USA Army is breaking down according to GENERAL

[ralph]

name is 'Robert 'Bob' Scales' think that he is retired and he did run the Army War College . I see him once in awhile on tely , think that he is a FOX news analyst . --- http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gener ... 03563.html ---

[Castle Doctrine]

That is an interesting article. The General and I share many of the same concerns about the condition of the Force. I believe it is absolutely true that the US Army is just about worn out...call it broken...from over a decade of port and starboard combat tours. I am coming to believe that the level of ops necessitated by the legit aspects of the War on Terror simply cannot be sustained by an all volunteer force. We simply do not have enough "wild-eyed Southern boys" to voluntarily feed the meat grinder.

The only issue I have with the article is the failure to address causes in context. The General's remarks were pretty heavily edited it seemed to me. I suspect he addressed this but it was outside the writers area of interest. Causes and context are essential to understanding why these breaks happened and correcting the causal conditions. In Korea our lack of preparedness can be traced back to WWII...just 5 years before. We were sick of spending the mortgage on defense. Sort of similar to why the British fired Churchill. Not much could have been done to prevent this and we really did recover very rapidly. It was a pretty good example of a peacetime, citizen soldier military ramping up for war.

Vietnam presents a whole different situation. The American people decided they were tired of the war and wouldn't fight it anymore. Now, with an all-volunteer force this might not be so devastating. But, a large component of our forces were conscripts...directly from the population that had decided they wouldn't fight anymore. There was only one solution to this break, end the Vietnam War and take the time and expense needed to rebuild and reconstitute the Force. The all-volunteer force was sort of the bastard child of the Vietnam War.

Today, the problems are more complex and, perhaps, more amenable to correction. The most serious of these is simply over-utilization. To fix that we have to be more selective in how we use the military we have while reconstituting the Force and allowing it to recover from the abuse it has suffered. At the same time, we need to spend on real military needs and substantive upgrades to the existing TOE. All the programs cancelled or put on hold don't meet this standard. The military has ALWAYS been worse than kids with a Christmas catalog...they want everything they are told about. The problem is they only need part of that stuff and some...not at all.

We tend to focus on the present to a very great extent. We don't ask ourselves nearly often enough WHY the present situation developed or how best to correct it. It is much easier to just be outraged that the situation exists.

[planosteve]

We should have mothballed the military after WWII. Especially the Navy. Who cares what govt they have in Korea or Viet Nam or the whole fu*king middle east. The founding fathers were right. A standing miliary is a curse and a disaster waiting to happen.

[GFB]

All we need are Nukes and Daisy Cutters..all situations covered.

[Castle Doctrine]

All we need are Nukes and Daisy Cutters..all situations covered.

Not really, Jodie. Seriously, that is an extremely simple minded statement displaying a total lack of military and geopolitical awareness.

You are talking about something of which you don't know JACK! And it shows.

[jellowrestling]

We should have mothballed the military after WWII. Especially the Navy. Who cares what govt they have in Korea or Viet Nam or the whole fu*king middle east. The founding fathers were right. A standing miliary is a curse and a disaster waiting to happen.

They tried that after WWI. Didn't work out too well.

[grouchy]

All we need are Nukes and Daisy Cutters..all situations covered.

Not really, Jodie. Seriously, that is an extremely simple minded statement displaying a total lack of military and geopolitical awareness.

You are talking about something of which you don't know JACK! And it shows.

Amazing isn't it?

[planosteve]

We should have mothballed the military after WWII. Especially the Navy. Who cares what govt they have in Korea or Viet Nam or the whole fu*king middle east. The founding fathers were right. A standing miliary is a curse and a disaster waiting to happen.

They tried that after WWI. Didn't work out too well.

If we had stayed out of WWI there would have been no WWII. It would have been just yet another European war. Something that a lot of people left Europe to avoid. Instead England and France were able to force unreasonable surrender terms on Germany which ultimately led to the rise of Hitler. There never was a "good" war.

[GFB]

All we need are Nukes and Daisy Cutters..all situations covered.

Not really, Jodie. Seriously, that is an extremely simple minded statement displaying a total lack of military and geopolitical awareness.

You are talking about something of which you don't know JACK! And it shows.

All of our problems in winning wars have come from trying to pinpoint targets and avoid "collateral" damage.

Wars are won by killing civilians..not people in uniforms.

[ralph]

all I know is that the firebombing of Dresden Germany and nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima did a heck of a lot of good for the USA and its allies plus my Dad and remaining Uncle . I think that those 3 targets were mostly full of civilian enemies .

[ralph]

All we need are Nukes and Daisy Cutters..all situations covered.

Not really, Jodie. Seriously, that is an extremely simple minded statement displaying a total lack of military and geopolitical awareness.

You are talking about something of which you don't know JACK! And it shows.

All of our problems in winning wars have come from trying to pinpoint targets and avoid "collateral" damage.

Wars are won by killing civilians..not people in uniforms.

PINPOINT Targets , that mrobamas game as he puts on a tiny show in the middle east . We have current Pinpoint and pinprick bombings as mrobama avoids doing real harm to the enemy that's working on rebuilding the 'caliphate' that's only been gone for a hundred years .

[Castle Doctrine]

all I know is that the firebombing of Dresden Germany and nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima did a heck of a lot of good for the USA and its allies plus my Dad and remaining Uncle . I think that those 3 targets were mostly full of civilian enemies .

Dresden is something of a national embarrassment now. It was a city of no real strategic value but a center of culture and arts. It was bombed supposedly to aid the Russian's advance but really didn't help them at all. It was actually a terror bombing on the lines of Rotterdam but MUCH worse. And, yes, it was full of civilians.

Now, the nukes on Japan are another matter. I fully support those actions and always have. They served a real strategic purpose and saved lives...ultimately, more Japanese lives than Allied. Have you ever looked at the invasion plans for Japan? Coronet and Olympic were the two elements of the overall plan, Operation Downfall. Olympic was the first phase calling for the invasion of the Southern plains. It called for using UP TO 9 nukes on and behind the Japanese lines as part of the pre-invasion prep. How would that have worked out...carpet bombing mentality (like GfB's) using nukes (even little ones) is a bit scary.

The Japanese targets were, of course, civilian centers, but were chosen for having significant military and industrial target value. With Japan, I think you can justify the term "civilian enemies"...none of them wanted to quit. But, in Europe not so much...more a matter of enemy civilians.

[GFB]

all I know is that the firebombing of Dresden Germany and nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima did a heck of a lot of good for the USA and its allies plus my Dad and remaining Uncle . I think that those 3 targets were mostly full of civilian enemies .

It was all about killing civilians.

[ralph]

embarrassment to people like YOU perhaps 'cd' . Course , I'm happy to look back and see the results of all 3 places that were destroyed . And destroyed for a good cause which was to allow my Dad to become my Dad and to allow my Uncle to become Dad to my cousins 'cd' . It was all worth it for those reasons but that kinda fighting also removed 2 systems of human subjugation and war to be removed from earth .

[planosteve]

I don't understand why people assume that the only options were to nuke Japan or invade it. They were certainly beaten by then. They had no way to obtain oil unless we let them have it. We could have just gone home. So, my guess it was ego, bloodlust, revenge and pure stupidity to do so.

[ralph]

don't know why the word STUPIDITY is being used by you Steve , heck , the idea worked , no invasion was done , my Dad and remaining Uncle came home , I was born a few years later and the USA got some new hardware tested for both reliability and effect . So , looks like a 'win win' to me . --------- Your other descriptive words might be applicable though !!

[planosteve]

don't know why the word STUPIDITY is being used by you Steve , heck , the idea worked , no invasion was done , my Dad and remaining Uncle came home , I was born a few years later and the USA got some new hardware tested for both reliability and effect . So , looks like a 'win win' to me . --------- Your other descriptive words might be applicable though !!

I had an uncle there too. He came back too. But, he would have come back regardless. Japan was totally beaten. Tokyo had already been virtually destroyed with firebombing. There didn't need to be more bloodshed. Or an occupation. And had we just left and come home we could likely have avoided the Korean War and the expense of 60 some years of Korean occupation which still goes on today. That's why it was stupid.

[ralph]

like I said , we differ on the word stupidity but without nuking of Japan the USA would have never seen the results of its atom bomb testing so that's good enough for me . Then you could say that it was REVENGE which sounds ok to me Steve . Heck , japan did a sneak attack , they deserved what they got .

[planosteve]

Heck , japan did a sneak attack , they deserved what they got .

Your wrong on that one, but not something I want to get into at the moment.

[ralph]

not looking for any revisionist history Steve , japan was an enemy , they deserved what they got in my opinion . Some in the middle east should get the same deal , imo !!