View Full Version : Adm. Olson: Deployments are sustainable
“Our predictions about how long we could sustain it were wrong,” Adm. Eric T. Olson said in response to a question by Rep. Mike McIntyre, a Democrat from Lumberton, during a subcommittee hearing.
“We didn’t think that we could sustain it at this pace this long,” Olson said. “The force is proving resilient beyond our estimates.”
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=328494
You active guys are doing outstanding work.
My problem with this story is that just not too long ago things were going to fall to pieces. Now, just a couple of months into President Obama's reign things are fine.
GIGO? :confused:
Too much <-> too little...too fast <-> too slow...too hot <-> too cold...too strong <-> too weak...too harsh <-> too easy...too loud <-> too soft...too long <-> too short...too big <-> too small...too tall <-> too short = too political???
And so it goes... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Ret10Echo
06-05-2009, 06:02
Goldilocks syndrome??
Amazing as it may sound, the analysts don't have any way of predicting the resolve of the U.S. Fighting Man. It is variable "X" and you can't apply a number to it or bottle it.
Amazing as it may sound, the analysts don't have any way of predicting the resolve of the U.S. Fighting Man. It is variable "X" and you can't apply a number to it or bottle it.
An important and often excluded point.
Military historian SLA Marshall spoke of this in his writings and posited the idea that the least predictable but most important variable on the battlefield was the individual resolve and initiative of the American soldier - a tendency to just do something and - like the eventual impact of a pinhole in the face of a dam - its eventual impact on battles.
The former Soviet Union also wrote of this tendency of the American fighting man in their doctrine - the ability of our soldiers, no matter what their ranks or the situation, to act individually and without direct supervision or orders, and their potential to influence the battle - and it concerned them and their own operational concepts of war greatly. And I would wager it still does.
A toast to the American fighting man!* :lifter
Richard's $.02 :munchin
*Refers to all branches of the service and both sexes.
“We didn’t think that we could sustain it at this pace this long,” Olson said. “The force is proving resilient beyond our estimates.”
What I've noticed from soldier families (I can't really speak to single soldiers) is that any dissatisfaction or departure from service will come after their first deployment. The guys/gals who've been deployed multiple times rarely are putting in their ETS papers. They've been at such an extreme up-tempo for so long that when (if) the time does come to slow down it's going to be hard on them to sit still. Right now they have a clear mission and there has been a few years of separating the wheat from the chaff within the ranks.
That is true of our (their) resolve. But also at a great cost, suicides, divorces, DUI's leading to senseless crashes (motorcycles and cars) alot of the times.
It aint easy being the best.
God love'em, and our nation couldn't be prouder.
Utah Bob
06-05-2009, 07:33
An important and often excluded point.
Military historian SLA Marshall spoke of this in his writings and posited the idea that the least predictable but most important variable on the battlefield was the individual resolve and initiative of the American soldier - a tendency to just do something and - like the eventual impact of a pinhole in the face of a dam - its eventual impact on battles.
The former Soviet Union also wrote of this tendency of the American fighting man in their doctrine - the ability of our soldiers, no matter what their ranks or the situation, to act individually and without direct supervision or orders, and their potential to influence the battle - and it concerned them and their own operational concepts of war greatly. And I would wager it still does.
A toast to the American fighting man!* :lifter
Richard's $.02 :munchin
*Refers to all branches of the service and both sexes.
By God I'll second that! Prost!