Comments on: Army Wearing Out?

By: http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk

http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:37:01 +0000

Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings

By: http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk

http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:36:14 +0000

By: gw gold

gw gold — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:53:55 +0000

My negative, as my boss

By: rappelz rupees

rappelz rupees — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:42:15 +0000

Three years ago, after friends introduced, I played the Rappelz game. At that time, I dazed and confused, I like to go my own way, I have a lot of rappelz rupees, but I became the most evil villains in the game. Until I encountered her, I found the meaning of survival.

By: ro zeny

ro zeny — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:39:56 +0000

The friend took me to the game, but she own was leaving the game. A person to game is boring, every day, I only know to upgrade and earn ro zeny. I can not sad dot this mess of feelings and moving. Once, the two boys for me quarreled utterly, until I leaved and tool sad. Later, I found a boy to married, I think perhaps all this to change, and I pray to become a reality, a few days after he disappeared. A person was playing a marriage number, what would it have taken place.

By: miggy

miggy — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:14:16 +0000

Did any 1 consider that the actions taken of patrolling iraq and setting up strips and bases while over there give us in a great location if our troops had to go bust iran down if they were to get out of hand? Seeing how some on here decided 2 use great quotes to get their opinions across 2 the readers, has ne 1 ever heard of “keep ur friends close, and ur enemies even closer?” holding iraq keeps iran so close that they would fear doing ne thing 2 drastic that would result in an american retaliation

By: Nanonymous

Nanonymous — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:52:00 +0000

Reset is complicated, but the degree of change varies from unit to unit. For some organizations, there’s a lot of equipment swapping, fielding, and serious change; for others — the three brigades I mentioned in the 82nd — it’s essentially just institutionalizing their usual organization for deployment. It’s hard to generalize without a fairly detailed level of knowledge. There’s risk associated with the force transformation, but the maneuver brigades in the ac will be largely transformed by 2010 — but if it didn’t happen quickly, what are the odds that it would ever happen at all? Stretch it out to fifteen or twenty years, and you leave a lot of wiggle room to every parochial service interest to subvert, alter, or slow the process.
It’s great to talk about increasing active duty endstrength, but really — where are the troops going to come from? If we can just barely fill our quotas for the existing force, how on earth would we fill for a force that’s 100,000 stronger? And once we get them, remember that we commit to a full career life cycle plus lifespan retirement costs for that force. DoD’s budget looks like General Motors’ already — add another 100k to that, and guess what you get — both now and twenty years down the road?

By: Noah (the other one)

Noah (the other one) — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:29:56 +0000

“The US went into Iraq with the Army we had“
There is a vast difference between a conscripted (citizen’s) army and a volunteer army, which in principle agrees with the mission. Vietnam taught that imperial wars of aggression cannot be fought with a conscripted army (draft dodgers, conscientious objectors, fragging officers, etc.).
“Prevailing wage rates are just too high in the private sector for the uniformed services to compete.“
Which is why the volunteer army is primarily composed of the lower socio-economic strata, as they have little or no other opportunity. This level of recruits results in lower performance.
“Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.“
The US administration has violated every rule Sun Tzu wrote as well as the entire Powell Doctrine, learned at such bitter cost in Vietnam.
“With out any quantinable political goals in Iraq the U.S. has no business in Iraq.“
Ah, but with very definite strategic and economic goals, this administration will not revise what is essentially a very successful economic policy despite strategic and humanitarian failures, loss of life, loss of stature, etc. If you disagree with the economic success of this action, I suggest you look at the stock performance of various related industries and investment firms such as the Carlyle Group. (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html)
The size of the military is relevent only to wars of conquest the US initiates (and we clearly initiated this one). The US has enemies (comprised exclusively of those who have been trodden upon by empire), but none have even the slightest chance of raising a conventional military challenge (this may change as forces and capabilities are depleted and opponents trained in anti-US combat.

By: BT

BT — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:11:41 +0000

The two theater war that the Pentagon pushed during the 1990’s was always BS. It was totally not plausible, in the threat nor our ability to respond. They needed a justification for Congress’ and the Pentagon’s expensive weapons systems.
The military did a lot a COTW during the 90’s though, we all know about them. Apparently no one ever listened to any after action reports, because if they did, they would have shifted resources, training and focus away from the conventional hi-tech nation-state war, that they dream of, to what we actually required then, and now.
Taking down Governments is easy, quick and requires few combat troops. Keeping the

By: Robot.Economist

Robot.Economist — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:28:51 +0000

I was always skeptical of whether or not a 500,000 man Army was big enough to handle the old 2 MTWs planning model. What if we didn’t win that first war in 30–60 days and the other conflict flaired up?
After 9/11, I fully expected to see Rumsfeld nudge U.S. troop levels up by at least 100,000 if not 200,000. The problem is that doing so would be incredibly expensive. If military recruiters are dipping into Category 4 to fill the enlisted ranks. Adding more roles would only make a bad situation worse.
The only other way to draw up more warm bodies would be to bring back the dreaded “d-word.” I honestly don’t think even a Republican-dominated federal government could whether that decision. The political class is so devoid of former uniforms that I doubt either party could stomach a draft (or weather the 2008 election).
All the military logisticians who read this will probably agree with me when I say reset is more than just an administrative affair. You honestly can’t push down too hard on the reset timeline without damaging unit cohesion and equipment turnaround.