Article

2003-09-25 Iraq

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 2003-09-25 12:31:58 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Mssr. Hollings wouldn't know a barium enema from a high colonic. He and his Kammarade know only one mantra - "I don like cowboy" He himself admits "I don't know how you can do it". Yep, that's why you and the rest of your donkey mofo's aren't in charge. I do have feelings for the reservists.....but then if HillBillary hadn't disemboweled our military, those reservists would still be at their civilian jobs.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-9-25 2:57:18 AM|| 2003-9-25 2:57:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Rex - and when Bush came into office his first goal was to increase the number of army divisions? Er, no. The GOP did push for more defense spending, but that was essentially all for ballistic missile defense. The GOP may well have been right about that, and the Dems wrong, but it sure wouldnt have helped on the ground in Iraq.

Indeed Rummy still hasnt said that we have too few active divisions.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-25 9:43:27 AM|| 2003-9-25 9:43:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Y'mean those monthly checks come with a commitment? Who knew?...

Posted by mojo 2003-9-25 11:23:04 AM|| 2003-9-25 11:23:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 ...Well, don't forget that it was John Kennedy - of all people - who told Reservists complaining about being called up for the Berlin crisis that 'life wasn't fair'.
Now, having said that, Senator Hollings actually does have a point in there - the Guard/Reserve structure is starting to show the effects of strains it was never intended to endure. Unless the Authorities start talking - quickly, directly and plainly - about increasing the size of the active duty force, we are going to have a problem on our hands. Recruiting - tho meeting the numbers - is getting tougher again. A draft, though legal and prepared for, will NEVER be politically acceptable unless we get hit with something that makes 911 look like a barroom brawl, and even then you will still have the usual crew of Useful Idiots(tm)providing resistance. The disturbing stories that are coming out of Iraq regarding DOD pennypinching (there's one on Drudgereport today that will drop you through the floor)are doing more to damage morale and retention than any news stories.
We gotta rebuild. We gotta pay the troops what they're worth and take care of them. No other options.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2003-9-25 1:45:10 PM|| 2003-9-25 1:45:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually Mike , there was news out this week that all branches had no problems meeting their recruitment numbers. Your point that they may need to up their target numbers may be valid exactly for the reasons you noted, agreed

Posted by Frank G 2003-9-25 1:52:44 PM|| 2003-9-25 1:52:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Frank - was that for Guard/reserves? my impression was that recruiting/retention for the active forces was fine, but for NG/R was suffering.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-25 2:37:49 PM|| 2003-9-25 2:37:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 No idea on the NG/R rates, but at least you won't be getting the weekend warriors anymore - who have no idea they might have to actually deploy. It should be well known by now. I was referring to actives.

Posted by Frank G 2003-9-25 2:52:54 PM|| 2003-9-25 2:52:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 It's the reenlistment/retention rates in the Guard and Reserves I'm worried about. The pressure from their families and jobs back home is going to make a lot of the most experienced personnel have to think twice about re-uping.

Posted by Steve 2003-9-25 3:23:36 PM|| 2003-9-25 3:23:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Ahhhhh...are those little reservist getting tired of the "easy money" they've "earned" all those years prior?

I don't feel sorry for any of them. The active duty do it every day and don't get to leave until the contract is up. The same should be true for the Reservist and National Guard. Sad face for them. I knew it was a bad idea to rely on them as replacements for the active duty units that were deactivated. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Reservists or Nasty Girls from my active time in the first Gulf War. I also realize that these men and women are performing the jobs side by side the active duty men and women. However, don't cry me a river and talk about "sacrifice" like you deserve special treatment. When the uniform is on you're a soldier, period. What? You don't think the actives aren't sacrificing just because they do the same job in war and peace? Please.
Their service is honorable, the attempt at special privileges is repulsive. Why not start them on a rotational basis with other Guard and Reserve units.
Mike had a point we need to expand the services.
The Army would do well to create 4 more light infantry divisions. They're cheaper and provide the type of highly trained dismounted troops needed for the missions we tend to face.

Posted by Paul 2003-9-25 4:04:10 PM|| 2003-9-25 4:04:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I've been talking to friends who are retired military. They have suggested that it would take, from the word 'go,' between one and a half and two and a half years or so to raise new divisions, depending on what type they were, and how many of them you wanted to raise.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2003-9-25 6:00:16 PM|| [http://thenostromo.com/pgf/weblog/] 2003-9-25 6:00:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Speaking of retirees, how far down the list are they getting? Should the Hose be doing some sit-ups. I'm 38. Don't know whether my body can take the massive influx of java that goes hand in hand with a cruise. Maybe the Captain would let me nap a little on the bridgewing if I got tuckered out.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-9-25 7:14:25 PM|| 2003-9-25 7:14:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Paul:

Agreed - didn't feel too sorry for the NG/ER call-ups either, until of late. Issue that seems to be unfolding in ever-increasing numbers the old "179 days" game being played. As I'm sure you know, NG/ER can serve up to 179 days on active duty w/o earning same benefits as regular active duty troops (i.e., medical, VA benefits, education, etc.). I know of at least 4 units who've served 3 179-day tours back-to-back: 179 days in Iraq, 2 wks on leave, another 179 days, another leave, etc. No problem with the 1st 179-day tour. Do have a problem with the "game" in not letting them at least qualify for active duty benefits.

Posted by LVK (C-1-18 1ID RVN) 2003-9-25 9:40:23 PM|| 2003-9-25 9:40:23 PM|| Front Page Top

18:34 Clark
16:35 Jim R
15:33 A
12:32 Lucky
12:27 Lucky
11:42 MattJ
09:51 sambam
08:00 rkb
05:06 Jeremy
04:12 Ben
03:01 R. McLeod
02:50 R. McLeod
02:34 R. McLeod
02:30 R. McLeod
02:17 R. McLeod
01:59 PapayaSF
01:54 Stickman
01:36 Anonymous
01:00 beckett
00:35 EFWatson
00:02 john
23:59 john
23:08 Dave Paglia
22:56 Anonymous