 |
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:31
|
|
It's becoming increasingly clear that with all of the new international deployments and committments forced on the military, more personnel will be needed to both meet these committments, and maintain a large enough "strategic reserve" to meet unforseen contingencies.
So, one obvious answer to this problem is to reduce the number of committments worldwide, however, that doesn't seem to be a realistic option, given the current Administration.
The solution then becomes to increase numbers of personnel in the military - or at least combat soldiers. What is the best way to do this? The options I see are as follows:
Persuade the international community to provide more forces
The downsides here are that these troops would not be used to working with the US military; language barriers; the fact that much of the world is none too happy with the US right now; and the fact that greater international contingents could conceivably lead to foreign officers commanding US troops, something that isn't desirable (to the US, anyway).
Re-establishing the draft
Undesirable for obvious reasons - and the military doesn't want conscripts anyway.
Increase enlistments through greater enticements
Possibly the best solution, given the fact that more manpower must be found, however, the downside here is that this would be expensive.
Any other views?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:31
|
|
It may sound like it is the best solution, but somehow I doubt its effectiveness. I, for one, would be extremely unwilling to sign up for the military right now, knowing there would be a chance I'd end up in Iraq, regardless of the enticement. I imagine many other people my age would feel the same way.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: The US is reducing its commitments as we type. |
Not where it counts. The US isn't going to be able to maintain such a large occupation force in Iraq, with substantial forces in Afghanistan, Korea, etc., and still maintain a credible strategic reserve of more than a division or so - and that division will probably be on rotation back home from deployment, anyway.
When I say "reduce committments", I'm talking about major ones involving brigade- or division-sized forces, from major theaters - Iraq and Afghanistan, for starters. And I hate to make a Vietnam comparison WRT to Iraq, as this isn't really an Iraq thread, but the fact is that US casualties are going to continue, and even increase, as long as the US stays in Iraq.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
we sould have zuxiliaryts
KJon Mil;er
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: Why would we maintain such a large occupation force in Iraq? |
I see few indications of a large scale withdrawal, although admittedly, that's hardly conclusive evidence.
In any case, though, you must admit that the US military needs more combat personnel. The invasion of Iraq was run nearly on a shoestring.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|