PDA

View Full Version : U.S. reserves nearly 'broken,' says chief


Volcana
Jan 5th, 2005, 11:35 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6790738/

U.S. reserves nearly 'broken,' says chief
Iraq, Afghan conflicts sap military resources


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army Reserve, tapped heavily to provide soldiers for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is “degenerating into a ‘broken’ force” due to dysfunctional military policies, the Army Reserve’s chief said in a memo made public Wednesday.
“I do not wish to sound alarmist. I do wish to send a clear, distinctive signal of deepening concern,” Lt. Gen. James Helmly said in a Dec. 20 memo to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker.
The Army Reserve is a force of 200,000 part-time soldiers who opted not to sign up for the active-duty Army but can be mobilized from their civilian lives in times of national need. About 52,000 Army Reserve soldiers are on active duty, with 17,000 in Iraq and 2,000 in Afghanistan, the Army said.

The Army Reserve has provided many military police, civil affairs soldiers, medics and truck drivers for the wars.

“While ability to meet the current demands associated with OIF (Operational Iraqi Freedom) and OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan) is of great importance, the Army Reserve is additionally in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements including those in named OPLANS (operational plans) and CONUS (continental United States) emergencies, and is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken’ force,” Helmly wrote.

Helmly said military leaders had rebuffed his proposals for change. The memo’s purpose was to inform Schoomaker of the Army Reserve’s “inability — under current policies, procedures and practices governing mobilization, training and reserve component manpower management — to meet mission requirements” for the two wars, Helmly wrote.

'Dysfunctional practices’
In his eight-page memo, first disclosed by the Baltimore Sun, Helmly titled one section “US Army Reserve Readiness Discussion, Past Dysfunctional Practices/Policies.”

The Pentagon, maintaining higher-than-expected troop levels after failing to anticipate that a bloody guerrilla war would follow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s ouster in 2003, has relied heavily on Army Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers. These part-time troops comprise about 40 percent of the U.S. force in Iraq.

Some reservists and families have complained about frequent and lengthy tours in war zones, inferior equipment and scant notice before being pressed into service.

Helmly’s remarks gave fuel to critics of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who argue that his policies and his resistance to a large increase in the active-duty Army are harming the all-volunteer military.

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island called the memo ”deeply disturbing,” adding: “By consistently underestimating the number of troops necessary for the successful occupation of Iraq, the administration has placed a tremendous burden on the Army Reserve and created this crisis.”

Volunteer versus mercenary
Helmly referred to “potential ‘sociological’ damage” to the all-volunteer military by paying inducements of $1,000 extra per month to reservists who volunteer to remobilize.

“We must consider the point at which we confuse ’volunteer to become an American Soldier’ with 'mercenary,”’ Helmly said.

Helmly said Pentagon reluctance to issue orders calling reservists to active duty “in a timely manner” resulted in more than 10,000 reserve soldiers getting as little as three to five days notice before being compelled back into uniform.

A senior Army official said Schoomaker and Army Secretary Francis Harvey were reviewing the memo. “Changes are expected over time, and the Army is already working these issues. The memo just brings it to the forefront,” the official said.

martirogi
Jan 6th, 2005, 12:06 AM
dont u get tired of digging up these horribley biased articles everyday

harloo
Jan 6th, 2005, 12:11 AM
dont u get tired of digging up these horribley biased articles everyday
are you in Bush's cabinet?:lol:

Volcana
Jan 6th, 2005, 12:15 AM
dont u get tired of digging up these horribley biased articles everydayWhat 'horribley biased article' are you refering to? What side of the story is the article in question failing to tell?

Now, if you're asking if I get tired of posting articles that make the Bush administration look like incompetent idiots, you have to understand that posting them is easy, and finding them is easier. No digging is required. The most conservative, pro Bush new sites have this article. Here's a link to the same article on FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143471,00.html).

martirogi
Jan 6th, 2005, 12:30 AM
posting only the negative articles about the administration is biased, i would try to post positive things but it would take a superhuman effort to compete with your hate

Volcana
Jan 6th, 2005, 12:46 AM
posting only the negative articles about the administration is biased, i would try to post positive things but it would take a superhuman effort to compete with your hateYou said the ARTICLES were biased.dont u get tired of digging up these horribley biased articles everydayThe ARTICLES are completely fair and reasonable.

As for me, I hold the Bush administration in utter contempt. They are a pack of corrupt, incompetent criminals, leavened with religious extremists who care nothing for the good of the United States. Is it really fair to call me 'biased':), for posting facts that support that truth? Calling Bush a lying, thieving tool of special interests who cares nothing for the lives of American soldiers or their families, or the future of America itself, is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a mass murderer.

martirogi
Jan 6th, 2005, 04:25 AM
well i disagree, i dont think bush has intentionally lied or thieved, obviously u care more for the soldiers since the alternative is to abandon iraq and leave it to the terrorists that will kill them later

how can they be incompetent if they are smart enough pull off all your accusations

bias is not a bad thing, claiming yourself unbiased is ridiculous- look at your statement

Bacardi
Jan 6th, 2005, 04:49 AM
Look for the draft soon, even thou he didn't promise it, there's no way on earth we can avoid it.

Philbo
Jan 6th, 2005, 05:35 AM
well i disagree, i dont think bush has intentionally lied or thieved, obviously u care more for the soldiers since the alternative is to abandon iraq and leave it to the terrorists that will kill them later

how can they be incompetent if they are smart enough pull off all your accusations

bias is not a bad thing, claiming yourself unbiased is ridiculous- look at your statement
Wake up and smell the coffee..

I suppose you are one of the 40% of stupid, brainwashed FOOLS who STILL believe there was a link between Saddam and Al Queda!!

If you really believe that the current administration hasnt lied to the world then you really are incapable of independent thought - you are simply swallowing the bullshit you are being fed.

Dont feel so bad though, 53% of americans are in the same position as you.

Onto the topic - Its been coming to this for quite a while. I watched a good doco the other night about this very issue and there were a number of ex high ranking Defense officials who have been booted out of the force for having the audacity to speak out against Rumsfeld et al talkign about how the US Army was 'broken' after Vietnam - overextended, crumbling, ill equipped to deal with anything at the end of the Vietnam war.... and they were all talking about how its approaching that same state now.

The policies around 'stop loss' or whatever it is called where enlisted people cannot quit the force in the first 6 months of returning home froma tour of duty, and making them do repeated tours is causing a situation where a large % soliders that volunteered after 9/11 will be ina situation where they will have been serving in Afgan or Iraq for 75% of the time they've been in the army...

This sort of scenario is NOT what these people thought they'd be getting themselves into (CONSTANTLY stationed in the war zones) and the loss of personell will only increase and get worse.

As bad as it sounds, but I HOPE THE DRAFT IS INTRODUCED.

Something needs to happen to SHOCK 53% of the american public into realising the errors of their ways. Seeing many good christian and mormom young men get shipped off to Iraq to die in a needless war will be just what the USA needs to swing the pendulum of the political climate back to the left, and hopefully help the USA recover from Bush and his cronies taking the USA backwards 30 years...

Infiniti2001
Jan 6th, 2005, 06:28 AM
As bad as it sounds, but I HOPE THE DRAFT IS INTRODUCED.

Something needs to happen to SHOCK 53% of the american public into realising the errors of their ways. Seeing many good christian and mormom young men get shipped off to Iraq to die in a needless war will be just what the USA needs to swing the pendulum of the political climate back to the left, and hopefully help the USA recover from Bush and his cronies taking the USA backwards 30 years...



I agree with that. Nothing could end republican dominance faster than that. :tape:

Volcana
Jan 6th, 2005, 07:01 AM
since the alternative is to abandon iraq and leave it to the terrorists that will kill them laterI don't think we should exit Oraq now because we turned it into a war zone and a haven for terrorists, and it's our responsibility to clean it up. However, it WAS NOT a 'haven for terrorists' BEFORE we invaded. We BROUGHT civil war to Iraq.

how can they be incompetent if they are smart enough pull off all your accusationsDoes Bush standing in front of a big banner saying 'Mission Accomplished' jog your memory? How about turning a Federal budget surplus into historic levels of Federal budget deficits? (Of which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan account for only about 20% of?) How about getting a memo in August 2001 'bin Laden determined to strike US' and ignoring it? Sending soldiers to Iraq without flak jackets? Sending them out in unarmored Humvees? Sending out in Humvees period? The Bradley fighting vehicle was famous boondoggle, but it's a vastly superior infantry platform than Humvees! How about Abu Ghraib? Ring a bell?

If there's one thing I have an almost unlimited supply of, it's examples of theft and dishonesty on the past of the Bush administration. Hell, I've got over four years worth, starting with stealing the vote in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election. How about opening a virtual spiggot of money to Halliburton in no-bid contracts? Or did you miss that? How about the Clear Skies Initiative, which is already making the air dirtier? Or the latest proposal to protect Pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits? Sure Bush CLAIMS it's to lessen health care costs, but lawsuits in toto only make up about 2% of health care costs. I worked for an insurance bureau for seven years. What drives up the cost of health care is the profit margins of insurance companies! (There's a company in the USA called Insurance Services office, that tells 99% of the insurance companies in America exactly what the cost of coverage for any illness or category of person. I've worked in their databases. I know the difference between insurance companies costs and what they charge. Bush is lying through his teeth with every word he says about 'tort reform'.)

Feel free to tell the other side of the story on any of those, since I'm not doing it.

"Sluggy"
Jan 6th, 2005, 08:32 AM
posting only the negative articles about the administration is biased, i would try to post positive things but it would take a superhuman effort to compete with your hate


Im with you man. It is so tedious and tiresome and a I swear, though ive been a democrat all of my life, people like him, make me want to vote right.

martirogi
Jan 6th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Feel free to tell the other side of the story on any of those, since I'm not doing it.


Sigh... Fine. He stood in front of Mission Accomplishment because Iraq was defeated and that part of the war was over, no president could hav done anything to prevent sept 11 and all would have reacted the same way to that memo, Bush does not decide which equipment the soldiers get if anyone is to blame blame rumsfeld, abu ghriad happened thousands of miles away and bush had no idea until he saw it on tv like the rest of us, bush did not steal any vote i live in florida and he did in fact win the state's popular vote, lawsuits are out of control and need to be capped how does running a pharaceumitical companies out of business help anyone

about the rest im not informed enough to comment, so u could be right. im not a blind follower of bush but im sure u dont believe that.

griffin
Jan 6th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Sigh... Fine. He stood in front of Mission Accomplishment because Iraq was defeated and that part of the war was over, no president could hav done anything to prevent sept 11 and all would have reacted the same way to that memo, Bush does not decide which equipment the soldiers get if anyone is to blame blame rumsfeld, abu ghriad happened thousands of miles away and bush had no idea until he saw it on tv like the rest of us, bush did not steal any vote i live in florida and he did in fact win the state's popular vote, lawsuits are out of control and need to be capped how does running a pharaceumitical companies out of business help anyone

about the rest im not informed enough to comment, so u could be right. im not a blind follower of bush but im sure u dont believe that.

Out of curiosity - do you think Bush is responsible for anything the members of his adminsitration do? Do you think that he's at least resposible for not firing the likes of Rumsfeld when their actions became known? (forget that "what happened in abu ghriad" started happening in Guantanamo months if not years earlier, and memos have in fact traced the authorization for those methods back to the White House...)

"Sluggy"
Jan 6th, 2005, 04:44 PM
You said the ARTICLES were biased.The ARTICLES are completely fair and reasonable.

As for me, I hold the Bush administration in utter contempt. They are a pack of corrupt, incompetent criminals, leavened with religious extremists who care nothing for the good of the United States. Is it really fair to call me 'biased':), for posting facts that support that truth? Calling Bush a lying, thieving tool of special interests who cares nothing for the lives of American soldiers or their families, or the future of America itself, is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a mass murderer.


Is there an American administration that you would not hold in contempt? how far back would you have to go? Would Clintons administration be pro-left of pro-Arab enough for you? Do you work alone, or is someone feeding you this stuff?

Volcana
Jan 6th, 2005, 11:41 PM
Is there an American administration that you would not hold in contempt?I believe my phrase was 'utter contempt', but yes, there are American administrations I didn't hold in contempt.[QUOTE=Bunker]how far back would you have to go?Clinton. Bush I. Carter. Ford. Nixon. Johnson. Kennedy

Reagan was the only president I truly despised before the incumbent.Would Clintons administration be pro-left of pro-Arab enough for you?No. Clinton was a Republican, as far as I'm concerned. I didn't vote for the guy either time.Do you work alone, or is someone feeding you this stuff?I work alone. But 'this stuff' is front page news on FoxNews.com, MSNBC.com, CNN.com, the National Review Online, Aljazeera, Haaretz (thank you Oleh, they aren't bad at all) the New York Times website, the boston globe website. I don't have to go looking for anti-Bush material. It's readily available on websites from all over the world, from some of the most conservative, to some of the most liberal.

Volcana
Jan 7th, 2005, 12:00 AM
im not a blind follower of bush but im sure u dont believe that.I haven't read enough posts containing your political beliefs to have an opinion on that. Whatever your opinions are, I hoped they're informed.