WP IS SOUNDING ALARM: MILITARY IS IN A DEATH SPIRAL; BUSH'S WAR HAS RENDERED US DEFENSELESS

[DeepModem Mom]

WP, PAGE ONE: Military Ill Prepared For Other Conflicts
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 19, 2007; Page A01

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

More troubling, the officials say, is that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a "death spiral," in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.

The risk to the nation is serious and deepening, senior officers warn, because the U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises, whether the internal collapse of Pakistan, a conflict with Iran or an outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsula. Air and naval power can only go so far in compensating for infantry, artillery and other land forces, they said. An immediate concern is that critical Army overseas equipment stocks for use in another conflict have been depleted by the recent troop increases in Iraq, they said....

The Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard A. Cody, described as "stark" the level of readiness of Army units in the United States, which would be called on if another war breaks out. "The readiness continues to decline of our next-to-deploy forces," Cody told the House Armed Services Committee's readiness panel last week. "And those forces, by the way, are . . . also your strategic reserve."

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked last month by a House panel whether he was comfortable with the preparedness of Army units in the United States. He stated simply: "No . . . I am not comfortable."...

***

...the recent increase of more than 32,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has pushed already severe readiness problems to what some officials and lawmakers consider a crisis point....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801534.html

[rockymountaindem]

1. I ran into this problem recently on a computer game

called Europa Universalis III.

See, I was playing as the Netherlands, and I kept having these big-time wars with Saxony as they kept invading my ally of Mecklenberg. At some point, my armies were so depleted through battlefield losses and desertion that I would have been unable to do anything other than keep grinding away at the Saxons. This left me wide open to invasion from France, England, you name it. So, I had to sue for peace and accept only a modest victory, having been unable to vanquish the Saxons with my present resources.

Too bad the real world isn't as simple. OTOH, with competant leadership in the WH things might be going a little more smoothly, eh?

[DeepModem Mom]

3. It sounds like that's where we are! nt

[SharonAnn]

54. In the 2000 campaign, * got a lot of mileage claiming our military was "not ready"

Remeber his frequent statements about at least 2 divisions (?) would have to report "not ready for duty" because Clinton had destroyed the military?

Hmmm, it wasn't true. The military was in the best shape it had been for a long, long time and * inherited it. Then he destroyed it.

THe only reason "that's where we are" is because * put us there. No other reason. It didn't have to happen.

[rockymountaindem]

7. Hey, for once I feel for Bush

I mean, I was probably one or two campaigns away from knocking Saxony completely off the map and parceling out its territory among various city-states which would pay tribute to me and be too small to bother anybody. That would have been great. But, alas, my "national manpower reserve" read zero, and the information bar kept saying, "You need 25,643 men to reinforce your armies, 500 will reach the army this month". You could see where that was going with constant battles. It would have taken me decades to recoup at that point. Peace was the only option.

So Bush, I've been there. Maybe we can get through this together...

Some advice: see if you can get France to inherit the throne of Iraq, 'cause that's what happened to Saxony and they weren't a problem after that :)

Edit: This was supposed to be a reply to post 3.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. Let's see, France inherits the throne of Iraq....

good one, rockymount!

[Bucky]

19. Ergo, the problem. Bush was talked into this war by guys who were playing Risk instead.

And now that Rummy & Wolfy are gone and Cheney is off pouting all the time, Bush's only working strategic game theory comes from his own experience playing Chutes and Ladders.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vssmith]

37. There is a simple solution to your dilemma

Hire Blackwater

[rockymountaindem]

39. I did

The game allows you to hire mercenary companies (as they were quite prevalent in Renaissance-era Europe). The problem is that to prevent countries from hiring too many mercenaries than would be realistic or practical, every mercenary company you hire is more expensive than the last, and it takes a long time for the prices in your region to deflate after the end of a war. By the second year of fighting I'd hired so many mercenaries that each one was costing me five times more than it did at the start of the conflict. I couldn't keep paying for that.

[Cobalt-60]

2. a replacement army

I never thought I would see the day when we would need to use that term here.
It's what old school fascists used to need when their utter stupidity resulted in the loss of an entire army group at places like Stalingrad.
We need one brought on line as soon as the Republicons are driven from office.

[madrchsod]

4. duh....i figured that out over a year ago.

the sand and heat grinds men and machines into dust.

[aquart]

23. A year ago? Slowpoke.

[Morgana LaFey]

43. Exactly

This has been happening from SHORTLY after the start of this ignominious conflagration.

[SledDriver]

5. Is it getting drafty in here?

...and why are those guys from China measuring for curtains?

[wtmusic]

9. tell me you're not a real sled driver

so I don't have to go to bed tonight consumed by jealousy.

[leveymg]

56. Whata ya think? Bush-Cheney are Chinese agents? Saudi? Iranian? All of the above?

It's the only explanation that seems to makes any sense. If you wanted to reign in the world's only rogue super-power, can you imagine a more efficient way to do it than to set these guys lose in the control room?

Like putting Anarchists in charge of the Titanic. The iceberg won.

[ninkasi]

6. Our country has been in a crisis

since the craven, partisan Supreme five felons awarded the presidency to the man who has become the worst president in U.S. history. Until he and Cheney are impeached, we will continue in the "death spiral" that we've been on for the past 6 years.

[givemebackmycountry]

10. And last week I heard some DELUSIONAL FUNDY woman on C-SPAN'S

Washington Journal, saying that she wanted to DEFEND Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush, for "saving" the military because "Clinton tried to destroy the military" and "THANK GOD" that we have a "PRESIDENT THAT VALUES OUR SOLDIERS" and it was about that time that I had to turn it off because I was about to lose my breakfast.

Only a Republican could spout that type of inane logic.

[kestrel91316]

12. Well there you have it: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[Amonester]

13. Sorry to argue with the headline, but a country that "harbors"

some ten thousands (or more) nuclear warheads of all sorts (while the "satanic" act of "using" about one sixth of them at once would completely destroy all things living out of the deepest oceanic abysses...), so to use the word "defenseless" in that context seems to be a little bit exagerated, IMHO...

Not that I don't see the army recruiting gang members and neo-nazis out of despair as a sign of any "healthy" situation in that regard, though, especially if "mixing" the two "perspectives" together in the near future will help this "self-destroying" species of ours to survive in the long run... /sarcasm

:scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :grr:



Edit: to add the "/sarcasm" note.

[alittlelark]

14. How good are nukes when the enemy invades your country?

That is what the military leaders were saying.

[Kablooie]

16. Yes, what they are saying is reasonable but..

I'll bet in the Bushie's minds, if there is another conflict somewhere in the world that affects us, nuclear is the answer. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that was their strategy all along. Deplete the forces so we only have weapons of last resort available.

I predict that there will be a nuclear bombing of someone by Bush and Cheney before he leaves office.

[alittlelark]

27. I hope your last sentence is incorrect....

But I doubt it.

[Kablooie]

34. It's correct in that I predict it. but I hope the content is wrong.

But I've had a feeling for quite a while now that the neocons are itching to drop a nuclear bomb to demonstrate their "power" and then they expect the rest of the world to cower in fear of the mighty United States.

This kind of thinking has been their cornerstone since the mid 90's.

[The Doctor.]

17. Or if there were to be

a domestic 'situtation'?

[alittlelark]

28. Any 'domestic situation' I can foresee would be positive.

We are a nation of frustrated citizens.......

[The Doctor.]

30. Can we agree on 'ultimately positive'? nt

[Amonester]

20. I share your concern, but I don't see any "enemy" that is...

actually seriously capable of invading the Divided States of America.



Not even China (well, not at this "point").

[alittlelark]

26. None of them are

that's my point.

[Sirveri]

44. Nobody will ever invade America militarily.

We have the second amendment and a large proportion of people who actually do use it and have firearms. I mean, it would be like going into Iraq and having people do small guerillia hit and run attacks on your every day and planting small bombs on the side of the road to screw your day up as you drove by. Nobody would be stupid enough to invite such an unwinnable situation.

[Greyhound]

50. So true, it would be a strategically impossible undertaking.

We're too big and encompass every possible environment from jungle to arctic. The only military, or combination of militaries, with even the remotest chance of undertaking it is the Chinese and their military can't go anywhere they can't walk to.

[diane in sf]

55. The home team always wins in this sort of situation,

and Iraq will be no exception.

[Greyhound]

51. I'd like to know which military leaders are saying this as they should

be cashiered immediately with a demotion for sheer stupidity.

Ignoring the fact that nobody has the capability, or even the desire to do it, what advantage could be realized by invading us while their C&C and population centers are reduced to radioactive pits as a result?

[DeepModem Mom]

15. You're absolutely right; there is that option. I was trying to draw attention...

to this article, which I think is of major importance. Bush, who has pranced around in a military uniform, and used our troops as props again and again, has depleted our conventional military resources with his Iraq folly.

[Amonester]

22. I understand the point, and it is an important crisis. But!

But the WP headline is carefully "designed" to create "a $tate of fear" that we've been "surrounded" by way too much since the criminal PNAC'$ "wet-dream of a new Pearl Harbor" has "magically" happened on these war-profiteering ma$ter$ "watch" ...

[DeepModem Mom]

25. Actually, the subject line is my own...

since outside of the LBN forum the headline doesn't have to be used. The Wash. Post headline is, "Military Ill Prepared For Other Conflicts." Sorry if I wasn't clear, and caused confusion!

[Amonester]

32. Sorry if it took me too long to reply (perhaps some problems on my ISP "line")

Thank you for this clarification. I should have clicked on the link you provided, but since it points to the WP (...), I really was convinced the "defenseless" word was theirs (which was not a surprise at all to me, since they've been perfect bu$che enablers from day one of his "$election"). My bad.

[Kagemusha]

29. You bring up some good points.

Russia is pretty defenseless too once you get past their having lots of nukes to use on anyone who wants to try them. Doesn't make it easier for them in Chechnya, for instance, but well, the Motherland is fairly safe just the same. As long as they remain convincingly irritable, anyway.

As for the US, Bush makes no bones about it: we're fighting them "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here". At least that's the justification. Nazis were gonna invade through Mexico in WWII, too.

[Amonester]

33. Yeah, but bu$che is Wrong (as we all know here), because in reality...

"fighting them over there" using (un-necessary) torture, and random killings of countless innocents - instead of addressing the root causes of "terra"rism - can only make more of them wanting to come "fight us over here" so his criminal cabal'$ policy is not really designed to protect us here, au contraire... "His" (cheney's+rummy's) policy is designed to enrich his already rich base of war-profiteers at the expense of the taxpayer's money (and blood...).

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. With all the money we spend on defense

It will take TWO FUCKING YEARS to replace the pre-positioned stock????

[aquart]

24. Did you price the real estate in Dubai?

Halliburton has better uses for our money than spending it on something as silly as our soldiers and war materiel.

[mopinko]

21. in the front door, out the back door?

the "spare parts" story that went around recently affirmed my opinion that our gigantic military budget is a giant shell game bleeding us dry, and leaving us with nothing.

[donkeyotay]

52. Best. Button. Ever. nt

[niyad]

31. perhaps if the WaPo had been doing its JOB, instead of acting as shills for the cabal, cooler, saner

heads MIGHT have prevailed, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Peace Patriot]

35. Let India handle Pakistan. Let China handle No. Korea. And we have no business

whatsoever getting into a conflict with Iran. Problem solved. We don't NEED a huge aggressive military machine. Close all the foreign bases. Bring everybody home. Cut the military budget by 90%, down to a true defensive posture. (No more wars of choice!) We probably need some defense, in the hostile, well-armed world that Bush/Cheney have promoted. But with decent diplomacy--and given our economic situation--the only potential threats to us are China and Russia, and they are not threats. Who else would invade us? No one. So we need a missile defense, some response to attack capability, some soldiers to lend to the UN for (true) peacekeeping missions, and good police work and good international relations to handle "terrorism," really a rather minor problem. Maybe put Valerie Plame back in her old job. That would be a good idea. Counter-proliferation.

I'm not happy that Bush/Cheney have destroyed the US military. Their profligate waste of human life and resources is unconscionable. But why not take the opportunity to demilitarize, and become a democracy again? The rest of the world wants peace. Why not give it to them? What ever happened to the idea of world disarmament?

Does Iran want war? Absolutely not. They are just scared. And who wouldn't be, with Bush in the White House? We back off. They back off. It's that simple.

Does Syria want war? They'd be crazy to. Same with them. Back off.

Does China want war? No. They're too busy making money. And they hold a good portion of our debt paper. Why would they want war with us?

Does Russia want war? No. Very reduced empire. Couldn't sustain it. They have enough problems.

Does No. Korea want war? Somewhat similar to Iran--very scared. But they really and truly are China's problem, and Japan's, and other Asian countries. So. Korea wants peace with the north. They've been trying to arrange it. Why not let them?

Does Pakistan want war? Not currently. What if they had jihadists in charge? Cheney arranged for them to have the Bomb. Thanks, Dick. A possible threat. But India has the Bomb, too. Aggression by Pakistan would be suicidal. And it would be mostly India's (and Iran's!) problem.

Who else? Who wants war with us, besides a few crazy jihadists? Bush-Cheney have tried their best to unite them, and to arouse the entire Muslim world against us. But, really, these countries have so many problems, and are so disunited, to think of a jihadist army marching into the United States is just absurd, a Cheney wet dream. If we maintain a missile defense, and do good police work, there is almost no threat--nothing that we need a gigantic army for.

For godssakes, look around the world! Where is the threat? Why do we have this giant carbuncle still on our backs, of an out-of-control military-industrial complex? Ike was right. They are a menace. Why go belly up trying to maintain this mass killing machine, when nobody with any significant force wants war?

Ah, it's those South American leftists! Surely they want war. Please. Pretty please. Come on, Hugo! Attack us! Attack us with the Venezuelan army, that couldn't even pull off a military coup against you!

There is no threat. What we have is an "enemy within" that is manufacturing unnecessary war, to feed the hog. We had better spend what energy, resources and creativity we have on alternative energy and finding something to manufacture--other than war.

[Kolesar]

41. Very good! ... eom

[enough]

36. k&r

[bemildred]

38. Yep, I expect Venezuela or Cuba will invade any day now and subjugate us all. nt

[Kolesar]

40. A good reason to begin a comprehensive energy conservation campaign

We lost in our surge to control the oilfields of the Arab peoples. Venezuela, too, for that matter. Common sense would dictate that we start energy conservation measures to help our economy deal with the oil shortages that we will likely see in the near future.

[Greyhound]

42. Possibly the most ignorant, fear mongering, mis-statement of fact

I've ever seen in a single article.

This is just the latest attempt to terrify us into complete submission to military authority by the defense industry.

Please don't buy into this nonsense. The reason we "don't have enough troops" (lie), is that they have, in order to justify their already ridiculously high budget, have created an enormous bureaucracy of make-work non-combatants. Less than 1/4 of military personnel serve any military function (combat, support and supply) at all.

Possibly the only honest thing Donald Rumsfeld has ever said in his entire life is that the military is thoroughly broken and must be re-built from the ground up to get back to its only legitimate function, the defense of our nation.

[Sirveri]

45. 1/4 are non-combatants is a good thing.

You need people to train other people, teach other people, and provide maintenance and support. Otherwise your military organisation breaks down and stops working. Everyone is just as important to the military effort, the soldier on the ground wouldn't be able to fight with the food and ammo brought by the truck driver, and the truck driver wouldn't be bringing anything to that soldier without a supply officer to figure out who needs what and to get it there when it needs to be there. In fact the only really useless job I've seen are the paper pushers at personel support department. That's only because they can't seem to do their job correctly. However think of how much it would cost if we outsourced these things! You want the military budget to increase, increase the number of contractors you use to provide services. Soldiers and sailors are salaried and can be worked any time of the day or night for as long as you can work them (it's in the contract), certainly beats paying someone 20$/hr.

[Greyhound]

48. Training maintenance and support are all vital, combat related, positions,

as you say, and they are part of the 25% (IIRC, the actual # is around 27%). We're talking about PR, congressional relations, and other such non-productive, paper pushing fields, that serve no purpose in defense, yet suck up a disproportional percentage of the hugely inflated budget.

[oblivious]

46. It could be worse. Look at Iraq. And they didn't even deserve it.

[loudsue]

47. This is just a formal request to give more $$ to the Military Industrial Complex

I wish the Dems would pass an amendment to the constitution that says the pentagon has to have every nickel & dime accounted for. It's just a black hole for taxpayer dollars, that goes to enrich the already filthy rich.

:kick:

[grytpype]

49. "Death spiral..." sounds serious, doesn't it? Good thing Bush is in charge.

He's just the guy we need to get us through this crisis!

[va4wilderness]

53. Well, just look at the way Bush masterfully handled Katrina...

Doesn't this all make Sense, finally? :shrug:

"you don't fight with th'Army you want, but with th'rmy you're given." sez Rummy (a reminder)...

But hey, they can always squeeze few more $100billionz out of domestic programs and send it in unmarked bills to Cheney's buddies in Blackwater Mercenaries, Inc.

And finally (after '08) when th'rotten bunch is gone, and th'stench of th'sewer-waters and crooks are washed out of th'white house, th'cupboards will be bare.

Yeah, Geeez

:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug: