# Bush's hollow military



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

From an Army briefing making the rounds in Washington: 

* Fully two-thirds of the active U.S. Army is officially classified as "not ready for combat."

* The National Guard is "in an even more dire situation than the active Army but both have the same symptoms; I just have a higher fever."

* The Army has almost no nondeployed combat-ready brigades at its disposal.

* The equipment in Iraq is wearing out at four to nine times the normal peacetime rate because of combat losses and harsh operating conditions.

* The total Army--active and reserve--now faces at least a $50 billion equipment shortfall.

* After failing to meet its recruitment target for 2005, the Army raised the maximum age for enlistment from 35 to 40 in January--only to find it necessary to raise it to 42 in June.

* The number of Army recruits who scored below average on its aptitude test doubled in 2005, and the Army has doubled the number of non-high school graduates it can enlist this year.

* Basic training, which has, for decades, been an important tool for testing the mettle of recruits, has increasingly become a rubber-stamping ritual. Through the first six months of 2006, only 7.6 percent of new recruits failed basic training, down from 18.1 percent in May 2005.

* Thousands of white supremacists may have been able to infiltrate the military due to pressure from recruitment shortfalls. 

(free registration required.)


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

That's a snapshot so its really not an accurate assessment of readiness. I used to be in the military and believe me when a unit is not "combat ready" its actually a very narrowly defined criterion that can be readiliy resolved. I dispute the 2/3 number by the way. I was in the Marines and our readiness levels had to be at >90% always. If the army were 2/3 unprepared I guarantee you there would be wholesale purging and massive congressional investigations underway so I seriously doubt the veracity of this statement. 

Just a historical reference. During operation torch in 1943 the U.S. Army was totally unprepared. The soldiers trained with pieces of wood shaped like rifles. They shipped tons of incorrect materials and packed it in such a way that essential equipment was buried deep inside the cargo holds and the last to come out. The allies did a poor job at convincing the vichy to not fire and incidentally sustained heavy fire from shore batteries operated by the French! Shipped were grounded, air drops missed, friendly fire casualties were everywhere and our tanks were totally unprepared for the more advanced German Panzers. In the end though we won, and won resoundingly. 

Never underestimate the military might of the U.S. and the resourcefullness it is able to muster.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> * Thousands of white supremacists may have been able to infiltrate the military due to pressure from recruitment shortfalls.


Well you'd think that would make Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney and the like from lying about the war in Iraq disproportionaly affecting "blacks and browns". See, there is a silver lining to every dark cloud.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

I ate some green beans today that tasted horrible, it was all Bush's fault.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> If the army were 2/3 unprepared I guarantee you there would be wholesale purging and massive congressional investigations underway so I seriously doubt the veracity of this statement.


The thing is, the Democrats don't have the ability to hold hearings because the the R's control the committees. And even now, they are almost all drinking Bush's Kool-Aid.

Go ahead and doubt if you want, but instead of saying you doubt it, come up with the evidence.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

whnay. said:


> I ate some green beans today that tasted horrible, it was all Bush's fault.


Nonsense - he was simply fronting for Halliburton.

Yawn.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Did those beans go out for bid or did Haliburton just get awarded them?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

History is good with labels. ' Lincoln's Army of the Potomac' or Washington's 'Winter Soldiers' and now 'Bush's Hollow Army.' I'd have a care to test if that army is a bronze statue filled with sand though. Our armed forces have been political football, either hated and underfunded or lionized and thrown obscene and often ill spent piles of money. We hear stories of California gang members enlisting specifically to gain combat skills for their turf wars, see what we called 'walking wounded FUBARS' commit atrocities on Primetime but quickly turn the channel to a reality show when the nightly news lists the names and hometowns of those who died honourably. Our gear may be wearing out, but at least our people don't grab hot rifle barrels after clearing it for a Jordanian thug in NIKES.I think we wasted him with a worn out bomb, didn't we? I have to wonder exactly who we need to face in the once postulated two front war. North Korea and Iran have used our iraq ******** to push weapon programs like a junior high schooler smoking in the boy's room.They have yet to smoke in public, lest one of the Coach's smack them with a basketball from behind. Red China lies dormant like a red ( not yellow) dragon, the issue of a throttle jockie Mig pilot with to few flying hours colliding with a 'spy plane' almost ancient history.An attack on Nationalist Taiwan now would disrupt container ships bound for San Pedro and Walmart. Looking around, I fail to see anybody in great shape. The gross proliferation of small arms worldwide have turned allready suffering countries from the Sudan to Haiti into mere killing fields where the only children not starving are often carrying weapons taller than they are. The once great Soviet/Russian military machine is itself worn out and in dissaray and facing problems from it's own past and geography. In specific terms of the military, we need a Reagan and niether a bumbling Carter or a misguided strategy of Detant. It may be called McCain's commandoes or Hillary's pilloried in the not to distant future. But it will be there, as it has always been. My outfit's motto was SEMPER PARATUS. People should learn what our service mottos mean, and express in the real world. Those do not wear out.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Uh, OK, and assuming this is true, are you suggesting that voting Democrat is the way to beef up the military? What we need is even more Republicans in Washington to increase military spending and fix this right now!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> The thing is, the Democrats don't have the ability to hold hearings because the the R's control the committees. And even now, they are almost all drinking Bush's Kool-Aid.
> 
> Go ahead and doubt if you want, but instead of saying you doubt it, come up with the evidence.


I can guarantee that if the US Army was only 1/3 ready for combat their would be massive bipartisan support for a full investigation and massive purges occuring at the Pentagon. Look at what a few Republicans are doing with respect to throwing a monkey wrench into things like terrorist surveillance. You don't think someone like John McCain would be all over this and that the Dems wouldn't be demagogueing the issue at every opportunity?

You ask for evidence and I respond that the article you are citing offers no official sanction of the claim. During wartime equipment is often transferred from one theater to another in order to compensate for expected demand. That's why we have equipment, materials and personnel in reserve. Its easier and more expeditious to do so rather than await a requisition and shipment from a manufacturer. As for the $50 billion shortfall, when a budget is realigned and all of a sudden an extra $50 billion is added to the list of needed equipment during the interim that the equipment is requisitioned and awaiting delivery guess what, you're short $50 billion in equipment. Simple accounting. As for the white supremacist and lowering of standards I seriously doubt those things. I don't see massive racial strife occuring in the armed forces and as for the cutting in less than half of the "failure" rate in Basic Training, perhaps they are being trained better. Did that occur to you? Nevertheless, if passing means that you can do 60 push ups and you can only do 55 and pass anyway I'm not worried. Its not as though the Army stopped training people after Basic. Its a continuum.

However I would urge you to do this if you are truly concerned. Write your Congressman and/or Senator and insist that they ask for more money to be appropriated for the military and cut some pork out of the budget to do so.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

rojo said:


> Uh, OK, and assuming this is true, are you suggesting that voting Democrat is the way to beef up the military? What we need is even more Republicans in Washington to increase military spending and fix this right now!


Sorry to let reality intrude into the discussion (I realize this is highly improper when talking to Republicans), but let's look at a few facts:

==>The military that rolled through Iraq and took out Hussein was Clinton's military.
==>The Republicans have been in charge of military spending, and in fact all government spending, the entire time Bush has been in office, so if the Republicans have underfunded the military electing more won't change that.
==>Bush and Rumsfeld have consistently refused to listen to the experts in their own military who have tried to explain to them that the mission in Iraq was undermanned for what they hoped to accomplish.
==>In contrast to the Democrats, pretty much nobody in the Bush administration hierarchy or Republican congressional leadership has ever heard a shot fired in anger, so that may contribute to their cockeyed ideas of what they could accomplish militarily and what the costs would be.

What we have learned is that, just as Republicans can't be trusted with money, they can't be trusted with the defense of our country.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> The military that rolled through Iraq and took out Hussein was Clinton's military.


This is downright ridiculous hackneyed partisanship. The military during Clinton's term was not a focus for the adminstration, coupled this with the Cold War Pentagon mentality that still was present on 9/10 and you had a military that was ready for World War III with a large nation state but not proxy wars or nation building, this was true during GWB's first year in office as well. The events in Somalia had been disasterous for morale and most of the services due to lack of direction were having serious identity issues. This is in large part because for eight years Clinton appointed arguably the two weakest Sec of Defense in Les Aspin and William Cohen, both of which were far more concerned with the status quo than transformation or budget increases.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

whnay. said:


> This is downright ridiculous hackneyed partisanship. The military during Clinton's term was not a focus for the adminstration, coupled this with the Cold War Pentagon mentality that still was present on 9/10 and you had a military that was ready for World War III with a large nation state but not proxy wars or nation building, this was true during GWB's first year in office as well. The events in Somalia had been disasterous for morale and most of the services due to lack of direction were having serious identity issues. This is in large part because for eight years Clinton appointed arguably the two weakest Sec of Defense in Les Aspin and William Cohen, both of which were far more concerned with the status quo than transformation or budget increases.


Yeah. What he said.

M8


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Sorry to let reality intrude into the discussion (I realize this is highly improper when talking to Republicans), but let's look at a few facts:





jackmccullough said:


> Oh yes, and since you seem to be someone who can't carry on a civil discussion, you're on my ignore list.


Computer: $1000.00
Broadband: $29.99 per month
Seeing McCullough make an a$$ of himself: priceless


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

> Sorry to let reality intrude into the discussion (I realize this is highly improper when talking to Republicans), but let's look at a few facts:


 Is that really nice? Do you think that's the best way to start a mature, reasoned discussion of facts?



jackmccullough said:


> ...==>In contrast to the Democrats, pretty much nobody in the Bush administration hierarchy or Republican congressional leadership has ever heard a shot fired in anger, so that may contribute to their cockeyed ideas of what they could accomplish militarily and what the costs would be.
> 
> What we have learned is that, just as Republicans can't be trusted with money, they can't be trusted with the defense of our country.


That list was long ago dismissed as *grossly* and intentionally biased. ie, where are Howard Dean? minority leaders Pelosi? Harry Reid? Durbin? Biden? Lieberman? Edwards? I could go on, but it is obvious to anyone who is remotely intellectually honest. All one needs do is see their treatment of Clinton's draft evasion. He was smoking pot in Russia, protesting the military while Ollie was taking bullets in Vietnam. Just note how their services are reported and tell me if you really think this list is unbiased. Oops, then there's that little omission of President Bush, 41 & Bob Dole...


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Ah....Tis the season of Elections and political Jockeying. Going to be very interesting and fun for the next month and half in the forum and country.

Cheers


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

There is another problem with Clinton "military build up". Both houses were controlled by the Republicans, they did what they could, Clinton didn't.

The Democrates are a bunch of feelly people. What they don't get is that 1 out of 10 (or maybe it is 1 out of 1,000) who want to kill you won't if your nice to them- the others will kill you. From Carter on (maybe sooner) the Democrates have never believed in a strong military, as you can see there bills prove it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> There is another problem with Clinton "military build up". Both houses were controlled by the Republicans, they did what they could, Clinton didn't.
> 
> The Democrates are a bunch of feelly people. What they don't get is that 1 out of 10 (or maybe it is 1 out of 1,000) who want to kill you won't if your nice to them- the others will kill you. From Carter on (maybe sooner) the Democrates have never believed in a strong military, as you can see there bills prove it.


Actually the stealth fighter/bomber program began under Carter. Before Carter though many of the Dems were for a strong and muscular defense ala Henry Jackson. It seems that they began moving farther and farther left during and after Vietnam and haven't really stopped. The trouble with Carter was that he was just afraid to project the power. Can you imagine now what would happen if one of our embassies were to be taken over? Carter single handedly opened the door to radicals to do as they please and they really haven't stopped since.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You may not remember this, but Carter was actually a conservative who supported the Vietnam War up until the last shot was fired.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Actually the stealth fighter/bomber program began under Carter. Before Carter though many of the Dems were for a strong and muscular defense ala Henry Jackson. It seems that they began moving farther and farther left during and after Vietnam and haven't really stopped. The trouble with Carter was that he was just afraid to project the power. Can you imagine now what would happen if one of our embassies were to be taken over? Carter single handedly opened the door to radicals to do as they please and they really haven't stopped since.


If Henry Jackson lived today he be a Republican. The Democrates aren't at all what they used to be. Democrates are like a whole new party. Almost completely unrecognized from what they were. For example, most people who belong to unions want to be able to buy and sell guns with no government involvement, so these people don't want to vote against there right gun rights, so the unions really can't support the Democrates, because the people who pay union dues don't want to pay for there rights removed.

The Democrate voters shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Another example, freedom to own guns without government looking over the shoulder, but don't punish the gun abusers. There is something wrong with the way Democrates think. Until resent times children have taken guns to school and have target competitions during recesses and lunch time. I guess it is all gone now.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

What's with this "Democrate(s)" spelling? I know a lot of Republican prefer to call their opponents the "Democrat" Party, as opposed to Democratic. I have heard it childishly called the [email protected] Party, but "Democrate" is a new one on me. Not that I care that much--I loathe both major parties with about equal intensity.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Didn't one of the Republican VP's put an e on the end of word he wasn't suppose?

So, JLibourel, are you a Libertarian?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Jan cracks his eggs in the middle.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Jill said:


> Oops, then there's that little omission of President Bush, 41 & Bob Dole...


Oh yeah, what was it Bush 41 had to say?

That's right, I remember now:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Oh yeah, what was it Bush 41 had to say?
> 
> That's right, I remember now:
> 
> Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.


There we have it, in perfect profile. Jill refers to the noble service to this country of two men, one maimed for life and almost dying, and this is what your typical liberal trial lawyer comes up with. I am very liberal socially, backing civil unions, abortion, and free needle exchanges to list a few "hot" buttons, however I will always be deemed "conservative" by the likes of this man as I above all respect those that put it all on the line to spread and preserve our heritage of freedom.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

jackmccullough said:


> Oh yeah, what was it Bush 41 had to say?
> 
> That's right, I remember now...


 I'm sorry. That has WHAT to do with your submission that "pretty much nobody in the Bush administration hierarchy or Republican congressional leadership has ever heard a shot fired in anger"?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Jill said:


> I'm sorry. That has WHAT to do with your submission that "pretty much nobody in the Bush administration hierarchy or Republican congressional leadership has ever heard a shot fired in anger"?


I could say that it has about the same as your listing two former Republican leaders had to do with my original post. But, there's more to it than that. The current administration might not have such a cavalier attitude toward military operations and the risks and burdens they entail if they had some military experience. That's why we call them chickenhawks.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

jackmccullough said:


> I could say that it has about the same as your listing two former Republican leaders had to do with my original post. But, there's more to it than that. The current administration might not have such a cavalier attitude toward military operations and the risks and burdens they entail if they had some military experience. That's why we call them chickenhawks.


And the missing Democratic leaders I mentioned do?

Your predicate is flawed, IMO.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Military service as a measure of manhood and leadership is inherently flawed. We have fine service records represented in both parties. Along with Ollie North there is Max Clelland, former head of the V.A. who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam and was recently savagedly treated in his bid for reelection in Georgia. There are also assorted 'garritroopers' like AL Gore's brief and guarded tenure as a army journalist in Saigon, an unqualified G.W. being bumped ahead of others to enter National Guard service and Kerry's calculated emulation of JFK and PT 109. As VP Dole said, " There are purple hearts, and then there are purple hearts." War and the military should have no room for 'Raider Johnsons' to use such a horrible concept to further any personal aspirations. There was an obscure austrian corporal who refused to join his comrades in the famous Christmas Truce of WW1. I hardly think his experiences taught him anything.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I ate some green beans today that tasted horrible, it was all Bush's fault.


The Pope was also involved...

...and the Council on Foreign Relations
...and the Carlyle Group
...and they are all run by the Saudis.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

I wish I had the 3 minutes of my life back that I spent reading this thread....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> I wish I had the 3 minutes of my life back that I spent reading this thread....


Amen!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Basil: Zoom! -what was that? That was your life, mate. Oh, that was quick, do I get another? Sorry mate, that's the lot.
--


----------

