US military 'at breaking point'

[mysterious]

US military 'at breaking point'

The US military has become dangerously overstretched because of the scale of its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, two reports have warned.


One, by former officials in the Clinton administration, said the pressure of repeated deployments was very corrosive and could have long-term effects.

The second, ordered by the Pentagon and yet to be released, reportedly calls the army "stretched to breaking point".

The US defence secretary dismissed the claims as out of date or misdirected.
About 138,000 US troops remain in Iraq, on top of deployments to Afghanistan and Kosovo.

'Enormous strain'

The study commissioned by Democratic members of Congress listed former Defence Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright among its authors.
It said the US military had performed admirably in recent operations but was under "enormous strain".

"This strain, if not soon relieved, will have highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force," it stated.

The report predicted problems recruiting new troops and retaining current ones in the face of repeated overseas tours and shortfalls in vital equipment.

It accused the Bush administration of having failed adequately to assess the size of force and equipment needed in post-invasion Iraq, creating "a real risk of 'breaking the force'."

The report also warned that the lack of a credible strategic reserve "increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States".

'Not broken'

The second study, conducted for the Pentagon by military expert Andrew Krepinevich, suggested that the military at its current rate of deployment might not be able to outlast the insurgency in Iraq.

He cited the problems experienced by the army in meeting its recruitment targets last year.

Speaking in Washington, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected the warnings given in both reports, saying: "The force is not broken."

He said the US military was enormously capable and battle-hardened and any report suggesting it was close to breaking point was "just not consistent with the facts".

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the reports echo the view held by some in Congress and even by some within the armed forces.
They fear that if the Iraq commitment lasts a great deal longer, or if the US is drawn into new conflict, the US armed forces could find it difficult to meet their commitments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4649066.stm

Well it sounds like quite a credible precaution that these reports are sending out to the current administration. How much more can this administration expect from its forces while it keeps bullying other nation-states and picking fights and then getting bogged down in the middle?

Iran would certainly have the last laugh if the US were to use the military option against it. The insurgency that would follow (in addition to the current Iraqi one), would definitely stretch supplies and manpower beyond expectations. It would also significantly lower troop morale who are already suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq.

US armed forces, as the article quite clearly points out, are already having a hard time getting new recruits. The problems-faced list, goes on and on.

 

[Temoor_A]

It is an interesting article!

Although a year before, US inducted 5500 new soldiers in its army. Thats almost twice the number of troops lost in both IRAQ and Afghanistan.

The other problem is that US troops are deployed in large numbers in various nations around the globe. So this strategic deployment also stretches US army and marines.

In Europe: 117,000 troops are deployed in various nations. 60,000+ are in Germany alone.

In Middle-East (apart from IRAQ): close to 26,000 troops are deployed.

In Southern Asia: 100,000+ troops are deployed (including deployment in Japan and South Korea)

 

[mysterious]

Its not just about active troops being over-stretched and exhausted; even the National Guard and other reserve units have been used extensively since the "War on Terror" began thereby increasing fatigue among troops who face constant rotation.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

As far as American ground forces are concerned, they cannot support a third active conflict besides Iraq and Afganistan without forward deploying all of the regulars plus a significant portion of the reserves/guards, leaving U.S. unable to deal with sudden regional crisis. With that in mind, a "seize and hold" operation against Iran is very unlikely. They have alot of air and naval assets in the theatre that can carry out a bombing campaign, but the Iranian forces have dug deep and it will be difficult to assess the effectiveness of the bombing without ground troops.

Above all, the American public demonstrated the strongest anti-war sentiment since Vietname before the Iraq invasion. It is not certain if Bush will be able to maintain his position if he initiate another conflict. Not only that, the Iraq war has already upset the major powers in the world, and they will take more aggressive actions in helping Iran without a doubt.

 

[mysterious]

Yes and no matter how much of a hyper-power the US might be, the strategists in Washington should keep the old saying in mind, 'you cannot fight everyone at the same time'. Russia and China, if pushed too much on the Iran issue (both significant energy trade-involved nations with Iran) they just might simply veto any resolutions which they see as harming their interests (having already suffered in Iraq).

 

[Rich]

Gee those are real objective sources. Maybe "Bomb the Serbs Albright" should have worried about all this when she was in office, and she and the Bill & Hillary pony show were ruining the Military.

 

[Cootamundra]

While the US Armed Forces could open enother theatre of operations if needed, they will not. The economic implications of a war in Iran are to dire for any President to wade into, especially a President who is fass losing the hard earned and well won political capital from last year. The US Armed forces as an organisation has the ability to fight in three theatres but not to occupy across all three at the same time. When you take this into account and the economic issue then you can see that economic sanctions will be the preferred method for reining in the mullahs.

 

[Rich]

Unilateral military action to the worlds problems is a swamp we should avoid if at all possible. With Iraq we at least had over a decade of Saddam violating cease fire agreements/UN legislation dozens and dozens of times. I mention Serbia because it had no United Nations authorization but because a Liberal US president was in office at the time the same voices now bashing Bush on Iraq now kept largly silent then.

Iran is the "worlds" problem as is the spread of WMDs to rouge states and terrorists. If the United Nations is incapable of dealing with such problems then we have no business belonging to such an organization. As it stands I'd much prefer if the place wasnt on our shores. Americans shouldnt be funding an organization that is working against our interest and security. We should instead create a world body that would only include Democratic nations instead of paying for a world body that gives voice to despotic regimes and dictators.

There was far,far more anti-war sentiment pre-Gulf War-l then pre- Iraq . Someone that doesnt live here shouldnt be making such statements.

 

[mysterious]

As it stands I'd much prefer if the place wasnt on our shores. Americans shouldnt be funding an organization that is working against our interest and security. We should instead create a world body that would only include Democratic nations instead of paying for a world body that gives voice to despotic regimes and dictators.

And I'm sure that's quite an encouraging stance for newer democracies to follow? Focus on one chain of thought and point-of-view, not allowing the other side to tell its story? Interesting.

The UN serves its purpose of giving equal voice to all members countries and gives them a chance to present their case (their point-of-view) even though the permanent five at times do get the best out of it. Then member countries 'vote' to form the UN's opinion on a matter (which is also at times heavily influenced by bigger powers).

Which organization should take over if UN is to be dissolved? One that follows the one-way-street for point-of-views shoving biased propaganda down others' throats like CNN? FOX? In this manner, every country would have its own little UN, claiming if they pay for it, it should necessarily represent their views. Doesn't sound very 'democratic' to me.

P.S. If someone from a geo-politically less influential country put forth this point, there would've been something to ponder over, but US?

 

[Rich]

Who's views? The world, and the United Nations, is strewn with Dictatorships, theocracies, and military Govt.,s, whos "views" are restricted to an elite few. And an un-elected "elite few" at that.

And we dont "owe" them anything. Since when is giving voice to tyrrany and oppression "Democratic"? Doing so is actually part of the problem and its one that keeps cropping up in the socialist Govt.'s of Eurpoe and Canada.

PS, sorry I "disturbed you" but here in America we have something called "freedom of speech". And so far it still even applies to those who dont believe in the Socialist World body Politic.

 

[mysterious]

And your government and its agencies amazingly support almost eighty-percent of those governments. Everyone has a right to express their opinions and point-of-views; Americans are not appointed by anyone (are rather self-appointed) to judge who should have such rights and who shouldn't. I dont need to give Iraq as an example, everyone knows the debacle.

Ironic how you boast about 'freedom of speech' in your country, yet curse the UN for doing the same for its member countries (and their leaders). I guess double-standards has become 'the routine' in the American mindset?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Warning

Thread frozen for a few days so that everyone can go and read the rules and work out where they went wrong for this to get locked.

Time and time again we remind people about common issues of courtesy to individuals and to countries. Time and time again, we end up having to lock down what are useful threads because of a lack of restraint.

I don't care if you're from venus or were born in a deep sea mount 3km below in the marianas trench - what I do care about is that people too readily fail to exercise appropriate restraint and start getting personal towards either an individual or that individuals country.

It is totally unacceptable and I am sick of coming in like the local forum street sweeper having to tidy up when there is no need to

This is not a forum for political debate, its not a forum to exercise personal political grievances - if thats what you want, then go elsewhere. There are numerous rock throwing forums out there that will cater to it.

This will re-open in a few days. Hopefully it can then go back to a serious thread minus the invective.

Do not send me or the other Mods PM's about this as they will be ignored.​