Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Comparing this to WW2 and using it as an excuse for underfunding, undersupplying and keeping troops there longer than they should be is BS. WW2 our troops were given the best possible weaponry and support, we do not give our troops that today.
|
Why BS? Just saying BS is a pretty subjective basis for an argument. If by your own admission the troops were given the best possible weaponry and support during WW2, what has changed since? Who in the world is more prepared militarily than the US? France?
Those myriad of links you referred me to reference Veteran's benefits, not the status and readiness of the US forces in Iraq. Veteran's benefits are a different matter for a different thread.
If one is to believe what the mainstream media (and the like) says about the supposed readiness of the troops, one could easily come to the conclusion that the troops aren't ready for a game of checkers let alone a war. But the facts prove otherwise, and progress continues.
POSTURE STATEMENT OF GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, USAF CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
Joint Chief of Staff General Richard Myers Report to Congress
(Excerpts)
"I am privileged to report to Congress on the state of the United States Armed Forces.
As they were a year ago, our Nation’s Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen are currently operating within our borders and around the globe with dedication, courage and professionalism, alongside our Coalition partners, to accomplish a variety of very demanding missions. Global terrorism remains a serious threat, and the stakes in the GLOBAL War on Terrorism remain high.
Over the past year, I have told you that with the patience, will, and commitment of our Nation we would win the War on Terrorism. The support we have received from the Congress has been superb. From Congressional visits to deployed personnel, to support for transformational warfighting programs, to funding for security and stability operations, to improved pay and benefits for our troops, your support for our servicemen and women has enabled us to make significant progress in the War on Terrorism."
---
"Despite the operational demands on our forces, we remain ready to support the President’s National Security Strategy to assure our allies, while we dissuade, deter and defeat any adversary. The draft National Military Strategy (NMS), developed in consultation with the Service Chiefs and Combatant Commanders describes the ways we will conduct military operations to protect the United States against external attack and aggression, and how we will prevent conflict and surprise attack and prevail against adversaries. The strategy requires that we possess the forces to defend the US homeland and deter forward in four critical regions. If required, we will swiftly defeat the efforts of two adversaries in an overlapping timeframe, while having the ability to “win decisively” in one theater. In addition, because we live in a world marked by uncertainty, our forces must also be prepared to conduct a limited number of lesser contingencies while maintaining sufficient force generation capabilities as a hedge against future challenges."
Troop Rotations Won't Affect Readiness, Defense Leaders Say
Troop rotations in Iraq during the next several months will create a temporary transition time in Iraq—but will in no way affect U.S. readiness in Iraq or anywhere else in the world, Defense leaders told Pentagon reporters today.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged that moving a large percentage of the 123,000 combat-experienced troops from Iraq will create a temporary sense of turbulence, which he said "is always undesirable."
"You lose situational awareness, you lose relationships, you lose the experience," he said. "The people going over are ready, but the people there are experienced and really know their stuff."
On the plus side, Rumsfeld said, units deploying to Iraq will be better configured to meet current tasks than the departing troops.
In an effort to minimize disruptions during the transition, Rumsfeld said defense leaders must "manage the transition very carefully.
"There is going to have to be overlap," he said. ""We are going to have to be sensitive to the fact that the knowledge that is built up there and the relationships have to be transferred … in a way that is appropriate."
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the rotations will introduce huge logistical challenges as well. "In the next four months, we are going to pull off a logistics feat that will rival any in history, I think, as we move a major part of the Army," he said. "Well over the majority of the Army combat units and a lot of the reserve component will move."
Rumsfeld acknowledged that redeploying troops will "clearly have to be reconstituted" when they return to their home bases. "Any element that was over there in combat is going to have to come back and … get their equipment fixed … (and) engage in the kind of training that their unit is designed to deal with," he said.
"When you're using the force as hard as we're using the force right now," Myers agreed, "you have to have time to regenerate the force when it comes home."
Myers said defense plans account for the time required for these forces to reconstitute themselves and that the U.S. military will remain fully ready — even in the event that it is called to respond to an additional war or contingency before all troops return home from Iraq.
Both Rumsfeld and Myers were quick to dismiss a reporter's questions about the ability of the units returning from Iraq to fit into those plans as they reconstitute.
"The forces that are coming back have just experienced something that you cannot experience in peacetime," Rumsfeld said.
"They have just fought a war. And they have developed skills and knowledge about deployments and about combat and about logistics and about redeployment. It's the kind of thing you'd spend billions of dollars conducting an exercise to give them that kind of experience."