US military not ready for attack

[Classact]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on the real issue here, which is that the USA is not fully prepared to fight a war against WMDs. And frankly I’m not sure anyone knows how to do that except to avoid it by keeping the heat on those who would use those type of weapons, which is exactly what we have done in Iraq and are preparing to do in Iran.

I agree completely and see absolutely no benefit in bringing all the troops back to the states so terrorists have free reign and bragging rights that they chased off the infidels.

The report is misleading when speaking of readiness. There are different levels of readiness consisting of troop strength, training, equipment readiness and so on... If you have a unit that is at 100% strength and its vehicles are 100% combat ready but 30% of the soldiers are in Active Duty training or leadership training then the unit is not combat ready. Well that doesn't mean they can't kick ass, it means to be at top level they must meet all bars at one time.

[LiberalNation]

War demands strain US military readiness

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/...isk_assessment

WASHINGTON - A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned.

Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report.

Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level — pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it.

The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.

On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed that the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter.

"The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant."

He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home. "We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said.

Other key national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war.

On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said.(how many times have we heard that one)

[manu1959]

what other country would you like to attack?

[Pale Rider]

You can argue from now 'til eternity, but the fact of the matter is our troops are stretched dangerously thin, and that is the crux of the article LN posted. We "WOULD" have to pull troops out of Iraq if we "were" attacked within our borders. We do NOT have sufficient fighting ready troops within our borders. It's a fact. We're stretched thin. Our military is too small, and our troops are getting tired of having their enlistments involuntarily extended only to be ordered back to Iraq for a fourth or fifth combat tour. Our equipment is in disrepair, and the war in Iraq is approaching a trillion dollars. In order for us to maintain a combat ready force IN America, and have a sustainable force OUTSIDE of America, I've said all along, we'd need to DOUBLE the size of our military, AT LEAST, and that includes spending.

If this country is going to go around the world playing bad ass attacking, invading, occupying and nation building, we better get ready to restart the draft and double the military budget. There is no other way. At the present, we ARE stretched DANGEROUSLY thin. That is a fact. Debate whether or not there's going to be an attack within our borders all you want, it's not going to change the fact that we're stretched too thin. I'd like to fucking kick bush right square between his ass cheeks personally and explain that too him... fuckin' sickening bastard.

[manu1959]

You can argue from now 'til eternity, but the fact of the matter is our troops are stretched dangerously thin, and that is the crux of the article LN posted. We "WOULD" have to pull troops out of Iraq if we "were" attacked within our borders. We do NOT have sufficient fighting ready troops within our borders. It's a fact. We're stretched thin. Our military is too small, and our troops are getting tired of having their enlistments involuntarily extended only to be ordered back to Iraq for a fourth or fifth combat tour. Our equipment is in disrepair, and the war in Iraq is approaching a trillion dollars. In order for us to maintain a combat ready force IN America, and have a sustainable force OUTSIDE of America, I've said all along, we'd need to DOUBLE the size of our military, AT LEAST, and that includes spending.

If this country is going to go around the world playing bad ass attacking, invading, occupying and nation building, we better get ready to restart the draft and double the military budget. There is no other way. At the present, we ARE stretched DANGEROUSLY thin. That is a fact. Debate whether or not there's going to be an attack within our borders all you want, it's not going to change the fact that we're stretched too thin. I'd like to fucking kick bush right square between his ass cheeks personally and explain that too him... fuckin' sickening bastard.

who is going to attack us with our borders?

[pegwinn]

LN's article is a bit disingenuous. The pentagon ratings are using the politically directed definitions of readiness, and offer an explanation that is politically acceptable.

The fact is that "ready" is subjective. I used to conduct inspections of Marine units both Active and Reserve. Most that had issues with inspections were actually ready to physically fight.

Gunnery Sergeant Murphys first law states that "inspection ready units are often not combat ready, and vice versa." I found that to be true.

Additionally, readiness is a measured response. Are we ready to lay siege to Moscow? I doubt it. Can we respond with directed violence at the origin of a terrorist attack? Yup. All it takes is political balls.

There are problems with the US Military. Always have been and always will be. Today, like yesterday, we also have our fair share of defeatists and retreatists. Always have, and always will.

[rppearso]

It is not likely that a developed nation will attack us, however, we are not equip to handle any kind of major natural disaster due to the fact that most national gaurd units equipment are tapped out and alot of the personel themselves are deployed (supposedly they are not having problems with recruitment and retention from what I found online, but I suspect there are not so good underlying reasons why there numbers "look" good, including criminal waivers granted and lower ASVAB scores being accepted etc etc). Maybe instead of relying on national guard each state should be granted enough federal money to create a sort of state only non military national gaurd and if the national guard happens to be around they can help but the states will not be dependant upon them at all for state disaster needs. And I remember you said the disolving the national guard is a bad idea with unessicary explitives but you never backed that up.

[pegwinn]

It is not likely that a developed nation will attack us, however, we are not equip to handle any kind of major natural disaster due to the fact that most national gaurd units equipment are tapped out and alot of the personel themselves are deployed (supposedly they are not having problems with recruitment and retention from what I found online, but I suspect there are not so good underlying reasons why there numbers "look" good, including criminal waivers granted and lower ASVAB scores being accepted etc etc). Maybe instead of relying on national guard each state should be granted enough federal money to create a sort of state only non military national gaurd and if the national guard happens to be around they can help but the states will not be dependant upon them at all for state disaster needs. And I remember you said the disolving the national guard is a bad idea with unessicary explitives but you never backed that up.

Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

[Psychoblues]

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this board.

Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

How about the fact that CA NG troops are now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and in several other nonmentionable regions in this small world? The NG is and will always be as it's moniker suggests, National Guard.

[pegwinn]

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this board.

Originally Posted by pegwinn
Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

How about the fact that CA NG troops are now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and in several other nonmentionable regions in this small world? The NG is and will always be as it's moniker suggests, National Guard.

Please tell me you are not really this stupid. I don't mind debating someone who is wrong when they are able to at least defend it. But to whip up on you because you cannot simply read the posts in order is unkind. As yet another public service I will help you out.

Please note that I was replying to this excerpt from grasshoppers post. Emphasis added for the reading challenged and mistakes left in for authenticity.

Maybe instead of relying on national guard each state should be granted enough federal money to create a sort of state only non military national gaurd and if the national guard happens to be around they can help but the states will not be dependant upon them at all for state disaster needs.

Did you get it that time or should I type a little slower?

[Pale Rider]

who is going to attack us with our borders?

Other than the largest land invasion in the history of the world from one nation into another now underway from mexico into America, one could speculate who would attack us all day long, but I think just as legitimate of a question is, why would we let ourselves get into this condition?

[manu1959]

Other than the largest land invasion in the history of the world from one nation into another now underway from mexico into America, one could speculate who would attack us all day long, but I think just as legitimate of a question is, why would we let ourselves get into this condition?

you mean a condition where no major land force could invade us so we don't need the forces to defend us from a nonexistent threat.....like that condition....

[actsnoblemartin]

and left wing liberals like the berkely city council, the toledo mayor and others in the u.s. are actively working against the u.s. military

any comment?

Lucky the chance of us really being attacked is low but if we were, we would hafta pull the troops from iraq and end it to fight another war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/...8RN4vNj0UDW7oF

[rppearso]

Why should a state get fed money to establish a state only NG? I don't mind donating to Texas, but why should CA get any of my money?

Why do states get federal money for roads, social programs, librarys etc, that argument holds no weight, The federal mission of the national guard makes them unable to compleatly deal with a natural disaster, the national guard should be disolved and purely state ran national guard should be set up.

[Pale Rider]

you mean a condition where no major land force could invade us so we don't need the forces to defend us from a nonexistent threat.....like that condition....

You presume that "never" there will be an attack on us here. Is that a sound position? Have you ever played "Risk?"

If your yard was fenced, would you feel secure having locked your fence gate locked but not your house doors? You would leave your house wide open because... hey... nobody is EVER going to come in here. Do you really believe that pard? I can't. It's not sound thinking. It's not safe. Expect the unexpected, and plan for the worst. Make plans for "every" scenario.

You can leave your house unprotected because you don't think anybody would ever come knocking... me... I want to be ready.