Article

2006-11-25 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-11-25 00:12|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Increasing the size of the Marine Corps, he added, could only be by ~~1,000-2,000~~ 3,000 troops per year over ~~81 years~~ an extended time.

Posted by Shipman 2006-11-25 00:59|| 2006-11-25 00:59|| Front Page Top

#2 okay, then why is everyone wanting to crucify Rangel over this issue...could it be because the messenger is black??

Posted by smn 2006-11-25 06:27|| 2006-11-25 06:27|| Front Page Top

#3 No, because the messenger is a pompous lying son-of-a-bitch proposing an unnecessary solution to a non-problem : the draft to bring in more troops, when all Congress has to do is 1) lift the limit on troop size, and 2) fund the personnel costs. We had literally twice as many men under arms in the late 1980s and early 1990s as we do today, WITHOUT a draft. The way it was done was to increase the pay and benefits of the personnel and lift the troop limits for the Armed Services. Right now, by law that Congress wrote and passed under Clinton, we are limited to the present level of personnel. All Congress would have to do if it {including Charlie Rangel} was serious is raise that limit and increase the military pay and benefits spending.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-11-25 07:24|| 2006-11-25 07:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Shieldwolf,

3) is fund the additional equipment costs. Too often Congress goes for the headlines by increasing personnel but not equipment and other operational expenditures such as fuel and ammunition that need to scale also.

But I worry about the reporting or Conway. Only 1-2,000 per year? A reporter who drops 0s or another general who couldn't fight WWII? And who needs a reduction strategy before increasing the size of the force. These guys should be worrying about the size of the force they need and winning the war. The rest will take care of itself.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-25 08:32|| 2006-11-25 08:32|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm seeing a subtle, but possibly important shift here. Compare the posting schedule to Iraq with, say the posting schedule to SKor, or say, postwar Germany.

If you look at Iraq, for the most part, the direct US involvement is pretty much over. So try to imagine that we are "migrating" what we are doing there to a peacetime base or kaserne structure.

If this is the case, then we will gradually pull out of the cities and move into our bases, except for Baghdad, with far less "noise in the news" for the MSM and the left to capitalize on.

We paid the price in Iraq, so now we should look forward to the real profits, that is, Africa Command HQ bases in country, with an eye, not to Iraq, but to the rest of the region.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-25 09:05|| 2006-11-25 09:05|| Front Page Top

#6 okay, then why is everyone wanting to crucify Rangel over this issue...could it be because the messenger is black??

A black who wants to bring back slavery. Why do you need to force people to do something that there are already others willing to do the work? Unless of course, you want to save money cause history shows that slaves are always cheaper than paying freemen. Goes the lack of the fundamental basics of capitalism. Just keep raising the pay till you have enough. That means less for pork, less for new programs, less for university grants, less....Not a Democratic Party objective.

As to the number you can ascend, it is dependent upon two factors. How many can be trained with the existing training force structure and how much do you have to take from the front line or in the redeployment cycle to add more trainers into that system. Sure, you can make a body bag filler in 90 days or less. However, if you want to make a real soldier/marine trained and fit for integration into unit tactics and doctrine and properly lead, it really takes two years. You can place some newer soldiers/marines among veterans and keep the loss rate down. If you build whole units out of recruits you're just filling body bags. You don't make the cadre, officers and non-commissioned officers, out of inductees. They take time. They are what you need for both the training force structure and any new units. And they are under no obligation to remain after 10 years of active service. A draft doesn't give you those people. Never will.

Time and time again, in the interwar periods, Congress has cut and cut again the force structure of the armed forces. Its damn easy to cut and dismiss large number of service personnel. Its damn expensive in time and resources to rebuild a proper force level once you've done the ax cutting. Unless, of course, you want to fill body bags. Which by the incessant body count drone by the left and MSM, doesn't appear to be their goal. So yes, Rangel is absolutely disingenuous about the draft as anything other than to destroy the ability of the US to act in its interests even when authorized by Congress.

Posted by Procopius2k 2006-11-25 09:43|| 2006-11-25 09:43|| Front Page Top

#7 "okay, then why is everyone wanting to crucify Rangel over this issue...could it be because the messenger is black??"

Could it be that the person who asked this question is completely ignorant?

Rangel isn't the slightest bit interested in adjusting military manpower levels to attain a more effective fighting force; he's proposing to re-instate the draft. And he's very up-front about exactly why he wants it: to make it much more difficult, politically, for American leaders to wage war.

And he's proposing to bring back conscription for political reasons despite the fact, as Shieldwolf pointed out in #3 above, that we do not need it to obtain increased force levels.

Go to the DoD's Military Personnel Statistics page and click on either the graph or the table (they're .PDF files). Note that throughout the entire post-Vietnam cold war era, we maintained our forces at nearly twice the current levels WITHOUT ANY DRAFT.

Military manpower levels are set by Congress. If it wants to increase them, all it has to do is authorize the increase and adjust the budget accordingly. It doesn't take a draft, and THAT is why people are "crucifying" that particular "messenger"-- not because he is black.

I hope that answers your question.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-11-25 10:04|| 2006-11-25 10:04|| Front Page Top

#8 Amen, Dave D. Add the little fact that even he voted against his own BS Draft bill when it came to the floor a couple of years ago, lol. He's a disingenuous partisan asshole. Period.

Posted by .com 2006-11-25 10:12|| 2006-11-25 10:12|| Front Page Top

#9 Here's the link to a WSJ article on this I just posted. Nicely done piece.

Posted by .com 2006-11-25 10:26|| 2006-11-25 10:26|| Front Page Top

#10 I've been preaching for three years that we need to increase the size of the military by about 24 Brigade Combat Teams: 16 Army, eight Marines. Twelve of the sixteen Army should be active, as well as four of the Marines, the rest split between reserve and Guard units. This would give us just slightly less than the troop levels we ended the Cold War under, and enough to fight in both Afghanistan, Iraq, and a third place without having to send troops back every six to twelve months. All it would take is a President with the cojones to propose it, and a Congress with the will to approve it.

If we'd started that buildup three years ago, the first three BCTs would be on duty, and the next three in various levels of training, instead of the tiny trickle of new personnel (about 2500 total) that Bush has managed to sneak in.

We have a government that is incompetent and incapable of governing, from the top down to the mid-ranks. We need a HUGE hose to flush 'em out and get rid of them, especially those in the intel and military force structure areas.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-11-25 16:46|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-11-25 16:46|| Front Page Top

#11
Before I retired from active duty in the late 90's, I watched the Army end-strength numbers descend from an AC force of 775,000 and an RC force of 445,000 Guard and 375,000 USAR. A huge part of the "peace dividend" that Billy Jeff and Al Bore spent was the reduction in troop levels. Couple this with Rummy's conviction that technology and Snake Eaters everywhere could do it all, including the take and hold ground mission, and you get us to force burnout, where we are today. For the RC alone, the damage in equipment readiness, availability and even basic possession will take a huge amount to fix. Time to wake the country up to what is unfolding worldwide and work on the Homeland Defense mission. Borders and internal security are going to become crucial as the next round of large-scale terrorism pops after the Israeli's attack Iran, and get their AF serious hurt by what Pootie just sold the Persians. Global chess folks, and as someone said last night, we've been content to play checkers......

Posted by JustAboutEnough">JustAboutEnough 2006-11-25 17:59|| 2006-11-25 17:59|| Front Page Top

#12
Rangel isn't the slightest bit interested in adjusting military manpower levels to attain a more effective fighting force; he's proposing to re-instate the draft. And he's very up-front about exactly why he wants it: to make it much more difficult, politically, for American leaders to wage war.
Truth, except I'd add "and practically" to "politically". He figures that the government isn't going to want to go to war with conscripts because they'll just be killed off, and who is going to want to send their kids off to get killed unless they are certain that they themselves and their kids are in imminent danger? Liberals are fully aware of this and agree with this philosophy. Of course, it assumes that all problems can be dealt with on a just-in-time basis, with no foresight (or training) necessary.
Also, for the mentally numb out there, a draft guarantees that not just the dregs of society end up in the army, making it a good socialist institution, and the more socialist the better. Duh. I'd like to take these people up on that one, which hinges on a bunch of broken assumptions!
It would be interesting to see how many people buy into this idea. The Democrats are probably trying to decide if it would buy them more votes among the less aware or cost them votes among the more aware before they get too far with this one.
And finally, a military is a productivity burden. It may pay for itself by protecting productivity gains, but having to pay someone to shoot at someone else when they could be contributing to the next discovery or whatever is a double-whammy expense. If you want to attract people into the military, you have to pay them more than they would make in civilian life, and find ways to compensate for the risk and lost opportunity. The draft avoids spending money where it should be spent, and frees it up for pet projects and pork, only to be paid for later with the lives of those miserably trained and sent out to fight anyway.
The Democrats' problem: How to dress this up to make it attractive.
The Republicans' problem: How to expose the motivations behind this scheme, and offer a better way. And to overcome their own seduction by pet projects and pork.

Posted by gorb 2006-11-25 18:07|| 2006-11-25 18:07|| Front Page Top

#13 smn - No, fool. It's not because he's black. It's not even because he's black, gay, ignorant, intellectually dishonest, morally reprehensible, ethically challenged (to say the least), or even a Democrat.

It's because he's <em><strong>stupid!</strong></em>

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-11-25 18:15|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2006-11-25 18:15|| Front Page Top

#14 The WOT > is directly or indirectly a WAR FOR CONTROL OF THE WORLD, OWG, and WHAT -ISMS WILL DOMINATE SAID WORLD/OWG. That being said, unless the USG is going to act like the Roman Empire and start taxing any and all citizens-residents, most of which had prior service in the Legions in order to qualify for Citizenship, the USG needs something to MilPol suppor its empire = means having enuff milfors to protect and project its influence. EITHER WE RAISE VOLUNTARY TROOP QUOTAS TO COLD WAR LEVELS, OR BEYOND; OR WE DRAFT ALA UNIVERSAL SERVICE[Males ages 18-45+ WW2] It also means the new Dem Congress be willing to empower de facto "REGIME CHANGE" vv IRAN-NORTH KOREA, etc, both for conversion to democratic Allies/trading partners + minimize Empiric Costs to ourselves. The ALTERNATIVE is do little to nuthin, waiting to be attacked, absorb heavy casualties wid out any form of retaliation. INCREASE SOCIALISM-GOVERNMENTISM AT HOME WHILE WEAKENING -RETREATING OVERSEAS, and eventually to become suborned to Anti-American American SOCIALISM + SOCIALIST OWG, WHERE AMERICA = AMERIKA WAGES WAR LIKE ITS THE USSR-REPLACING, WORLD-THREATENING USSA ERGO THE USSA LATER BECOMES THE WEAK, ANTI-SOVEREIGN AMER GLOBAL SSR/USR. DemoLeft >WOT > America = Amerika can wage war for empire all it wants as long as it loses/gives up its empire in the end, VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY. The USSA must surrender to, or be destroyed by, Mackinder's World Island - WHY, BECUZ SOMEONE DECADES DECADES AGO PUT IT DOWN ON PAPER THAT THE WORLD ISLAND MUST RULE THE WORLD. It must be becuz its on paper, NOT becuz the World Island deserves to be.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-11-25 22:19|| 2006-11-25 22:19|| Front Page Top

23:48 Zenster
23:39 USN,Ret
23:30 CrazyFool
23:26 Frank G
23:21 CrazyFool
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:02 Scooter McGruder
22:59 Excalibur
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:55 gromgoru
22:55 Dave D.
22:52 badanov
22:50 badanov
22:49 gromgoru
22:46 Old Patriot
22:45 gromgoru
22:44 Whiskey Mike
22:40 gromgoru
22:39 Mick Dundee
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:36 gromgoru
22:30 JosephMendiola
22:28 Mick Dundee
22:27 gromgoru