It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US manpower

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I watched cnn tonight and they talked about the possibilty of sending more troops to iraq, now i had last heard that there was 1.3-1.7 million US troops, with only about 500-600,000 being active duty, anyways my ? has to do with the guy(dont know his name) that said that we are completely out of troops and that we would only be able to send an additional 15k-20k troops, is this true where does this guy get his facts




posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Mostly the troops which will pull out of south Korea and some troops American troops stationed in germany



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ER537
I watched cnn tonight and they talked about the possibilty of sending more troops to iraq, now i had last heard that there was 1.3-1.7 million US troops, with only about 500-600,000 being active duty, anyways my ? has to do with the guy(dont know his name) that said that we are completely out of troops and that we would only be able to send an additional 15k-20k troops, is this true where does this guy get his facts


Im not sure about those numbers but you have to remember that that would be numbers for the US military. So those numbers are split between US Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force. As Far as troops on the ground, those are going to come from the Marines and the Army, most of them anyway. Airforce is going to be in country on the ground but that's not where we need to boost troops levels.

Now, from the Marines and Army we have to remember that we can't just send troops over for years at a time. In most cases they will spend a year overseas and then return home for a while for additional training and recovery time. When those troops are home other troops are going to be going overseas to take their place.

Then also like the other poster said, we have troops in other countries like Korea and Germany. US forces also have rotations in Iraq from what I believe and a few forces in Korea have gone over to Iraq.

It gets a little more complicated when you factor in troops coming home from Iraq and getting out the service compaired with the amount of troops joining the service.

The situation in Iraq calls for boots on the ground.

Styki



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Styki
Additional boots on the ground will do no good for the USA, Getting fast out of the lost battle will. Iraq was winnable 2 years ago, now the traditional US CIMIC has made the Iraq a loose face or loose everything situation... There is no way more unmotivated and poorly trained (in cimic and peace keeping) US units are going to do any good.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Having personally served in Iraq, I would have to disagree with the assertion that US forces over there are poorly trained and unmotivated. If anything, I saw the exact opposite. The problem isn't a military one, but rather a political one. You have Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, and they all hate each other. This is why it's difficult. In every military encounter, the insurgents get their butts handed to them.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I am not sure how many soldiers the U.S has...I doubt that it's over 2 million...However, considering that we are spread all over the war in places like France,Germany and others, it is no wonder that we don't have enough to go into Iraq..

One of the problems that I see with the current conflict and the reason why the "war on terrorism" is not winnable is because the American public is not patient enough.. I don't necessarily think that we should be in Iraq; however, I am referring more to how long the "war on terrorism" would last any way.. Americans do not have the tenacity to support a prolonged war.. Vietnam ruined this country when it comes to conflict.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I agree about the public's lack of patience being a hindrance. How long did our revolution last before we had a functioning system? We've had troops in Germany since the 40s, and in Korea since the 50s. The western mindset is in the here and now, but the eastern mindset goes back hundreds or thousands of years. That's why setting timetables just tells them how long they have to wait.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I am not sure how many soldiers the U.S has...I doubt that it's over 2 million...However, considering that we are spread all over the war in places like France,Germany and others, it is no wonder that we don't have enough to go into Iraq..

One of the problems that I see with the current conflict and the reason why the "war on terrorism" is not winnable is because the American public is not patient enough.. I don't necessarily think that we should be in Iraq; however, I am referring more to how long the "war on terrorism" would last any way.. Americans do not have the tenacity to support a prolonged war.. Vietnam ruined this country when it comes to conflict.


The public can support a war so long as its just.
Iraqi's are supporting the war there countrymen are waging, because its for their homeland.
Americans supported the war against Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, because both countries had the ability to take over, if the USA hadnt of stood up.
but Iraq?
Vietnam?

Being the public didnt support these wars, show's how legal and legitimate they are.

The public are a great measure of international affairs.
Especially when its them who are dying, at the will of the government.

The War on terrorism would be worthy if it were real, and if the leaders of the country wernt making MONEY from it.

being they are, and being they have been caught out on SO many lies, the public have no faith in the system, in the governemnt and there fore in this foney war.

Iraq was never going to succeed,
Because the american leaders believed, there corporate GREED could out live the desire a man has to protect his home.

Its just unforunate, after the bullets have stopped, and the money stops rolling in... all america would of done is give a region a justified REASON to seek revenge, which will just lead to more war.



[edit on 12-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Blue, well, one thing that the "Terrorists" know is that if they wait long enough, we will back off. America will never fight a 50 year war. Hell, America wouldn't even fight a 10 year war again. The people here just don't have the fortitude to withstand such a lengthy fight.

The most conservative estimate that I have heard that this "war on terrorism" will last is 25 years. Most estimates are fifty years and over. We will never finish it.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Blue, well, one thing that the "Terrorists" know is that if they wait long enough, we will back off. America will never fight a 50 year war. Hell, America wouldn't even fight a 10 year war again. The people here just don't have the fortitude to withstand such a lengthy fight.

The most conservative estimate that I have heard that this "war on terrorism" will last is 25 years. Most estimates are fifty years and over. We will never finish it.


This is what drives me nuts.
The War on Terrorism.

America labels a terrorist as anyone who attacks a coalition force in Iraq.

Well, there would be less 'terrorists' if america wasnt killing, murdering, maiming and bombing iraqi's.
For every iraqi killed, 3 relatives become 'terrorists'

You either kill everyone that doesnt like the USA,
or you work WITH THEM to remove your differences.

You cant murder people, and expect there relatives not to want revenge...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Agit, you seem to be implying that it is actually Iraqis we are fighting over there.. I don't think that that has even a remote semblance of truth to it. I don't.. If you look at what is going on, the vast majority of the insurgency is entering via Iran and Syria.. The borders, much like here in the U.S, are not secure in Iraq.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Actually there is a distinction made between terrorists, insurgents, etc...
There are a lot of motivations for the enemy forces(whatever category they may be in).
Political(i.e. former Ba'athists), religious, criminal/thug, unemployed(i.e. we'll pay you $X to put this bomb over there, or shoot this mortar, etc.).
It's true that some fight purely for the reason that there is a foreign force in their country or for revenge, but its BS to say that everyone who is our enemy is because we're there, and they'd be just fine with us otherwise.
It's naive to believe that terrorists aren't at work over there though. The average Iraqi is tired of stuff blowing up around them, and are pissed at the insurgents. The insurgents, terrorists, etc.. have a stake in this though, as what it's really about is power. If they lose, they're out of power, and are just like everybody else at that point. That's why you have Sunnis instigating against Shia, and vice versa. Syria and Iran don't want a democracy in their neighborhood either. It'll give their populations ideas. Why do you think the Syrians keep whacking Lebanese politicians. It's all about power, and honor. Terrorists aren't going to go away if we stop killing them. You have it bass-ackwards.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I believe that a % of the attacks are from outside influences.

but ultimately, it is the iraqis who are being bombed, shot, and drive out of their homes.

Its Iraqi's being locked up and interrogated by US Forces.

Even so,

Anyone who takes a shot at US Forces is deemed a 'terrorist' under current government standards.

If your family was murdered in a bomb strike...
you had nothin left, but a war torn country where death was saturating..
wouldnt you pick up a gun, and take a shot at the occupiers that caused so much suffering?

The US is ensuring the war on terrorism GROWS, every minute we are in Iraq.

But its passed the equilibruim,

If we stay, terorrism increases.
If we leave, terrorism increases.

This war being lost has nothing to do with the public losing stomach wanting to follow it,

its lost because the reasoning, the rational and the goals of this conflict were illegitimate and illegial.

We went into this war to make money, not to better humanity.


And that is the reason this war will never be won.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ER537
the guy(dont know his name) that said that we are completely out of troops and that we would only be able to send an additional 15k-20k troops



www.globalsecurity.org...
Deployed Active Combat Brigades/ACRs: 37 in existence, 12 overseas: 10 in Iraq, 1 in south korea, 1 in afghanistan
[...]
Deployed Guard Combat Brigades/ACRs: Total 39, 4 deployed overseas, additionally
" Of the 12 aircraft carrier strike groups that are in the fleet the Navy has 2 currently deployed, 5 in pre-deployment training, and 5 receiving extensive yard periods that would make the strike group unavailable for deployment within 60 days.[...]
Of the 295 ships and submarines in the Fleet roughly 99 are currently on deployments."


The United States still has a huge reserve of troops. If they want to dramatically and drastically increase the number of troops inside of Iraq, in a last push to create security in the country, they can absolutely flood it with troops.


The public can support a war so long as its just.

Some have argueed that "just war theory' is what got us into this problem in the first place. That in a truly integrated world, where individual states are soveriegn and peaceable, there is no such thing as 'just wars'. The idea that 'the enemy is evil and our struggle is just' is what leads to the catrastrophic wars. The pragmatic approach, that war is terrible but necessary for the objectives and interests of a sovereign state, lead to smaller and less terrible wars.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I disagree with the assertion that we went to Iraq, to make money. Nobody in their right mind goes to war to get rich(at a national level, perhaps you could say a Mercenary fights for money). Do you honestly believe that the government wouldn't have preferred the last 6yrs to be peaceful, and have an easy time in office, rather than the crap they've had to deal with day in and day out. Where's the cheap oil? Halliburton didn't start the war. I've been in Iraq, so I am somewhat qualified to speak based on personal experience- most Iraqis just want stability and while they may not be crazy about us being there, they're even less crazy about us leaving in a hurry, and everything going down the crapper. The percentage fighting us because they lost a relative is a pittance compared to the other reasons I've mentioned.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The problem with Just War amongst peaceful, sovereign nations, is that one need not worry about the peaceful nations. It's nations where the leader is in fact evil, and they're motivated by conquest rather than philanthropy, that make wars necessary. What makes wars quicker and less terrible, is when the population is unified, rather than fighting itself and the enemy as well.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I disagree with the assertion that we went to Iraq, to make money. Nobody in their right mind goes to war to get rich(at a national level, perhaps you could say a Mercenary fights for money). Do you honestly believe that the government wouldn't have preferred the last 6yrs to be peaceful, and have an easy time in office, rather than the crap they've had to deal with day in and day out.

Indeed, war is bad for business. The capitalist class will have to favour relatively peaceable sitautions, not terribly war-filled ones.

Also, as far as politics, the iraq war has destroyed the republican rule of the us government. For over a decade they had control of congress, and for 8 years they had the white house too. And that gave them the supreme court. Now they've pretty much lost it all, and disgracefully.

If the republicans had planned the iraq war to keep themselves in power, and their monied backers rich, then they'd've gone into iraq with the largest army possible, and used the most brutal and represseive tactics possible, in order to have security and success. As it is, they blundered into it and blundered throughout it, and have been booted out because of it.

Hell, if we 'follow the success and who benefits', then we'd have to suspect the democrats of having engineered the iraq war.

Hmm, they DID universally back the war itself, and then quickly get on the 'anti-war' bandwagon, perhaps they DID plan it all, eh?



It's nations where the leader is in fact evil, and they're motivated by conquest rather than philanthropy, that make wars necessary.

If a state is about to conquer your state, then any 'theory' of war is meaningless, you have to respond just to survive. BUt hussein didn't try to expand into the US. Indeed, hussein wasn't, per the neoconservative rational, really a threat to the US at all. It was that the middle east needed to be reorganized along democratic lines, that this was necessary to stop terrorism, that was the rationale for removing dictators. Hussein was supposed to be the start of all that. As it is, looks like he was the end of all that.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Well, from what I see, it wasn't the war planning that is the problem in Iraq. The problem is that we had no plan for afterwards. I mean, hell, it looks to me as if the current administration thought that after Saddam was put away, everything would be hunky dory over there. Well, it's not and the present administration doesn't seem to know what to do about it.

Considering the history of that whole region, the Middle East, it was rather naive to think that everything would be peaceful after Saddam's fall. What on God's green earth ever gave anyone the inclination that it would be?

Now we have, what, 150,000 troops over there? It is not nearly enough. Before we even invaded Iraq, experts were declaring that we would need at least 400,000 to secure Iraq.. We never had that many over there. We may have had to 250 thousand at the climax, but never upwards toward 400,000.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, from what I see, it wasn't the war planning that is the problem in Iraq. The problem is that we had no plan for afterwards.


Its debatable. A small force was all that was needed to defeat the Baathist State army, regular and republican guard and all. The planners decided that, in order to tone down resentment against the US, to keep it small for the occupation. That way, you don't have a bunch of joes running around iraq, offending the locals, freaking out, bombing schools, etc etc.

It was bold and risky, and it didn't work. That would've been fine, for a plan. Sometimes things don't work out. BUT, you've got to be able to adapt. Once the Mosque of the Golden Dome got blown up, that should've been taken as a signal, that the iraqis are just too teed up on their sectarianism trip to be able to say 'working with the americans will give my kids a chance to go to school and be successful'. They should've flooded the country with troops after things started getting out of hand. THe whole idea of having a small number of troops was to prevent an entrenched insurgency, once there was an entrenched insurgency, there was no reason to keep the troop numbers low.


Considering the history of that whole region, the Middle East, it was rather naive to think that everything would be peaceful after Saddam's fall.

But at the same time, the Iraqis were one of the most progressive and secular and westernized populations in the middle east. Hussein was a dictator, but his rule was secular. IT was thought that years of that meant that the iraqis were going to be generally secular. Or at least not so bat-# insane that they'd insist on mass murder and anarchy.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The US military is stretched at the moment, its available Army manpower is about 850k which sounds a lot but not when you look at US commitments Worldwide. Also its a big mistake to include the total numbers of the armed foces as the greater percentage will not be fighting on the ground.

Yes the US has large Army reserves but these are hardly combat proven or ready and if the professionals (ahem) cannot complete the job its doubtful reserves will. Also the US Goverment is concerned of losses, not that its cares about its personnel, more the fact that it does not want to loose power. (you know thats so because they dont show the fallen coming home, there scared somebody will keep count)

The fact of the matter is that the US has once again got itself into a mess of its own doing. The choices are stark, pull out and loose total face in front of all those who hate America and the would be challengers or a greater commitment that will result in a greater loss of life both for civillians and the military. Either way America is up # creek without a paddle, it looses either way.

It would have been far better to do that deal with the Taliban over the Oil but I guess you just wont learn from you mistakes, my sympathy lies with the grunts and the innocents who have and continue to make the supreme sacrifice, we forget them so easily.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join