"They will have used up their rotation base at that point, meaning they will have to send people back to Iraq and Afghanistan with only a one-year break. At that point, people will start to quit."
The problem here is a fundamental law of physics. Our modern warfighting technology may be able to make one soldier as effective as ten, but one soldier can not be in two places at once. With ever increasing mission requirements, we need more boots in order to cover all the bases.
You don't send out five men to a baseball field, you send out nine.
Replies: 
(4)
quit bitching. you signed up for the army so take what they give you. protect your country with honor regardless of how many men are used. if you dont like it, dont resign.
Posted by james jones @ 01/25/2004 12:27 PM MST
1) I didn't sign up for the Army.
2) I have a right to criticize its leadership for not providing enough soldiers for the national defense.
3) If you want the soldiers to quit bitchin, give them what they need to do their job effectively (namely, more troops to cover all the bases).
4) This post was intended as a critique of Congress and the President, not the military. The military has done superbly well over the past 20 years with a smaller and smaller budget every year. However, the President can request more troops and the Congress can fund more troops. Your post addresses neither of these concerns, so I wonder if I should relegate you to troll status for ignoring the topic of discussion. So, what of it? Should the US Army have more active duty divisions, yes or no?
Posted by Maynard @ 01/25/2004 08:01 PM MST
I agree that the Army should activate two more divisions, but the question is this--how long would it take to stand these two divisions up? I should think it would two years to get them combat ready, and I don't think that this idea of independent brigades will change the timeframe much. The presence or absence of a couple of division headquarters won't change the time delta.
By the way, I thought that Stalin said that quantity has a quality all it's own.
Posted by Michael Galletly @ 10/26/2004 08:28 AM MST
Agreed, reactivating 2 more divisions would not be an instantaneous thing. It would take at least two years. But the question is: are we still going to be fighting the war on terror in two years? Is it likely that we will have toppled North Korea and Iran, as well as any other regimes that chose to take their place? Would the presence of two more divisions be useful in taking out those regimes, if it comes to that? Would it not be better to prepare for the future now and be ready then, instead of procrastinating now and paying for it in the future?
Activate them now and you won't be strained in the future.
Posted by Maynard @ 10/26/2004 08:47 AM MST
Add A New Comment
