Article

2003-12-12 Home Front

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 Laurence of the Rats 2003-12-12 8:44:47 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Some of those 40,000 new Army soldiers should be organized into the 93rd Volunteer Infantry (divisional motto: "Let's roll!").

Posted by Mike 2003-12-12 9:16:22 AM|| 2003-12-12 9:16:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds like a damned good idea to me! While I support President Bush vs. his Quislingcrat rivals any day of the week, I am still nonetheless VERY disturbed by his failure to strengthen the military. IMHO, in that 1st speech to the joint congressional session after 9/11, he should have (1) announced an IMMEDIATE - not rolling - callup of all reserves and NG, and (2) issued a call for one million volunteers for the active forces.

Posted by Jeff 2003-12-12 9:21:11 AM|| 2003-12-12 9:21:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Need more active duty boots on the ground, current rotation schedule is beginning to hurt Reserve/Guard retention.

Posted by Steve 2003-12-12 9:49:57 AM|| 2003-12-12 9:49:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 hmmm...I think it's a good idea, as long as this isn't just another Charley Rangel "bring back the draft" type idea. Any one know anything about Tauscher?

Posted by B 2003-12-12 10:07:26 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:07:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Yes it's a typo. We actually only have 172,000 active duty (at most), we will be up to 187,000 w/the change. Haven't heard why the pentagon is resisting, figured it would be the other way around.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 10:26:56 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:26:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 In my opinion we definitly need a few more regular army divisions (and also air force whatevertheyhave). This is going to be a long war and we just cannot keep units on the line without periodic rotation for rest, recuperation and restoration

And the overly heavy reliance on Reserves for long periods is not that great of an idea. A reserve army is an idear that really only works well if there is no war.

Posted by Michael 2003-12-12 10:38:11 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:38:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I would like to see a Division specifically trained for peacekeeping duties. Give them blue berrets and send them whenever we work multilaterally with the UN or to take over when our more aggressive divisions have cleaned out an nation. They'd have more judges, engineers, and traffic cops and less armor than a regular division. (one part Marine Corps, one part Peace Corps).

I think average peacekeeping requires an entirely different type of training and a longer commitment that dulls down our own hard chargers.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-12-12 11:38:24 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:38:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 It makes great strategic and tactical sense to utilize the Guard and Reserves every ten years or so in the rolls for which they were intended. One of the important things that will come from the Liberation of Iraq is a needed review of logistics, unit integration, procedures and processes. I believe that it's important that the second tier units get called up on a regular basis, to keep them sharp, and to ensure that the entire armed services are as up-to-date as possible.

An army runs on paper, or electrons, these days. You can't sandtable most of the things that we are learning about how to assemble and operate an army in the year 2003. Here's the Third ID's After Action report. Note how much of it is spent on integration, logistics, and communication. You only learn these lessons on active duty, and it is vital that our Reserves and Guard units are as up-to-date as the Regulars.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-12-12 12:12:02 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-12-12 12:12:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Ruprecht, berets? please don't be cruel bro. But yes, send us w/the Peace Corps chicks, heck, after a couple months hairy armpits don't seem so bad.....

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 12:21:22 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:21:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 JH, my guess is the Pentagon is resisting for the obvious reason...Congress will fuck it up. You know there will be tons of conditions. Senators fighting over which states get the troops. Which branch gets the troops. Ie, idiots will control the expansion instead of, oh I dunno, the professional soldiers?! We'll end up with a bunch of shit we don't need. Too many heavy armor divisions. Too few new MPs and Engineering units. No additional air/sea lift capability. You get the picture.

Posted by Swiggles 2003-12-12 1:44:24 PM|| 2003-12-12 1:44:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Members of Congress from both parties are pushing for the first significant increase in the size of the active-duty military in 16 years, despite resistance from the Pentagon.

Why is the Pentagon resisting? It's pretty simple - this bill may not come with any attached funding. If the military has to add all these men without additional funding (including for equipment) that completely pays for their addition, procurement of new weapons will take a hit.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-12 1:51:11 PM|| 2003-12-12 1:51:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Congress agreed this year to spend $68 million to increase the Army by 2,400 slots, about 0.5% of the current 480,000-strong force.

Congress is clearly under-appropriating for the additional troops - $68m for 2,400 slots is not a lot of money. That's just $28,333 per person, which means it covers (at best) salary and benefits. Where's the money for kitting them out with Apaches and armored vehicles? Or do they all have to march to their assigned missions? And what about ammunition?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-12 2:00:28 PM|| 2003-12-12 2:00:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 $68m for 2,400 slots is not a lot of money.

For comparison, note that a department (in a Fortune 50 firm) I once dealt with, had 300 people and a budget of $50m. These weren't high-salaried people either - average was in the high $30's. Unlike in the military, we did not supply employees with free health care or housing, PX's or other military-subsidized perks. The point is that any shortfalls in Congressional funding will have to come out of somewhere else in the military budget. It's a shell game - Congress is talking a good game but actually eroding the effectiveness of the military by indirectly squeezing the procurement budget.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-12 2:18:47 PM|| 2003-12-12 2:18:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Swig/ZF, right on. I should've guess that. Pork barrel politics as usual. I didn't have the numbers in front of me, makes more sense now.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 2:19:06 PM|| 2003-12-12 2:19:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Swig/ZF, right on. I should've guess that. Pork barrel politics as usual. I didn't have the numbers in front of me, makes more sense now.

It's a twofer - both pork barrel politics and unfunded mandates. Congressional districts get additional jobs while stealing from the new hardware appropriations budget. This is the kind of bill that Republicans who are penny-wise, pound-foolish on the defense budget, and Democrats who dislike the idea of having a defense budget, can both agree on.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-12 5:06:42 PM|| 2003-12-12 5:06:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Jarhead, it might have slipped your notice but the new Army of One all wear black berrets these days. The Britts swapped their helmets for berrets as quickly as possible to seem less threatening to the Iraqi's. A Division designed specifically for peacekeeping, one that came in after the marines had won the war, wouldn't need kevlar.

And if we make the berret's blue they can mingle with the UN folks so our real troops don't have to.

Posted by Ruprecht 2003-12-12 5:31:22 PM|| 2003-12-12 5:31:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Jarhead, this is why you should be happy Eric Shinseki's out of a job and Peter Schoomaker's in as Army chief of staff -- he's an infantryman first and foremost, a lotta Rangers didn't take well to the decision to "give away their" berets to the regulars (made under Shinseki), and Schoomaker's moving intel analysts further down the chain of command toward the squads (though not the fire teams).

Posted by Lu Baihu 2003-12-12 6:25:37 PM|| 2003-12-12 6:25:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Ruprecht, yeah I know about that. I'll keep my kevlar thanks or wear my soft cover w/EGA, no berets for me. My dad was 101st and did the beret thing at one point, I respect it, just not our thing. BTW - no offense, but as a Marine, the Army's fashion crises don't matter much to me. I don't blame the Rangers for being pissed about that. Some moron Colonel in my branch suggested all our grunts get berets to distinguish them from the non-grunts, exactly the wrong thinking in our service. That idea lasted about as long as it took someone to laugh at it. We all wear soft covers, boonies, or kevlars. Or a jock on our head if that's what the Commandant wants.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 9:06:22 PM|| 2003-12-12 9:06:22 PM|| Front Page Top

15:54 Doc H
09:47 raptor
05:36 The Dodo
01:47 ,comma
01:05 Tresho
01:01 Aris Katsaris
23:27 Anonymous
23:24 Steve White
23:13 4thInfVet
23:09 Anonymous
22:57 4thInfVet
22:50 4thInfVet
22:22 Fred
22:13 Fred
22:05 Denny
22:02 ruprecht
21:54 Fred
21:29 Kentar
21:25 NotMikeMoore
21:23 Glenn (not Reynolds)
21:21 Jarhead
21:17 4thInfVet
21:16 Jarhead
21:06 Jarhead