[yubyub]

WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

“You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue,” he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army’s condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

He wrote that the Army is “in a race against time” to adjust to the demands of war “or risk ‘breaking’ the force in the form of a catastrophic decline” in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it would be “a very extreme characterization” to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request for troops that it has received from field commanders.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/from/RSS/

Now that is a very different picture than that painted by various friends and professeurs of mine that are in the army and have served in Iraq.  According to my History Prof. "Your generation is the best damn army generation we've ever had.  If this army can't win the War on Terror, no one can."  He said this right after returning from Iraq.  The way this was said inplied that the army was in the best condition is has ever been in.  Also of interest, he normally works at a management-level position, and is in charge of deployments in my area.  It would seem both in actual combat and at a management level, we are fine.  However, the article says otherwise.

So my question is this, is America's army and elite fighting force or a thin, crumbling organization?  Discuss.

[Deepblue]

Okay.

[yubyub]

Original post fixed, my appologies

[aldo_14]

Now that is a very different picture than that painted by various friends and professeurs of mine that are in the army and have served in Iraq.  According to my History Prof. "Your generation is the best damn army generation we've ever had.  If this army can't win the War on Terror, no one can."  He said this right after returning from Iraq.  The way this was said inplied that the army was in the best condition is has ever been in.  Also of interest, he normally works at a management-level position, and is in charge of deployments in my area.  It would seem both in actual combat and at a management level, we are fine.  However, the article says otherwise.

So my question is this, is America's army and elite fighting force or a thin, crumbling organization?  Discuss.

I thought it was pretty obvious the US Army was horribly overstretched.  I know certain former British Army officers have - in magazines, etc- criticised US planning, if not the fighting ability of US squaddies (except for reports of SAS troops being somewhat disparaging of Delta Forces' reliance on technology for survival).  Although AFAIK the general consensus is that the US army is not trained, equipped nor particularly good at the operations it faces in Iraq (assymetric warfare and peacekeeping), because of it's over-use on technology (like bombing suspected enemy forces rather than eyeballing them to check they're a legit target).

In any case, the US can't win the 'War on Terror'; it's about as stupid a notion as winning the 'War on Feeling a bit iffy on the whole tax thing', or the 'War on Crime'.

[Shade]

It is an elite fighting force, without question. The question is, will it still be in 5-10 years time? Probably not unless some serious policy changes are made, such as trying to fix the underlying problems that are the cause of terrorism. Instead, right now it's all about fighting the symptoms of the disease, so to speak, without actually working for a real cure.

The war on terrorism simply can not be won by force of arms. It can be won by investing in education, jobs, reconstruction, aid, and perhaps most importantly freedom and justice, for those areas where terrorists are most commonly recruited. It won't do anything about current terrorists, they're set in their ways for good, but it will reduce new generations of terrorists considerably and eventually win this so called war.

Not to mention it would do a whole lot of good for the currently tainted image of the US abroad.

[yubyub]

I think that the way to win the war on terror is a combination of force of arms and investing in education and etc.  Lets face it, no matter how much money we poured into Iraq to aid education, if Sadam was in power, it would've ended up in Sadam's pocket.  The same is true in Iran, but the money goes to the religion, not the single leader.  So we have to replace those regimes with ones that are willing to spend money on better education.

I also think the US can't win the war alone.  We need the help of our closest allies yes, but more importantly Russia and China.  This isn't to insult our allies in any way, god knows I love Australia, Israel, and Britain (who I consider our closest allies), but they only contribute more troops, intellegence and such.  They don't solve the problems of South-Asian Russia and western China having terrorist camps that we can't touch.

I also think that the current US Army is overstretched, yes, but we aren't that near the breaking point.  If we got close, the government would find some way to add more troops so either the current troops could go for shorter times, or more could be deployed.  Every person I have called since I read this article (3 of which got back from Iraq this month) were shocked by the article's views.  They say morale is much higher then is generally believed, and the army is nowhere near breaking.  I also called my history professeur and asked the same question, and he said that with our current troop deployment rates, we could keep going for at least another couple decades.  Sure, pay may need to be increased to help compensate and such, but the army won't break soon.  (However, I also think that one or two more engagements abroad would force the US would cause us to reinstate the draft in one form or another, but I digress).

I also think that the USA's armed forces, in general, are the worlds best.  In terms of number of troops we can deploy, rediculously advanced tech our top teams have, and quality training we have, I think the world grossly underestimates our troops.  To use a story told by my teacher, when they were being fired on from a 2-story building, 6 US troops entered the building and killed or captured the 13 militants inside within a minute.  That is pretty damn impressive.

IIRC, the War is Iraq is the US's least deadly war per capita.  That only 2,000 of our 136,000 died is incredible.  I of course think it is horrible that those 2,000 died, and I know the kind of pain they are going though (my grandfather's best friend died standing beside him in WWII, my grandfather still has the mental scars).  That isn't the sign of an army being to break under the stress of a prolonged conflict.

Anyways, have fun with my additional ramblings!

[Polpolion]

It's both.

Overall, America's army is great (it's just not used by smart people) . But ANY great army will suck if it is spread out to thinly.

For now, it gets the job done.

[Depth_Charge]

why would our troops be too thin.....we got over 200,000+ troops in the middle east.....some 30,000+ in the S.K and some other places, some 50,000+ in Europe.....and over 300,000 here??? how can that be too thin??

[BlackDove]

Overall, America's army is great.

[Polpolion]

some 50,000+ in Europe

Why the hell do we still have guys over there?

[Grey Wolf]

I thought it was pretty obvious the US Army was horribly overstretched.  I know certain former British Army officers have - in magazines, etc- criticised US planning, if not the fighting ability of US squaddies (except for reports of SAS troops being somewhat disparaging of Delta Forces' reliance on technology for survival).

Bah. Delta Force is nothing. USMC Force Recon FTW

[Mefustae]

I think that the way to win the war on terror is a combination of force of arms and investing in education and etc.  Lets face it, no matter how much money we poured into Iraq to aid education, if Sadam was in power, it would've ended up in Sadam's pocket.  The same is true in Iran, but the money goes to the religion, not the single leader.  So we have to replace those regimes with ones that are willing to spend money on better education.

You do realise that would mean replacing the Bush administration.

I also think the US can't win the war alone.  We need the help of our closest allies yes, but more importantly Russia and China.  This isn't to insult our allies in any way, god knows I love Australia, Israel, and Britain (who I consider our closest allies), but they only contribute more troops, intellegence and such.  They don't solve the problems of South-Asian Russia and western China having terrorist camps that we can't touch.

While I agree with you here - on practical grounds that is, IMO Australia should be the last country to lend a hand given the treatment our servicemen have recieved in the past - until I see some proof that these 'terrorist camps' in said areas are an actual threat, and not just fear-mongering at the hands of the American and greater media industries, the US doesn't need to drag Russia & China into this debacle.

I also think that the current US Army is overstretched, yes, but we aren't that near the breaking point.  If we got close, the government would find some way to add more troops so either the current troops could go for shorter times, or more could be deployed.  Every person I have called since I read this article (3 of which got back from Iraq this month) were shocked by the article's views.  They say morale is much higher then is generally believed, and the army is nowhere near breaking.  I also called my history professeur and asked the same question, and he said that with our current troop deployment rates, we could keep going for at least another couple decades.  Sure, pay may need to be increased to help compensate and such, but the army won't break soon.  (However, I also think that one or two more engagements abroad would force the US would cause us to reinstate the draft in one form or another, but I digress).

The media might not be trustworthy, but I think i'd take their word for it over a few returning soldiers and your history professor. It's common knowledge that the US Army is overstretched, and these articles only reinforce this inference.

I also think that the USA's armed forces, in general, are the worlds best.  In terms of number of troops we can deploy, rediculously advanced tech our top teams have, and quality training we have, I think the world grossly underestimates our troops.  To use a story told by my teacher, when they were being fired on from a 2-story building, 6 US troops entered the building and killed or captured the 13 militants inside within a minute.  That is pretty damn impressive.

The US army is as dumb and trigger-happy as any of the world's armed forces, they're really nothing special. Indeed, it's their technology that make them 'a force to be reckoned with', and that is effectively the only thing that makes the US army as strong as it is. Regarding your story, that's not really anything special; 6 well-trained US troops armed to the teeth with some of the best military equiptment available enter a large house and subdue (one way or another) 13 militants armed with Soviet-era weapons and virtually no military training whatsoever. Doesn't sound so impressive now, does it? Now let's examine some of the less-publicised accomplishments of US forces, such as when they "accidentally" called in an airstrike on a group of Al Jazeera journalists.

IIRC, the War is Iraq is the US's least deadly war per capita.  That only 2,000 of our 136,000 died is incredible.  I of course think it is horrible that those 2,000 died, and I know the kind of pain they are going though (my grandfather's best friend died standing beside him in WWII, my grandfather still has the mental scars). That isn't the sign of an army being to break under the stress of a prolonged conflict.

That is a vast, vast oversimplification. It may be the 'least-deadly' to American Servicemen, but what about injuries? If that famous toll included the number of people WIA, the number would be much, much higher, making the statistic you touted to be an extremely ineffective way of judging how the US Armed forces are coping. Not to mention the fact that it also ignores American non-combatants, such as contractors killed over there. If anyone has reasonably accurate numbers of American troops out of action, it'd be much appreciated it if could be linked/posted.

Bah. Delta Force is nothing. USMC Force Recon FTW

Pffff, Australian SAS FTW!! 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, we could have them fight each other, but we'd never know who won.

[Janos]

Overall, America's army is great.

Well since they have a pretty nice record, excel in MOUT, have the best equipment and really good training and are overall regarded as one of the best armies when it comes to fighting then yes, US armed forces are really professional and good.

[NGTM-1R]

Why the hell do we still have guys over there?

Comrade Putin still has a fairly large army, even if it's not in such good shape. Poland and others who have joined NATO are nervous about it, possibly with reason.

[Nix]

The only news I believe from NBC comes from the mouth of Jim Cramer, and that's it.  I see it as another attempt to skew facts that are *coughs* not publicly released *ahem* and as another reason to whine about why we shouldnt be over there.  Sure, we cannot win this "war" without our allies' armies and such.  I will agree with that.  Our military is sound, and with it being an all-volunteer army, how in the hell do you think it'd be so good without manditory enlistment?   Because of the people serving over there, the people who CHOSE to do this for the rest of thier forseeable futures.  The soldiers, the people deserve better than what the media is saying about them.  Thin green line?  Must be running out of catchy phrases to spice up the same old arguement.
And on that note, I just pulled a booger out of my nose with a four foot trail of snot on it.  Talk about thin green line.
NEXT WEEK: Let's talk about why Dems voted against Samuel Alley-oh-toe for political gain - round two!  *DING DING*

[Grey Wolf]

Nix, there's a difference between partisanship and stupidity: Don't cross it.

[TrashMan]

The media might not be trustworthy, but I think i'd take their word for it over a few returning soldiers and your history professor. It's common knowledge that the US Army is overstretched, and these articles only reinforce this inference.

Common knowledge?
Bah, I'd rather trust people who been in Irak from the begining and know the troops well. Since those soldiers are is friends, I somehow doubt they would lie to him.. The media on hte other hand...

The US army is as dumb and trigger-happy as any of the world's armed forces, they're really nothing special. Indeed, it's their technology that make them 'a force to be reckoned with', and that is effectively the only thing that makes the US army as strong as it is. Regarding your story, that's not really anything special; 6 well-trained US troops armed to the teeth with some of the best military equiptment available enter a large house and subdue (one way or another) 13 militants armed with Soviet-era weapons and virtually no military training whatsoever. Doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?

A bullet kills no matter from what gun its fired from. Don't underestimate old soviet tech. The gun technology hasn't really changed over the years. Us Gins might be more modular or some with better add-ons, but a telescopid digital sight doesn't helpyou in closed-quaters combat.
And why do you claim those militants don't have no training? It's not like most of them weren't part od Iraquy military before...or that they don't train and know how to use a gun..

That is a vast, vast oversimplification. It may be the 'least-deadly' to American Servicemen, but what about injuries? If that famous toll included the number of people WIA, the number would be much, much higher, making the statistic you touted to be an extremely ineffective way of judging how the US Armed forces are coping. Not to mention the fact that it also ignores American non-combatants, such as contractors killed over there. If anyone has reasonably accurate numbers of American troops out of action, it'd be much appreciated it if could be linked/posted.

It would still fall far below most other wars fought around the world.


EDIT: Delta Force would wipe the floor with any other specOps..

[Mefustae]

Common knowledge?
Bah, I'd rather trust people who been in Irak from the begining and know the troops well. Since those soldiers are is friends, I somehow doubt they would lie to him.. The media on hte other hand...

A valid point, but the soldiers he talked to probably didn't know the whole story (as is the case most of the time), and unless he knows an Officer above Captain, I sincearly doubt they'd know much about the condition of the armed forces over multiple units, let alone countries.

A bullet kills no matter from what gun its fired from. Don't underestimate old soviet tech. The gun technology hasn't really changed over the years. Us Gins might be more modular or some with better add-ons, but a telescopid digital sight doesn't helpyou in closed-quaters combat.
And why do you claim those militants don't have no training? It's not like most of them weren't part od Iraquy military before...or that they don't train and know how to use a gun.

Again, a valid point, but I wasn't talking exclusively guns here, as US troops also get the perks of Grenades, Flash-bangs, and NVGs. Moreover, it's a rather large assumption that said militants were formally-trained (evidenced by the fact that none of the American troops were killed), and even then, while the Iraqi military is a fine force (or at least it was pre-Kuwait), it can hardly be compared to the training that goes into most American troops.

Also, one needs to know a little more than using a gun to be effective in the afermentioned combat-situation.

It would still fall far below most other wars fought around the world.

It's also one of the smallest and easiest wars ever 'fought' by the US. We're talking a massive invasion of a nation that had its military crippled somewhat only 10 years before, by another nation widely accepted as having the most advanced and most powerful military in the world, it's not exactly World War 2 (the entire conflict could be easily compared to Germany's invasion of Poland, to take a famous example). Although, this entire arguement is somewhat flawed, as nobody really knows whether it's still a war or not! 

*Snip*

I'm sorry, but your mentioning of a 'thin green line' of snot effectively annihilated any possiblity of my (or anyone, really) taking your post or your opinion seriously.

[vyper]

[q]EDIT: Delta Force would wipe the floor with any other specOps..[/q]



I question your statement sir.