posted on July 20, 2003 11:15:54 PM new
Do you really think they care where Osamma & Saddam are.
If a $500Million reward was on offer instead of $25, I might think of going after him myself.
But others would have beaten us to it by now.
That would be the 'buy of the century' compared to what these wars have actually cost.
But then we may not have had a reason to go into the oil states.
I think you might be wrong NativeAmerican;
this seems to be a case of the Bush family actualy finishing what they started out to get.
Black gold control.
posted on August 7, 2003 10:30:47 AM new
U.S. troops need relief now, not promises of future fixes
Thu Aug 7, 6:19 AM ET
yahoo.com
Last month, U.S. soldiers in Iraq (news - web sites) committed a brazen act of insubordination on ABC's Good Morning America: They griped about their unending peacekeeping duties. Army Spc. Clinton Dietz went as far as to say that if Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were there, "I'd ask him for his resignation."
The complaints show how dangerously stretched and stressed U.S. forces are. They also expose an unintended consequence of the Pentagon's makeover of the military into a high-tech force that can strike terrorists or rogue states with lightning speed. While the Pentagon is acquiring the weapons needed to confront today's threats, it has yet to transform the human component. U.S. soldiers are facing longer and more perilous assignments than ever before.
Rumsfeld insists that increasing the nation's troop strength is not the answer. At a news conference Tuesday, he said the military most likely can handle all of its commitments through organizational changes and efficiencies that already are underway or being considered. These include replacing troops with civilians in 300,000 support jobs, letting private contractors handle security at military installations and curtailing some peacekeeping missions.
While those ideas hold long-term promise, they do little to solve the current personnel shortages causing morale to sag. If added troops aren't the answer, the onus is on Rumsfeld to show he is responding to servicemembers' immediate needs.
The success of the military's endgame in Iraq and its broader transformation depend on better preparing troops for the sacrifices they are being asked to make in today's environment. Failure to do so is taking a toll:
High turnover. A 2001 Pentagon report on the state of its forces noted that longer family separations because of peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo had already hurt recruitment and retention. Some military experts say protracted missions in Afghanistan and Iraq have only increased separations and added high stress that can exacerbate the problems.
Family disruption. When most of today's forces signed up, they could plan on overseas postings typically lasting two years or more at comfortable bases in Germany and elsewhere that accommodated families. No more. The Pentagon now favors austere barracks closer to hot spots where troops can expect to spend several months at a time, such as in Eastern Europe.
Rumsfeld says Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace is studying ways to make the current military force more efficient and avoid a costly increase in troop strength. Still, the review already is more than a year old, and its recommendations are not yet complete.
In the meantime, the Pentagon is scrambling to respond to complaints from frustrated soldiers and their families. Last month, it drew up new rotations with firm return dates, including the deployment of 10,000 Reserve members and National Guardsmen. Regular troops were warned they would be in Iraq for a year, double the usual deployment time.
To help those troops adapt to prolonged tours, the Navy can serve as a model of a needed culture change. Its forces routinely spend six months or more away from home, and Navy families have support groups that expect and make the best of separations.
As the U.S. military completes the transformation that these times require, troops and their families can cope better if they know their concerns are being addressed now not in the distant future.
posted on August 7, 2003 11:32:44 AM new
What the heck do we have an Army for? If they can't stand being away from their families for a few months or (gasp!) a year, then they are in the wrong line of work. They made history with one of the best military victories in history, but now they're acting like a bunch of whiners.
My biggest complaint when I was in was that there were too many spit-shined-and-pressed garrison soldiers who only cared about getting promoted. Now it's starting to show.
posted on August 7, 2003 12:35:08 PM new
What the heck do we have an Army for?
To use up and throw away for political ends. Like any other nation. No better at all.
They used to pretend a greater respect for human life, but the control they are grasping makes such posturing less and less needed.
When they start the draft back up we'll see people leaving for Europe just like they used to come here rather than throw their sons away for pointless wars of glory.
There is a lot of difference between fighting a war of survival as they were told Iraq was and fighting a war of Empire for economic gain. Fewer all the time believe the reasons given. Especially when it becomes "On to...Iran and Syria and whoever......Yeah they all are minutes from attacking the US...How easy people are to fool.
posted on August 7, 2003 01:36:05 PM new"They made history with one of the best military victories in history"
I hope you are not referring to the war in Iraq as "one of the Best military victories in history". A successful preemptive strike on a poor defenseless country is only historical in the sense that it was a colossal blunder.
posted on August 8, 2003 09:12:55 AM newThey made history with one of the best military victories in history
Beating up on an almost defenseless country. Hmmm...maybe that gets your rocks off. maybe that what you do late at night, go around finding the weak and defenseless to whoop. Our military hasn't fought a REAL battle since Vietnam. And that and the one before that showed how weak our military doctrine and execution are. I wonder what would happen if we actually went to war with an enemy that could ACTUALLY FIRE BACK! Maybe then we would actually stop killing of the young of our nation and maybe use war as a last resort....
