Something I Think You Army Guys Might Like

[RetiredGySgt]

Your answer is nonresponsive. As for evidence, you can do your own research; the "privatization" of the military is there for all to see. (Certainly, if you served in Iraq, you saw it for yourself at the mess hall.) Then there's the equipment problem; however Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed that with: "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." I say good riddance to him and his ilk. I say that if we want a better military, then we need to look to our Republican representatives - don’t you agree?

Dems control Congress, THEY decide what will and will not reach the floor for a vote. THEY have claimed they are for increased military and have claimed Bush is against it, yet NO bill has even been proposed and voted on in a committee. It is not a Republican issue it is a Democratic issue. It wouldn't matter right now if EVERY Republican in Congress wanted to increase the military, it depends on the Democrats to happen.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You've got it backward. It is the Bush administration that want's to cut the military, not to mention military benefits, as you shall soon see. Wake up and smell the horseshit.

Same tired old claims, I am a retired Marine and my benefits have not been cut in the 7 years Bush has been in office, they have gone UP every year, Something I can not say has always happened, I remember years where we didn't even get Cost of Living adjustments much less any extra.

Explain again, slowly for us retards, how Bush is going to cut anything when the DEMOCRATS control Congress. Now go real slow so I can follow along with your insightful explaination how this works.

Further Bush has NEVER presented to Congress any legislation to cut the Military. Base closings were and are a pet project of the Democrats in a rush to capitalize on the supposed "peace" benefit.

 

[eots]

See? The idea that Katrina was brought into a thread that was about a parody of Army jargon is what derailing is about. That's for the simpletons that wondered.

stay on topic now katty ! don't want to derail anything ! you see I would have reached a different conclusion..that a post was made ( not from me.)..and you went chicken little...but in fact the sky was not falling and your thread lives on

 

[Annie]

stay on topic now katty ! don't want to derail anything ! you see I would have reached a different conclusion..that a post was made ( not from me.)..and you went chicken little...but in fact the sky was not falling and your thread lives on

Hello fuktard, I deleted the OP and reposted hours ago. Speaking with you always is not nice and requires a shower.

 

[eots]

Hello fuktard, I deleted the OP and reposted hours ago. Speaking with you always is not nice and requires a shower.

omg your really losing aren't you. remember stay on topic your ruining the thread with all your foul mouthed languge and weirdness about how you feel like a dirty girl after our encounters... my children could see this stuff !

 

[CSM]

Thank you.

This response relates to our military capability to do the “whacking.” The army is in very bad shape, which is largely due to the efforts of Donald Rumsfeld to “privatize” the military. During his tenure, we have seen the reduction of our armed forces and dismantling of military installations; and at a time when our reserves and National Guard units are stretched to the breaking point leaving the nation unmanned and unprepared to meet our global commitments and provide for the national defense, or even respond to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. This had been an ongoing battle with Secretary Rumsfeld, and his plans have not been well-received by Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, and very possibly lead to his resignation as Secretary of Defense. Any real Republican will tell you we need more (not less) armed forces and military facilities.

In addition to reducing the size of the military, Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to do away with the Division based structure of the army, and replace it with a smaller, more “agile” Brigade - smaller even than the current T.O.E. (“Table of Organization and Equipment”). See CRS Report for Congress, “U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress” (Updated May 5, 2006). This is a bad idea. We have over fifty years of experience with the modern Division, which has proven successful in every combat environment and theater of operation. The Brigade structure won’t work because it is simply too small to be self-sustaining in the field; and without the logistical support that is component to the Division-size organization, will be ineffective (i.e., it will very rapidly run out of “beans and bullets” needed to sustain combat operations). Experience has shown that the Division is the smallest unit ground force capable of independent combat operations; and yet flexible enough to be “tailored” to meet any contingency and rapid deployment anywhere. Secretary Rumsfeld’s proposal to scrap the Division was (and still is) overwhelmingly opposed by the army brass, and more than a few generals were cashiered (forced to retire) for voicing their opposition to it.

Let me weigh in on this one, if you please.

First I disagree that the Army is "in very bad shape"; certainly it is not as in a good a shape as it could be but it is hardly inefective. Second, the reduction in forces started long before Rumsfeld came along so to place blame soley on him is just plain wrong. The BRAC was directed by Congress not Rumsfeld.

As for the brigade based structure: that will be an ongoing debate for some time to come. I happen to work in that arena and I can tell you that the brigade most think of when debating is not the brigade proposed or implemented. The divisional structure was/is fine for the big, linear, symetrical battles envisioned during the cold war but are hardly ideal for the type of warfare envisioned going forward. Without going into detail, I can tell you that concerns over logistics and sustainment expressed above have been addressed.

On a side note, tactics, doctrine and organizational structures for the Army have changed often throughout its history; some generals have fostered or embraced that change and some have not. Thankfully, we don't march in a straight line in an attempt to engage the enemy any longer. Also, it should be mentioned that some of those arguing for retaining the divisional structure are more interested in opportunity for promotion than they are in what is best to meet the needs of national defense. A smaller structure does mean fewer slots for generals (but more for colonels and below). It also means longer time in command for those who do get those slots.