Kerry wants more troops.

[Gordon]

I hate to put this thread in this section as it seems to be turning into (military)politics.com but I guess this is the right place to put it at the moment.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/John-Kerry-Iraq28feb04.htm




Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. The United States should add the equivalent of a current division, about 20,000 combat troops, to the active duty Army. Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists. Relieve Pressure on Service Members. The buildup, which will require time to implement, will relieve the mismatch between active and reserve capabilities and also allow us to thank returning reservists when they rotate out of Iraq in 3 to 9 months—not just with our gratitude but with a reasonable assurance that they will not have to again deploy to Iraq in the immediate future.

I do not in any way support Kerry, I think he is a smarmy bastard, I do not really support Bush either, but hey. I just wanted to post this because so many people around here have been rinsing Kerry about how he will destroy the US armed forces. Surely by doing this he is not trying to kill the US armed forces?

The link that I posted obviously supports Kerry, it happened to be the first website I found on a google serach that said this, I have read it from other sources.

Another 2 cents here, when Kerry says he wants to open negotiations with terrorist regimes - do you really think that means he wants to open negotiations with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queada .... are you sure he is not just referring to regimes that support terrorism?

edit - please move the thread if it is in the wrong section.

[SeanAshi]

I doubt adding 40,000 troops would help. There is a big misconception about our superpower status, we are not miracle workers, we will make Iraq a better place, and as hard as it is to get Iraqis to understand this it will take time, I know security is a big issure as well as emloyment, food, schools etc. it will take some time, and thanks to the new Spainish PM add some more time.

[Whistler]

Sounds like a good plan, IF he follows through with it, and IF he gives them enough money and equipment to support these troops.

If not than its better to have a smaller highly funded and trained military than a big underfunded behometh.

I gotta ask though, hes always going on about how horrible the economy is and how George Bush throws too much money around, so how does he expect to pay for all this?

[rob]

by throwing money around :roll:

[SeanAshi]

The American tax payer! same whos paying now Kerry has been calling for some type of confrence on terrorism :cantbeli: and that will solve it? President Bush has already thought of that. Doen't matter whos president..****s gonna happen.

[Yard Ape]

Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists.
What would be wrong with an additional 20,000 reservists with "post conflict skills"? The same net result would be reached.

[Gordon]

The American tax payer! same whos paying now Kerry has been calling for some type of confrence on terrorism :cantbeli: and that will solve it? President Bush has already thought of that. Doen't matter whos president..****s gonna happen.

Conference on terrorism - think you're getting confused with negotiations with terrorist regimes like Iran and others.

[soma]

FOR WHAT is the question. He's presenting pacifist, make up and kiss ideas, yet he needs to add more soldiers?

[SeanAshi]

If Kerry takes the same stance on terrorism as Zapatero, he was scuttle his chances to become President.

[the_spec]

FOR WHAT is the question. He's presenting pacifist, make up and kiss ideas, yet he needs to add more soldiers?
I think it shows that he wants to be prepared, rather than have a too small force with little post-conflict skills like was/is the case with OIF.

[Argyll]

I doubt adding 40,000 troops would help. There is a big misconception about our superpower status, we are not miracle workers, we will make Iraq a better place, and as hard as it is to get Iraqis to understand this it will take time, I know security is a big issure as well as emloyment, food, schools etc. it will take some time, and thanks to the new Spainish PM add some more time.


Just shows you how clueless you really are,40,000 men is what 4 divisions?
so adding another 4 division s to the already stretched Military would not help,Spain has less than 2000 troops in Iraq,losing that small anount will not make any difference at all,it's only 1 Battalion,not a Brigade,I'm willing to bet that that there's probably close to that amount who get shipped out for other reasons on a monthly basis.

So 40000 extra men will not make a difference,but withdrawing 1500 will..................a real Politician here,and not a General!!!

[SeanAshi]

Just shows you how clueless you really are,40,000 men is what 4 divisions?...dude **** you Argyll, I don't give a damn if your a Moderator...

[Argyll]

Just shows you how clueless you really are,40,000 men is what 4 divisions?...dude f*** you Argyll, I don't give a damn if your a Moderator...

what is your problem?

just answer the question then?

[Truthsayer]

Look at his sig - lieing and believing it is his motto.

[Dominique]

Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists.
What would be wrong with an additional 20,000 reservists with "post conflict skills"? The same net result would be reached.

Not really. the main problem the regualr Army is having is that most of the skills they need for peace keeping/nation building are concentrated in the Reserves or National Guard (MP, transportation, Civil Affairs, medical, etc). So you have to keep activating reserve and guard units.

I just got back from a 15 month deployment and we were told we could be activated again within the coming year. Some of the reserve units in the area are on their 2nd or 3rd activation in the last three years. They already know that if you keep deploying resrve units just as much or more often than active duty units it starts to cause people to get out, cuasing even more problems.

Argyll, in the US 40, 000 troops would be about one amored division, (or 2 light divsions , and a the the rest would probably go to support units. The Regular Army only has 10 Divisions, and some of them are not at full strength (10th mountain, 2nd ID). It would take a huge strain off of the deployed troops to have the additional manpower thrown into the mix. The main problem is not authorizing the additional troops, the problem comes finding recruits, training and equiping them, and getting them paid. The money has to come from somewhere, and the Army is already stealing from Peter to pay Paul (cutting the Commanche and Paladin) with more cuts to come to help fund Iraq.

[Haiw]

Just shows you how clueless you really are,40,000 men is what 4 divisions?...dude f*** you Argyll, I don't give a damn if your a Moderator...
WTF does that have to do with anything?! Why is it that suddenly now that Argyll has become a mod, half the forum is unable to make a decent discussion with him, and all they produce is a crap remark always containing the word 'moderator'. :roll: Get a grip guys.

[Argyll]

:D I can hold my own Haiw...........but yes it does look like there's a wee hint of jealousy there ;)

Dominique,Thanks for the clarification of the composition of a Division,seeing as you're a current serving soldier,unlike Sean Ashi,would 40,000 extra troops be an added welcome?

[Haiw]

Looking good in that skirt today Argyll...Oh and you playing the bagpipes sounds just wonderfull! You're so great and all!!

What? ;)

[Maj C]

Well it's easy to say I'll authorize you x number of more troops...the hard part - especially for the Army, will be getting that many more people to join. I don't know what the current stats are but I recall that the other branches have not been able to reach their recruiting goals.

Also, manpower is a HUGE drain on our budget...not only are you paying salaries but then you've just brought on all the dependants (an un-PC term now) that the 19 year old PFC with a fat wife and two kids brings along. If more people are brought in it will probably mean a reduction in procurement. It will probably be a replay of the Clinton years - otherwise known as the "Procurement Holiday" that we are still trying to recover from.

I try to stay above the political fracas...but in my opinion it's just a choice between two rich white men all tryin' to keep the brother down!

[Tane Angle]

He will almost certainly ask for the removal of the tax cut. As well he should, one can't fight a war on a tax cut. Benefits and pay need to be increased tremendously.

Some good points there guys, especially Argyll and Gordon. Moderator or not, a good argument should be matched by an equally good, well-thought out argument. With all due respect and no offense to anyone, but only responding with obsenities is admitting that the other person is correct, no? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Bert]

Kerry changed his opinion.. again..

[Haiw]

Some good points there guys, especially Argyll and Gordon. Moderator or not, a good argument should be matched by an equally good, well-thought out argument. With all due respect and no offense to anyone, but only responding with obsenities is admitting that the other person is correct, no? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
You only say that because you're a mod yourself. Damn oppressor!

[FallenAngel]

Didn't the Armed Forces committee come to this same conclusion over a month ago? Over the objections of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Rumsfeld?

Looks to me like Kerry is just telling us what's already been decided. If he wants to reduce involvement on the War on Terror, adding 40,000 more troops isn't the right way to go.

I am just confused by Kerry...that's all. And that's usually a sign of someone who's inconsistant.

[Haiw]

Didn't the Armed Forces committee come to this same conclusion over a month ago? Over the objections of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Rumsfeld?

Looks to me like Kerry is just telling us what's already been decided. If he wants to reduce involvement on the War on Terror, adding 40,000 more troops isn't the right way to go.

I am just confused by Kerry...that's all. And that's usually a sign of someone who's inconsistant.
Why inconsistent? Maybe he just wants to walk more peacefully but with a bigger stick...

[Truthsayer]

Talking peacefull with big sticks, isn't that what the whole cold war was about? =)


Talking aboit inconsitensies...cutting money for 20 000 veterans, underfounding his own education-plan for children with 200M and so on - that is Bush.

I might not like Kerry (neither did I like Al Gore and his little friend) but I don't like the hypocrazy of Bush either.

What I would like to see is infact 3-4 more partys in the US... :|

[YankeeDeVallecas]

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all are on course to make year-end recruiting goals. In the reserve components, the Army National Guard is lagging a bit, but officials have dedicated extra resources to the shortfall and expect to make the recruiting goals by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

The Air Force made its recruiting goals for fiscal 2003, enlisting 32,000 new airmen. This was the fourth year in a row that the service met its goal.

The Navy also is meeting all recruiting goals for fiscal 2003. Navy Recruiting Command officials said the service is on track to bring in 41,767 new sailors. The Navy's retention picture is so good this year, the service was able to lower its goal from the 48,000-recruit target set at the beginning of fiscal 2003.

The Army is doing "very, very well," said Doug Smith, a spokesman with the Army Recruiting Command. The service fully anticipates hitting its recruiting targets this year, as the service has since fiscal 2000, Smith said. Through August, the Army has recruited 67,354 soldiers, with enough enrolled under the delayed entry program to make the 73,800 needed by the end of September. Again, retention has driven down the number of new soldiers needed. The Army's recruiting goal at the beginning of the fiscal year was set at 76,000.

The Marine Corps continues its string of excellent recruiting years. The Corps will "ship" 38,914 recruits to its two training bases. The Marines have monthly, rather than annual, shipping quotas. If the service continues to achieve its recruiting goals through November, it will have done so for 100 straight months.

Retention also is up across the services. This is especially true of service members making the choice to re-enlist following their first term in the service. In the Navy, the "Zone A" re-enlistment rate from October 2002 to June 2003 was 70.3 percent. The Navy's goal was 56 percent.

Air Force "first termers" re-enlisted at a 60 percent rate. The service was shooting for 55 percent. The Army needed 13,833 first-term soldiers to re- enlist. Instead 14,599 soldiers re-upped, for 106 percent of the retention target.

The Marine Corps did not have retention figures available.



I'm not sure what your personal experience is but I know what we have been seeing the last 4 years or so. My experience, at least in the AF, is that recruiting is not a problem at all. In fact there are so many already in so fast that some Aircrew Technical Schools (the first schools, after basic, that recruits go to learn their job) have a waiting time of 6 months to a year. Bunch of guys cutting grass or whatever untill slots come open at the school. Paint those rocks!

As a matter of fact, OTS, OCS in the Army/Navy/Marines, has been dramatically cut back as the primary Officer accension avenues, Academy/ROTC, are so full.

I think 40,000 troops would do a lot to help the deployment picture. Spread the love and all that. I think one of the reasons the Reserves/Guard are deployed so much is that a lot of the jobs that they have are jobs that are now high demand...like Civil Affairs. Tactical airlift (C-130's) are 62% or so Reserve/Guard. So more than half of those you see in country, no matter where, are Reserve/Guard. Will these types of numbers be considered in a restructuring of the Active/Reserve/Guard in the future? Let's hope so...

[YankeeDeVallecas]

Try Liberterian. ;)

[Haiw]

Talking peacefull with big sticks, isn't that what the whole cold war was about? =)
Yeah, the cold war was about who had the biggest stick. Talk about a friggin **** fight! :D