Press. Sheesh!

Whether this is merely leftist IDIOCY or intentional demagoguery to the deliberate detriment of America, I'm not sure. Either way, this is such transparent BULLSHIT that you'd have to be either wacky or else part of the problem to swallow it.

We've had a fairly consistent 140,000 or so troops in Iraq. With rotation of units, as well as turnover within the military, well over 2 million total troops have served in Iraq. Is that somehow NEWS to you people?

Here at Fort Hood, we have a two division army post. At no time during the war have both divisions been over there at the same time. Occasionally, both have been back home at the same time. I have significant personnel contact with troops who have been there and/or are scheduled to go there. These young Americans have there heads screwed on right virtually without exception--that may account for the fact that some huge percentage of them vote Republican. They know why the war effort is worthwhile and why their sacrifices are worthwhile--despite the anti-American crap spewed in their direction by the sick politicians and media of the left.

The bottom line is that neither the American military in general nor the individual troops in it are anywhere near overextended or worn out. The whole idea of that is plain ridiculous.

[TheCheese]

Perhaps if our troops had not been sent to Iraq......instead gone to Afghanistan......

Leaving Hussein in power, followed by his sons, carried great risks. He had essentially beaten sanctions and diplomacy, the argument that he was contained is not true.

I'm not saying your point is wrong, but its not so simple.

This is dead on, I wish other people would analyze this situation with as much logic as you just did. People out there truly believe leaving Saddam in power was no big deal and he wouldn't hurt a fly.

[TheCheese]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/pakistan.usforeignpolicy

Pakistani tribal chiefs threaten to join Taliban

A controversial new US tactic to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistan has met with fresh hostility, it emerged yesterday, as Pakistani tribesmen representing half a million people vowed to switch sides and join the Taliban if Washington does not stop cross-border attacks by its forces from Afghanistan.

Reacting to American missile attacks in north Waziristan last week, which followed an unprecedented cross-border ground assault earlier this month, tribal chiefs from the area called an emergency meeting on Saturday.

"If America doesn't stop attacks in tribal areas, we will prepare a lashkar [army] to attack US forces in Afghanistan," tribal chief Malik Nasrullah announced in Miran Shah, north Waziristan's largest city. "We will also seek support from the tribal elders in Afghanistan to fight jointly against America."

The development threatens to widen the conflict, with previously moderate people from Pakistan's tribal border region with Afghanistan in danger of joining Taliban militants based in the area. They have reacted furiously to intensified American missile attacks on targets in the tribal territory in recent weeks.

The issue is likely to feature in talks between Gordon Brown and Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, this week. Zardari, who is on a private visit to Britain, is due to meet Brown tomorrow. The prime minister is likely to press for greater Pakistani action against militants in the tribal area and may go along with US calls to integrate the tribal territory into the conflict in Afghanistan as one theatre of war, an idea Pakistan will fiercely resist.

Zardari and Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said in a joint statement at the weekend: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country should be respected at all cost." During the past month, there have been seven US missile strikes in the tribal area, about the same number as in the whole of last year. A US ground assault in south Waziristan provoked a sharp rebuke from the Pakistan army.

Washington believes that Taliban and al-Qaida militants fighting the western coalition in Afghanistan are using Pakistan's tribal area as a safe haven.

But Ayaz Wazir, a retired Pakistani diplomat who is a tribal chief from south Waziristan, warned: "If the Americans are coming to sort it out with force, they would create more enemies. The Americans might have supersonic jets and we might have to fight with stones in our hands, but we will stand up."

Up to now, only a tiny minority of the tribesmen have joined the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban movements, but incursions by the US could ignite the area.

The heightened US activity comes just as some Pakistani tribes have risen against the Taliban in the border areas of Dir and Bajaur. But hatred of America would far surpass any dislike for Islamic extremists.

They already support the Taliban behind closed doors, now they are threatening to make it official? Who gives a shit?

[Harlan Huckleby]

A controversial new US tactic to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistan has met with fresh hostility, it emerged yesterday, as Pakistani tribesmen representing half a million people vowed to switch sides and join the Taliban if Washington does not stop cross-border attacks by its forces from Afghanistan.

The U.S. and Europe are between a rock and a hard place in Afghanistan.

Last spring, Obama said he would authorize attacks into Pakistan, and criticized Bush for being too timid. That may not be exactly what he said, but it was a gaffe in my not so humble opinion.

The core of the problem is a political struggle in Pakistan. The good news is that the population seems to be turning against the Islamic extremists. The U.S. seems to be poison, any time the U.S. intervenes, or supports a Pakistani politician, it backfires.

I don't have any good answers. But getting the U.S.'s puppet, Mushariff, out of office seems like a step in the right direction.

I suppose the Bush Admin is handle things in Afghanistan as best as can be done.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The bottom line is that neither the American military in general nor the individual troops in it are anywhere near overextended or worn out. The whole idea of that is plain ridiculous.

Politicians have been talking about expanding the military for years. The army has had to drastically lower their requirements, they now accept people with little education, guys with serious criminal records. This is a first.

If all is jolly in the military, why is it so hard to fill the ranks?

How many 18 month tours can you ask a man to do? After 3 tours or so, his kids have grown up without a father in the house. This didn't happen in WW II, Korea, Vietnam.

I think you got your head in the sand.

[texaspackerbacker]

Damn straight about that! (Bush handling of things in Afghanistan decently)

Priority #1 with Pakistan is keeping a responsible relatively pro-American government in power--and in control of Pakistani nukes. THAT is a thousand times more important than the vengeance motivated hunt for Obama--oops, I meant Osama (the Obama/Osama difference is nothing but b/s). While I'm as much in favor of stringing him up by his balls, I recognize that this goal is hugely INSIGNIFICANT compared to preventing mass murder of Americans by acts of terror or any other means. Having the enemies of the relatively civilized leadership in Pakistan take over would be a colossal step in the wrong direction with regard to potential nuclear terrorism. And that is EXACTLY what the result would be with Obama's irresponsible rant about invading OUR ALLY, Pakistan. This limited Bush Administration thing of sending Special Forces teams in is probably just a public acknowledgment of something we've been doing all along, and NOT something that is going to have big negative consequences. Barring a miracle, it probably isn't gonna get Osama captured--but I ask, is that really all that important anyway?

[texaspackerbacker]

The bottom line is that neither the American military in general nor the individual troops in it are anywhere near overextended or worn out. The whole idea of that is plain ridiculous.

Politicians have been talking about expanding the military for years. The army has had to drastically lower their requirements, they now accept people with little education, guys with serious criminal records. This is a first.

If all is jolly in the military, why is it so hard to fill the ranks?

How many 18 month tours can you ask a man to do? After 3 tours or so, his kids have grown up without a father in the house. This didn't happen in WW II, Korea, Vietnam.

I think you got your head in the sand.

And I think you are listening to and worse, believing leftist propaganda--AGAIN.

Lowering of standards has happened before. It can just as well be looked at as straightening out some decent people who have made youthful mistakes.

The conditions and incentives in today's military are far more soldier-friendly than ever before. The chances of being killed or injured in Iraq are a tiny fraction of those in previous wars, and the hazardous duty pay borders on phenomenal. Believe me, if rotation to Iraq was made voluntary like military service in general, there would be no shortage of volunteers. And it wouldn't be all patriotism and sacrifice for family and country. A lot of it would be purely financial self-interest.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex,

You are so full of shit and lies that it isn't funny.

Let's review.

The "active army is about broken," Colin Powell told cbs's Face the Nation as far back as 2006. Who knows more about the army..you and your fellow troops or Powell?

Fact: We have too much war and not enough warriors.

Army combat units now spend 15 months in theater for every 12 months at home, while the Marines, a far smaller force, deploy at the brisker pace of seven months in, seven months out. (Soldiers would ideally spend a minimum of two months at home for every one in the field, according to Pentagon planners.) And the same personnel are deployed over and over again to Iraq and Afghanistan—sometimes against their will, thanks to "stop loss" orders that extend their tours.

Yeah, "stop loss" is surely not a sign that we can't attact recruits or that we have enough personel.

About 80 percent of National Guard and Reserve troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan at least once; Lt. General Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard, has said his force is

Yep, the National Guard was surely created for going overseas. :roll:

Fact: We are hurting for vehicles

The approximately 30,000 combat vehicles and 500 helicopters the Army and Marine Corps have deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are operating at between three and six times their peacetime tempo, reports the Congressional Budget Office, and the harsh desert heat and blown sand further increase the wear and tear. Stateside units, meanwhile, are scrambling for vital gear—a particular problem for National Guard and Reserve forces. Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius cited shortages of Humvees and trucks as an impediment to the recovery effort after a tornado leveled the town of Greensburg in May 2007. "We're missing all kinds of equipment that could help us respond to this kind of emergency."

The Congressional Research Service has noted that the shortage also forces soldiers to train with different gear than they use in the field. "If somebody says, 'Why don't you guys drive around on trucks and pretend they're tanks?' one could still gain some value from using substitute equipment," says Bacevich. "But you lose something if you're not on the real stuff, doing the real deal."

fact: O captain, my captain

The Army intends to expand by 65,000 troops in the next several years—growth that will require commissioning new junior officers, whose retention serves as a barometer of the overall health of the military. "We are very concerned about one subset of the population, and that is the young captains, of whom we've asked a great deal," General David Petraeus acknowledged.

Among junior officers, the attrition rate stood at just 5.7 percent in 2003. By 2005, it reached a high of 8.5 percent before trailing off slightly, thanks in part to new cash and educational incentives. Still, Pentagon planners say, the Army has roughly half the number of senior captains it requires, and at current levels of recruitment and retention, expects to be short about 3,000 captains and majors until at least 2013. To fill the void, it has accelerated the rate at which lieutenants can make captain, and competition for senior officer posts has slackened. Today, almost all captains are promoted to major as soon as they become eligible. As one disgruntled officer told the Washington Monthly, "If you breathe, you make lieutenant colonel these days."

Fact: Waivers

Desperate for manpower, the services have increasingly accepted recruits with criminal records. Since 2004, the number of "moral waivers" granted to enlistees—excusing a range of criminal misconduct, from breaking and entering to aggravated assault—has more than doubled. Recruiters are even "knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces," a Pentagon investigator told the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2006.

The percentage of recruits with high school diplomas has fallen for three consecutive years, and the number of recruits scoring in the upper half of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, those described by the Pentagon as "high quality," has dropped nearly 25 percent since 2004.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, Colin Powell can't seem to make up his mind which side of the fence he's on--and on that day, he was on the wrong side. I don't suppose you had quite so much confidence in him when he stated the pro-American position on WMDs.

As for the projected increase in the size of the army, yeah, that's probably a very good idea--kinda like the surge.

It has little or nothing to do, however, with the idiocy about "worn out troops" or whatever.

For a leftist whose side's whole prospect for success is predicated on harm and defeat for America, you sure do a lot of whining about vehicles, equipment, etc. The people directly concerned with these don't seem near as "worried".

[mraynrand]

Ty's position seems like a call to arms. More military funding, more money for troops. I think probably the best way to get that done are:

1) Increase military spending as a percentage of GDP - it is at an historic low, excepting for the period following the Cold War peace dividend and Clinton cuts.

2) Increase military recruiters in high schools and colleges. If teenagers can be trusted to protect themselves from STDs and choose abortion without parental notifcation, they ought to be able to listen to recruiters with an open mind.

3) Increase military salaries

All of these increases in spending could be offset by across the board reduction in federal spending and/or freezes in program growth.

Glad you're on board Ty, and care about increasing the size of the military to fight Islamic terrorism and other baddies around the globe

[mraynrand]

I like the reference to Colin Powell. Yesterday, I thought I was refreshed and ready to go, but Powell told me I was tired. He should know better than me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, Colin Powell can't seem to make up his mind which side of the fence he's on--and on that day, he was on the wrong side. I don't suppose you had quite so much confidence in him when he stated the pro-American position on WMDs.

As for the projected increase in the size of the army, yeah, that's probably a very good idea--kinda like the surge.

It has little or nothing to do, however, with the idiocy about "worn out troops" or whatever.

For a leftist whose side's whole prospect for success is predicated on harm and defeat for America, you sure do a lot of whining about vehicles, equipment, etc. The people directly concerned with these don't seem near as "worried".

What part of being in combat 15 months and home for 12 don't you understand? The pentagon planners are telling you that isn't good.

What part of stop loss don't you understand. Troops that want to leave can't. Yep, i guess if i wanted to leave and was told i couldn't...i wouldn't feel fatigued. I'd be energetic and thrilled about being forced to stay.

Your position is a joke.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I got to say, it does seem like Tyrone is arguing that the sky is blue.

The evidence is OVERWHELMING that the military is under terrible stress, it is acknowledged by everyone across the political spectrum.

Well, except Tex. :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

Ty is arguing that the sky is pink, like always. That could easily be attributed to idiocy. However, more likely, he knows damn well the crap he spews is wrong, but spews it anyway to advance his leftist anti-America agenda.

Sure, 15 on and 12 off is a grind, but are the troops complaining? Hell No. The reality is that the 15 and 12 thing very seldom happens. That is the minimum home time in the rotation. It usually takes a change of unit, and is usually voluntary when somebody goes back that quick.

WHY are the troops NOT whining and complaining like DISINGENUOUS assholes of the left? Two reasons: First of all, they KNOW the value of their service and sacrifice in terms of protecting America--including their own families, etc. The America-hating left justs HATES that concept, but denying the correlation between a proactive military approach in the middle east and the inability of the terrorist enemy to perpetrate repeats of 9/11 is indisputable--unless you're one of those who likes to argue the sky is pink. The second reason that the troops are NOT whining and complaining is that they are extremely well compensated--for what is actually a MUCH less at-risk situation than troops in virtually any previous war.

This whole rant by leftists is rooted NOT in concern for the troops, but in motivation to disrupt and make the situation worse for them and for the country in general.Why? Because that's just the way leftists are.

[MJZiggy]

Tex, have you talked to any of these troops?

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, have you talked to any of these troops?

Yes, many.

I live right next to Fort Hood.