Why can't U.S. troops deploy more efficiently?

Question

We have 1.4 million active, and, about 1 million reserves in the armed services, yet, have difficulty in deploying them to Iraq. Hardly a partisan issue, why is this?

Harley, read the news son.

Answer 1

thats a good question

Answer 2

There's nothing new here. In every major conflict back to WW II, we've been stretched to find combat infantry. Those big numbers you quote are total people in uniform. Only a small minority of them are in the kind of job needed. US forces are highly specialized. Only in the USMC do you find the mindset "every Marine a rifleman," and even there they still have a lot of other job slots to fill. Also, we have a lot of troops in other jobs scattered across the globe, not just the US, Iraq and Afghanistan. The composition of the force structure has been a subject that should have been debated for a long time now, but has no appeal to the public at large.

Answer 3

Our military appears to be in a shamble. Their hospitals are even worse and lets not even talk about the equipment they were sent to Iraq with but repugs want to blame the dems lol.
Enlistment is lower than ever. The repugs can't do anything but make this a partisan issue including Bush.
On the bi-partisan side I think our boys have never been fully prepared for the kind of war they are fighting with suicide bombers a hidden enemy and fighting for democracy in a country that doesn't understand democracy. Plus the fact they are in the middle of a civil war. This is the big reason they need to come home.

Answer 4

Have you ever considered the budget cuts from the Clinton Administration? Hell, if Pelosi had her way, our military would be reduced to nothing. Not being partisan here, but the Democrats have always wanted to cut military spending. Also, the problem with the war is that both parties need to get the hell out of the way and let the military do their job. Too much politics from both sides to run an effective war.

Answer 5

Consider for every fighting person on the ground in Iraq, 20 or so folks are needed to support that trooper. This includes everything from laundry, food and water to fuel. Generals and defense contractors have always wanted high-tech (high-profit) war machines. What we have found to our dismay, is that many of these items are not effective in a low tech war and we need more combat troops. We need more troops and less muilti-million dollar gadgets. The announced deployment extension supports my point.

Answer 6

Two reasons.

One - most aren't trained sufficiently to deal with the mongolian clusterf**k that Iraq has degraded into under the watchful eye of 'fearless leader'.

Two - most aren't combat troops - which is what we are sorely needing over there if there is any chance of pulling of anything resembling a 'victory' in Iraq. The majority are support personell - mechanics, medics, engineers, techs, etc., and wouldn't be much help on the battlefield. Handing a rifle to each one of them and sending them out into the streets of iraq would be signing their death warrant.

Answer 7

Because 80% of them are not in combat roles but are in supporting roles many stateside. Do the math...does not leave too many combat troops to rotate to Iraq. This is why many career military in all services are serving multiple tours.

Answer 8

What difficulty are they having? If you could post the link I would like to read it before answering. Educate yourself son....where is the link?
Nice to see you taking a break from your Hawaii conspiracy.

Answer 9

Look who is commander in chief.