ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Chickenhawks etc

I was going to post this as a comment to the string started below about Murtha, the size of the Army, etc, but decided to do so as a fresh post when it ran long (besides, I can).

My, got a bit testy over here while I wasn't looking.

Do the words "for the duration" ring any bells? Well, that's what the troops went through in WWII. There was no illusion that they would return from war before the war was won.

At least our people are not facing that situation in Iraq.

Having said that, it appears to me that we are running out of troops given the current rules. Those rules need to be changed to "for the duration" or something like it, or we need a bigger army. Something has to give. I have not crunched the numbers, but I would not be surprised if the April 2007 date is right for running out of deployable brigades.

We learned something from Vietnam where unit integrity broke down as men were rotated out of country in 12 months. There were always green troops in the line and the experienced ones were always leaving. We have tried to keep units together this time around.

Truth: we need more divisions if we are going to keep Iraq service down to a tour or two or three or going all the way to "for the duration."

We either win this thing in the next year or so or we are in BIG trouble.

I have no reason to think there are not good plans to get us all but out in the next eighteen to twenty-four months. I sure hope they work. Why? Because NO ONE is pushing for a bigger Army in a serious way.

None of this makes Murtha right. His defeatist attitude stinks. Throwing in the towel is not the answer here.

Growing political cajones quickly is the answer, and someone better do it pretty soon.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Comments (2)
St Wendeler said...

As a follow up to your comment (and Brian's from the previous post), I think it's also important to note that we are undergoing force transformation... in two distinct ways:

1 - New technologies are making our soldiers more effective and deadlier than ever before. Thus, what might have taken 200k troops in the past requires half that amount today.

2 - The military is relying on more and more suppliers to provide non-combat services. (For some reason, I hear the Lefty Moonbats screams of "HALLIBURTON!!!" as I type this.) Thus, there are more honest to goodness grunts as a percentage of our force than in past years.

I too am concerned about the recruiting situation and our ability to fight the GWOT with our current force size. CounterRecruiter.net is obviously not a solution... Nor is the imposition of a draft. Continued transformation of our military forces and increased incentives for those that are willing to serve their country seem like rather obvious measures.

And Murtha's remarks are directly in conflict with the latter.

Monterey John said...

Just sent this email to Jim Dunnigan at Strategy Page.

If anyone will have the answer, he will.

"Hi Jim, greetings from the Left Coast...

Here's my question: given the present force levels in Iraq, given the number of permissable/possible deployments of any given brigade sized unit and given the present size of the army, when do you think we will run out of brigade sized units to send to Iraq?

John Wilson of the old 'Simulations Poker Club.'"