Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.


Yesterday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers reported to Congress that in fact the military is overstretched. His assessment is if we have another conflict it will take longer to deal with the conflict and there is an increased risk to our military which translates into higher casualties due to our limited manpower.

In election 2000, George W. Bush acknowledged that the military, especially the Army, was about 40,000 under strength. After the Supreme Court elected Bush president, he promptly ignored the problem that he himself identified and did not request of Congress the additional manpower or the money necessary to fund that increased strength of the military. He directed General Franks to prepare an operations plan to invade Iraq. That plan required 300,000 United States military on the ground by the time Saddam Husseinâ's regime fell in order to maintain control of the country. For those Joe Users who insist on sources, take a look at page 99 of , Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward in which he goes into detail about the operation plan prepared by General Franks at the direction of George W. Bush. The Army Chief of Staff at that time also told Mr. Bush it would require several hundred thousand boots on the ground to have any chance of controlling Iraq. Mr. Bush ignored his top generals and elected to go to war with insufficient military ( less then half what the generals said were required) thus compounding the shortfall he acknowledged in a campaign of 2000.

Why is this action of George Bush in Iraq so important today? Because the very thing that happened in Iraq because of the lack of manpower, higher casualties and longer duration, is exactly what General Myers is telling us will happen if we have another conflict given the fact that we have not provided the manpower necessary to do the job. This morning are more stories about the difficulty in meeting recruiting goals for the active Army and the Marine Corps. The Chief of the Army Reserve has reported there are significant recruiting and retention problems with the Army Reserve. Bush, as commander-in-chief, has ignored his conclusions as well as the advice of his top generals. This is an issue that is 100% on the plate of George W.. Bush! It is time for Congress to require the increased manning levels for both the Army and Marine Corps, since the President refuses to meet his responsibilities!

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 04, 2005
To be fair it must be said that this is something that has been going on for a while now with or without General Myers' two cents' worth.
http://www.govexec.com/features/0903hs/HS0903s6.htm --- 2003
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/thinspecialforces.html --- 2002
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101030901,00.html ---- 2003
on May 04, 2005
I was especially interested in your first reference. This is a subject I've covered in my book and in fact the restructuring that Rumsfeld is talking about is a necessary given the changing risk and dangers facing the United States. There are too many combat support and combat service support elements in reserve and National Guard which means when the active component is placed in action they cannot support themselves without the guard and reserve. That can be changed by restructuring. However the problem in Iraq is that we do not have sufficient numbers over all to rotate, train and maintain a the forces to meet our committments. The issue with the military is twofold, it is restructuring as the secretary of defense has indicated and the increase in the force to meet the worldwide threats to the United States faces. It is the overall military strength George W. Bush has ignored and siimply restructuring will not solve the short fall in our force levels.
on May 04, 2005
Talk about taking things out of context.. Here is the entire press release that Col. Gene found to twist to his ends...

U.S. Military Ready to Handle Any Task, Myers Says

WASHINGTON, May 3, 2005 – The U.S. military can accomplish all the tasks laid out for it in the National Military Strategy, according to the yearly risk assessment completed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers submitted his yearly risk assessment to Congress May 2.

The risk assessment recognized that there is stress on the U.S. military. But, it said, with mitigation U.S. forces can meet their obligations to "protect, prevent and prevail," the missions that are at the core of the National Military Strategy.
Senior officials said the yearly assessment is a "prudent" look at the security situation around the world.

Officials said the U.S. military is learning lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most vital lessons involve the importance of speed in getting to an enemy's "center of gravity." In the long run, DoD officials said, this reduces American casualties.

"The combatant commanders have taken their plans, and they have been changed based upon the lessons of combat that we've had really since 2001," a senior defense official said during a background briefing. And, the official said, DoD leaders have "set that as a very critical goal to try to do that type of operation very quickly, so we've got some pretty good standards as far as that goes."

At the heart of the assessment is the change from numbers of personnel to defense capabilities. "It's the ability to be highly adaptable and agile," said another official. "The ability to change things on the fly, and then the speed with which you move can make a big difference."

Technology drives some of the changes, and transformational technologies all feed into allowing U.S. forces more speed and flexibility. "I can do things a lot different and move faster, maybe need less to do it in, and do it at perhaps less risk," the official said.

One example of this is the capabilities that unmanned aerial vehicles bring to combatant commanders. UAVs allow commanders to view the battlefield day or night and in all weather yet do not require huge numbers of troops.

Combatant commanders are using these new ideas, technologies and manning to accomplish missions in new ways. U.S. officials have reduced infantry forces and added other capabilities, such as strike aircraft stationed forward. The new capabilities more than make up for the reduction in personnel.

Other mitigating strategies include the Navy's Fleet Response Plan, which allows the service to respond faster, and changes to the global force posture.

Still more aspects are increasing "network-centric" operations and allowing more joint operations and capabilities from one service to complement those of another.

The bottom line, according to officials, is that although the U.S. military is stressed, it continues to be the best-trained, best-equipped and best-led military in the world. And, officials said, it is more than ready to take on any enemy in any part of the world.

In fact here are his words in quotes..
Gen. Richard B. Myers Media Stakeout at River Entrance Pentagon

QUESTION: What’s the bottom line of your 2005 Chairman’s risk assessment? How would you characterize the message your sending to Congress?

GEN. RICHARD B. MYERS: The message I’m sending to Congress is that the United States military can fulfill its tasks under the Nation Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy and we will be successful and prevail in anything that our Nation asks us to do under those strategies and that’s the bottom line.

QUESTION: Will there be a difference . . . .?

GEN. RICHARD B. MYERS: We measure ourselves. We have very high standards in how we measure ourselves against our current plans. And so that’s what we’re measuring. We’re measuring against timelines that are already in plans that have been established several years ago, a year ago . . . .so we measure ourselves against that. What we said is we will be successful. We will prevail. The timelines may have to be extended and we may have to use additional resources but that doesn’t matter because we’re going to be successful in the end. Our measurement goes out to the end of this year. It actually says that in the area that we have that the trend is to lower risk because of the support we’re getting from Congress with the regular budget and supplementals to make some of the issues that have come up from being at war for three and a half years.

QUESTION: If North Korea invades the South . . ?.

GEN. RICHARD B. MYERS: We will be successful and we will prevail. No doubt about it. Thank you very much.


SO COl. Gen can you show me the link where he says what you say he did?

Link

on May 04, 2005
The AP story said, Gen Myers described U.S. Military as in a period of increased risk because the militery manpower was streached. The issue is that we do not have the number of mlitary needed for the world wide deployments. Every senior military I have heard make statememnts about the size of the military is that it is TOO SMALL for the number of deployments. Bush himself said that in 2000 and then made the committments even greater without increasing the manpower and sending less then HALF the number Gen Franks and the former CoS said were needed in Iraq. Look at the mess we have today in Iraq! We never had the manpower to prevent the terrorists and former Saddam military from attacking our forces, the oil, water and utulities, closing the borders or stop terrotists from using the explosives scattered in Iraq aginst our troops.
on May 04, 2005
The AP story said, Gen Myers described U.S. Military as in a period of increased risk because the militery manpower was streached. The issue is that we do not have the number of mlitary needed for the world wide deployments. Every senior military I have heard make statememnts about the size of the military is that it is TOO SMALL for the number of deployments. Bush himself said that in 2000 and then made the committments even greater without increasing the manpower and sending less then HALF the number Gen Franks and the former CoS said were needed in Iraq. Look at the mess we have today in Iraq! We never had the manpower to prevent the terrorists and former Saddam military from attacking our forces, the oil, water and utulities, closing the borders or stop terrotists from using the explosives scattered in Iraq aginst our troops.


Ahhhh, once again proven wrong so lets change the subject. What a tactic!
It's fairly obvious to anyone that can read that the AP story is either outright lying or deliberately misleading. That is since his (Gen Meyers)words do NOT echo that statement!
on May 04, 2005
drmiler you were so full bull s*it comes out of your ears .The reason for extending combat tours is because we didn't have the manpower we needed in Iraq. The reason we called up and extended so many reserves is we didn't have the manpower required. Bush himself admitted we didn't have the manpower and then did nothing about it. you are so full of crap that it is unbelievable. No one should pay any attention to you because all you do is defend a president who has failed his country, our military and the future of our children which will be far worse because of his idiotic decisions.
on May 04, 2005
The issue is that we do not have the number of mlitary needed for the world wide deployments


OK correct me if I am wrong but that is not what was said. If you read the Statement made by Gen. Myers he says, and I quote, "The message I’m sending to Congress is that the United States military can fulfill its tasks under the Nation Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy and we will be successful and prevail in anything that our Nation asks us to do under those strategies and that’s the bottom line." Does that sound like "we do not have the number of (sic)mlitary needed for world wide deployments" ???? I know I shouldn't confuse the issue with facts but I think in this case I will try.

In fact the very same Gen. Meyers you want to use to show that we have a problem also is the same Gen. Meyers that said the coalition is "definitely winning" against insurgents in Iraq.The chairman said that progress is measurable on the political, economic and security fronts. The Iraqis have held elections and are forming a government, he said. "It, by all reports, looks like it's going to be one that involves all sects and ethnic groups in Iraq, so it will be a balanced government, which gives you some hope that when they get into the development of their constitution, that that's going to be a good process," he said.

The insurgents have very little stock in Iraq, Myers said. Many local citizens are turning in the insurgents. He said that it was local Iraqis who turned in the 10 men arrested for shooting down an Mi-8 chopper that killed 11 people April 21.
.Link


Look at the mess we have today in Iraq!

What mess? Why do you think its a mess? I am just curious how you can say its a mess. You see there are 50-60 attacks a day in Iraq. The vast majority of them cause little or no injury or damage. Yo only hear of the ones that do. The Iraqi National Forces (INF) and Iraqi Police (IP) are taking on the bulk of military and police functions. The Coalition is doing less and less and the Iraqi People are doing more and more for themselves. How is that equated to a mess? Maybe you would like to know about the reconstruction in Iraq going on.

More than 1,100 reconstruction projects underway in Iraq. Current projects include the
construction of 364 schools, 67 public health clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil,
93 water and sewage facilities and 69 electrical facilities (a/o 15 Dec). More can be found here
Link

So just where is the basis for any of your statements? If you would like to talk of specific issues please post the links to your fact basis so I can be educated and enlightened.
on May 04, 2005
drmiler you were so full bull s*it comes out of your ears .The reason for extending combat tours is because we didn't have the manpower we needed in Iraq. The reason we called up and extended so many reserves is we didn't have the manpower required. Bush himself admitted we didn't have the manpower and then did nothing about it. you are so full of crap that it is unbelievable. No one should pay any attention to you because all you do is defend a president who has failed his country, our military and the future of our children which will be far worse because of his idiotic decisions.


Can we not resort to name calling and personal attacking? Lets stick to adult discussion without the belittling of someone and name calling. It makes your credibility look bad when you resort to this type of comment/attack.
on May 04, 2005
Yes, Gen Myers said the military could achieve its task but it would take longer and the military was in greater danger because of the fact they were overstreached. The Army prevented members from retirement (Stop Loss Orders) because of a lack of manpower. They extended tours in Iraq by 3-4 months. They extended the tours for reserves and guard menbers because of the lack of manpower. Answer why if Bush said the Army was too small did he not request more troops and request the added funding to fix the problen he identified? Why did he send less then half the troops both the Army CoS ad Gen Franke said were needed to secure Iraq?
on May 04, 2005
After the Supreme Court elected Bush president,


The Supreme Court did not elect Bush. Your posts are getting more fanatical by the day.
on May 04, 2005
overstreached


Col. Gene, I am still working on the first issue you brought up so lets stick to that one before we change subjects then we can discuss Pres. Bushes items.

Please show me anywhere that the Gen. said the troops were "overstretched" See the point I am trying to get across is that the media is the one to add those terms and not the Gen. He has not said that at all. He did say that due to current commitments that any additional task "might" take longer. But nowhere did he say we are "overstretched." Unless of course you can point me to the link. Which BTW I have asked for now 3 or 4 times.
on May 04, 2005
The military IS overstretched. My family is living that reality.
on May 04, 2005
The forces are overstreached and the proof is as I indicated by actions like stop loss orders, tour extensions etc. You try and argue about a paticular word. Please see the response from Texas Wahine. The facts are the military is not large enough and the senior military have said that. Bush said it was too small and then DID NOTHING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. It is the same old story, when you can not answer why Bush is not doing his job you switch to something else. The important issue is NOT the word " Overstreached" but the fact the military is too small. Gen Myers said that our military is at "increased Risk" ,which are his exact words, shows the gravity of the situation!
on May 04, 2005
Excuse me but you were the one that brought the words up ::


General Myers Confirms Military Overstretched!

That is the title of YOUR topic. SO who is arguing words?? You are the one who thought it appropriate as long as it met your ideas and ends. Admit its your opinion and not something Gen. Meyers said and we will be able to agree.

As for TW, I can completly understand family members feelsing in this whole issue. I am ex-US Army myself. But we are not debating wether familys are being stressed by all this, that is a given and I will not dispute it. I also thank TW for the service of the family member I am guessing is serving. Thank you TW.

As for why Pres. Bush did or did not do something I can not say as I do not know his thoughts. I can venture possabilites. Lets see, maybe the Congress would not appropriate the funds for a larger military? Maybe the Democratic Party threw enough roadblocks to make it impossible to do so? Maybe it takes time to grow the military and the ground work needs to be done? Maybe everyone was complaining about the federal spending and asking for more money for more troops would not have been very well received, I don't know if any of these had a part but being the semi-intelligent person I am I can see those and few more. While everyone like yourself likes to blame everything on Bush, he quite frankly is not the only one running the country, people seem to forget about the Congress. Seeing all the infighting and problems they have its a wonder anyone, including Bush, can get anything done. But then again thats the system, it may not be perfect but it works (sometimes).

ANd I like you "gravity of the situation". We are at WAR and thats about as "gravity" as you can get. Thanks for the stimulating conversation/topic.
on May 04, 2005
I realize that my comments are likely going to be discounted because others will assume that I'm just a whiny Army wife complaining about normal Army family stress, and I guess that's just the way it goes.

Believe me or don't when I say that the troops (here anyways) are worn out. The equipment is worn out and needs repair and upgrade. Morale is good in the sense that everyone here is proud of the Soldiers and their accomplishments, but there is little to no desire for many (and I do mean many) troops here to reenlist and continue deploying for a year to a year and a half with only a few months respite in between deployments. Stop-loss has Soldiers disgruntled. The huge enlistment bonuses that are being approved are a testament to the fact that the Soldiers are at their breaking points and need some major incentive to convince them to stay in.

Something needs to change.
2 Pages1 2