Is our military spread to thin or simply inefficient?

Question

General Pace told congress last week that our nation's risk to carry out our country's military strategy had increased from moderate to significant. This was stated in context of our not having enough troops to deploy with efficiency and speed. Our so called surge troops to be deployed to Iraq, in fact, will not have received the full spectrum of training the army gives our troops, yet, we have 2,000,000 active and reserve armed services personnel. What say you?

The first two answers are irrelevent to the question. Our MILITARY has defined this to be a problem, not me.

Answer 1

Our military is spread too thin, and under protected thanks to their Commander in Chief that knows nothing about running a Co. let alone a military.

Now, he wants to privatize the military too, so his buddies can make some huge bucks off of our young Americans.

.

Answer 2

Look at all our fellow good Americans REFUSING to accept the weakness of our military!! PITY!

Our military is stong, yes. BUT it is inefficient. Corruption runs like a river, training is rushed, and troops have no equipment. The almighty US military exists only in the twisted minds of Hollywood movie directors.

Our military is comparable to a third-world military. Just a damn lot of propaganda has made our military look "invincible" to the general public. WRONG.

Also, our military is stretched thin due to the failed philosophy the Pentagon took after the Cold War. They believed that a small force of highly trained soldiers would beat any larger force. While this works in theory, it sucks in practice.

A large number of troops are needed to win an insurgency. Hell, the Soviets had 100,000+ troops in Afganistan in the 1980's and they LOST to a few thousand insurgents.

Speaking of current events, this "surge" is nothing new. The insurgents just back out of Baghdad or don't attack. They go back to their husband/taxi driver roles. After the so-called "surge" is completed, they take up their AK's and RPG's and attack.

Syria and Iran are dead-against America and they have borders with Iraq. These 2 nations have lived under the constant threat/bullying under American Middle East dominance. Now, with our troops paying the price for the sins of our politicians, these 2 nations are ENJOYING the "payback time" granted to them by the Iraq situation.

I want to make this clear: We HAVE the BEST men. We have the best Air Force and the best Navy and the best Army. But, we must heed to the realities of war instead of hiding behind false myths and pride.

Answer 3

I seriouly doubt that political correctness has anything to do with it, as the first person said. Were we being politically correct when we were toturing people at Abu Gharib? The problem is that we vastly underestimated how difficult the fight was going to be in Iraq.

Answer 4

If you mean the military of the United States, it is one of the best trained and equipped in the world. It is spread way to thin with commitments in three theaters...........

Answer 5

Neither. We hamstring ourselves with rules of engagement, while possessing the firepower to annihilate any enemy. Second, we drew down our military after the cold war. Remember the 'peace dividend'?

Answer 6

Neither.
As others have stated are troops are too handicapped by political correctness.

Answer 7

u . s . military is solid. curiously there's a verbal change problem it truly is blatently being left out. we opt for something we are no longer getting adequate of. oil i assume? Is invading the most inteligent thanks to achieve this?

Answer 8

Neither our military is handicapp by polictical correctness.
Too many out there think war is nice and neat.
Well it isn't.
I say release our military and let them do what they do break things and when they are done move in and clean up send them home.