Current Condition of the US Army

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Military leaders -- including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey --
have acknowledged that the Army has been stretched nearly to the
breaking point by the combat. Efforts are under way to increase the
size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the burden and give troops
more time off between deployments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_deserters

It seerms to me I told some military 'expert' about the military being
at the breaking point almost two years ago. Maybe that 'expert' will
reconsider now. LOL!

It also looks like John Kerry was right about expanding the Army in
2004. Three years later, bushie finally gets it. Aren't stupid people
frustrating? LOL!

I'm also glad to see that Kerry is taking on Pickens about the Swift
Boat bull****. Better late than never.

"While fellow veterans and reporters disproved many of the group's
claims at the time, Kerry refused to air ads responding to the
criticism. His own response was muted for fear of legitimizing his
critics' attacks. The senator conceded after losing to Bush that his
lackluster response likely cost him the election."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-16-kerry-swiftboat_N.htm?csp=34

Hey, look, 2pid! Look nob! Not one blog as 'evidence'!

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 10:33 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
> > Military leaders -- including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey --
> > have acknowledged that the Army has been stretched nearly to the
> > breaking point by the combat. Efforts are under way to increase the
> > size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the burden and give troops
> > more time off between deployments.
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_deserters
>
> > It seerms to me I told some military 'expert' about the military being
> > at the breaking point almost two years ago. Maybe that 'expert' will
> > reconsider now. LOL!
>
> Lets see....they say the Army is "nearly" to the breaking point.
> You said it was broken two years ago.

It's kind of funny, 2pid. I'll bet the some people in the mailroom at
your company knows what's "broken" at your company before it ever
reaches your cubicle.

What I said two years ago was that we cannot handle other
contingencies. And we can't.

For a person who in the army chain of command is the CEO to admit that
something is "nearly broken" is proof enough that it is indeed
"broken". I seriously doubt that you'd have a political appointee say,
"We're done." It is broken, 2pid, and has been from quite some time.

Look at the front door: the Army has only met recruiting goals by
significantly lowering standards for test scores, education, criminal
records, and so on. So they're getting the soldiers they need, but
they are of a far lower quality than they were in 2003.

Look at the back door: desertions are way up.

These are not good indicators for long-term military health. It took
the military about 20 years to recover from Vietnam.

> Odd that you think you position has been substantiated.

It has. Do you 'think' GEN Casey is the first one to hint at massive
problems? I'm surprised that a news junkie like you missed these over
the past three years:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-24-army-study_x.htm

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG362/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0114/p08s03-comv.html

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,128782,00.html

And so on.

These, BTW, only deal with personnel issues. We haven't even broached
equipment issues. Those loom large, too.

> Meanwhile your party seems hell bent assuring your predictions
> eventually come true.

This transcends politics, 2pid, but if you want to go there, it is
your party that broke it.

But nice try.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 19:45, "ScottW" > wrote:


>
> How many pentagon employees will say **** this and leave if
> they get laid off right before Xmas?
>


they can switch to the other side.
Al=Queda has quite a good death benefits package.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 20:41, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 17 Noi, 19:45, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> How many pentagon employees will say **** this and leave if
> >> they get laid off right before Xmas?
>
> > they can switch to the other side.
> > Al=Queda has quite a good death benefits package.
>
> What do you think of the Martyrdom mortuary?
> Your path to 73 virgins.
> Think of the creative marketing options.
>

the mullahs forget to tell the martyrs
that the 73 virgins are all 80 year old nuns.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 6:45 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:33 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > Military leaders -- including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey --
> >> > have acknowledged that the Army has been stretched nearly to the
> >> > breaking point by the combat. Efforts are under way to increase the
> >> > size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the burden and give troops
> >> > more time off between deployments.
>
> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_deserters
>
> >> > It seerms to me I told some military 'expert' about the military being
> >> > at the breaking point almost two years ago. Maybe that 'expert' will
> >> > reconsider now. LOL!
>
> >> Lets see....they say the Army is "nearly" to the breaking point.
> >> You said it was broken two years ago.
>
> > It's kind of funny, 2pid. I'll bet the some people in the mailroom at
> > your company knows what's "broken" at your company before it ever
> > reaches your cubicle.
>
> Something is always broken at every company.
> Of course that is not to be confused with the company being
> broke...that is not by anyone but you.

Nice word play, but you miss the point (as usual).

My point was that the lower-level echelons will *always* know when
something is a charlie fox before the upper echelons do.

> > What I said two years ago was that we cannot handle other
> > contingencies. And we can't.
>
> > For a person who in the army chain of command is the CEO to admit that
> > something is "nearly broken" is proof enough that it is indeed
> > "broken". I seriously doubt that you'd have a political appointee say,
> > "We're done." It is broken, 2pid, and has been from quite some time.
>
> > Look at the front door: the Army has only met recruiting goals by
> > significantly lowering standards for test scores, education, criminal
> > records, and so on. So they're getting the soldiers they need, but
> > they are of a far lower quality than they were in 2003.
>
> Blame it on Jenn. Industry suffers the same issues with declining
> HS graduation rates.

I'd blame it on Jenn if it was her fault. It isn't.

> > Look at the back door: desertions are way up.
>
> But still far lower than any other time of war in recent history.

That would reflect the difference of an all-volunteer Army, yes?

> There are problems that have plans in place to be dealt with...
> if the dems would stop playing political football with the money.

I agree: they should shelve their beliefs and just roll over.

> How many pentagon employees will say **** this and leave if
> they get laid off right before Xmas?

Probably not enough if you are a proponent of small government. I
believe you are.

> Reid and Pelosi are dangerous fools.

As I said, this transcends politics. Why do you insist on trying to
politicize it?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 18, 10:34 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...

> > On Nov 17, 6:45 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > On Nov 17, 10:33 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> > Military leaders -- including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey --
> >> >> > have acknowledged that the Army has been stretched nearly to the
> >> >> > breaking point by the combat. Efforts are under way to increase the
> >> >> > size of the Army and Marine Corps to lessen the burden and give troops
> >> >> > more time off between deployments.
>
> >> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_deserters
>
> >> >> > It seerms to me I told some military 'expert' about the military being
> >> >> > at the breaking point almost two years ago. Maybe that 'expert' will
> >> >> > reconsider now. LOL!
>
> >> >> Lets see....they say the Army is "nearly" to the breaking point.
> >> >> You said it was broken two years ago.
>
> >> > It's kind of funny, 2pid. I'll bet the some people in the mailroom at
> >> > your company knows what's "broken" at your company before it ever
> >> > reaches your cubicle.
>
> >> Something is always broken at every company.
> >> Of course that is not to be confused with the company being
> >> broke...that is not by anyone but you.
>
> > Nice word play, but you miss the point (as usual).
>
> Your foolish mail room analogy makes no point.

That there will be some people in most, if not all, organizations at
the lower echelons that will know what's going on before it reaches
upper management?

How naive of you, 2pid.

> > My point was that the lower-level echelons will *always* know when
> > something is a charlie fox before the upper echelons do.
>
> BS...the lower echelons have no perspective on the overall
> financial health and stability of a company.

We're not talking financial health or stability here, are we? I
thought we were talking about knowing whether the military (Army and
Marines in particular) were capable of functioning long-term at the
current OPTEMPO. They are not. And the soldiers know it, and they knew
it long ago.

> They only know what wrong with their little part.

OK, let's agree on this for the moment.

I will tell you from experience that soldiers do, in fact, know when
things are a charlie fox before the upper echelons. Generals go to the
front, or they send people, to see how things are going, bypassing
their staffs. Generals also, BTW, tend to concentrate on asking lower-
level enlisted personnel. They do not go up to their next-higher
headquarters and ask. And very, very few privates or sergeants are
brave enough to tell a four-star general that they're full of ****.
Usually, they'll say things like, "Three bags full, Sir!" Dining
facilities and recreational areas are where you go to hear what
they're really thinking.

Further, as things go up the ladder, there is often "massaging" going
on. "Abject failure" becomes "Unforeseen challenges to overcome", and
so on. Nobody wants to be the one briefing or admitting failure. I see
this in the private sector all the time. You've never seen this at
your company?

> >> > What I said two years ago was that we cannot handle other
> >> > contingencies. And we can't.
>
> >> > For a person who in the army chain of command is the CEO to admit that
> >> > something is "nearly broken" is proof enough that it is indeed
> >> > "broken". I seriously doubt that you'd have a political appointee say,
> >> > "We're done." It is broken, 2pid, and has been from quite some time.
>
> >> > Look at the front door: the Army has only met recruiting goals by
> >> > significantly lowering standards for test scores, education, criminal
> >> > records, and so on. So they're getting the soldiers they need, but
> >> > they are of a far lower quality than they were in 2003.
>
> >> Blame it on Jenn. Industry suffers the same issues with declining
> >> HS graduation rates.
>
> > I'd blame it on Jenn if it was her fault. It isn't.

Thank you for admitting that you were BSing...again.

Why is it that the first thing out of your mouth is always BS? LOL!

> >> There are problems that have plans in place to be dealt with...
> >> if the dems would stop playing political football with the money.
>
> > I agree: they should shelve their beliefs and just roll over.
>
> The misguided belief the got a political mandate to ****
> up the war effort right when its on the brink of success?

"Brink of success"? Have the Iraqis finally poiltically reconciled?

As I've said before (and which you apparently still cannot grasp): the
military aspect is smoke and mirrors without political progress. There
has been very little, if any, political progress. The military can
only have a very, very small part to play in that.

> Brilliant!

Ya.

> >> How many pentagon employees will say **** this and leave if
> >> they get laid off right before Xmas?
>
> > Probably not enough if you are a proponent of small government. I
> > believe you are.
>
> Small and effective. The best are the most likely to have
> immediate opportunity.

The critical "employees" in the Pentagon are military officers, or
political appointees. They won't leave, unless they choose to retire,
or unless they desert, or unless they are transferred. Since the vasy
majority of the military at the Pentagon are field grade or above,
desertion is very unlikely. Did you know that there are far fewer
captains (Army, there are plenty of Navy captains there...) than
colonels at the Pentagon?

I know someone who served at the Pentagon as an O-3. A colonel was
coming down a hallway, so the O-3 yelled, "Make way!" and
"braced" (stood at attention against the wall to allow a senior
officer to pass). A little while later the colonel asked my friend who
was coming. The colonel had "braced"against the wall, too, because
colonels are quite common there. LOL!

The civilian employees are primarily support, like secretaries, admin,
and so on. If a GS-11 leaves, they can be replaced easily by another
GS-11.

> >> Reid and Pelosi are dangerous fools.
>
> > As I said, this transcends politics. Why do you insist on trying to
> > politicize it?
>
> I'm not a politician, they are.

Oh. my bad. I thought you were very political. You do tend to leave
that impression, 2pid.

> How you can defend such gross
> negligence in playing politics with a war effort is ridiculous.

You see, 2pid? You resort to jingoism when cornered. "Dissent" becomes
"gross negligence" or "treason". The people who dissent become
"dangerous fools". That is a very dangerous, foolish mentality IMO,
and it goes against everything a free society should stand for. One of
the things that makes a free society free is the ability to dissent
freely.

BTW, what does that make bushie and cheney?

You should go watch Lions for Lambs. I think you'd be Tom Cruises
character, Senator Irving. S. Irving says things exactly like this.
Hm. S. Irving. Serving...

Nevermind. You could never be that character. LOL!

> Think about what this does to critical procurement programs
> where contractors start to wonder what will happen if their
> contract gets suspended, long lead material orders start
> not getting placed to protect themselves from sitting on
> unpaid inventory. Just the threat will have consequences.

Then these conractors should be shot for treason. If they were truly
behind the war effort, they would produce the goods without pay. The
traitors! They're just in it for the money!

We've had this discussion before, 2pid, the last time a funding bill
came before Congress. It will play out exactly as it has in the past.
The war will be funded without interruption. There will be no
cancelled contracts.

You should look at history, 2pid. It seems that every time the exact
same scenario comes up, you are surprised.