More 'Surge'

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Via NBC NIGHTLY NEWS:
WASHINGTON - Coming on the heels of a controversial “surge” of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin, the Defense Department is preparing to send an additional 12,000 National Guard combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials told NBC News on Thursday.
The troops will come from four Guard combat brigades in different states, the officials told NBC News’ chief Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski. They said papers ordering the deployment, which would run for one year beginning in early 2008, were awaiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ signature.

The deployment is sure to ignite a firestorm on Capitol Hill, where Democrats in Congress are maneuvering to scale back the U.S. commitment in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is pushing a proposal to end most spending on the war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al-Qaida, training for Iraqi troops and protection for U.S. forces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17971410/

 

[Coventry17]

There's a very good article in the latest edition of "Time" that paints a very bleak picture of the current condition of the U.S. Army. Extended deployments and poor budgeting strategies are really crippling our armed forces.

 

[PsyOps]

There's a very good article in the latest edition of "Time" that paints a very bleak picture of the current condition of the U.S. Army. Extended deployments and poor budgeting strategies are really crippling our armed forces.

Coming from Time?

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

There's a very good article in the latest edition of "Time" that paints a very bleak picture of the current condition of the U.S. Army. Extended deployments and poor budgeting strategies are really crippling our armed forces.

...Bill Clinton reducing the number of troops by nearly 500,000 over 8 years is one problem. W not increasing us back to those level, or more, over the last six is unconscionable.

Fact: We are at war and by everyones estimate, it will be a long one. Therefore we need to build the long term force structure to meet the needs and goals.

 

[PsyOps]

...Bill Clinton reducing the number of troops by nearly 500,000 over 8 years is one problem. W not increasing us back to those level, or more, over the last six is unconscionable.

Fact: We are at war and by everyones estimate, it will be a long one. Therefore we need to build the long term force structure to meet the needs and goals.

No no no... we need the draft.

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

No no no... we need the draft.

...we need to start paying soldiers a damn sight more than we do now. And we need to train them to a high standard. It is a disgrace that so many mid level people, the 5-10 year folks who know what the hell they are doing leave because there's no room for them or they, frankly, can't afford to stay.

 

[Thor]

There's a very good article in the latest edition of "Time" that paints a very bleak picture of the current condition of the U.S. Army.

I wouldn't expect anything else from Time.

 

[Bustem' Down]

There's a very good article in the latest edition of "Time" that paints a very bleak picture of the current condition of the U.S. Army. Extended deployments and poor budgeting strategies are really crippling our armed forces.

This whole idea of "deployments" baffles me. It's a war. During WWII they didn't have "deployments".

 

[Severa]

...we need to start paying soldiers a damn sight more than we do now. And we need to train them to a high standard. It is a disgrace that so many mid level people, the 5-10 year folks who know what the hell they are doing leave because there's no room for them or they, frankly, can't afford to stay.

No doubt. My husband put in 6 yrs in the Navy (2000-2006) the highest in one year was 30k. That was when he was a sonar tech on a fast attack submarine.

 

[Bustem' Down]

...we need to start paying soldiers a damn sight more than we do now. And we need to train them to a high standard. It is a disgrace that so many mid level people, the 5-10 year folks who know what the hell they are doing leave because there's no room for them or they, frankly, can't afford to stay.

I can't keep guys in my rate past thier first enlistment because they can make more on the outside.

 

[Idiot]

I can't keep guys in my rate past thier first enlistment because they can make more on the outside.

Stop-loss 'em. Didn't they read the fine print.

 

[Coventry17]

They're already doing that.

 

[Coventry17]

...Bill Clinton reducing the number of troops by nearly 500,000 over 8 years is one problem. W not increasing us back to those level, or more, over the last six is unconscionable.

Fact: We are at war and by everyones estimate, it will be a long one. Therefore we need to build the long term force structure to meet the needs and goals.

Bill Clinton was only continuing the draw down, or "right sizing", started by the elder Bush.

 

[PsyOps]

...we need to start paying soldiers a damn sight more than we do now. And we need to train them to a high standard. It is a disgrace that so many mid level people, the 5-10 year folks who know what the hell they are doing leave because there's no room for them or they, frankly, can't afford to stay.

I always found it ironic that the people that do the most for our society (military, teachers, police, fire fighters, etc...) get paid the least and those that do the least (entertainers, athletes, politicians, etc...) get paid the most.

In my 20 years I found my training to be the best. When I went through my tech school there were telecomm companies looking to hire us right out of school. Companies have a huge desire and need for folks from the military for several reasons: the training, instilled discipline and security clearances. If you have a security clearance that's a huge bonus.

I'm not sure what you mean by "leave because there's no room for them or they, frankly, can't afford to stay".

 

[Larry Gude]

Can you conceive...

Bill Clinton was only continuing the draw down, or "right sizing", started by the elder Bush.

...of a Democratic President ever needing to use our military and, maybe, needing more than we have now?

 

[Larry Gude]

Up or out...

I I'm not sure what you mean by "leave because there's no room for them or they, frankly, can't afford to stay".

...as I understand it.

Afford; Once you're 40 or, three kids and wanting a nice home
and, maybe, some retirement savings.

 

[PsyOps]

Bill Clinton was only continuing the draw down, or "right sizing", started by the elder Bush.

You're right and that was a mistake too. There was an added bonus with Clinton though... It didn't take long for folks in the military to feel the president's sentiments of the military. He hated the military. They were a thorn in his side. Did you know Clinton tried to do away with high-ranking military members wearing their uniforms to office WH functions? He rarely saluted the marine standing outside of AF 1 or Marine 1. It was Clinton's first task as CINC to start his big social experiment with the military by allowing gays in. He had very little respect for those that fought so hard to keep him in tune with national security.

BTW... it wasn't "right-sizing". It was a draw-down due to the fall of the USSR. The cold war was over and we no longer had a need for a large military... so they thought. Right size? Do we seem like we are the right size now?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ironic...

I always found it ironic that the people that do the most for our society (military, teachers, police, fire fighters, etc...) get paid the least and those that do the least (entertainers, athletes, politicians, etc...) get paid the most.

....perhaps, but also good news. Scarcity commands more money. Abundance commands less.

We have a scarcity of people who are great entertainers, jocks and pols; folks you do not want standing a post or teaching kids or putting out fires or fixing a helo or dropping bombs 400 yards from your position. We do, however, have an abundance of people you do want doing those things.

 

[Idiot]

...of a Democratic President ever needing to use our military and, maybe, needing more than we have now?

He could just contract it out to Blackwater.

 

[PsyOps]

...as I understand it.

Afford; Once you're 40 or, three kids and wanting a nice home
and, maybe, some retirement savings.

There has always been a high-year tenure in the miltiary. If you aren't promoted within a certain rank by a certain time in service you're out. They've actually raised those several times while I was in.

The biggest problem folks in the military have is the false sense of security that constant paycheck can bring. I have seen it over and over - folks over extending themselves. Buying the big cars, TVs, having too many kids. I'm not going to disagree our military folks (particularly our enlisted) are underpaid. But the pay can be quite reasonable if you learn to stay within your means. There is also what's called the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan). It's like a 401k for the military. And the education opportunities are amazing. The tuition assistance is now at 100%. This means the military will cover your complete tuition. There are stipulations (like number of credit hours, and you must pass), but where else are you going to get a free college education? And most of the technical training we receive is creditable. If military folks take advantage of these programs, they can do rather well.