tired troops

[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.

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.

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".