WASHINGTON - Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, ( Like Korea and Iran) according to a new report to Congress.
The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.
The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. The USA can not handle anymore wars. The USA, Sad to say, has reached the limits of readiness.
2007-02-26 18:01:09 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yeah, I agree with 10 mm. Our guys are beginning to burn out, but congress is still dragging their feet on this resolution and have not voted either way. So you could honestly say that this is now the Congress' fault. They don't want to approve the money, or the man power to replace the soldiers that need to come home for awhile.
However, if you got on to the DoD Web site, there are many articles which are more accurate and describe the current situation much better. (I want my family home, too. I feel badly that these guys are made to wait for congress to make up their stupid, liberal minds.)
2007-02-26 18:09:31 · answer #1 · answered by chole_24 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The military is not 'going down hill'. Responding to another crisis would be a daunting task, but it would take a national commitment. There are currently over 1.4 million active duty personnel and another 800 thousand in the reserve/guard. There are about 110 million males and females age 17-49 with about 4 million reaching military age every year[1].That's about only 2 out of every 100 currently serving. And only 10% of our active military currently involved in the current conflict(plus support establishment). I would hope that in the time of 'crisis' Americans would step up and serve. the only question would be how fast we could convert our industries to produce the needed equipment. We must remember that during WW II when you served you usually didn't come home unless you were injured, in a box, or until the war was over. So, what is your commitment to freedom? What are you willing to sacrifice for your freedom and security? What have you done?
Note: the use of you and your do not specifically mean the writer of the question, but anyone in general.
2007-02-27 03:25:07 · answer #2 · answered by neeno 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I seem to recall from reading history we did not expect the military to have as much spare capacity as in peacetime when a war was being fought.
Even the concept of limited deployment and troop rotation that seems ingraned into our current policy would not have even been considered in most past wars.
Anyway the concept that we need to be able to immediately squash multiple additional opponents is not a sign of weakness.
If North Korea decided to fight a war now, they would be crushed in a matter of weeks just like before 9/11. The US military is far better than any other conventional military force in the world in terms of training and technology. It is not like any country could fight an offensive war against the US interests without being slaughtered. A few could fight defensive wars due to thier large size or populaions but even with the current state of the us Military, I would not bet on any country in a fight aginst the USA.
2007-02-27 02:18:40 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Fred 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is a scary though that our military would not be able to respond. The problem is in a time like this when the United States of America
has enemies that can terrorize our people(radical muslims) and nuclear superpowers that are possibly stronger than us( China).That we do not have proper funding. Now this plan might sound radical but this would work good.
1. raise military spending by 10%
2. with the money manufacture more equipment.
3. Reinstate the draft
4 increase army size to 1.5 million and Marine Corps size to 700,00
5. Launch a preemtive strike against Iran bomb em back to stone age.
6. Then attack north korea with help from south korea topple the government and let south korea annex the remains of the north
7. China will see the might of the United States and will back off. problem solved.
2007-02-27 02:30:31 · answer #4 · answered by clayman 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That's why I've been advocating a new draft. I'm opposed to it unless it is done fairly, and not only directed against minorities and the poor, and also how would drafting women fit in to the equation? The military is relaxing their standards on who can enlist because they can't meet their recruiting quotas. The National Guard is also spread thin, and especially those in the southwestern and western states are needed to patrol the borders. It's not happening. You are absolutely right about the readiness of the military. They are also under-armed. When parents have to buy body armor on e-bay, then we have a problem! Also, I blame stupid intelligence & lousy military leadership and planning. We haven't used our forces to the best of its ability, but again, we're short and I believe will have to resort to a draft in the event we go to war with Iran or North Korea.
2007-02-27 02:10:35 · answer #5 · answered by gone 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When Bill Clinton took office, the US Army had 20 divisions. When he left, we had 10. Those divisions that the Clinton administration eliminated where never replaced. This also happenend on similiar scale to the other branches of the military.
The military is not going downhill. We have the best of the best serving, unlike the general population who wants to know what they can get from their government.
2007-02-27 02:55:41 · answer #6 · answered by ric9757 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Massive contracts to big corporations to do the basic maintenance, and everyday operations making our military less self sufficient. Also Private contractors working alongside the military making 10 times as much as the troops give a poor impression to the troops of their value to the nation. Not to mention poor leadership from the top down, revolving door to defense contractors for leaders, causes a shift in values from good leadership skills to corporate follower mentality. Gen. Patton would have never made it in today's military. Same with more contemporary soldiers like Col.Hackworth.
2007-02-27 02:19:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One thing they taught me first when I was in basic training was who the number one military threat in the world is...and that is us. They taught us that the same time they taught us that the highest rank in the military is General of the Army. We have no reason to think journalism like this is nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the basic cowardice of the left. It is just the left playing with fire again, and they aren't going to scare anyone with this kind of talk. I hope you look for more sources of information. It might reveal a lot more than you think. I give my salute to those troops in the Middle East.
2007-02-27 02:17:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because the enemy we now fight is hiding and dressing among civilians, uses women and children as shields, and we are not able to shoot back. If we fought a civilized enemy that followed the Geneva Conventions I think we could stand a chance. Because the US Military is stronger and more skilled than other army, but when we can not fight the enemy back, of course we can never win.
2007-02-27 02:08:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Our military is not going down hill, they're still the best in the world. There are problems with supplies getting to them in a timely manner, and there are fewer new recruits than they need. The soldiers are war-weary, and deserve a break. But "going downhill" seems to imply they're at fault for administrative issues.
2007-02-27 02:08:32 · answer #10 · answered by Cthon 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋