Article

2007-01-12 Home Front: WoT

Gates to urge boosting US military by 92,000

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 2007-01-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Oh my gawd! That's going to make 'em squeal!

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-01-12 07:59|| 2007-01-12 07:59|| Front Page Top

#2 Why do I picture a seething Rumsfeld pounding his fists on the kitchen table?

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-12 08:40|| 2007-01-12 08:40|| Front Page Top

#3 My first thought was, "And that the Pentagon will be upgrading to the first release of Windows Vista".

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-01-12 08:57|| 2007-01-12 08:57|| Front Page Top

#4 After years of listening to Dhimmicrat pissing and moaning about needing "more boots on the ground" the 180 degree about face they have done now the President and his men are considering the idea is more than my stomach can take.

My only consolation is that Lincoln endured worse.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-12 09:44|| 2007-01-12 09:44|| Front Page Top

#5 "I do think we should have increased both services back in 2002, but this is good now."

Maybe if we had Bob Gates as SecDef in 2002.

Excalib- One Democratic Senator (well he calls himself an Independent now) has come out foursquare behing the surge. Y'all know who he is.

At least some Dems who arent supporting the surge, are supporting the Army/USMC boost.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-12 10:23|| 2007-01-12 10:23|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, Rumsfeld headed the Army growing by 2 divisions. Does this include those 2 divisions? or no?

We're looking at what? another 4 for army? and 3 for the Marines?

Posted by Anon4021 2007-01-12 11:19|| 2007-01-12 11:19|| Front Page Top

#7 27,000 Additional Marines is about a Division plus support including Airwing. I wonder if they will reactivate the 4th Marine Division. Where would they base them? Twenty Nine Palms?

Maybe existing Divisions get much larger and with less frequent rotations of Regiments.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-01-12 12:10|| 2007-01-12 12:10|| Front Page Top

#8 if they will reactivate the 4th Marine Division. Where would they base them? Twenty Nine Palms?

Maui? :>

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-12 13:28|| 2007-01-12 13:28|| Front Page Top

#9 rumsfeld increased the number of brigade combat teams, using the same army end strength. We was finally presssured into a "temporary" increase in the army end strength - which the lates QDR envisioned dropping, The Gates proposal would make the temporary increase permanent, and add beyond that.

Its a completely different strategy.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-12 13:56|| 2007-01-12 13:56|| Front Page Top

#10 that should be "He was finally"

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-12 13:56|| 2007-01-12 13:56|| Front Page Top

#11 GolfBravoUSMC, I thought that the 4th Marine Division was the Marine Reserves comprised of the 23rd, 24th, and 25th Regiments. You think they might transfer the reserves to active duty?

Posted by RWV 2007-01-12 15:46|| 2007-01-12 15:46|| Front Page Top

#12 I think that if they reactivate a Marine division, it would be the 5th. (a division that was one of five Marine divisions(!) that assaulted Iwo Jima in February 1945) It would be a historic expansion.

Posted by djh_usmc 2007-01-12 21:20|| 2007-01-12 21:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Note well that 'expansion' can only be done at a rate which can be handled both by the resources to conduct training [read - cadre and facilities] and the resources to sustain them [read - base facilities with the infrastructure to house, train, and sustain]. Any increase beyond the existing capacity to train means pulling cadre off the line and into the training base [organization, not installation]. You can always fill body bags in 30 days, but to train an effective soldier it takes up to two years. You can inject a certain amount of green troops in with units having good integrity, but there is a point where too many too fast undermines the effectiveness and starts generating casualties and not multiplying or even sustaining the combat effectiveness of those units.

Oh, and some of those base closure actions in the past decade are about to bite. Betcha there was no cost avoidance numbers generated on 'what if we have to expand the force structure again'.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-01-12 22:22|| 2007-01-12 22:22|| Front Page Top

23:48 Mike N.
23:41 newc
23:40 Shieldwolf
23:32 newc
23:05 Frank G
23:01 trailing wife
23:00 Mike N.
22:49 trailing wife
22:40 Frank G
22:22 Procopius2k
22:18 Mark Z
22:17 USN, ret.
22:14 Mike N.
22:11 Procopius2k
22:10 USN, ret.
22:04 DarthVader
21:54 Frank G
21:53 Alaska Paul
21:52 3dc
21:50 USN, ret.
21:23 Pappy
21:20 djh_usmc
21:13 bruce
20:59 Anguper Hupomosing9418