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.

 

Is the American Military disapearing?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
news.yahoo.com...

www.cnn.com...


There have been a few news articles pertaining to the American military and it's current capabilities.

According to Joint Chief of Staff General Peter Pace, the American military is eroding. To many soldiers and Marines are dying and the volume of troop force is dwindeling.

On the other side, troops are being rushed to Iraq without proper training and are being pushed into combat.

Does anyone else see that the American Government could be heading toward another draft or a mandatory enlistment similar to what Israel imposes?

And, on the darker side of things, could our enemies see this as a weakness and create another war on another front knowing that the U.S. Military is stretched passed it's limits and that the U.S. Armed Forces would easily be defeated because of this strain?

We are fighting too many wars at this moment and our military is on the brink of collapse.

What does everyone else think. Does anyone else see what I see?

JackCash




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Yes I see it to. However I have a different view then you. I dont think are military will be easily defeated on any front regardless of how thin we are stretched. We IMO are loosing Iraq because alot of the military over there do not baleave in the cause. Put them in a battle they baleave in such as the survival of America and they will do just what Americans have always done. Become the most fearsome fighting force in the world, down to every last man and women. IMHO!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I do agree that we are the most fearsome fighting force in the world, but if we have troops spread thin over a couple of different conitents, it would be pretty easy for lets say, a big army to strategicly hit a few different areas where american troops are deployed and basicly almost wipe out our military.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by angryamerican
Yes I see it to. However I have a different view then you. I dont think are military will be easily defeated on any front regardless of how thin we are stretched. We IMO are loosing Iraq because alot of the military over there do not baleave in the cause. Put them in a battle they baleave in such as the survival of America and they will do just what Americans have always done. Become the most fearsome fighting force in the world, down to every last man and women. IMHO!


In the past there was no bigger factor affecting the capability of fighting troops than morale. If the soldier did not believe in the cause he was fighting for it didn't matter how well fed or equipped he was. He had to believe.

I wonder if the soldier of the future - and this may already be the trend, I'm hypothesizing here - sees less emphasis today on "God and country" or "We're fighting for the cause of good" than those in the past. This seemed, during my service, the primary motivation.

Every war or military action has its critics and it is practically impossible to shield modern-day combatants from information that conflicts with that of their superiors.

With that in mind, and I ask this of those currently serving or recently discharged, is the US military changing it's focus to that of a mercenary soldier, one who doesn't care whether or not the cause is "good" and who fights simply because he is a professional and paid to do so?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by befoiled]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Part of what you say is true - and the part that is true is only "partly" true.

First the part that isn't true - the military as a whole is not "disappearing" (I think overextended was the term you were looking for), as our Navy and Air Force are largely unused at this time.

The part that is true is that we are having a hard time meeting the troop levels needed to achieve the goals set forth in Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining force readiness in other regions of the world.

We need more troops - we simply do not have enough, and you can thank Bill Clinton for that. While they do not spend as much time training here at home as in the past, they are getting ample training in the field.

What most American's do not realize is that our Army isn't doing much fighting in Iraq - it's just sitting there being shot at - but we aren't doing much fighting - yet.

That is to change in the coming weeks.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by crisko]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by angryamerican
Yes I see it to. However I have a different view then you. I dont think are military will be easily defeated on any front regardless of how thin we are stretched. We IMO are loosing Iraq because alot of the military over there do not baleave in the cause. Put them in a battle they baleave in such as the survival of America and they will do just what Americans have always done. Become the most fearsome fighting force in the world, down to every last man and women. IMHO!


The US military isn't losing militarily in Iraq- anytime insurgents try to fight us, they have their a$$es handed to them. The problem there is political and cultural. The Iraqis have to want to be successful against the insurgency, and have stability. In order for that to happen, they have to put aside their sectarian differences, and say "enough already!"



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
You can't win a war if you can't control their people.


I find alot of peoples suprise of the US military being stretched, stems from their rememberance of what the military was back in the days post World War 2.
The military back then was massive. And most people think back to that when thinking of the size of the military. When those people are shown just how thin it's being stretched, they have a hard time understanding it.

Quite frankly, the new generation isn't as bold as the last. They want little to nothing to do with the military or war. I know I sure don't. So the military finds it harder to recruit new soldiers, becuase they simply don't want to be recruited any more.

Ah well, sign of the times I suppose.


Perhaps the United States will have to follow UN rules soon... not because they were told to by an outside country... but because they simply don't have the manpower not to.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Perhaps the United States will have to follow UN rules soon... not because they were told to by an outside country... but because they simply don't have the manpower not to.


Aside from renditions - our actions have been mandated by the U.N.

The Iraq war the we ware currently in - no matter how you slice it; is legal based on previous resolutions passed against the country in the 90's.

Afghanistan - it is currently lead by the U.N. - North Korea - multiple countries there. Iran - same.

So what exactly are you referring to, as I would really like to know.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
We have lost a little over 3000 troops (I don know the exact #) in Iraq I was at a loss of word when reading what JackCash wrote i wasnt aware that or military only had 5000 people you make it seem like we have lost most of the troops or something. 2,685,713 that is the size of the U.S. military reserves, national guard, and coast guard included (during wartime, the coast guard may be placed under the department of defense through the department of the Navy in times of need acting as a service to the Navy). $522 billion this is the number we spend on maintaining our troops and also on research. Our military is not going anywhere soon and as long as im in army i will fight even if im the last man if your so concerned why dont you join a branch and help nothing like the boom of a M256 120 mm smoothbore gun.

There are alot of measures to ensure there is not a draft to view them go here en.wikipedia.org... then click on Army components scroll down a little and you will see them numbered.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
A war on two fronts and they would just use the marines on one front and the army on the other along with the help of the air force an navy on both sides it would be something like WW2 when mainly army in europe and north africa marines in pacific theatre no trouble when your as highly trained as our service.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by 19 Kilo]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I think it just comes down to our country losing it's fighting spirit. We don't want to fight, especially when it's something we don't fully believe in.
When we were in Desert Shield and Desert Storm there was such an outcry of support for the war and our troops. The nation really got behind it. With Iraq now, we still don't know why and we're losing more and more people everyday. People aren't going to want to join the military knowing that there's a good chance they'll be shipped off to fight this war, or any other war conjured up on a false pretense.

I'm sure if the US was attacked again, or, somehow invaded, suicide bombers hitting shopping malls full of people, you would see a lot more nationalism. Right now I don't think people are happy with the state of the union and it's leadership, so you're not going to see people rushing in to inlist.

If a draft is instituted all hell will break lose. The American people will not stand for it. There will be a large surge in the Canadian and Mexican Populations...

[edit on 6-3-2007 by DOcean]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 19 Kilo
We have lost a little over 3000 troops (I don know the exact #)



I think you may find that number is quite a bit short. It only accounts for soldiers who actually died in Iraq. It does NOT include all the other deaths. The number is closer to 10,000. The numbers also don't include the 'green card soldiers'.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The Military is being restructured and reduced to a corps of boots & specialists.

Halliburtons' and Blackwaters;/KBRs are performing stuff like supply lines, chow halls, armed escorts, and a bunch of stuff the 'Rumsfeld' vision of a streamlined yet deadly effective 21st century military, has decided could/should be outsourced.

in the future, it may even be possible that troop safety might be
overseen by 'contractors', as these operations have a far better
record than the military itself in avoiding IEDs, sending in relief &
supplies to positions under attack by an enemy.
(there was an expose' recently on late prime time TV of the
'contractors' for hire in Iraq)



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
its not that they are dying...we have lost hardly any soldiers...doesnt even make an impact(in the big picture, its still a tradegy)its just that they cant do their job. No one joins the army to babysit a bunch of rpg toting fudimentilist muslims hell bent on killing everyone. Our own soldiers are going to jail and the terrorists we capture are getting FAT. Yes, the ppl at gitmo are overweight and the fattest terrorist is over 400 pounds..it was in the news a while back.....now what the hell! Our government has gone to #, not the army. thats the main reason i didnt join.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Here is another recent article regarding the troop problem that we are having.

news.yahoo.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join