You answered your own question. Over a million NON-ACTIVE forces. That means reservists with lives outside of the military. Military is secondary or tertiary to their lives unlike actives.
2007-01-27 15:16:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Beachman 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
During the Clinton administration, the military was a secondary concern and serious reductions resulted. Many active units were replaced, on paper, by reserve units. The total number of active duty people was reduced. The theory before Clinton was the ability to conduct a two front war. Now the numbers of active personnel just don't exist to fight on two fronts. The reserves are suppose to makeup the difference. A combat soldier requires about 15-20 support people, in all areas of the military. 'None active forces' could mean almost anything but don't forget that large numbers of Navy and Air Force personnel are not in a position to serve in the Iraq theater. And we still have to man all the other military bases and operations throughout the world.
The original concept of the reserves supplementing the active military was based on a general mobilization of all forces. With the reduction of active forces, the role of the reserves changed from supplement to 'take the place of'. Much harder to do.
I'm guessing that "stretched too thin" is in reference to the ability to conduct operations on another front. The forces just aren't available.
2007-01-27 23:31:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by jack w 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
....Because it is stretched. Trust Me. I know. I'm a Military Wife & over half of the troops who come home from deployments & have their contracts up are discharging & enlistments are down. Where we are stationed, 4400 troops came home between the months of August & October last year. Apprx. 3100 discharged, many discharged even though they were DAMN close to Retirement & were offered alot to stay. Doesn't matter. So yes.. it IS stretched. Why do you think the deployments are being extended 6 months or more???? Oh, btw.. our pay that we get when our troops are deployed over 365 days, it triples, in some cases MORE than triples. Where do you think that $$$ comes from? We just got awesome raises, too. I suggest tax payers get out there & vote on this next election. :)
2007-01-27 23:35:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by ~ARMY WIFE~ 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Key word there, non-active. And we are understaffed for the requirements of the multitude of missions we are assigned. That's an actual, provable fact. I challenge anyone that wants to dispute that to provide evidence to the contrary.
Remember, only 5-10% of all military personnel are assigned primary combat duty. Most of the military is the support structure. But the uneducated assume that every sailor, airman, soldier and Marine is a frontline combatant. If we had 1,000,000 frontline servicemembers with the required number of support personell for them, then we wouldn't be stretched too thin.
2007-01-27 23:16:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Devil Dog '73 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most people, including generals and politicians, think in terms of big armies fighting big armies. They have not come around completely to the technologies we have. If we had to fight several fronts at once, we do not have enough soldiers. At the height of the Viet Nam war, we had over a million troops over there.
We should be using more black operations. LRRP's were very successful in Viet Nam. You send in six soldiers who are trained in sneak and peek. When they find the enemy, they make a call. With GPS and our homing systems, nothing is safe.
2007-01-27 23:45:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by jack-copeland@sbcglobal.net 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have forses all over the world. In korea,all over the middle east etc. They are stretched some guys are going there 3rd tour. The ones that noactive are the ones here guarding our borders and land. Plus you have the office workers planners etc. Plus think about how many of our good people we lost so far in Iraq
2007-01-27 23:32:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by brenda b 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Does streached mean they are reaching out across the street?
Then yes, they will become thin if a vehicle speeds by and flatten their you-know-what.
2007-01-27 23:18:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
1st - according to wikipedia that is the situation, but then again you can' trust everythig you read or see in the media because it's geared toward a bias point of view...2nd, why not just ask those people why they are saying such things...
2007-01-27 23:31:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Rumfeld posted that Wiki entry.
2007-01-27 23:16:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Britney Spears 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Haha! Just ask any one of the troops being sent back for ANOTHER EXTENDED TOUR!
2007-01-27 23:27:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Timothy M 5
·
0⤊
1⤋