and his answers to several phone calls before I had to go to work.  He did great.  It's important to profile the experiences of people like John who understand how continuing to send our people into this meat grinder is ruining our military. 

...our military is far from ruin.  "Meat grinder?"  Pulllleeeeezzz.

calling it.  It's also what Hagel calls it, come to think of it.  Why, you think it's more like a cakewalk?

And as for our military being far from ruin, do you even listen to the news at all?  Or are you one of those guys who brags about how he turns it off because it's all "liberal media"?  Only a week or so ago General McCaffrey wrote that our Army is being stretched to the breaking point.  There've been numerous statements from military officials about the strain on the military and our lack of combat ready brigades.  Just yesterday I heard an announcement that troops who'd been promised a year off are being returned to Iraq over 80 days early.  It's the same people being sent over there, over and over. 

...with the Marines on a daily basis, I tend to have the benefit of not only my own three decades in but their perspective as well, to them,and this is all very laughable.  All this "chicken little" nonsense is doing nothing to help the situation. 

1. Everyone fully acknowledges some logistics challeneges ("strain?" - well, OK) because some of the equipment was in short supply before deployment and the production lines are still catching up.

2. "Stretched to a breaking point?"  This is linguistic bombast because no one knows what the hell a "breaking point" is.  Desertions?  AWOL?  Suicides?  For once would someone ask these guys what this rhetorical slop actually means.  Please note they never tell you and prefer for you to just wet your pants and run screaming as if it were true.

3. In all honesty, I should recuse myself from responding to anything McCaffery said.  Many of us who bore the brunt of his incompetent leadership in Central America then later as our "Drug Czar" do not have fond memories of him.

4. There's no "lack of combat brigades."  There's a lack of trained up combat bridgades with a full compliment of deployable equipment in the 15-18 month rotation cycles for deployment...big difference.  Again, simply ask what someone means when they say things like this.  Unless you really don't want to know which I suspect is the case.

5. Yes, there's a shorter time between deployments.  Yawn!  So what?  Read the contract you sign when you join the military.  Ain't no summer vacation and when they need you, you go.  I spent nearly three years away from my family and guys on carriers and subs even more.  Talk the SpecOp guys--they advise most of them not to bother getting married at all.

All that said, and now that I've probabaly been overly snippity about it, let me say that the problems we are facing now in the military, from a manpower standpoint, are directly the result of (1) too many people cut too quickly with not enough thought and (2) a misconception that "smaller, lighter" and higher technology could win future wars.  The first I lay at the feet of SecDef's Aspin, Perry and Cohen who castrated the military by about 650,000 troops between 1991-2000 taking it from 2.1M down to it's present 1.4M.  The second I lay at the feet of Rummie for not increasing the force levels that have remained constant over the last six years.  That's being addressed this year as the Army and marines are finally getting needed plus ups.

I was curious abouts the Sergeants somewhat puzzling comments about us not being able to fight any other invader.  If there are 1.4 million active and guard members (not including civilians and contractors) and 135,000 or so in Iraq, what does he think the other 1,235,000 troops are doing?  In other words, if 10% of our forces are engaged in Iraq, isn't 90% on the bench something to feel fairly confident about.  Young, inexperienced enlisted guys with limited visibility into the command structure make bad sources for policy issues but I expect this is overlooked if he's saying things you want him to.

Please, no more Hagel.  He lost the respect of anyone in DoD years ago.

I don't think I've read a post of yours yet, on any subject, where you show respect for anyone's opinion other than your own? 

...not listening to what anyone else is saying, certainly not caring.  Oh well.

he simply scoffs and tries to move the debate in another direction.  It's very transparent.  His chief weapon seems to be a dismissive "you don't know what I know - no doubt because you're too stupid", and a refusal to get to the meat of the issue.  This debate is a classic example.  You will not find any high-ranking military officials who will claim that our military is not under serious strain, that it is anywhere near combat ready, that it has the equipment and resources to continue this war for years, but Detcord will tell you that he and his unnamed posse at the Pentagon know the real story and they all sit around saying it's no biggie.  I imagine that the real story is that Detcord goes there and when the subject comes up he no doubt bloviates at them as he bloviates at us and won't even entertain an opposing viewpoint.  Hard to believe he would actually solicit anyone else's viewpoint, whether that person's military or not, and actually listen to it.

...if common sense, fairness, and objectivity were the real goal here, this blog wouldn't even exist.  After all, the whole purpose is for like-minded people to get together to tell each other things they already agree with.  Anything that calls the pre-existing paradigm into question by challenging the collective group-think is naturally attacked.  I got it.

You said "You will not find any high-ranking military officials who will claim that our military is not under serious strain, that it is anywhere near combat ready, that it has the equipment and resources to continue this war for years,..."

Nor have you read anything I've written that contradicts the factual parts of that.  Ask your military buddies with access to go into the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) or E-SORTS  which track unit-level combat readiness and training currency.  The deploying units are, for the most part, "ready" by the systems definitions.  The shortages are, as I've said, due to personnel shortages (deploying at 85% where they need to be at 87% etc) or equipment transfers--units are relying on in theater resupply instead of taking stuff with them.  These are all common logistics challenges we've faced in all combat situations. 

The "meat" of the issue has nothing to do with the facts of the situation and we both know it.  It's the petty political implications and conclusions you wish to draw from them that's more important to you than facts or getting our kids the help and support they need. 

By the way, what was I "nailed" on?  I totally missed that one.

And speaking of being nailed, "He Is Risen" and that's the only fact we need to deal with right now and all this other petty nonsense can wait till Monday.  Have a great Easter! 

are against common sense and fairness.  You'd make a lot more headway here if you would stop sounding so condescending and arrogant and as if you hold all the answers to everything.  You scoff.  You attack.  You deride.  And you patronize.  Are you just incapable of saying something like "I see your point, but I disagree about this or disagree about that, and this is why"?  Do you have to always reply to things by implying that the writer is an idiot? 

...I'll look at what I've written recently to make sure I haven't "implied" anything of the such. 

Detcord's tone has been consistently patronizing, condescending, insulting.  It's also heavily reliant on the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority," as opposed to laying out facts and logic.  Now, I'm not saying I never slip and do that as well, but if I ever do, please tell me because it's a much weaker form of argument than laying out the empirical information - data, facts, logic - and letting people draw their own conclusions.

...matters regarding the military is...your local fireman?  Barber?  Or may favorite: "I have an uncle whos second cousin was in the military once and his grandson went to Bosnia so I know what I'm talking about!"  I never professed to be the all knowing oracle but certainly three decades of service and working daily for years with Marines going back in forth in theater does give me a wee leg up on most.  Wouldn't it be nice if that, by itself, garnered an ounce of respect here?  Or does a young enlisted guy with just a few years service have more gravitas because he says the things you want to hear?  See what I mean?

Let's at least be honest and admit that the so-called "empirical" information layed out here is selctive, biased, and designed to draw even an objective reader to a conclusion you want them to come to.  In short, exactly what you believe "the dark side" is doing.  Once you lay information out selectively and omit all balance and fairness, then ask people to "draw their own conclusions" as you said, there's really only once conclusion they can come to, right?  Isn't that the point and the reason that exhaustive list of blog links to our left even exists?  After all, isn't a "fair and balanced" source these days only a source that tells you what you want to believe? 

Himself.  Everybody else is an idiot.

...and believe anyone has a right for an opinion that's different from mine.  Just because I present an alternative interpretation of what some present as "facts" doesn't mean I don't respect their opinion, only that they, in my opinion, have misused those facts to come to a conclusion that may not be true when looked at from another viewpoint.

I understand perfectly well that challenging the myopic groupthink on this blog is a losing proposition and that objectivity, fairness and rational conclusiosn are not exactly why people post here.  That said, I still think it's worth the effort to get a different voice in now and then for balance.  Just because all the people around you believe something is true doesn't necessarily make it true, right?  A diversity of opinion is a good thing, right?  Was I wrong to conclude that posters here have an opne mind?

...for fat-fingered typos.  I really gotta switch back to decaf!

I have seen you dismiss outright facts and observations posted by others in this blog.  A classic example is Marshall Adame's posts about his experiences with the CPA and in other positions in Iraq.  Instead of crediting what he wrote you simply dismissed his accounts out of hand as "old news" and not worthy of investigation, your key argument appearing to be that since the media didn't pick it up it must not have happened the way he said it did.  You could have acknowledged what he wrote but said that your research or your experience or whatever had drawn you to different conclusions, and these are the reasons why.  That would have led people to consider your point of view instead of reacting to the obnoxious and insulting way in which you dismissed him.

And you dismissed his facts as opinions.  When a guy writes "this is what I saw.  This is what I experienced" he is not writing "opinion".  He's reporting what he witnessed - in other words - facts.  The same thing happens with John Bruhn's accounts.  He was there.  He fought and understands things very well from the viewpoint of the boots on the ground, but you dismissed him as not seeing the big picture like you and the guys at the Pentagon do.  Really?  Well maybe the big picture people should start paying attention to what the boots are telling them because they're the ones who have to sacrifice the most and whose families are most affected.  Maybe you should pay attention to what Marshall is telling you because it may actually be a more valid point of view than yours.  Have you even considered that possibility?  He and I both challenged you to show the facts which refuted his and you never did.  What I have noticed about your approach is that you represent your opinions as facts and dismiss all facts which conflict with your opinions as mere opinions not worthy of consideration.  Or you claim that the facts were "misused".  Why don't you just come out and call everyone liars?  That's what you mean when you say facts are misused, don't you? 

I couldn't agree more.

Marshall's post was a nice collection of personal observations wrapped around and within previously reported (and investigated) items like the vehicle use claim.  I have neither the time nor inclination to be a fact-checker for every source that here but I do know what I've read. I don't care if you believe me or not.  I think the very fact that what I asserted was rejected out of hand speaks for itself. 

What should be troubling is not so much that I challenged his views but that they wer automatically accepted without question by readers here as if they were gospel.  So, to make sure I understand the rules, if you post something here and everyone agrees with it because it supports what they want to believe, then it's unquestionably true?

Here's the real bottom line in Marshall's assertions.  What I simply asked was that his little epistle be copied and distributed to every news source on the planet.  Did anyone here do that?  Has anyone copied them and sent them to their elected representatives?  Surely you have the conviction of your beliefs to take what he has written as the gospel truth and put your own faith and reputation behind them?  If not, why not?  How hard is that?

By the way, you know as well as I do that misusing a fact is not make someone a "liar" so please stop with that juvenile schoolyard nonsense.  In the grown-up world a fact can be misued depending on the context within which you chose to use it.  For example:

Marshall wrote: "Somebody needs to ask who paid for the salaries, transportation, housing, food, offices, and other amenities for most of the "Coalition" members in Iraq. With the exception of the British, Italians, Japanese and very few others, we (YOU) pretty much paid for everybody else.  For example; What was the cost of supporting the Polish, Check Slovakian, Romanian and other contingents? KBR Halliburton has provided much of the support for these contingents. Isn't that sort of like "paying" them to be with us?  If we did not offer to pay, would they have been there at all?"

Note in the first half of that, he simply lays out fact in developing his rhetorical question.  Then he spices things up by inserting everyone's favorite boogey-man KBR.  Then he concludes that the US is buying a mercenary force of other nations.  This is actually a benign observation when just the facts are presented but it's the injected petty politics and fabricated motive that ipugn the integrity of our allies.  Most of these countries we assit are ex-Soviet Block countries with nascent militarys and almost no deployment capability with regard to airlift or logistics support.  In short, their armies are only funded to defend their own homeland.  Just like the massive support we give to a dysfunctional UN that couldn't operate without us, some of our coalition partners need assistance as well.  That's not a nefarious plot, it's the simple reality of geopolitics that's been going on for decades and we do it for every multinational conflict.  Again, when you know the history of mil-to-mil relationsships, the purpose of programs like Nunn-Lugar or the Beecroft Initiative, then Marshalls observations are put in an entirely different context.  He believes the American taxpayer is somehow being hosed by this when , in fact, it's a very common and routine part of US coalition building for training and interoperability.

a conservative and a liberal, both agree - the military's in deep, deep trouble thanks to Bush:

JUDY WOODRUFF: We also have the news that just came today, Rich, that the National Guard brigades -- this word comes from a senior Defense Department official -- National Guard brigades expected to be notified soon they're going to go back to Iraq the first of next year. This would be the first time, we understand, full brigades going back. Significance of this?

RICH LOWRY: Well, it's a huge strain on the military and on the National Guard. There's no doubt about it.

And I think it will be judged a very severe historical mistake on the part of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that they didn't immediately start ramping up the size of the military in the wake of the attacks on September 11th.

It made no sense to have a military, you know, for the last five or six years that is essentially the same size of the military on September 10th, when we thought we were living in an era of unprecedented international peace.

And that's a mistake. And we've been paying the price for that, and these guys who have to go back for repeated tours are paying the price for it.

MARK SHIELDS: Rich is absolutely right. I would add that, in 2000, Dick Cheney and George Bush ran appearance after appearance before military audiences saying, "Help is on the way. Help is on the way."

This American military is about to be broken: We are talking about 90 percent of the National Guard units, according to an independent commission report last month, are unprepared, are unready for battle, in equipment and in training. They don't have the equipment to perform at home, let alone abroad.

We have, right now, a recruitment problem in the United States military. We have lowered the standards to the point we're taking people with drug problems, with criminal records, who aren't high school graduates. It's an enormous problem.

We're hemorrhaging manpower. And it is in large part because our Army is totally inadequate, because Don Rumsfeld and George Bush wanted to have this idea of a small, lean force that was totally inadequate to the mission they assigned it.

Please address Lowry's and Shield's points factually, without any of your usual red herrings and rhetorical devices.  The fact is, they're right and you're dead wrong on this.

I actually agree with a ot of this (addressed equipment and manpower above) for different reasons but still reject the histrionics and adjectives that try and color this as Napolean's army at Waterloo...not even close.  "Hemorraghing manpower?"  C'mon Mark, are you saying numbers are down?  No.  Recruiting?  No.  Suicides? No.  Anyone care to ask what this actually means or is it good enough because it sounds bad and that's all you care about?

...I'll stipulate the suicide info is several years old but the basic point remains the same (defnition of hemorragh)

I think descriptions by general officers that the Army is "broken" started as overstatement to justify larger budgets and manpower levels.  Then it seems like the theme got picked up by opponents of the Iraq war as another argument to put an end to it. 

But I tend to agree that it doesn't make common sense to describe the military, or even the Army, as being "broken." 

A better argument could be made that the U.S. Army (regular and reserves) as a whole is presently the best trained and most veteran force in the world. 

It's certainly true that they do need to replace or rebuild a lot of vehicles.  And that's going to be very expensive.

It's also certainly true that the human cost of the war for the soldiers and their families has been enormous.  I hope that United States of America does the right thing for these vets. 

 

When Mr. Cheney came up with this Forever War after "9/11 changed everything" the Administration engaged in a remarkable and despicable shell game: taking a free people to war by telling them to be afraid, but refusing to put us on a wartime footing, advising us to go shopping "or the terrorists win," to buy SUVs locking us ever tighter to the petrodictators who hate us and use their petrodollars from us to fund the very terrorists we are supposedly fighting, --- and most definitely refusing even to consider the shared sacrifice of a DRAFT. 

As an Army brat who grew up during the Depression, whose father fought through all of World War II as an infantry battalion commander with the 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One), and through Korea with the 7th Infantry  Division, and whose husband fought in Korea and Vietnam, and with a son, graduate from USMA, now as a private contractor in Iraq on his third tour--- you must  understand how utterly incompetent, almost traitorously incompetent, I see this Administration to be. Six years into this Forever War, and still we have poorly trained young soldiers ill equipped.  Compare that to the four  years into World War II and America's enormous production of ever-improving armament in volumes so high we were the Arsenal of Democracy, and Hitler's own intelligence chief feared to tell der Feuhrer how much America was producing it was so enormous.

And today in six years we still do not have adequate materiel to fight the so-called War on Terror, juch less deal with another major problem--- very much like Rome when its legions were far flung, and the barbarians and colonistas turned on them, crossing the Rhine and Danube in fighting mode. Even during the worst days of World War II (when recruits drilled with broomsticks at first, lacking rifles), we not only did better, we also engaged in an extensive world-wide diplomatic effort as well, simultaneously.

I used to be a Republican but the endless lies, the seemingly endless incompetence, the corruption and corporatism, the "unitary executive" theory of Bush's (which amounts to the Divine Right of Kings) drove me out of what we used to call the Republican Party and but which is now no more than a corporate shill posing as a political party. I have lost all respect for Bush, Cheney, and the so-called Republican Party.  More importantly, I no longer trust them.

I have not read the followups, and I think they're still investigating, but one of the kids was rushed to Iraq in the surge:

Zeimer, who family members said had a lifelong dream of serving in the armed forces, joined the Army last year while attending Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. He underwent nine weeks of basic training in the summer and further training in infantry tactics in Oklahoma.

He arrived at Fort Stewart on Dec. 18, too late to participate in his unit's final training exercise in October. That's when 1,300 trainers and Iraqi role-players from California came to Fort Stewart to create the most realistic Iraqi combat training for the Army offers.

http://savannahnow.c...

Ditto your last paragraph as to me, but I gave up on the party a bit earlier.