|
|
Post by tits on Dec 7, 2005 10:08:51 GMT -8
Military.com tracking.military.com/cgi-bin/outlog.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emilitary%2Ecom%2FNewsContent%2F0%2C13319%2C81810%2C00%2Ehtml%3FESRC%3Ddod%2Enl&code=051205WDVH02" Murtha Says Army Is Broken
Associated Press | December 02, 2005
LATROBE, Pa. - Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."
Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.
He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."
Murtha, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, said the Pennsylvania National Guard is "stretched so thin" that it won't be able to send fully equipped units to Iraq next year. Murtha predicted it will cost $50 billion to upgrade military equipment nationwide, but says the federal government is already reducing future purchases to save money.
Murtha, who represents a western Pennsylvania district that includes Latrobe, was first elected to Congress in 1974.
Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, spokesman for the Pennsylvania National Guard at Fort Indiantown Gap, said "there are some deployment concerns."
Cleaver said some guard units had to leave equipment in Iraq when they returned to the United States, which could cause training problems here.
But Cleaver also said most of the 2,100 Guard troops now deployed with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team can't be sent back to Iraq for a second tour of duty anyway, because of regulations that limit redeployment.
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved" |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Dec 7, 2005 11:02:13 GMT -8
I believe that if anyone should know and understand the military it is a 30-yr veteran of command level and the senior member of the DOD appropriations board.
I have been wondering for some time how a much smaller military (reduced nearly 100% from the 1971 levels) could support all its missions. Our sons and the young people that I know who are in or have recently been discharged all are very proud and of good morale. However, I do often hear of dissatisfaction with the "lack of respect and promotion". Nevertheless, I believe that is because so many of our youth believe that they are entitled to the respect that experience and age brings. This is social flaw of our society at large and not a condemnation on the morale of the military.
On one hand I believe and respect Murthra, but on the other, I believe that his timing is wrong. I do not see an end to the terrorist actions of the Al'Qaeda in Iraq and the Middle East or Southeast Asia. A standing army is too big to react to the small stings of the buzzing wasps of terrorism. I shall never forget that girl who blew herself up outside of Benny Hans in DaNang. Who knew that the innocent looking child was a living bomb? It has been such since we discovered explosives and that a single person could inflict such damage on so many.
Rome could not stop the defiant actions of the Zealots in Judea who would ambush small squads of troops or officers. Napoleon could not stop the defiant actions of the Turks or Slavs. Germany could not stop the defiant actions of the Partisans. Briton could not stop the defiant actions of the Zionist in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Israel cannot stop the defiant of the Hamas. And, the world cannot stop the defiant actions of radical Islamic fundamentalist. We read almost weekly of an Al’Qaeda attack in Malaysia, Chechnya and Kazakhan, Pakistan, Algeria, and the Middle East.
What is the mission in Iraq today? Is it to stop the stinging of the nasty wasps of Al'Qaeda and Bathist and Shunnis? Is it to help establish a functioning government? Is it to prevent a civil war? Should the peace-keeping mission after the constitution vote next week be given to the blue hats of the UN? Do we want to send our troops back to Iraq under the leadership of some French UN general? What was and is the mission in Bosnia and how many troops have been murdered while wearing the blue helmet of the UN?
Here is an example of how the military, specifically the US Army effects all of us. The US Army Corps of Engineers has been tasked with the domestic DOD federal lands restoration program. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program charges the DOD for environmental restoration of properties that were formerly occupied lands by the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense. This mission charges the US Army and US Naval to identify and remove hazardous toxic explosive and radiological waste from federal and private lands. This simple sounding task consumes nearly $500 million annually. Add to this the mission to maintain inland waterways and water management at a cost of nearly $300 million annually. Then add to the foreign components of this mission in the Middle East, Korea, Japan, Germany and Europe, and Iraq . Then add, the mission to rebuild and restore the Iraqi infrastructure. Suddenly it becomes apparent that we have too few troops & civilian personnel and too few dollars to achieve the mission is a safe and timely matter. How will these same personnel rebuild the southern waterways and levees in New Orleans while providing the same function under hostile fire in Iraq with the current funding? It won't happen.
I believe the real problem is the conflict between the public perception that the military only fights wars. Add to this their desire reduce military spending and personnel and the mission to both serve and protect cannot be achieve while engaged in an active war. How do we, as a people, achieve all we desire without a cost. The public needs to listen to men such as Col. Muthra and the active military leaders in Iraq and tell the men and women who know nothing of the mission of the military to shut-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 7, 2005 18:39:36 GMT -8
I listened to Murtha on the Today show yesterday. He was literally ranting like a lunatic. I beleive he's become unhinged.
One can only wonder what has possessed this man to make comments such as these when there are American troops under fire in the field.
Does the asshole think that his comments will help the morale of our troops Or the morale of the enemy?
Will his Sheehan-like rhetoric discourage and dishearten Zarquawi or Bin Laden? Or Pfc. Doakes from Peoria?
How in the hell anyone with Murtha's experience could say and do what he has with a CRITICAL juncture so close, when it is absolutely urgent for the Iraqi electorate to understan that we will not abandon them, when it is absolutely essential to not send the enemy the signal that we're ready to cave.
All that went through my mind as I listened to this fuck was a strong desire to put my fist in his fat, traitorous Benedict Arnold mouth.
I don't give a rat's ass if he was a Marine. I don't give a rat's ass if he was Audie Fucking Murphy. He's got an incurable case of chickenshit now. He's nothing but a punk motherfucker in my eyes.
I wonder what the payoff was.
God rot him.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 7, 2005 19:37:43 GMT -8
I think Murtha et al believe they have their finger on the pulse of the electorate. That is why they say what they say. In the mistaken belief that they will benifit in the upcoming elections. They are going to take a drubbing.  |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Dec 7, 2005 21:28:12 GMT -8
I think Murtha et al believe they have their finger on the pulse of the electorate. That is why they say what they say. In the mistaken belief that they will benifit in the upcoming elections. They are going to take a drubbing. I believe they have missed it completely. My concern still stands. I check the DIOR site after I wrote this. 1973 - 8.234 million in uniform : 2003 1.893 million in uniform, percentage is way off that should be approximately 19% of the 1973 levels. That is a huge reduction. I believe in SOC and Delta forces, but given that nearly 45,000 of the 1.430 million are USACE forces on engineer detail domestically and other support activities consume multitudes more, we may be too thin. According to DIOR, the GS civilian DOD contigent (of which I was part of at USACHPPM) adds an additional 645,691 civilian personnel. According to DIOR the Sept. 2005 force levels are: 492,728 army, 362,941 navy, 180,029 Marine Corps, 353,696 Air Force and 40,765 with the DOT Coast Guard. Given the budget cuts and the minimal force levels, how is the military to provide all its mission while waging a war? As of today, approximately 162,000 troops are in Iraq and with the navy's current deployment ~18,000. That means that 12.5% of all US active duty forces are deployed to Iraq. That just seems to be to great of a percentage of such a small force. 101, I agree that the old "Bird" does seem to be the latest Democrat sacrificial mouth piece. but he has a good point. We are stretched way to thin. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 7, 2005 21:40:26 GMT -8
I think Murtha et al believe they have their finger on the pulse of the electorate. That is why they say what they say. In the mistaken belief that they will benifit in the upcoming elections. They are going to take a drubbing. I believe they have missed it completely. My concern still stands. I check the DIOR site after I wrote this. 1973 - 8.234 million in uniform : 2003 1.893 million in uniform, percentage is way off that should be approximately 19% of the 1973 levels. That is a huge reduction. I believe in SOC and Delta forces, but given that nearly 45,000 of the 1.430 million are USACE forces on engineer detail domestically and other support activities consume multitudes more, we may be too thin. According to DIOR, the GS civilian DOD contigent (of which I was part of at USACHPPM) adds an additional 645,691 civilian personnel. According to DIOR the Sept. 2005 force levels are: 492,728 army, 362,941 navy, 180,029 Marine Corps, 353,696 Air Force and 40,765 with the DOT Coast Guard. Given the budget cuts and the minimal force levels, how is the military to provide all its mission while waging a war? As of today, approximately 162,000 troops are in Iraq and with the navy's current deployment ~18,000. That means that 12.5% of all US active duty forces are deployed to Iraq. That just seems to be to great of a percentage of such a small force. 101, I agree that the old "Bird" does seem to be the latest Democrat sacrificial mouth piece. but he has a good point. We are stretched way to thin. I'm no where near as conversant in the current size and strength of our military as you are Tittus. I think you can make the argument that we should increase our force size overall without calling for immediate with drawl from an ongoing fight.  |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Dec 8, 2005 10:00:06 GMT -8
budget?
I am a pessimistic conservative in that I believe the old adage: "people are stupid." Since Mr. Brzezniski's observation is as true today as it was 28 years ago: "politicians are seeking for re-election", I cannot see anyway the President can push a DOD budget increase. The politicians will kill it because of fear of a voter backlash.
|
|
