ABC Spills beans about covert action in Iran

[Garfield1966]

Last I heard they claim to be able to conduct two major campaigns(Wars).....with an all volunteer ARMY.

I claim I can jump over the moon. The proof is in the pudding.

Given all the claims the US government has made over the decades and how many of those claims have fallen far short of their promises (Sgt York gun, B1 bomber, SDI, Space Shuttle just to name a very few). Do you really want to put it all on the line based on a claim?

You'll excuse me if I take their claim with a grain of salt.

As for your statement of "that's what they signed up for". Last I checked, there was a standard that was abided by that troops get double off what they served (or something like that). Now the military decides to change the guidelines so that is in fact NOT what the troops signed up for. Seems to me that this would be like a company going in and changing a contract or work rules after the fact.

By the very fact that they have to extend tours and shorten leaves, that proves that they do not have the manning to abide by their own guidelines. The standards for recruitment are being lowered to try and meet quotas.
's what they signed up for". Last I checked, there was a standard that was abided by that troops get double off what they served (or something like that). Now the military decides to change the guidelines so that is in fact NOT what the troops signed up for. Seems to me that this would be like a company going in and changing a contract or work rules after the fact.

By the very fact that they have to extend tours and shorten leaves, that prooves that they do not have the manning to abide by their own guidelines. The standards for recrutement are being lowered to try and meet quotas.

 

[delldude]

No...in short it proves they have a training problem.Not all troops are trained/conditioned for desert warfare.
What of the other 450,000 regulars not counting reserve/Nat'l Guard?

 

[777 fixer]

Keyword in your article is ARMY,not US troops.

Is this an attempt to refute what that article said? If so you are going to have to try harder. I don't remember reading in the article about how US troops saying everything was fine and dandy. Also, who do you think has a better handle on the big picture? A high ranking officer or a PFC?

 

[777 fixer]

An ARMY of some 500,000 not counting the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers now on active duty?
Sure they're rotating with extended tours and such...but thats what they signed up for.
I still say its a far reach claiming we're stretched too thin.You're in the ARMY to protect and defend...if it means extended tours,thats the job.

It's easy to say that's what they signed up for when you’re sitting in front of the computer safe at home. It's something entirely different when you are the one being told you have to stay in Iraq for another four months. The very fact that they are putting stop loss orders into affect along with extending tours should tell you something. It should tell you that an Army that's not overextended would not have to do that.

Now I do realize that once you are in the military can do pretty much what they want with you. I know this from personal experience. However if you go to the well to often it will run dry.

 

[777 fixer]

Last I heard they claim to be able to conduct two major campaigns(Wars).....with an all volunteer ARMY.

What is claimed and what they are actually capable of can be two different things. I wonder what would happen if North Korea decided to cross the DMZ. All I can say is we all had better hope we don't find out.

Here's another little fact. Operations in Iraq are having an affect on all the services, not just the Army. For the first time in over fifty years the Navy does not have a fixed wing anti-submarine aircraft operating from its carriers. Why, the money is not there for a replacement for the S-3. Either a new design or an updated version of.

 

[777 fixer]

As for your statement of "that's what they signed up for". Last I checked, there was a standard that was abided by that troops get double off what they served (or something like that). Now the military decides to change the guidelines so that is in fact NOT what the troops signed up for. Seems to me that this would be like a company going in and changing a contract or work rules after the fact.

When it comes right down to it once you are in they can preety much do what they want. There are no rules written in stone about how often they can deploy you. Yes they try to set aside a certain amount of time for training, R/R and equipment maintenance. However as we have seen that all can go out the window.

Now the military decides to change the guidelines so that is in fact NOT what the troops signed up for. Seems to me that this would be like a company going in and changing a contract or work rules after the fact.

It’s not the “militaryâ€￾ doing this because they feal like it, or really want to. As LBJ once said “They can’t bomb an outhouse with out my say soâ€￾. The military is under pressure to keep the current operational tempo going. If it means lowering standards or extending tours in the end they have to get approval from the civilian powers that be.

 

[Garfield1966]

When it comes right down to it once you are in they can preety much do what they want. There are no rules written in stone about how often they can deploy you. Yes they try to set aside a certain amount of time for training, R/R and equipment maintenance. However as we have seen that all can go out the window.
It’s not the “militaryâ€￾ doing this because they feal like it, or really want to. As LBJ once said “They can’t bomb an outhouse with out my say soâ€￾. The military is under pressure to keep the current operational tempo going. If it means lowering standards or extending tours in the end they have to get approval from the civilian powers that be.

I understand your point. The military is not a democracy. There is no voting on procedures. If they choose to change something, it is their prerogative to do so. None the less, the people who signed up, did not as Dell indicates, necessarily sign up for what they are obligated to now. I guess one could argue that they should have known that 'anything' and everything could change but I think that is a bit weak. The fact still remains that the military, by most accounts, is stretched quite thin. As a result, moral and fighting ability will more than likely be affected. I read somewhere (trying to find the cite) that battle fatigue has gone up substantially since the tours are being lengthened and the leaves are being shortened.

I also understand your second point. Perhaps a better word would have been government instead of military. POTUS is the CIC after all.

 

[delldude]

Counterterrorist Operations

In the mid-1980s a series of high-profile terrorist attacks galvanized US policymakers to take the offensive against international terrorism. A task force chaired by then Vice President George Bush was formed in 1986 to address the problem of international terrorism. The task force concluded that US Government agencies collected information on terrorism, but did not aggressively operate to disrupt terrorist activities.

In 1995 and 1998 President Clinton issued Presidential Directives which have become the central blueprint for US counterterrorism policy. These Directives are backed up by legislation that defines terrorism as a crime and sets up procedures to apprehend and punish perpetrators worldwide. Congress, furthermore, has appropriated funds to enhance federal agencies’ capabilities to prevent, counter, and manage the consequences of international terrorism. The National Security Council is charged with coordinating US policy on combating terrorism, and the Director of Central Intelligence is charged with coordinating Intelligence Community issues and sharing information through the Counterterrorist Center and the Interagency Intelligence Committee on Terrorism (IICT).

On December 17, 2004 the President signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which creates a new Director of National Intelligence, establishes into law the National Counterterrorism Center, and enacts a wide range of additional changes to the I

All 'W' huh?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

All 'W' huh?

This is Clinton's 1995 Directive

I see differences between Clinton's policy and how 'W' has managed the war on terrorism.

First, I think 'W' has folowed the directives, as established by Bush Senior and supplemented by Clinton and Bush Jr., as it pertains to Afghanistan and Al-Qaida/taliban. (I believe more can be done though)

I do, however, feel that 'W' has grossly strayed from previous administration's directives and policies in regard to our presence in Iraq. (no need to argue whether Bush is right or wrong about Iraq... that has been hashed out ad nauseam) I would like to discuss, however, the difference in presidential policies in regard to anti-terrorism and whether Bush has strayed from precedent, perhaps because this scenario (9/11) has not been encountered by the US before.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Last I heard they claim to be able to conduct two major campaigns(Wars).....with an all volunteer ARMY.

Conducting two major campaigns without winning either one is an attempt at futility.

If 'Mission Accomplished' meant anything (other than arrogant bravado), I fail to recognize it.

Listening to Cheney make his speach at West Point made my stomach turn.

B) UT