Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
-- do you disagree with Army Reserve Chief James Helmly that the Reserves have degenerated into a "broken force"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
No, I don't disagree with him. I have voiced my opinion of the reserves in the past. War time or peace time, reservists are a waste of uniforms.
|
|
Well if reservists and guard are a “waste of uniforms” then 40% of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq are a “waste of uniforms.” That’s a nice way to phrase the sheer magnitude of our current military fiasco.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
I was regular and served with some reserves when I was in the Gulf, sorry, you can keep them in the states to make sure the Alabama border doesn't get over run.
|
If we follow your advice and send the reservists and guard back home to the Alabama border, then we will have cut the Iraq force by 40%. Those soldiers left to man the fort wouldn’t be too happy about that situation, would they? At least the surviving ones wouldn’t be.
If we’re going send the poorly trained, largely unwilling support troops back home, then we might as well fold up the Iraq operation completely and send everybody home.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
-- do you disagree with National Guard assessments that its recruitment goals for 2004 were not met, and that it is seriously behind recruitment goals so far in 2005?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
See above. I am more concerned with the recruitment numbers for regulars.
|
|
This statement completely ignores the fact that recruitment targets for regulars are dependent on the targets for non-regulars. And vice-versa. They’re all interdependent. Whenever any subset doesn’t meet its target, that’s a problem for the entire military. Especially during a time of war.
Again, 40% of the active force in Iraq is non-regulars. When 40% of an active force, during a time of war, is not meeting its recruitment and retention goals, that’s not a trivial problem. That’s a problem that the entire military has to deal with.
In practical terms, that simply means that the current manpower fiasco is only going to get a lot worse, and very rapidly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
-- do you disagree with Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo, who believes that volunteer soldiers should not be subject to coercive re-enlistment tactics, and that force reductions in the 1990s after the cold war "went too far and too deep"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
I belong to the "quit yer whining and do yer job" crowd.
|
|
Then you’re contradicting yourself. First you say that the reserves aren’t qualified to do their job and should stay in Alabama to guard the border, then you tell them to “quit yer whining and do yer job.”
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
-- do you disagree with Charles Pena of the Cato Institute (a Libertarian think tank) that a military draft is a possible outcome of any serious worsening of the situation in Iraq (let alone at other global flashpoints)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
Yes I do. We are stretched thin, but not so thin that a draft would be needed for Iraq.
|
|
I can think of several scenarios where a draft could very quickly become needed for Iraq. Or for Iran, or Syria, or North Korea. Can’t you? If you can’t, then you certainly disagree with Pena and just about every other military analyst.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
-- do you think that President Bush has the power to keep his promise that there will not be a draft, regardless of military requirements? Isn't that a decision that is thrust upon us by our enemies, rather than one we are free to make depending on the direction the political winds are blowing?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
I don't know. If Congress were to try and institute a draft, does the President have the power to stop the draft?
|
|
If the president and Congress will never institute the draft under any circumstances, then why not just eliminate all doubt and kill the Selective Service Commission? Why not abolish the draft registration law?
The answer is obvious: just about everybody wants to have the draft as a last-resort option. And last resort means when the U.S. is truly threatened and must immediately respond in order to eliminate that threat. In other words, for exactly the reasons that the Administration gave us for going to war with Iraq.
So either the reasons are bogus, or we desperately need a draft, right now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
Can't answer the second part, it is too hypothetical.
|
Well it may not be hypothetical tomorrow, or next month. But if you don’t feel comfortable thinking about it, by all means don’t.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA
On a different note: You might reconsider using David Qualls in your argument. Using him to help back up your position doesn't bode well for your argument.
|
David Qualls is just the tip of the iceberg. The Pentagon is going after just about everybody. After they’re done with Gulf War I vets, then presumably they’ll go after Vietnam war vets, then Korean war vets, then WWII vets, then they’ll be calling the two surviving 100-year olds who served in WWI.
Plus in addition they're threatening current volunteers in various ways to force them to re-enlist.
Pointing out that this strategy creates unwilling and poorly trained soldiers just as effectively as a draft does, at least recognizes the nature and scope of the problem.
On the other hand, simply telling these people to “quit yer whining and do yer job” meaning to fight and die, while at the same time telling them that they’re a “waste of uniforms” is not going to solve anything. In fact it is oblivious even to the existence of a problem.