We can't run at this rate...

[Navy1960]

Officials are warning this can’t keep up indefinitely.

Asked at an April 16 speech whether these mounting demands were allowing crews enough time at home and giving ships the opportunities for needed maintenance, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert replied: “If we continue through, if you will, the [future years defense program], the next five years, at the pace we are at today, the answer to your question is no, we can’t run at that rate.
“We’ve made that point very clear,” he continued, during his question-and-answer session before hundreds of contractors and naval officers at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space symposium outside Washington, D.C.
CNO: Stressed fleet can’t sustain op tempo - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

As everyone knows the problems associated with two very long wars that have stressed the US Military to a point where its operational capability is now being called into question is now beyond debate. With an ever increasing number of young soldiers, sailors, and marines under stress to the point where some tragically take steps to end their own lives. It is time we as a nation take a step back and focus on defending this nation and the health and welfare of our young warriors, and the much needed upgrades to the tools needed to carry out future missions. We have expended over a Trillion dollars in the above two endevours at great expense and with little in return depending on who you listen to, and with ever more pressing issues in the world both economically and defense wise. The prudent path would be for any Administration be it this one or the next one, to take under consideration the real needs of the warriors and their families, bring those much honored and very pressed young people whom we are all thankful for a well deserved rest. Use that time to refocus Defense in a smart way towards the needs of this nation.

 

[California Girl]

I agree. I think we expect far too much of our military. They deserve far better treatment than we, as a nation, give them. As a country, we say we respect them, but how do we show it? We talk the talk, but we do not walk the walk.

We do not fight wars, we send them to God-forsaken shitholes and expect them to play nice with the locals. That is not what an army is for. If we are to go to war, we should go to war.... hit hard, win and walk away.

 

[Navy1960]

Is the proposed operation likely to succeed? What might the consequences of failure? Is it in the realm of practicability in terms of material and supplies?
Chester W. Nimitz


Seems simple enough doesn't it? when you stretch your Military to the point where its operational readiness becomes a question in terms of "people" amd "materials" then it calls into question your overall use of the Military itself. this nation building that we have engaged in, in the last many years is proving to be costly and is now being felt in the general economy and also in terms of readiness as the CNO pointed out. I submit that if we plan to have a strong and healthy Military then we must realize that the Military is not like playing GI Joes where you take them out of the box everytime you want to play with them and they are the same each time.

 

[Claudette]

I agree.

Never mind the nation building crap. We are wasting our rescources and our men and women in uniform rebuilding.

Thats not what the Military is for.

As CG says. Get in, win and then get the hell out.

 

[WillowTree]

Libtard absentia is duly noted.

 

[California Girl]

Is the proposed operation likely to succeed? What might the consequences of failure? Is it in the realm of practicability in terms of material and supplies?
Chester W. Nimitz


Seems simple enough doesn't it? when you stretch your Military to the point where its operational readiness becomes a question in terms of "people" amd "materials" then it calls into question your overall use of the Military itself. this nation building that we have engaged in, in the last many years is proving to be costly and is now being felt in the general economy and also in terms of readiness as the CNO pointed out. I submit that if we plan to have a strong and healthy Military then we must realize that the Military is not like playing GI Joes where you take them out of the box everytime you want to play with them and they are the same each time.

Yep. The whole point of having a military is that they should be feared... that our enemies don't attack us because the price is too high. Yet we have them building infrastructure, and paying the locals to be our 'friends'. WTF is that about? We train these guys to defend our nation and our interests.... and then we expect them to be the Peace Corp. Ludicrous.

 

[California Girl]

A very wise Marine that I know puts it this way....

"In, win, walk".

Works for me.

 

[Truthmatters]

why didnt Bush do that with these wars, he started them.

 

[Navy1960]

" once political authorities commit military forces in pursuit of political aims, military forces must win something--else there will be no basis from which political authorities can bargain to win politically. Therefore, the purpose of military operations can not be simply to avert defeat--but rather it must be to win." AirLand Battle Doctrine which has been replaced with Network Centric Warfare and is now being looked at again by the Navy and Air Force with a Doctrine called AirSea Battle. The point CG made is quite correct in that the aim of US Military Forces should be to win! and win in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the outcome and then let those better able to rebuild do that task.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did you have no problem with Bush sending people back 5 and 6 times?

 

[Truthmatters]

I sure wish Bush had done that in afganistan instead of diverting to Iraq for oil money for his buddies

 

[saveliberty]

Give them Hell and leave them there.

 

[saveliberty]

Why did you have no problem with Bush sending people back 5 and 6 times?

Cause repeated deployment problems require repeated deployments.

 

[Douger]

I agree. I think we expect far too much of our military. They deserve far better treatment than we, as a nation, give them. As a country, we say we respect them, but how do we show it? We talk the talk, but we do not walk the walk.

We do not fight wars, we send them to God-forsaken shitholes and expect them to play nice with the locals. That is not what an army is for. If we are to go to war, we should go to war.... hit hard, win and walk away.

There's no money in winning the game.Stay forever, bleed your slaves( that B YOU) dry and buy a yacht !

 

[whitehall]

Outside of big Carriers and a few Subs it seems that a gigantic Navy is obsolete anyway. What's the use of having Destroyers and Cruisers bouncing around the world? Is the administration right when they call the Navy "a global force for good"? The Peace Corps is a global force for good. The US Navy is out there to kill people and break things if the US is in trouble.

 

[Navy1960]

why didnt Bush do that with these wars, he started them.

Truth the former president actually started the war in Afghanistan in a very smart way with using a combination of SpecOps and CIA forces to partner with local forces to root out and destroy Al-Quida and let the locals handle internal issues with Taliban. Then as the focus shifted towards Iraq, there was a shift around 2004 to the "nation building" Doctrine whereby the former Administration would seek to use US Military forces in conjunction with local forces to not only do the above but also to rebuild, train and do a number of tasks not normally associated with what the US Military is good at doing, like building schools, roads, hospitals, local Govt. support. The problem there is you then begin to get invloved with an ancient culture and its rooted issues between tribes and then they begin to see you as the problem and not the solution. The current Administration just carried that policy forward.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

I agree. I think we expect far too much of our military. They deserve far better treatment than we, as a nation, give them. As a country, we say we respect them, but how do we show it? We talk the talk, but we do not walk the walk.

We do not fight wars, we send them to God-forsaken shitholes and expect them to play nice with the locals. That is not what an army is for. If we are to go to war, we should go to war.... hit hard, win and walk away.

There's a very large contingent of Americans who would prevent that process from occurring at every step. They are essentially the same people who voted for Barack Obama, people who see America as mean and mean spirited. George HW Bush tried pandering to them when he proposed his "Kinder, gentler war" in 1991 allowing America to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. He went out of his way to prove it by stopping the annihilation of the Iraqi Army on the "Highway Of Death" out of Kuwait City to Iraq. Saddam thanked him for his favor by gassing the Kurds the first chance possible in return.
That same large contingent of Americans sought to prevent Franklin Roosevelt from arming the British to prevent them from collapsing under the German onslaught. After the events of June 20,1941 that opposition vanished and whole hearted support for the Soviet Union and Great Britain became the rule of the day.
If America should ever be pitted against an enemy as menacing as either the 1940's Nazi's or the Japanese, it would have to fight two wars, one against the enemy here at home before it could adequately deal with its enemies abroad. We have seen the results of that failure twice, first in Vietnam, this last time against the Islamofascists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[BreezeWood]

The combat military commitment in Afghanistan will end in 2014 and already is winding down - there is no crises except for those who mistakenly believed in the past that pouring money into the DD Budget would make the nation stronger when in reality it has only made the nation as a whole weaker.

Massive cuts in military expenditures can easily be budgeted with the same results and greater efficiency than the present while insuring the safety of the country at its present level.

 

[California Girl]

Outside of big Carriers and a few Subs it seems that a gigantic Navy is obsolete anyway. What's the use of having Destroyers and Cruisers bouncing around the world? Is the administration right when they call the Navy "a global force for good"? The Peace Corps is a global force for good. The US Navy is out there to kill people and break things if the US is in trouble.

Depends on your definition of the word 'good'. Good for us... works for me.

The US Navy does actually do a lot of 'good' just by 'bouncing' around the world. It has a good economic impact on the every port it visits. Generally, our military and its bases around the world is a great representative of the US, it helps local economies and, more importantly, it allows us to keep assets in places where we may need them. It gives our troops experience of the ground on which they may need to operate. Generally, that is all good.

Don't mix up the Military and the Peace Corps. Both do very different kinds of 'good'.

 

[Navy1960]

Outside of big Carriers and a few Subs it seems that a gigantic Navy is obsolete anyway. What's the use of having Destroyers and Cruisers bouncing around the world? Is the administration right when they call the Navy "a global force for good"? The Peace Corps is a global force for good. The US Navy is out there to kill people and break things if the US is in trouble.

First of all the US Navy is the smallest it's been in many many years, in fact the US Navy is no longer a force that needs numbers in terms of ships as technology allows the Navy the ability to have the same amount of Defense protection with less. Having said that, the US Navy is dedicated to protecting your ability to have a safe method by which the sea lanes are open and commerce flows for one. I have yet to see the Peace Corps off the coasts of say Somalia protecting peaceful commerce that is bound for the ports the world over. These young people are on the Sea each and everyday putting themselves in harms way everyday so that you and I may live in safe way we have become used to. When you see a disaster in the world such as an earthquake, tidal wave, storms, most times it is the US Navy that is first on the ground to help and they are representing this great nation with food, water and medical supplies. So yes... they are "Global Force for Good!!"