georgej on September 20, 2007 at 4:31 AM

If we could “surge” anything remotely like 850,000 men and women to Iraq to fight on the ground, I really don’t think that Bush would have surged a mere 30,000. Also if we could “surge” anything remotely like 850,000 men and women to Iraq to fight on the ground, then the Webb amendment to give as much time at home as in Iraq would be no problem and would in fact already be being done and then some and would never even have come up.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often….

If there is a “sustainability” issue, it’s with the equipment, not the manpower. When a unit comes home, it’s equipment (beyond rifles and the like), especially the bulky and heavy stuff, stays behind for the replacement unit. Hence, we should expect it to become worn out with time.

That can be solved the way the marines are doing it with the new-type heavily armored personnel vehicles being shipped over now, while their humvees are on the way to the junkyard. These new vehicles are much tougher than a hummer and can stand up to an IED. In otherwords, send them all new equipment.

This is doable by opening up the production lines and making MORE. Not just for M1s and Bradleys, but for the aircraft (including the fast movers as well as the helos). Some analysts are worried about aircraft frame hours for some of the older aircraft like the A10s, B52’s and B1s. So, open up the production lines for the F16’s again. Or buld or convert other aircraft into “bomber-lites”. Do we really nead stealthy, radar evading, hardened billion-dollar platforms dropping individual smart, self-guiding “smart bombs” on specific buildings when designated by ground troops in Iraq? You know, we’re fighting Al Qaeda here, not the Soviet Union.

America won WWII through it’s industrial might. And that was starting from scratch. It was Eisenhower that said that America needed to have a full-time defense industry for the future. Well, we have the best on the planet. Time to use them to supply the troops with best weapons to fight.

The only reason this won’t happen is a mindset among Democrats that the soldiers MUST be starved of new equipment in order to force Bush to cut and run.

The personnel issue is even easier to solve, and without a draft. The total military is about 1.6 million strong. 10% are in Iraq. Granted, most come from the Army, with a sizable portion from the Marines.

The last I heard, the Army’s strength was about 600,000 active duty soldiers, National Guard and Reserves, not included. This from the Army’s posture statement for 2007 back in February.

The Marines have about 250,000 active duty.

In Iraq right now there are 160,000 Army and Marines, and another 20,000 in Afghanistan. Djibouti and elsewhere (some 80 countries), make up another 20-30 thousand.

The arithmetic is that slightly less than one quarter of our total land troops are deployed outside of the country doing combat jobs. (210,000 out of 850,000).

That means that more 3/4 of them ARE NOT!

And this using the current deployed number of troops, not the lower “steady state” that will come after the Iraq troop levels come down in the spring.

So, maybe I’m just being stupid, but as DOD promised that the US could fight more than one multi-front war the size of Iraq/Afghanistan, and as 3 out of 4 soldiers and marines are NOT fighting overseas right now, tell me WHY our army is “broken” like the leftists say. Especially when the objective data is that RETENTION is not a problem right now?

Maybe I’m being naive but that means one ought to expect an average ratio of 1 to 3 “online” to “offline” for the troops in combat. Hell, that’s already better than Webb’s plan. If this isn’t being accomplished, then address the readiness issue administratively.

I read Petreaus’s comments. He didn’t say our army was broken. He was cautious about the future, but he spoke from what he believe we needed, not what we could scrape out of the bottom of the barrel to make do with.

After all, we could, if we wanted to, “surge” 850,000 men and women to Iraq to fight on the ground, and still protect the country from invasion with more than a million Natonal Guard and Reserve (many already Iraq war vets) called up for homeland defense duty.

Maybe Major John or someone else can enlighten me why this troop-rotation mandate idea of Webb’s and the Democrats is not pure Bullsh*t.

Senate Republicans Block Pro-Troop Legislation

The HuffPoo is trying to psyche the populace out, change the terminology, having noticed that the presidential contenders can’t convince us that they “support the troops”.

A single play on a prominent general’s name will have dire consequences for them, and the rats in the HPoo are feeling the threat to their ‘promised’ enriched medium.

here

Read the report slowly and deliberately. Pay careful attention to the deployment time recommendations and reset recommendations.

“Remember, wars are never lost by tactics and strategy. They are lost by readiness and logistics.”
- The Man With No Name

I am only one “troop” – but it is stupid, micromanaging, meddling and another similar epithet you wish to apply. It is transparent in it’s attempted effect, and hollow in its insincerity.

We already have made adjustments to the number and length of tours. FWIW, I am soon to start my second tour in 2 1/2 years, and it will be under the new “12+1″ limit on length.

Congress should stick to the raising of Armies and Navies – and leave the CinC, CJCS and the DoD to command the Armed Forces

Update: “Pro-pullout” doesn’t really sing so HuffPo finds another adjective.

Oh Golly Gosh — noticed that Townhouse Message Machine was still cooking – Hamsher rolled out “Pro-Troop” without even a blip. Good little group messenger.

I guess that’s one way of looking at it.

“I came here with a pretty clear agenda,” Mr. Gates said. “Mainly I was focused on how we can put Iraq in a place where we can have a long-term stabilizing presence that has broad bipartisan support.” It is a vision that Mr. Gates, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, said was born of his experience as a national-security official during the Cold War. In those years, as in the broader struggle now under way against Islamic extremism, he said, the only successful strategy is one that can be adopted by multiple presidents — both Republican and Democrat — over many years.

It isn’t withdrawal taht Gates is after, it is a draw down then a long term presence. See: Gates to meet with wavering Republicans Thursday

Gates told the Wall Street Journal that he “came here with a pretty clear agenda…Mainly I was focused on how we can put Iraq in a place where we can have a long-term stabilizing presence that has broad bipartisan support.” He has also suggested the U.S. military could withdraw as many as 60,000 troops by the end of next year.

What was missing from his vision for Iraq and the broader region was talk about transforming the region and spreading democracy.

That’s part of the job of SecDef? Who knew?