Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
May 30th 2005, 5:27 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
Some call it incompetence.
Earl
***
****Too Few, Yet Too Many
****By Paul Krugman
****The New York Times
****Monday 30 May 2005
****One of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
****The article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
"publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
only happens as a result of a major scandal.
****The truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
"Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
****Yet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
in Iraq.
****Back in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
****Let me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and
see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
hold on to their civilian jobs.
****To keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis was
based on those rules.
****But the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are finding
their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
****Two things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
****The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments
to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on
the line for their country.
****Now, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
****Most reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
manpower.
****Much more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
weather the back-to-back deployments."
****And we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard to
imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
military.
****For a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
What will we do once that Army is broken?
**-------
** Jump to today's TO Features: **
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t
r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Earl
***
****Too Few, Yet Too Many
****By Paul Krugman
****The New York Times
****Monday 30 May 2005
****One of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
****The article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
"publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
only happens as a result of a major scandal.
****The truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
"Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
****Yet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
in Iraq.
****Back in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
****Let me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and
see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
hold on to their civilian jobs.
****To keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis was
based on those rules.
****But the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are finding
their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
****Two things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
****The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments
to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on
the line for their country.
****Now, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
****Most reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
manpower.
****Much more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
weather the back-to-back deployments."
****And we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard to
imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
military.
****For a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
What will we do once that Army is broken?
**-------
** Jump to today's TO Features: **
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t
r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
May 30th 2005, 5:31 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
On 30/05/05 19:27, in article BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected], "Earl
Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some call it incompetence.
>
Sure was, I wrongly posted on this newsgroup, it was meant for another
news group, my apology.
Earl
Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some call it incompetence.
>
Sure was, I wrongly posted on this newsgroup, it was meant for another
news group, my apology.
Earl
May 30th 2005, 5:40 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
In article <BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Some call it incompetence.
>
> Earl
>
> ***
>
>
>
>
>
> ÊÊÊÊToo Few, Yet Too Many
> ÊÊÊÊBy Paul Krugman
> ÊÊÊÊThe New York Times
>
> ÊÊÊÊMonday 30 May 2005
>
> ÊÊÊÊOne of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
> Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
> troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
> tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
> An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
>
> ÊÊÊÊThe article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
> "publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
> that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
> found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
> only happens as a result of a major scandal.
... "and now the rest of the story..."
2001
May: Riggs, former commander of the First U.S. Army, is appointed
director of the Objective Force Task Force, overseeing Army
modernization, by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff.
2003
March 20: Army criminal investigation begins into allegations of misuse
of government contracts.
April: Army inspector general opens up investigation of Riggs over
allegations of an adulterous relationship and improperly allowing a
government contractor to perform inherently governmental functions.
Oct. 3: Riggs receives a memo of concern from Gen. John M. Keane, the
Army's No. 2 officer, saying he violated two contractor rules. The memo
is not placed in Riggs' personnel file.
Oct. 7: Letter from Army inspector general saying two contractual
VIOLATIONS WERE SUBSTANTIATED. Allegations of adultery were
unsubstantiated.
Moreover, this officer had no direct knowledge of troop needs in the
theater cause he wasn't involved at all... but far from Krugman or Earl
to divulge that....
jay
Mon May 30, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> ÊÊÊÊThe truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
> "Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
> in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
>
> ÊÊÊÊYet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
> in Iraq.
>
> ÊÊÊÊBack in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
> concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
> shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
> training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
> mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
>
> ÊÊÊÊLet me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
> on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
> danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
> expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and
> see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
> infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
> hold on to their civilian jobs.
>
> ÊÊÊÊTo keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
> certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
> forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis was
> based on those rules.
>
> ÊÊÊÊBut the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
> out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
> army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
> more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are finding
> their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
>
> ÊÊÊÊTwo things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
> One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
> West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
> improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
> wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
> comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
>
> ÊÊÊÊThe other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
> comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
> Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments
> to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
> pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on
> the line for their country.
>
> ÊÊÊÊNow, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
>
> ÊÊÊÊMost reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
> fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
> however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
> and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
> shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
> manpower.
>
> ÊÊÊÊMuch more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
> exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
> broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
> National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
> weather the back-to-back deployments."
>
> ÊÊÊÊAnd we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
> prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard to
> imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
> military.
>
> ÊÊÊÊFor a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
> keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
> What will we do once that Army is broken?
>
> ÊÊ-------
>
> ÊÊ Jump to today's TO Features: ÊÊ
>
> (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t
> r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
> article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
>
>
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Some call it incompetence.
>
> Earl
>
> ***
>
>
>
>
>
> ÊÊÊÊToo Few, Yet Too Many
> ÊÊÊÊBy Paul Krugman
> ÊÊÊÊThe New York Times
>
> ÊÊÊÊMonday 30 May 2005
>
> ÊÊÊÊOne of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
> Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
> troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
> tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
> An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
>
> ÊÊÊÊThe article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
> "publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
> that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
> found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
> only happens as a result of a major scandal.
... "and now the rest of the story..."
2001
May: Riggs, former commander of the First U.S. Army, is appointed
director of the Objective Force Task Force, overseeing Army
modernization, by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff.
2003
March 20: Army criminal investigation begins into allegations of misuse
of government contracts.
April: Army inspector general opens up investigation of Riggs over
allegations of an adulterous relationship and improperly allowing a
government contractor to perform inherently governmental functions.
Oct. 3: Riggs receives a memo of concern from Gen. John M. Keane, the
Army's No. 2 officer, saying he violated two contractor rules. The memo
is not placed in Riggs' personnel file.
Oct. 7: Letter from Army inspector general saying two contractual
VIOLATIONS WERE SUBSTANTIATED. Allegations of adultery were
unsubstantiated.
Moreover, this officer had no direct knowledge of troop needs in the
theater cause he wasn't involved at all... but far from Krugman or Earl
to divulge that....
jay
Mon May 30, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> ÊÊÊÊThe truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
> "Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
> in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
>
> ÊÊÊÊYet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
> in Iraq.
>
> ÊÊÊÊBack in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
> concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
> shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
> training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
> mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
>
> ÊÊÊÊLet me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
> on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
> danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
> expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and
> see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
> infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
> hold on to their civilian jobs.
>
> ÊÊÊÊTo keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
> certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
> forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis was
> based on those rules.
>
> ÊÊÊÊBut the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
> out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
> army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
> more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are finding
> their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
>
> ÊÊÊÊTwo things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
> One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
> West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
> improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
> wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
> comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
>
> ÊÊÊÊThe other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
> comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
> Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments
> to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
> pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on
> the line for their country.
>
> ÊÊÊÊNow, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
>
> ÊÊÊÊMost reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
> fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
> however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
> and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
> shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
> manpower.
>
> ÊÊÊÊMuch more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
> exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
> broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
> National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
> weather the back-to-back deployments."
>
> ÊÊÊÊAnd we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
> prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard to
> imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
> military.
>
> ÊÊÊÊFor a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
> keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
> What will we do once that Army is broken?
>
> ÊÊ-------
>
> ÊÊ Jump to today's TO Features: ÊÊ
>
> (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t
> r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
> article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
>
>
May 30th 2005, 8:05 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:54 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Some call it incompetence.
And many more call him another left wing loonie, which he is. Unlike
Evleth, however, he is a relatively honest one though he rarely has
one clue what he's talking about like here. For those of you who
don't know yet, Evleth never served anywhere at any time, so he should
keep his mouth shut on the subject because he knows nothing about it.
But, of course, being an infatuated ass, he prattles on cutting an
pasting. Krugman has never served either and prattles on as well. A
volunteer army means exactly what it says. You volunteer and they
with you what they want. Just as they did with draftees when they got
their hands on them.
wrote:
>Some call it incompetence.
And many more call him another left wing loonie, which he is. Unlike
Evleth, however, he is a relatively honest one though he rarely has
one clue what he's talking about like here. For those of you who
don't know yet, Evleth never served anywhere at any time, so he should
keep his mouth shut on the subject because he knows nothing about it.
But, of course, being an infatuated ass, he prattles on cutting an
pasting. Krugman has never served either and prattles on as well. A
volunteer army means exactly what it says. You volunteer and they
with you what they want. Just as they did with draftees when they got
their hands on them.
May 30th 2005, 8:06 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:31:55 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 30/05/05 19:27, in article BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected], "Earl
>Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Some call it incompetence.
>>
>
>Sure was, I wrongly posted on this newsgroup, it was meant for another
>news group, my apology.
Why bother? We all know you're incompetent anyway so you don't need
to admit it. It is regularly plain for all to see.
wrote:
>On 30/05/05 19:27, in article BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected], "Earl
>Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Some call it incompetence.
>>
>
>Sure was, I wrongly posted on this newsgroup, it was meant for another
>news group, my apology.
Why bother? We all know you're incompetent anyway so you don't need
to admit it. It is regularly plain for all to see.
May 30th 2005, 8:26 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
and now here we go with US topics
evleth the weatherman has changed into evleth foxnews reporter
Nothing to do with travel of course
And Europe?
Duh
Noooo evleth dont send me your missus shes gonna bite me again
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected]...
> Some call it incompetence.
> Earl
> ***
> Too Few, Yet Too Many
> By Paul Krugman
> The New York Times
> Monday 30 May 2005
> One of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
> Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
> troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
> tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
> An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
> The article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
> "publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
> that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
> found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
> only happens as a result of a major scandal.
> The truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
> "Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
> in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
> Yet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
> in Iraq.
> Back in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
> concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
> shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
> training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
> mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
> Let me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
> on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
> danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
> expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive
> and
> see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
> infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
> hold on to their civilian jobs.
> To keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
> certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
> forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis
> was
> based on those rules.
> But the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
> out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
> army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
> more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are
> finding
> their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
> Two things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
> One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
> West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
> improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
> wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
> comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
> The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
> comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
> Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability
> payments
> to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
> pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives
> on
> the line for their country.
> Now, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
> Most reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
> fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
> however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
> and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
> shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
> manpower.
> Much more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
> exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
> broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
> National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
> weather the back-to-back deployments."
> And we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
> prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard
> to
> imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
> military.
> For a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
> keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
> What will we do once that Army is broken?
> -------
> Jump to today's TO Features:
> (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
> t
> r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
> article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
>
evleth the weatherman has changed into evleth foxnews reporter
Nothing to do with travel of course
And Europe?
Duh
Noooo evleth dont send me your missus shes gonna bite me again
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected]...
> Some call it incompetence.
> Earl
> ***
> Too Few, Yet Too Many
> By Paul Krugman
> The New York Times
> Monday 30 May 2005
> One of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
> Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
> troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
> tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
> An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
> The article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
> "publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
> that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
> found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
> only happens as a result of a major scandal.
> The truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
> "Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
> in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
> Yet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
> in Iraq.
> Back in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
> concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
> shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
> training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
> mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
> Let me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
> on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
> danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
> expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive
> and
> see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
> infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
> hold on to their civilian jobs.
> To keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
> certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
> forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis
> was
> based on those rules.
> But the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
> out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
> army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
> more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are
> finding
> their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
> Two things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
> One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
> West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
> improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
> wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
> comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
> The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
> comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
> Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability
> payments
> to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
> pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives
> on
> the line for their country.
> Now, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
> Most reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
> fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
> however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
> and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
> shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
> manpower.
> Much more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
> exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
> broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
> National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
> weather the back-to-back deployments."
> And we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
> prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard
> to
> imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
> military.
> For a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
> keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
> What will we do once that Army is broken?
> -------
> Jump to today's TO Features:
> (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
> t
> r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
> article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
>
May 30th 2005, 8:26 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
How many groups do you HAVE to pollute?
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
BEC11AAB.679FE%[email protected]...
> On 30/05/05 19:27, in article BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected], "Earl
> Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Some call it incompetence.
> Sure was, I wrongly posted on this newsgroup, it was meant for another
> news group, my apology.
> Earl
>
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
BEC11AAB.679FE%[email protected]...
> On 30/05/05 19:27, in article BEC119BA.679F5%[email protected], "Earl
> Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Some call it incompetence.
> Sure was, I wrongly posted on this newsgroup, it was meant for another
> news group, my apology.
> Earl
>
May 30th 2005, 8:27 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
I agree he does seem somewhat infatuated...
<[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:54 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Some call it incompetence.
> And many more call him another left wing loonie, which he is. Unlike
> Evleth, however, he is a relatively honest one though he rarely has
> one clue what he's talking about like here. For those of you who
> don't know yet, Evleth never served anywhere at any time, so he should
> keep his mouth shut on the subject because he knows nothing about it.
> But, of course, being an infatuated ass, he prattles on cutting an
> pasting. Krugman has never served either and prattles on as well. A
> volunteer army means exactly what it says. You volunteer and they
> with you what they want. Just as they did with draftees when they got
> their hands on them.
>
<[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:54 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Some call it incompetence.
> And many more call him another left wing loonie, which he is. Unlike
> Evleth, however, he is a relatively honest one though he rarely has
> one clue what he's talking about like here. For those of you who
> don't know yet, Evleth never served anywhere at any time, so he should
> keep his mouth shut on the subject because he knows nothing about it.
> But, of course, being an infatuated ass, he prattles on cutting an
> pasting. Krugman has never served either and prattles on as well. A
> volunteer army means exactly what it says. You volunteer and they
> with you what they want. Just as they did with draftees when they got
> their hands on them.
>
May 30th 2005, 9:47 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:26:49 +0200, "Runge" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>How many groups do you HAVE to pollute?
As many as he can, of course.
wrote:
>How many groups do you HAVE to pollute?
As many as he can, of course.
May 31st 2005, 11:22 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
Earl Evleth wrote:
> Some call it incompetence.
>
> Earl
>
> ***
The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Too Few, Yet Too Many
> By Paul Krugman
> The New York Times
>
> Monday 30 May 2005
>
> One of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
> Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
> troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
> tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
> An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
>
> The article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
> "publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
> that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
> found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
> only happens as a result of a major scandal.
>
> The truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
> "Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
> in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
>
> Yet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
> in Iraq.
>
> Back in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
> concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
> shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
> training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
> mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
>
> Let me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
> on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
> danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
> expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and
> see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
> infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
> hold on to their civilian jobs.
>
> To keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
> certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
> forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis was
> based on those rules.
>
> But the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
> out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
> army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
> more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are finding
> their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
>
> Two things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
> One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
> West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
> improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
> wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
> comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
>
> The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
> comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
> Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments
> to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
> pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on
> the line for their country.
>
> Now, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
>
> Most reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
> fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
> however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
> and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
> shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
> manpower.
>
> Much more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
> exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
> broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
> National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
> weather the back-to-back deployments."
>
> And we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
> prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard to
> imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
> military.
>
> For a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
> keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
> What will we do once that Army is broken?
>
> -------
>
> Jump to today's TO Features:
>
> (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t
> r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
> article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
>
>
>
> Some call it incompetence.
>
> Earl
>
> ***
The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Too Few, Yet Too Many
> By Paul Krugman
> The New York Times
>
> Monday 30 May 2005
>
> One of the more bizarre aspects of the Iraq war has been President
> Bush's repeated insistence that his generals tell him they have enough
> troops. Even more bizarrely, it may be true - I mean, that his generals
> tell him that they have enough troops, not that they actually have enough.
> An article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun explains why.
>
> The article tells the tale of John Riggs, a former Army commander, who
> "publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing
> that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan" - then abruptly
> found himself forced into retirement at a reduced rank, which normally
> only happens as a result of a major scandal.
>
> The truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops.
> "Basically, we've got all the toys, but not enough boys," a Marine major
> in Anbar Province told The Los Angeles Times.
>
> Yet it's also true, in a different sense, that we have too many troops
> in Iraq.
>
> Back in September 2003 a report by the Congressional Budget Office
> concluded that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq would have to start
> shrinking rapidly in the spring of 2004 if the Army wanted to "maintain
> training and readiness levels, limit family separation and involuntary
> mobilization, and retain high-quality personnel."
>
> Let me put that in plainer English: our all-volunteer military is based
> on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of
> danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers
> expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and
> see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up
> infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can
> hold on to their civilian jobs.
>
> To keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow
> certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time
> forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis was
> based on those rules.
>
> But the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way
> out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger
> army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot
> more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are finding
> their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
>
> Two things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear.
> One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen
> West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and
> improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely
> wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004
> comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
>
> The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it
> comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring
> Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments
> to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost
> pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on
> the line for their country.
>
> Now, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
>
> Most reporting has focused on the problems of recruiting, which has
> fallen far short of goals over the past few months. Serious as it is,
> however, the recruiting shortfall could be only a temporary problem. If
> and when we get out of Iraq - I know, a big if and a big when - it
> shouldn't be too hard to find enough volunteers to maintain the Army's
> manpower.
>
> Much more serious, because it would be irreversible, would be a mass
> exodus of mid-career military professionals. "That's essentially how we
> broke the professional Army we took into Vietnam," one officer told the
> National Journal. "At some point, people decided they could no longer
> weather the back-to-back deployments."
>
> And we're already seeing stories about how young officers, facing the
> prospect of repeated harrowing tours of duty in a war whose end is hard to
> imagine, are reconsidering whether they really want to stay in the
> military.
>
> For a generation Americans have depended on a superb volunteer Army to
> keep us safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft.
> What will we do once that Army is broken?
>
> -------
>
> Jump to today's TO Features:
>
> (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t
> r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
> article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
>
>
>
May 31st 2005, 2:39 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
> ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
> anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
> hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
> current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
Thanks for the first bit of encouraging and GOOD news
regarding television I have heard in a LONG time . . .
. the idiocy of them to dump it kills me.
mk5000
"no one even thought of containment on the agenda. Now we have a control
tool, and we know a lot more about how these things emerge"--Ira M Longini
Jr
news:[email protected]...
> The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
> ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
> anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
> hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
> current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
Thanks for the first bit of encouraging and GOOD news
regarding television I have heard in a LONG time . . .
. the idiocy of them to dump it kills me.
mk5000
"no one even thought of containment on the agenda. Now we have a control
tool, and we know a lot more about how these things emerge"--Ira M Longini
Jr
May 31st 2005, 6:50 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
On 1/06/05 1:22, in article [email protected],
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
> ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
> anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
> hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
> current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
I would be interested in seeing how the attractiveness of
military service changed with the news from Front. Before
the Iraq conflict, the chances of getting killed were nill
and I suspect the danger was in the very backs of any of
the minds of the potential recruits. Young people were
attracted by the "career" opportunities in the services,
possibly were "low performers" in high school and
eager to catch up. In some cases parental attitudes
contributed in hoping their kids would "grow up".
That parental latter attitude is an ancient as man.
Earl
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
> ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
> anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
> hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
> current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
I would be interested in seeing how the attractiveness of
military service changed with the news from Front. Before
the Iraq conflict, the chances of getting killed were nill
and I suspect the danger was in the very backs of any of
the minds of the potential recruits. Young people were
attracted by the "career" opportunities in the services,
possibly were "low performers" in high school and
eager to catch up. In some cases parental attitudes
contributed in hoping their kids would "grow up".
That parental latter attitude is an ancient as man.
Earl
Jun 1st 2005, 1:52 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:50:00 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 1/06/05 1:22, in article [email protected],
>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
>> ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
>> anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
>> hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
>> current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
>I would be interested in seeing how the attractiveness of
>military service changed with the news from Front. Before
>the Iraq conflict, the chances of getting killed were nill
>and I suspect the danger was in the very backs of any of
>the minds of the potential recruits. Young people were
>attracted by the "career" opportunities in the services,
>possibly were "low performers" in high school and
>eager to catch up. In some cases parental attitudes
>contributed in hoping their kids would "grow up".
Spoken like the true 4F fatass that you are. If you knew anything at
all about the military you would know that it is inherently dangerous
as a profession whether a war is going on or not. There are lots of
deaths in training exercises all the time and if you bothered to look
at the deaths in Iraq you would have seen that a fair number of them
were non-combat related; e.g. accidents. And you usual effete snob
attitude is once again apparent by your silly quotes. I would have
loved to see you stand in front of ONE of these "low performers" and
call them just that you fatass coward.
wrote:
>On 1/06/05 1:22, in article [email protected],
>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The government seems to be spending a fortune on recruiting
>> ads for TV - wonder how effective they are, especially with
>> anyone who knows people who have been there? (On the other
>> hand, the "faltering" economy, and lack of jobs for the
>> current crop of graduates, may have some effect.)
>I would be interested in seeing how the attractiveness of
>military service changed with the news from Front. Before
>the Iraq conflict, the chances of getting killed were nill
>and I suspect the danger was in the very backs of any of
>the minds of the potential recruits. Young people were
>attracted by the "career" opportunities in the services,
>possibly were "low performers" in high school and
>eager to catch up. In some cases parental attitudes
>contributed in hoping their kids would "grow up".
Spoken like the true 4F fatass that you are. If you knew anything at
all about the military you would know that it is inherently dangerous
as a profession whether a war is going on or not. There are lots of
deaths in training exercises all the time and if you bothered to look
at the deaths in Iraq you would have seen that a fair number of them
were non-combat related; e.g. accidents. And you usual effete snob
attitude is once again apparent by your silly quotes. I would have
loved to see you stand in front of ONE of these "low performers" and
call them just that you fatass coward.
