LibriumArcana.Games

Link

[quote]WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — The Pentagon is planning to send more than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening their off-duty time to meet the demands of President Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday.

National Guard officials told state commanders in Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma and Ohio last month that while a final decision had not been made, veteran units from their states could be designated to return between January and June of next year, the officials said.

The unit from Oklahoma, a combat brigade with one battalion currently in Afghanistan, had not been scheduled to go back to Iraq until 2010, and brigades from the other three states not until 2009. Each brigade has about 3,500 soldiers.

The accelerated timetable illustrates the cascading effect that the White House plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq is putting on the entire Army and in particular on Reserve forces, which officers predicted would face severe challenges in recruiting, training and equipping their forces. It also highlights the political risks of the White House’s Iraq strategy. Sending large numbers of reservists to Iraq in the middle of next year’s election campaign could drive up casualties among part-time soldiers in communities where support for the administration’s approach in Iraq is already tenuous, according to opinion polls.

A final decision on whether the additional Guard units will be required next year in Iraq will not be made for months, the officials said, and the full extent of the Guard role next year will depend on whether the situation in Iraq improves in the meantime.

It has been clear since Mr. Bush announced his plan last month that additional reservists could be required in Iraq, but the numbers and the identity of the specific units involved had not been previously disclosed. Changing the reservists’ schedules means abandoning previous promises that they would get several years between deployments. And the acceleration means that soldiers who usually drill just once a month and for a few weeks in the summer will have to begin intensive preparations right away.

“We’re behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around,â€

*sigh* And the Republicans say they "support our troops"?

...

Whatever they're on, I want some.

No it's not. It's fucking corruption more likely. The Army isn't actually allowed to run National Guard Armories, the state government involved does, now this changes under certain condaintions but to be blunt I've been hearing stories of weapons and ammo slipping for while. One of the reasons they don't always get top of the line gear.

Why? Because quite a few Guardsmen and their officers regard the the NG as a safe place to play solder without actually having to do any soldering. They are not majority by any means, but it only takes 3 corrupt higher ups and a 4 corrupt troopers to clean out a company, especially if that company is asleep.

Now I could be wrong, as noted above NG units usually get old crap. M16-A1 battle rifles are still in service in some of the units. Those aren't internally different at all from the M16-A2, but they're old. He could just have been lazy and have that many rifles down from lack of maintaince or spare parts. God knows it's happened more then once in the Active Services, not in the Marines due to inspection madness. Or it could be part of his cycle, weapons get sent into repair or deadlined (marked completely useless and broken, do not even try to use) and have to be replaced. Because someone hasn't rampped up the industry needed to deal with the wartime volume of battle lost equipment, it's slowed down especially for Guardsmen who are months away from deployment.

Now as to M4s. Yeah right. Active straight leg infantry units don't get as many as they want. While they're very good for the urban combat of Iraq alot of the brass hate them due to the range trade off (in my opinion it's not much, I mean I've never once in my life gotten into a 3200 meter firefight, any of the other vets here have?) and as one eagle shoulder asshole put it, it's looks like a kid's toy not a real rifle. Nightvision is something that as always been short. Odds are he wants every trooper to have a pair of goggles and it ain't happening. What you get is usually 3 or 4 per squad. Being NG he's lower on the totem pole and he's likely getting less, I'm not defending that situation because frankly, we should have more nightvision googles, but it was buy food for the troops or buy nifty googles. Even in the US budget there's only so much you can do before Congress screams bloody murder (but they'll vote themselves a pay raise sure...).

Alot of this is happening because we're not suppose to be using Guard for this. They're excaltly what they sound like a National Guard, units of which answer to their state governor. They're meant to be a line of defense in case of invasion not foreign duty troops. Course since the cuts, alot of logistical roles and support duties have been foisted off on the reserves and the Guard. Part of the strain of cutting an army down to 10 division from 17 and then asking it do more without cutting any of it's other committments.

Jr knew all about this, let's not pretend he didn't. But he hasn't tried to expand the services one bit (Congress called for additional 50,000 solders and 20,000 marines all on it's own) or done much of anything really. I believe that Rummy had him sold on that vision of 10,000 super hi tech light weight troops controling a country the size of fucking California without any trouble.

So yeah I do blame the leadership just not for the same shit that this article seems to want to lead you about.

I didn't take away from the article anything about the national leadership being at fault for them not having enough; let's face it, if the Guard was doing their normal duties(Last line of defense, disaster relief), 600 rifles short wouldn't matter, and no one would give a fuck they're down some howitzers except for accountants.

But it blatantly demonstrates the biggest danger of the method of fighting that is the 'non-war'. That is, going to war without declaring war; a 'police action'. 'Extended peacekeeping'. Or the ever popular 'Authorized Use Of Military Force'. Because none of these have the gravitas of 'Declaration Of War', there's no incentive on the political leadership to ensure the appropriate sacrifices and economy adjustments are made.

Iraq seems to be becoming an object lesson in why everything related to the way wars are conducted since WW2 is harmful. From the ceding of the ability to declare war away from the purseholders, allowing for a war of ego and personal vanity, to the massive failures of logistics, it is an abject lesson, far more blatant than the one some still compare it to. You know, the one starting with 'V' and ending with 'ietnam', the war none dare speak the name of.

And who should we declare war on excaltly? The government we installed? Al Sadr? Al Q in Iraq? We're not fighting a state or even a single group of insurgents, we're figthing more like a dozen groups with conflicting aims.

War should have been declared on Saddam, but in this case Congress did vote back in 2002 to give the President the power to use violence upon him. Frankly they're not without blame.

frigidmagi wrote:And who should we declare war on excaltly? The government we installed? Al Sadr? Al Q in Iraq? We're not fighting a state or even a single group of insurgents, we're figthing more like a dozen groups with conflicting aims.

War should have been declared on Saddam, but in this case Congress did vote back in 2002 to give the President the power to use violence upon him. Frankly they're not without blame.

Oh, I'm blaming the 2002 Congress for being obedient little puppies and giving Bush the AUMF instead of a full-on declaration of war on Saddam.

Virtually all of the problems with Iraq can't be fixed retroactively. We can't reverse the CPA turning the reconstruction into a giveaway for GOP allies. We can't turn back the clock and institute the rebuilding of the military that should have been started years ago. We can't even feasibly institute the sacrifices for war anymore; the public has turned on this, and simply won't do it.

Bush is an object lesson in why things like AUMF, and the War Powers Act, are damaging. The problem is that there really is little choice but to take the lumps and hope people learn the goddamn lessons instead of shoving them away and 'supporting the troops' by insisting it was a problem confined to one or two men, not the inevitable result of the American foreign policy post WW2/Korea.