Has the US run out of troops?

What do people make of the big row about the US request for 650 British troops to be redeployed in the North of Iraq? Some people say its a political request, intended to make the US look less isolated, but others point out that most Americans have only the vaguest notion of what the British involvement there is anyway.

The argument that it won't make much difference to the average US voter does seem pretty convincing, but if its really a military decision, isn't that a bit worrying? If the US can't find 650 troops for operations in Iraq, how on earth could it cope with another conflict elsewhere in the world? Is it wise to let the world know that the US has apparently run out of soldiers? What if Mexico decides now would be a good time to avenge the Alamo and retake Texas? Or if the Cubans want Guantanamo back? Would the call go out for the British army to defend the Rio Grande? Or would the required troop numbers magically be found?

Surely it either IS a political decision, at least in the sense that Bush doesn't want to pay the political price of sending more US troops, or its just evidence that the whole conflict has been disasterously misjudged in terms of the troop numbers required. Or both.

I think it's military and political. Political in the sense that Bush doesn't seem alone in Iraq to American voters. Also military in the sense that if Britain would not pony up 650 troops, then maybe they are leaning to withdrawing troops; this could have been an assessment of Britain's loyalty to Bush.

No one would try to invade the United States until they have developed an inpenetrable missile defense system or some other measure to prevent nuclear attack from the United States.

Mexico has already invaded the US!

Rest assured folks...the number of troops in Iraq is a very small portion of our qualified end troop strength.

Anyone who believes otherwise is an "India Delta TEN Tango"!!

Originally posted by Jeff What if Mexico decides now would be a good time to avenge the Alamo and retake Texas?erm...if I'm not mistaken, the Mexicans were victorious at the Alamo, so what would they have to avenge, or did you mean San Jacinto? Besides, a small army of Mexicans come across the border everyday, and they don't even need weapons. At the current immigration and birth rates, more than half of the people that live in Texas will be Hispanic by the year 2010! Maybe they can just hold a vote to secede from the Union, and petition Mexico for statehood!

Oops, well you've got me on my highly wobbly knowledge of American history. The Alamo involved Davey Crocket and Ozzy Osbourne was involved in some capacity, right?

Bush - International Terrorist

Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche Bush - International Terrorist

Koffi Annan, TotalElfFina et al + oil, money, food and medicine stolen from Iraqi civilians = blood on their hands.

I just herd that 40% of the US troops in Iraq are from the National Guard. Not the regular army, that would suggest that there is a troop shortage.

Originally posted by Ronald Kirsch I just herd that 40% of the US troops in Iraq are from the National Guard. Not the regular army, that would suggest that there is a troop shortage.

It's called Surge and Rotation.

The NG alwasy complained about training and experience and now they are getting it. Be careful what you wish for...

We've still quite less than half a million troops in Iraq (TOTAL)!!! The active duty Army has about 1.3 million troops, the active duty USMC, about 300,000...sooooooooo....there obviously is NOT a troop shortage.

Not everything is as it SEEMS.

My qualifications: US DOD (13 years) Homeland Security (1 year...so far)

I think I can tell with confidence that the "Shortage" is a serious myth, much like the draft coming back and Kerry have a clue.

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by Ronald Kirsch> I just herd that 40% of the US troops in Iraq are from the National Guard. Not the regular army, that would suggest that there is a troop shortage.

It's called Surge and Rotation.

The NG alwasy complained about training and experience and now they are getting it. Be careful what you wish for...

We've still quite less than half a million troops in Iraq (TOTAL)!!! The active duty Army has about 1.3 million troops, the active duty USMC, about 300,000...sooooooooo....there obviously is NOT a troop shortage.

Not everything is as it SEEMS.

My qualifications: US DOD (13 years) Homeland Security (1 year...so far)

I think I can tell with confidence that the "Shortage" is a serious myth, much like the draft coming back and Kerry have a clue.

So why are the Black Watch having to redeploy to Northern Iraq? And why has the US banned reservists from quitting? I'm not being purely rhetorical, I'd like to know the answer.

Your own figures seem to suggest a third of the total US strength is in Iraq, which certainly sounds like 'overstretch' to me, given all the other commitments the US has.

And if the military is not overstretched, why were they unable to secure the nuclear research and explosive producing facilities that have recently turned out to have been stripped bare? Why could they not prevent the orgy of looting immediately after the fall of Saddam? If you claim its not down to a shortage of troops then surely you are implictly casting doubt on the competence of the military on the ground, which seems rather unfair to me.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche> Bush - International Terrorist

Koffi Annan, TotalElfFina et al + oil, money, food and medicine stolen from Iraqi civilians = blood on their hands.

Its quite possible to dislike both Bush AND the UN.

(The UN's failure to restrain the US from unilaterally attacking Iraq graphically demonstrated its uselessness, I think)

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche> > Bush - International Terrorist>

Koffi Annan, TotalElfFina et al + oil, money, food and medicine stolen from Iraqi civilians = blood on their hands. Its quite possible to dislike both Bush AND the UN. (The UN's failure to restrain the US from unilaterally attacking Iraq graphically demonstrated its uselessness, I think)

It would be unthinkable for the UN to restrain the US, even if we have debts to the UN, we still pay the most money, and since the US is the only remaining superpower in the world, the UN would be a joke without the US. I can see the UN slowly sulking to an organization mainly concerned with humanitary aid.

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by Ronald Kirsch> I just herd that 40% of the US troops in Iraq are from the National Guard. Not the regular army, that would suggest that there is a troop shortage.

It's called Surge and Rotation.

The NG alwasy complained about training and experience and now they are getting it. Be careful what you wish for...

We've still quite less than half a million troops in Iraq (TOTAL)!!! The active duty Army has about 1.3 million troops, the active duty USMC, about 300,000...sooooooooo....there obviously is NOT a troop shortage.

Not everything is as it SEEMS.

My qualifications: US DOD (13 years) Homeland Security (1 year...so far)

I think I can tell with confidence that the "Shortage" is a serious myth, much like the draft coming back and Kerry have a clue.

It has been suggested, not by me, that for every soldier in the field you need upto 4 at home, for logistics and rotation. The US also has other commitments as well, ie Afgahnistan. If you go by the 1 - 4 ratio, and the figures you have suggested above then things are looking a bit bare.

Originally posted by Ronald Kirsch > Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by Ronald Kirsch> I just herd that 40% of the US troops in Iraq are from the National Guard. Not the regular army, that would suggest that there is a troop shortage.

It's called Surge and Rotation.

The NG alwasy complained about training and experience and now they are getting it. Be careful what you wish for...

We've still quite less than half a million troops in Iraq (TOTAL)!!! The active duty Army has about 1.3 million troops, the active duty USMC, about 300,000...sooooooooo....there obviously is NOT a troop shortage.

Not everything is as it SEEMS.

My qualifications: US DOD (13 years) Homeland Security (1 year...so far)

I think I can tell with confidence that the "Shortage" is a serious myth, much like the draft coming back and Kerry have a clue.

It has been suggested, not by me, that for every soldier in the field you need upto 4 at home, for logistics and rotation. The US also has other commitments as well, ie Afgahnistan. If you go by the 1 - 4 ratio, and the figures you have suggested above then things are looking a bit bare.

Those figures DID hold true in the 70's, 80's and early 90's...when the military was self-sufficient. Clinton introduced the whole "Commercial Off The Shelf" policy to the DoD and in effect, removed the military's self reliance. Sad I think. That 1 to 4 ratio was actaully a very good thing in my book.

Not really....the military has moved away in recent years (Like the last 10 years actually) from using soldiers and sailors to do that mundane support and logistics roles. Most, and I mean MOST of that has been taken over by civilians, mainly taken from experienced peoples such as former military, to untertake a majority of those roles. This allows those freed up personnel to "grab a gun" and get the experience...instead of merely cooking the 'Beans' and supplying the 'Bullets'.

Sorry to burst that bubble, but it just ain't true.

And while this adds to the number of soldiers and sailors in the end strengh of the armed forces, US Coast Guard included, I am not quite sure if I agree with this swweping change that has occured in the DoD in the past several years. I would (personally) rather see soldiers and sailors supporting their own...and not relying so much on the civilian sector. And it's not the only the US doing this...actually, the US has been slow to adopt this policy...

I know I happen to work in our Department of Defence (note spelling) as a civillian. It is a good idea to concentrate the military into the sharp end, but they do need some time off as well. I can only speak from experience working with the navy. There is such a thing as a sea/shore roster. Just where do all the sailors go when all the shore billets are filled with civillians?

Originally posted by Ronald Kirsch I know I happen to work in our Department of Defence (note spelling) as a civillian. It is a good idea to concentrate the military into the sharp end, but they do need some time off as well. I can only speak from experience working with the navy. There is such a thing as a sea/shore roster. Just where do all the sailors go when all the shore billets are filled with civillians?

Shore billets are being realigned to handle this. A majority of our "Shore" ratings have gone the way of the Dodo. Many of the remaining ratings in the Navy are primararily "Sea" billets. These things are timed carefully. Like myself, I'm a navigator by trade so I have a "Sea" rating...thus 5yrs Sea/2-3yrs ashore. Where they go...? There still are MANY instructor billets and let's not forget Force Protection (Security). It is the biggest growth in the military right now. So many ratings are crossing over to do just that.

As a matter of fact the US has. Currently the US is recruiting the Home Guard (fabulous defense during the Blitz) and the Volks Grenadiers (did a great job during the Battle of the Bulge).

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche> > Bush - International Terrorist>

Koffi Annan, TotalElfFina et al + oil, money, food and medicine stolen from Iraqi civilians = blood on their hands.

Its quite possible to dislike both Bush AND the UN.

(The UN's failure to restrain the US from unilaterally attacking Iraq graphically demonstrated its uselessness, I think)

How, exactly, do you define unilateral?

I believe going to Iraq along with many British troops and scant amounts of troops from various other countries qualifies as unilateral...

Originally posted by The Man Up North SirChunks -- you were speaking about GUNS -- I wonder: did you ever shoot at someone? Did you ever KILL someone ?

I will only say this: Yes I have shot many guns in several countries.

Have I been in the position to take the life from someone? Yes. But that's all will discuss on that matter.

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by The Man Up North> SirChunks -- you were speaking about GUNS -- I wonder: did you ever shoot at someone? Did you ever KILL someone ?

I will only say this: Yes I have shot many guns in several countries. Have I been in the position to take the life from someone? Yes. But that's all will discuss on that matter.

I knew I thought you reminded me of someone... Jack Bauer from CTU :p (don't worry if you've never seen the show 24).

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by The Man Up North> SirChunks -- you were speaking about GUNS -- I wonder: did you ever shoot at someone? Did you ever KILL someone ?

I will only say this: Yes I have shot many guns in several countries. Have I been in the position to take the life from someone? Yes. But that's all will discuss on that matter.

I knew I thought you reminded me of someone... Jack Bauer from CTU :p (don't worry if you've never seen the show 24).

Actually I have seen the show...every episode except for season 3. My friends and I are dorky enough to wait for the DVDs so we can do the entire season in marathon fashion over the course of a drunken weekend.

And...are you saying that I'm a smug SOB?? Cool!!

Originally posted by The Man Up North SirChunks -- you were speaking about GUNS -- I wonder: did you ever shoot at someone? Did you ever KILL someone ?

Maybe utilized some "smart" bombs....

Only a 75% civillian casualty rate, compaired to last year's 85%

Originally posted by Aleph > Originally posted by The Man Up North> SirChunks -- you were speaking about GUNS -- I wonder: did you ever shoot at someone? Did you ever KILL someone ?

Maybe utilized some "smart" bombs....

Only a 75% civillian casualty rate, compaired to last year's 85%

Negative shipmate. Have not utilized smart bombs [personally] but have been part of a smart bomb (JDAM) mission...and I got to see this live from afar via recce cams and I can tell you that we had 0% civilian casualties-100% bad guys.

Sometimes in conflict or war, casualties must occur, sadly, to finish the damn thing! It sucks, but get over it!! And 75% is reaching a bit far in the overall stats. Sure, if you bomb a loaded public building that happens to contain offices or centers with bad guys in them, yeah you get casualties reaching that high. But hey...no one complains about Chemotherapy!!!!!

Funny, no one ever bitched about the casualty figures in WWII. Why should WWIII be any different? Oh...I know, society has become a bunch of limp dick, afraid of the sight of their own blood, sensitive fairies!!!

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by 404 error> > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > > > > Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche> > > Bush - International Terrorist> > >

Koffi Annan, TotalElfFina et al + oil, money, food and medicine stolen from Iraqi civilians = blood on their hands.

Its quite possible to dislike both Bush AND the UN.

(The UN's failure to restrain the US from unilaterally attacking Iraq graphically demonstrated its uselessness, I think)

How, exactly, do you define unilateral?

Unilateral = the US invading Iraq with the support of almost nobody apart from Tony Blair (not the rest of Britain, note). Anyway, I'm not one of those who opposes the war while making a fetish of 'international law' and the UN, the invasion was a bad idea on its own merits, and I've never reckoned much to the UN (nor to Chirac, who clearly opposed the war for reasons as dubious as Blair's for supporting it).