Yes, yes. The Army has been on the verge of breaking for at least the last 3 years.
After all, troops in the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc. were all sent home after 12 month tours. Anything more and the armies would have been broken.
Bruce: The vast majority of troops in those wars (Civil maybe excepted) were not volunteers, and they were fighting for a cause their country generally supported (both sides in the case of the Civil War). I am not saying that recent developments are too much: "stretched" vs. "breaking point". But I do think it is ostrich-thinking to deny a problem is developing.
Mark
Ottawa
How many prominent journalists and politicians, who are today using the contention that the U.S. army is "broken," as a means to criticize the Bush administration and create momentum for an American pullout, were also criticizing the Bush administration for not having 300,000 troops in Iraq when the occupation commenced?
If U.S. ground forces are supposedly burnt out now, just how much quicker would the process have occurred if these despicable hypocrites had gotten the troop levels they clamoured for in 2003?
And why isn't the media calling these people out over this contradiction?
Sorry folks, dumb question. For a minute there, I forgot what kind of people inhabit the MSM.
Mike H: You might like to look at this April 12 editorial in the "Washington Times" (not/not "Post"):
"An ailing Army"
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
Given all of the blathering about who is contributing what and for how long, why is everyone tip toeing around what seems to me an obvious boil needing lancing. What should be done about Pakistan and its covert support of the Taliban?
Posted at 2007-04-12 08:11:19 [PermaLink]Mark,
There's no question that the military is stretched, but the Army-is-broken line has been going on for several years now - and it's probably no truer now than it was in 2004. It's as though we were still hearing about the Brutal Afghan Winter.
Also, whatever I may think of the Post, the Washington Times is generally rubbish. They typically have one or two good reporters, but they haven't the resources to be a first or even second-rate paper. And editorials generally reflect the views of the owners, which in their case is the Unification Church.
During the Vietnam War, the Army was criticized, and rightly so, for limiting tours to 12 months. They were constantly cycling green troops into the field. The notion that tours in excess of 12 months is "unprecedented" is laughable on its face. I came up with three easy examples, but I'm sure there are many more. How long were American troops deployed during the Revolutionary war, the Mexican war, the Spanish war/Philippines Insurrection, etc.?
The jaw-dropping assertion about "The high demand for fresh troops has led the Army to reduce basic training from 14 weeks to nine", as evidence of a breaking Army, ignores history. I served during peacetime, and Basic Combat Training (as it was known then) was 6 weeks. The important training occurs later, in Advanced Individual Training and with your unit. The Army has changed the length of Basic Training many times.
A surge is just that -- it isn't meant to be permanent. The Army will eventually have to begin drawing down the numbers of troops in Iraq, which is the plan as the Iraqi army becomes more combat ready. But criticism of Administration policy generally consists of sucking and blowing at the same time. There are too many troops, there aren’t enough troops, etc. It’s as Robert E. Lee is attributed as sarcastically observing; “we appointed all our worst generals to command the armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers.”
Mark:
I don‘t understand the relevance of your Washington Times editorial link to my earlier comment. Does anything in the editorial address the dishonest self contradiction of those who are now shrieking the U.S. Army is broken, but who were several years ago criticizing Bush for not having twice the number of troops in Iraq? What say you ?
By the way, I see our old friend, Retired General Scales, is prominently displayed in the Times editorial. You remember him, don’t you Mark? He’s the one who’s been stomping the canaries in the coal mine that measures the health of the U.S Army. Seems theses canaries keep coming back to life, no matter how many times he wrings their necks. You know Mark, for a guy who just now, to Bruce, claimed he’s in the “stretched rather than broken “ camp, you sure seem enamoured with the arguments of those who are saying it’s broken.
But the hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Joe Biden never ceases to amaze in that department, and today, he delivers yet again. Biden, a charter member of the “ We should have had 300,000 troops in Iraq, but the Army is broken today because we’ve deployed half that number” club, today called for an immediate American military deployment to Darfur.
[External Link]
"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."
In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could "radically change the situation on the ground now."
"Let's stop the bleeding," Biden said. "I think it's a moral imperative."
Well doesn’t that just take your breath away? One of the most prominent, vocal proponents of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, because he doesn’t think the U.S. Army should be “policing a civil war,” wants American ground forces to go police a civil war. Biden’s humanitarianism brings me to tears. He claims to want to “stop the bleeding” in Darfur, but argues for a policy he knows full well will turn the taps on full bore in Iraq.
Fucker.
But wait a minute, Joe. Where are you going to find a U.S. infantry brigade for Darfur, in an army you’ve already pronounced dead? What’s that you say? It’s just one combat brigade, right? Not so fast, Liar-man. If we’re going to use the Defeatists’ Formula for Responsible Deployment of American Ground Forces to flay Bush and force withdrawal from Iraq, then we must remain consistent across the board. That means one brigade deployed, two back home resting/preparing for Darfur deployment. Now we’re up to 7,500 trigger pullers, ’cause you know a mere 2,500 troops can’t “ radically change the situation on the ground now,” unless they’re overwhelmingly composed of combat infantrymen.
So don’t yank our chains, Joe. Exactly how many additional personnel will need to be committed to support the grunts in logistical and air cover roles? More than the number of trigger pullers? You don't say!
And who are these “ senior U.S. military officials in Europe” who are suddenly so gung ho to commit to Darfur this much bigger force than you’ve let on, from a broken army? Let me guess. They’re the same anonymous political generals that have been convincing the American public (and Mark) that the U.S. Army has been destroyed in Iraq.