You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front
In an AP interview Shoemaker charecterizes the war as "Useful"
2004-01-22
EFL
The head of the United States army has said that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have provided a "tremendous focus" for the military. General Peter Schoomaker said in an interview with AP news agency that the wars had allowed the army to instil its soldiers with a "warrior ethos". But the general, who became chief of staff in August, denied warmongering saying the army must be ready to fight.
Why have an army unless it is? Unless you're Belgium...
He also said he doubted recruiting more troops was a solution to army stress. "You aren’t stronger because you have more people," he said, adding that expanding the army was similar to pouring water on sand. Many senior military figures have expressed concern about "overstretch", a problem which has become particularly acute in post-war situations like Iraq which require more troops than combat. But General Schoomaker says the answer could be to expand combat strength by freeing troops from other assignments.

General Schoomaker said the attacks on America in September 2001 and subsequent events had given the US army a rare opportunity to change. "There is a huge silver lining in this cloud," he said. "War is a tremendous focus... Now we have this focusing opportunity, and we have the fact that [terrorists] have actually attacked our homeland, which gives it some oomph." He said it was no use having an army that did nothing but train. "There’s got to be a certain appetite for what the hell we exist for," he said. "I’m not warmongering, the fact is we’re going to be called and really asked to do this stuff."
I think I can explain where Shoemaker and Rumsfeld are headed with the idea of expanding the military from within by reassigning military members to military duties. I received a cash bonus to retire during the 90’s because the military was being downsized. If I had stayed in my next set of orders was to the Safety Center in Norfolk. My job description would have been to check-up on contractors who were providing materials that conformed to DOD safety specifications. There were three other officers assigned to that duty as well as a bunch of civilians. The reason that this activity was not 100% accomplished by civilian personnel was that civilians wouldn’t work through breaks, lunch or stay late without overtime pay. The activities that I would have been assigned would not have improved my capabilities as a warrior by one iota, but it would have taken an act of Congress - quite literally - to alter job descriptions or assign new duties to a civilian employee. Facilitating these type of changes are what I think brought Rumsfeld and Shoemaker out of retirement. It is doubtful that either needs the cashflow.
Posted by:Super Hose

#1  Sorry Fred, this should have been under Homefront.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-1-22 11:48:37 AM  

00:00