Article

2004-03-13 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-03-13 1:04:13 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I disagree. We need 3 more Armored Cav (light) Regiments. Essentially Stryker Brigades with more integral support (Air, Engineers, logistics). Those are oriented towards patrolling, counter insurgency, and are trained to operate with initiative and considerable elan. Add in Col Hackworth's old idea about a platoon (or better, a company) of Rangers for every brigade, and you have the force mix set up to do exactly what you need, and at just the right size to do it.

2ACR has done a bang up job - you dont hear much about them, and thats because they are winning and doing it with low casualties and good will from the locals. Thats what we need more of.

Well, that and a couple MP brigades: basically 3 battalions of Armored HMMV's equipped for mobile and dismounted patrolling and a battalion sized "Heavy Team" to back them up - heavy team consisting of 3 combined arms teams [each team = 1 or 2 tank platoon, 2 or 1 APC Mech Infantry platoons, HQ elements in tracks] for urbanized areas. And mabye a company of combat engineers for EOD and such.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-3-13 1:56:58 AM|| 2004-3-13 1:56:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 This is one of the things that ticks me off most about the administration. Whatever you think about the whys and wherefores of this war, on 9/12 army expansion should have been on the table and the new units would have been available right now.

Some one should explain to Rummy that you can blather all you want about "efficiency" but there has been no war I've ever read of that has been efficient in the accountant's sense; just win baby.

Posted by Hiryu 2004-3-13 9:20:59 AM|| 2004-3-13 9:20:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Meanwhile, Hiryu, Congress has offered to increace the authorization for the number of troops the Army can handle, but not the budget. The funny thing is, if the DoD and Rummy say it's a temporary increace, they can actually get the money to pay for things like ceramic inserts for the extra troops, but if they say it's a permanent increase, Congress won't fund it. So what do they do? They go ahead and say the former, because that way they actually get the money to pay for the extra troops.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-3-13 10:22:13 AM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-3-13 10:22:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I've ever read of that has been efficient in the accountant's sense; just win baby.
Yep, done.

Posted by Shipman 2004-3-13 10:22:21 AM|| 2004-3-13 10:22:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I am a vet so I kind of understand the 'wanting to go home' the units have when they booted Hussein. Lets remember that for 50 odd years the Army has been in Germany and Japan. If they don't form a pemanant Armed presence in Iraq, units have to rotate in and out. It won't be until the Iraqi Army is reconstituded and civil police force installed that the Army can think of permanantly leaving Iraq. Rummy understands this but how many politicians that claim to be experts on foregn policy understand this? I think we stay until the job is done right. If that means that my son (17) may have to pull a tour in Iraq in 2007 so be it.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-3-13 10:31:39 AM|| 2004-3-13 10:31:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 "plus a division headquarters from the New York National Guard" -- Hope it is the 77ID. Back in WWII, the 77ID fought in the Pacific, often with the Marines. It did so well that it was requested by the Marines in Guam (I believe). The Marines nicknamed it the "77th Marine Division".

Posted by Highlander 2004-3-13 11:28:15 AM|| 2004-3-13 11:28:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 42ID Headquarters is the one going, AFAIK

Posted by ElRealistico 2004-3-13 11:51:38 AM|| 2004-3-13 11:51:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Hiryu: Some one should explain to Rummy that you can blather all you want about "efficiency" but there has been no war I've ever read of that has been efficient in the accountant's sense; just win baby.

The additional money won't just materialize from thin air. It carries with it a steep political price. Look at how Kerry felt he could get away with voting against the $87B appropriation for Iraq. Asking for more defense money is a loser with the voters. Should Bush risk his political capital to get a permanent appropriations increase? Not if it's going to jeopardize his chances of getting re-elected - a President Kerry would raid this appropriations increase to fund his socialized health care scheme, saying that there would be no net increase in federal spending.

This is what Clinton did repeatedly throughout the '90's. This is why the budget deficit is through the roof, as it was in the '80's. Defense spending is a mere 20% of the total federal budget today, but was 27% during the '80's. And yet we have roughly the same deficit. Why? Because in the '90's, Congress conducted repeated raids on military expenditures to pay for social spending. Instead of drawing down the Cold War military and cutting taxes, Congress left taxes the way they were and increased social spending. This is why we're at this juncture - with bloated social spending and a downsized military machine* during a time of war.

* Reporters commonly talk about the record size of the military budget, without mentioning the fact that these are not inflation-adjusted dollars - social programs have increased by much more, just to keep up with inflation. By contrast, the military equipment budget is at the lowest level it has been in a while. The 600-ship navy has been halved, the Air Force hasn't fielded a new fighter in over 2 decades, programs have been repeatedly shelved for lack of funds, et al. And concurrent with this downsizing of the equipment budget, military manpower has been cut in two.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-3-13 12:04:21 PM|| 2004-3-13 12:04:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Efficiency - look hard at the current NG structure. If their heavy / light divisions are too broke to be used - get rid of them and use the savings to stand up active duty regiments. Efficiency and accountability are not bad things.

Posted by JP 2004-3-13 4:38:53 PM|| 2004-3-13 4:38:53 PM|| Front Page Top

13:38 azul93gt
05:05 Anonymous
02:50 The Dodo
01:06 Old Patriot
00:56 CrazyFool
23:47 Phil B
23:38 Spiny Norman
23:18 Atomic Conspiracy
23:17 Anonymous
23:17 Aris Katsaris
23:12 Atomic Conspiracy
23:00 Alaska Paul
23:00 Atomic Conspiracy
23:00 mojo
22:59 mojo
22:53 Phil B
22:38 Frank G
22:36 .com
22:34 Scott
22:33 Mr. Davis
22:31 Mr. Davis
22:27 Phil B
22:23 Mr. Davis
22:15 True German Ally