The Republicans are breaking the military. Wonder what another 50 years in Iraq under Hillary (she said she's fine with that), or 100 years in Iraq under McCain (he said he's fine with that), would do?
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making such heavy use of the nation's Green Berets and other elite warriors that they cannot fulfill their roles in other parts of the world, the military's top commando told The Associated Press on Monday.
"We're going to fewer countries, staying for shorter periods of time, with smaller numbers of people than historically we have done," Adm. Eric T. Olson said in his first interview since becoming commander of U.S. Special Operations Command last July.
Olson, himself a combat veteran, saw little chance that the demand for his special operations forces in Iraq will decline anytime soon. Even as the overall American force there shrinks — from about 158,000 now to about 140,000 by the end of July — the number of special operations forces in the war zone is likely to increase, he said.
Well, let's just hope that Iran and North Korea and China are nice enough to give us that four year break we need because Bush broke the US military. From AFP.
Yes, God forbid we pass legislation that would require the military to follow their own rules about giving our troops a break in order to ensure that they're at peak fighting efficiency (and peak defensive efficiency to stop themselves from getting killed). Republicans talk a lot about honoring the troops, yet they're always the ones screwing the troops.
When Bush announced Admiral John Mullen as his nominee to succeed General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it wasn't clear whether he would be in favor of lifting the ban on gays and lesbians openly serving in the military.
The first hint of change came when I located a transcript of a speech Admiral Mullen gave at The Brookings Institution in April of this year. He said: "If it's time to revisit that policy, the American people I believe -- and we live in a country -- the American people ought to raise that issue and we'll have the debate."
In a hearing the other day, he reiterated that belief. (SLDN):
Admiral John Mullen, President Bush's nominee to succeed General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was questioned about the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel during a Senate hearing Tuesday. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine queried Mullen on the continued dismissal of gay troops under the ban. While confirming that he would implement the current law, Mullen also told Collins that "I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that's appropriate." He went on to say that, "I'd love to have Congress make its own decisions" with respect to considering repeal. Mullen's remarks follow a firestorm of controversy surrounding comments by Pace referring to gay personnel as "immoral" during a March interview with the Chicago Tribune.
..."Admiral Mullen's remarks are a welcome change of pace among military leadership, where there has long been an adversity to encouraging debate on opening the services to lesbian and gay patriots," said Sharra E. Greer, director of law and policy for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "As Senator Collins rightly pointed out, there is growing concern among the national security establishment that the loss of talented gay troops is having a detrimental impact on our armed forces. Admiral Mullen should be applauded for his willingness to take part in a national conversation about that issue, and for his open-minded approach to working with Congress as they consider the future of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"
Ah, do you hear the sounds of fundie heads exploding. Expect a shrill press release from homophobe Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness shortly.
You can't serve if you're openly gay or lesbian, but bring on the gang members and felons. A CBS report shows how bad the situation is.
The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier.
Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions.
George Bush's military is increasingly looking like the gang-infested, crime holes many young men and women are trying to escape from. What's appealing about a military that is recruiting folks convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats. The number of convicted felons enlisted in the U.S. military has almost doubled in the past three years, and 43,977 individuals convicted of serious misdemeanors such as assault have enlisted under the moral waivers program.
There's also a stunning piece by Radar Magazine's Seamus McGraw, Gangs of Iraq. It's a chilling account of how far the military has fallen, with its backdrop the murder of Sergeant Juwan Johnson a decorated war vet, who was killed as a result of a gang initiation by the Gangster Disciples while in the military.
It wasn't until May 2006, five months after the Army papered the base with fliers offering a $25,000 reward (later upped to $50,000) for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case, that investigators acknowledged a gang connection.
Ten months lapsed before the first suspect was charged. Since then, five soldiers have been charged in the case, according to a U.S. Army spokesperson. Only one of them, Specialist Bobby Morrissette - a friend who served alongside Johnson throughout his deployment overseas -- has been slated to stand trial.
But according to gang experts, including one who has been called to testify, the real mystery is why it took the Army so long to accept that Johnson was the victim of a growing epidemic of gang violence that has infected all branches of the armed services. Lax enlistment standards have inadvertently allowed thousands of gang members to join the military, including young men who belong to the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, and various white supremacist groups. But no gang has infiltrated the armed forces as deeply as the Gangster Disciples, a 100,000-member Chicago-based syndicate that has been linked to an assortment of crimes ranging from murder to mortgage fraud.
"There's no doubt about it -- the Gangster Disciples are the biggest [gang] in the Army," says Chicago Police Lieutenant Robert Stasch, who has spent 30 years tracking the group's rise from a handful of street-corner hoodlums to what he calls "the most sophisticated criminal enterprise in the United States."
The Army is considering whether it will have to extend the combat tours of troops in Iraq if President Bush opts to maintain the recent buildup of forces through spring 2008....
Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren testified Tuesday that.... the decision to extend tours from 12 to 15 months was made to ensure soldiers were guaranteed one year at home. Previously, soldiers deployed for 12-month cycles but were unsure when they would be sent back.
Yes, we're going to extend their tours AGAIN so that they get more time at home. Kind of like saying, I have to work late tonight so I can spend more time with the kids. Here's a thought, why not just bring them home?
I also hear that the increased violence means we're winning.
It's not just that they didn't fill the order in 18 months, they didn't even ACT on the request to fill the order for 18 months. Our troops were dying every day from these IEDs, Bush was threatening to go to war with Iran over these IEDs, and these people didn't even think it was important to even start the process of getting them the protection they needed for a good year and a half.
And now we're going to give them another $100 billion to play with, no strings attached. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. More from Wired.com.
No, really. They just said this. It's GOOD for our soldiers, for their families, their morale, and for the overall "stress" on the Army for our soldiers to now be stuck longer in Iraq. Hell, if it's that good for them, I suppose we can expect a permanent deployment sometime in the future to solve all the stress problems our soldiers are facing.
These people really are a piece of work. Any question remaining as to who really hates the troops?
Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases....
Army officials say the two brigades will be as ready as any others that deploy to Iraq, even though they will not have the benefit of training in counterinsurgency tactics at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., which has been outfitted to simulate conditions in Iraq for units that are heading there on year-long tours.
Right, they're not missing out on anything important on their way to fight Iraq's insurgency - other than their counterinsurgency training.
The new report detailing the problems created by the botched war in Afghanistan and unnecessary war in Iraq comes straight from the top.
Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.
The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.
The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace's review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its warfighting abilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."
Any normal, level-headed person might think this is the time for discussions and dialog with Iran, but that's not the case with the GOP leadership who just don't seem to get it.
Speaker Pelosi's blog, the Gavel, expands significantly on a NYT story today about the extent to which Bush's "surge" in Iraq is straining our military resources. The Gavel notes the following military experts expressing real concern that Bush may be breaking the Army:
Lieutenant General David Poythress, the state adjutant general for the Georgia National Guard, 12/17/06:
“There is a danger of breaking the Army, but there is an equivalent danger of breaking the Guard. Guardsmen don’t sign up to be full-time soldiers. If that’s what they wanted, they’d join the active Army.”
General Peter Schoomaker, Chief of Staff United States Army, 12/14/06:
“At this pace, without recurrent access to the reserve components, through remobilization, we will break the active component. Further, because almost all reserve component units have already been either partially or completely mobilized in support of the Global War on Terrorism, current mobilization policies and practices require the Army to rely on individual volunteers from the reserve components. This runs counter to the military necessity of deploying trained, ready, and cohesive units.”
Lynn Davis, a senior analyst in the Arroyo Center, a division of the Rand Corp. that does research for the army, 9/22/06:
“The continuing frequent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the U.S. Army so thin that there are few brigades ready to respond to crises elsewhere.”
Andrew Krepinevich, retired Army officer and author of a Pentagon report arguing 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, 1/24/06:
“You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue.”
George Joulwan, retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, 12/5/05:
“And we’re fighting in all of Iraq, and we’ve got deployments in Afghanistan and worldwide. They are stretched thin. Whether they’re broken or not, I think I would say if we don’t change the way we’re doing business, they’re in danger of being fractured and broken, and I would agree with that.”
