Us Forces stretched too thin?

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

I just was watching Tv and it said that the Us "Old Guard" was activated to do some terrorism fighting and protection in the Horn of Africa. Normally this unit does cerimonies, and protects the tomb of the unknowns. This unit is regularly trained (as I understand it) and hasnt been used outside of the States since Vietnam.

These leads to my poll, do you think Us Forces are stretched too thin?

[Zach R.]

Definately. Bush needs to start doing some damage control to clean up after the Clinton/Gore administration.

[Tane Angle]

It wasn't just the last administration, thought I couldn't stand Clinton either. It's Bush just as much. I don't remember him build the military up before going into two wars. His boat, his fault. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[James]

With the current administrations foreign policy, yes, our military forces are spread out a bit.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Just build Cyborgs, bloody hell am I the only one that thinks of solutions around here!

[Dalleer]

I'd say that the US forces are beginning to be stretched too thin, maybe they already are in certain areas.

However, I hope that there isn't going to be yet another big military operation planned for 2004 since that will certainly crush the lines too thin...

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Not only that but the logistics gotta be a mess. Making sure everyones supplied in the Horn of Africa, Korea, Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and Iraq costs big $

[ST4]

I wouldn't say the miltiary is being stretched too thin because there have been US forces overseas sicne World War II.

Current US forces outside US not in either Afghanistan or Iraq:

Japan
South Korea
Philippines
Guam
Thailand
Panama
Bosina
Kosovo
Germany
Diego Garcia
Republic of Georiga

Those are the places off the top of my head. The thing is that these are small bases, compared to miltiary bases at home.

[NcDeuce]

Only solutions...

Either + troops or - deployments.

[Tane Angle]

What we need is better benefits and pay, not cuts in them as we've seen over the past three years. Your buddies is SF and 160th SOAR are dang hard to replace, but they're they leave in droves as deployements get longer and benefits/pay don't make up for it enough. It's the SNCOs and mid-level officers with families to take care of who the miltiary needs most and loses first when we start asking for people to be away 75 percent of them time. A million new recruits simply can't do the same job as one SF A-Detachment. Nor should they be expected to. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[BMF]

as I see it, we really are stretched too thin for the work we're doing. even though the pentagon is working on some plan to create more BCT's, we're down to a minimum. when the huge planned replacement move goes underway in a few months, we'll have a grand total of 2 divisions ready to go if some new crisis hits. thats just plain sad. In my personal opinion, we could really use another couple of light divisions (along the lines of the 10th mtn) and maybe some more ACR's. these are the units that are doing the most at the moment, and their nature makes them easy to deploy quickly. just my thoughts.

[ibstolidude]

armored cavalry regiment(ACR) =
. and their nature makes them easy to deploy quickly.
??

[budanski]

US Navy Lays Off 400 Officers
Strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTLEAD.HTM)

December 12, 2003: An economic recession and the war on terror have given the peacetime military one benefit; lots of volunteers and fewer people wanting to leave. As a result, recruits have been easier to find, and recruiting standards have actually gone up. But now it's gotten to the point where some of the services have more people than they need. The U.S. Navy just announced that it was laying off 400 junior officers. This is an unusual situation, especially with a war going on. But a similar situation has developed with enlisted sailors as well. Here, there were some job categories that simply had more people than were needed. A major factor in these imbalances is that not as many first term officers or sailors are leaving. The surplus sailors were given a chance to retrain for another job, and there has been some similar shuffling around of officers. But for the officers, the end result was that 400 of them don't have a job any more. They are being given six months to find a civilian job.

[James]

US Navy Lays Off 400 Officers
Strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTLEAD.HTM)

December 12, 2003: An economic recession and the war on terror have given the peacetime military one benefit; lots of volunteers and fewer people wanting to leave. As a result, recruits have been easier to find, and recruiting standards have actually gone up. But now it's gotten to the point where some of the services have more people than they need. The U.S. Navy just announced that it was laying off 400 junior officers. This is an unusual situation, especially with a war going on. But a similar situation has developed with enlisted sailors as well. Here, there were some job categories that simply had more people than were needed. A major factor in these imbalances is that not as many first term officers or sailors are leaving. The surplus sailors were given a chance to retrain for another job, and there has been some similar shuffling around of officers. But for the officers, the end result was that 400 of them don't have a job any more. They are being given six months to find a civilian job.

That's ridiculous. This will come back and bite someone's ass in six months or so.

[haze99]

For a start, we need to redeploy forces in Germany, Bosnia & Kosovo. I would say the US mission there is complete.
I can't speak for the USMC or USN but, I would activate 1 more Army Division and a 1 more Air Force Wing. To help off set the use of National Guard personnel (outside the US)

[NcDeuce]

Couple Air Assault/10th Mountain type divisions would be nice.

[Macs.]

For a start, we need to redeploy forces in Germany, Bosnia & Kosovo. I would say the US mission there is complete.
I can't speak for the USMC or USN but, I would activate 1 more Army Division and a 1 more Air Force Wing. To help off set the use of National Guard personnel (outside the US)

Ehh, the US-Forces are not operating in germany. :-)

Lots of units are on Stand-By, wounded US-Soldiers from Afgahnistan and Iraq (etc) get delivered to US military hospitals in germany. (Landstuhl for example)
The US-Army needs bases outside the USA, if they still want to react fast and world-wide.

[James]

What we need is better benefits and pay, not cuts in them as we've seen over the past three years. Your buddies is SF and 160th SOAR are dang hard to replace, but they're they leave in droves as deployements get longer and benefits/pay don't make up for it enough. It's the SNCOs and mid-level officers with families to take care of who the miltiary needs most and loses first when we start asking for people to be away 75 percent of them time. A million new recruits simply can't do the same job as one SF A-Detachment. Nor should they be expected to. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Doing similar work in the private sector, these guys can go overseas for as little as 60 days at a stretch, when THEY want to, and earn in excess of $10,000/mo. There are between 10K and 15K Americans in Iraq doing security work, most of them earning top dollar for their skills. That is about the equivalent of a whole Division in the Army.

[Tane Angle]

Oh yeah, a lot of people from work have gone over. It's good money.

[James]

7 guys I worked with (there were 8 of us, now there's just me :( ) are departing in the next week. I am on standby at the moment, and hope to depart soon. Go figure... maybe I can keep them out of trouble. ;) If not, it's grad school and a new career.

[Flagg]

During the deployments to East Timor for Australian and New Zealand pers in recent years I was surprised to learn of the significant cash bonuses paid out for those serving 6 month deployments.

I had more than one Private come in and buy a new Harley with cash....not financed...and Harleys sell new for up to $40K in local currency.

I'd be keen to see a more progressive "stepped" cash incentive program implemented for US enlisted personnel serving overseas...

the more time away, the more you get

the more hazardous the posting, the more you get

ALL pay as a part-time or full-time soldier should be completely tax-free, serving either home or abroad...this would help bridge the gap between military and civie pay.

Think about the cost incurred by the US government to bring a single infanteer up to a deployable standard........I'm sure the figure is huge.....the cost incurred with bringing a single Ranger or SF soldier up to a deployable standard would be an even more staggering number.

All it takes is someone with decent spreadsheet skills to determine the hidden costs incurred by the US military.

If during peacetime retention is X% and it has dropped to Y% during a period of considerably higher OPs tempo equates to Z# of pers multiplied by the average cost to train each per equals $$ hidden cost of high ops tempo, then add the cost of recruiting and training new pers....and this doesn't even factor in the reduced level of experience/performance to be expected with an organization suffering from poor retention.

Take this figure(or even just a % of it) and distribute it directly to the troops pro-rated based on skillset and length of service.

Hell....even give some to the Officers based on retention % levels in their respective units.

Forget about one or two "pork-barrel" weapons systems that cost too much and spend the money on the best weapons system you've got.....grunts.