Senator McCain - Page 2

NousDefionsDoc · 12-14-2004, 23:22

You just re-stated exactly what I said, with the exception of "he's not doing it." Meds working good tonight huh?

uboat509 · 12-14-2004, 23:31

First of all, I do like McCain because if nothing else you can say that he sticks by what he believes is right. He does not simply parrot the party line so even when I disagree with him I still like him. The SECDEF is another matter. I get the impression that he is a number cruncher like MacNamara (SP?). His background is corporate and he trys to run the military like a corporation and that does not work. One of the first things that he is reported to have said is "Why am I paying for schools and commasaries?" I am paraphrasing a bit because I don't remember the exact quote but the point is the same. According to the Army Times they looking at closing several of the DODDS schools including the one at Bragg. Anybody here want to send your kid to a public school in Fayettville?

brewmonkey · 12-15-2004, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

You just re-stated exactly what I said, with the exception of "he's not doing it." Meds working good tonight huh?

Yea, I forgot the medical disclaimer. That's what I get for taking all the meds at once. I will come back to the thread tomorrow as the Mrs. is off. That means I wont be dog ass tired (2 year old refused to nap today so I missed mine too) and on meds at the same time.

But no matter what, Rumsfeld is setting the military up for a giant failure and it is already starting to show with shit as simple as the armored vehicles. He needs to stop playing politician and do his fucking job.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author are influenced by lack of sleep and daily use of pain meds. They give him a unique insight that no one else seems to understand, of course neither does he half the time.

Bravo1-3 · 12-15-2004, 01:19

McCain is a blow hard. He's got more dirty laundry than most membrs of both houses. He had a rougher 7 years in Vietnam than I'd like anyone to have, and for that, I respect him without question. But he hasn't been the most forthright individual in the Senate. This is a guy who co-sponsored a bill that direcly attacked the 1st Amendment Rights of regular citizens while allowing guys like George Soros to fund his own private war... campaign finance reform my ass! We had more dirty money in this last election than any in my lifetime. I also don't believe that his role in the S&L Fiasco has ever been fully disclosed.

That said, I think Sec. Rumsfeld has a lot of work to do getting our troops what they need to go shoot bad guys in the teeth. Fully 50% of this nations steel making capacity is idle, and 15% isn't used to its fullest extent.... we have 2 ship builders here in the city with about 10,000 tons of cold rolled plate in their yards, and CNC Plasma Cutting Equipment that could chop it to within 1/1000" in a matter of a few days... and they're not even building anything. The employees are all awaiting a call-back, and have been for 2 years.

We've got one of the largest producers of bullet proof glass in the world not 20 miles from where I'm sitting. They're not idle, but they could do the job if they got the call.

We've got a lot full of M-113's that our National Guard troops left here when they (cannon cockers and F/O's) headed out to Iraq as "Light Infantry". How long would it take to load those up on to flat cars (rail yard runs right behind the armory yard) and get them out to Tacoma, and off to Iraq? Sure, 113's aren't an ideal vehicle, but it's better than nothing. Hell, there's even Up Armored Humvee's over there.

Lord only knows what other gear is just sitting around collecting dust. Sure, I'd miss looking at it on my way into the office every day, but I'd get used to it

As far as "Lighter and more Agile", the first time I heard that phrase was when they started casing up Battalion Colors in the Marine Corps in 1993. To me it means "Doing more, with less gear, less support, and then heading to the next deployment." Idiots like Aspen, Perry and Cohen used "Smaller, Faster Lighter, more Agile" as a means of cutting costs... and combat effectiveness in my book. Imagine what 5 more Marine Infantry Battalions could be doing right now if their Guidons weren't used as a table cloth at some party celebrating "How much money we're saving". 5 more Battalions of Infantry could cover a lot of space in Iraq... hell, we took Kuwait with 8. Same goes for the Army too.

That's what I think about when I think "Smaller, Lighter, more Agile". I think of guys on 7-month base UDP's that get extended for another 5 months because somethng else has come up and we need more "Smaller, Lighter, More Agile" forces forward deployed.

Don't get me wrong, I took my oath, and if I had ended up deployed even more than I already was, I'd have done what I was expected to do without complaint. But when it's because we folded up our replacement units colors "In order to be a 'BETTER' fighting force", that doesn't sit well with me.

NDD, I agree that in many instances, a small, light unit is a viable option... when "smaller, lighter, more agile force" is something other than a buzz word designed to placate people.

Like I said previously, having a long term goal (in SecDefs case, the ability to knock down ICBMs) is great, I have a long term goal... to be a Billionaire. But I'm not going to forsake my childrens college funds in order to save up some more money for long term. I think they're so caught up in getting this new toy up and running that they've taken their eyes off of near term realities of the situation.

12-15-2004, 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewmonkey

less then 10% of the trucks used daily on logistics missions have the armor they should,

What armor should a truck have? It's a truck, not a tank.

Btw, in 1944, 2 and 1/2 years after the US entered the war, 4 years after the beginning of mobilization.... the US Army had significant shortages in airlift capacity and gliders, causing significant issues with the Invasion of Normandy, Market Garden and Dragoon. Guess the Secretary of War must have really been f***ing up then, huh?

brewmonkey · 12-15-2004, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenhat

What armor should a truck have? It's a truck, not a tank.

Btw, in 1944, 2 and 1/2 years after the US entered the war, 4 years after the beginning of mobilization.... the US Army had significant shortages in airlift capacity and gliders, causing significant issues with the Invasion of Normandy, Market Garden and Dragoon. Guess the Secretary of War must have really been f***ing up then, huh?

Trucks? They should have ballistic windows (they dont) and on transports they should have the crew compartment doots with some form of protection. The majority of our losses are coming from IED/VBIED used against National Guard troops in a logistical capacity and as soon as I find it I will post the list of MOS's, Grunts are not leading the way in the last report I saw.

As for armor on vehicles. We knew it before then but it was shown to us again in Somalia. Our light skinned vehicles need to be able to survive the threat of RPG's or t least give the crews a fighting chance. We had all those years to R&D a vehicle with improved survivability against small arms and RPG's.

I also did not say that OIF/OEF is the sole reason for my disdain. While the SECDEF was left an Army of the kinder Gentler kind and did not have much time to get it back up to speed before they were sent in to action. He is know taking it down a few more notches and when the next SECDEF takes office, well it won't be pretty. I was always told you should leave things in the same if not better shape then when you got/found them. This will not be the case IMHO.

I just do not think he is doing the best job he can and that pisses me off. Maybe it is time to set age limits on the upper end. If in the civilian world they can retire you at 67 then maybe it is time to set the same limits on the people who made that law???

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author are influenced by lack of sleep and daily use of pain meds. They give him a unique insight that no one else seems to understand, of course neither does he half the time.

NousDefionsDoc · 12-15-2004, 10:43

We have changed from offense to defense in Iraq. That is a result of the political objective, not the military strategy. The supply lines appear to be long because our base is in Kuwait.

There was a Stryker (I understand) taken out by an RPG.

How much fuel/rations/ammo can an M1 carry?

You're right, I cannot understand your unique insight.

What I see is the leadership looking to transform the military to meet the cellular threat of an enemy that has adapted his TTPs. I hope it indicates that there will be no more spreading democracy and instead a simple killing of bad guys and departure.

brewmonkey · 12-15-2004, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

We have changed from offense to defense in Iraq. That is a result of the political objective, not the military strategy. The supply lines appear to be long because our base is in Kuwait.

There was a Stryker (I understand) taken out by an RPG.

How much fuel/rations/ammo can an M1 carry?

You're right, I cannot understand your unique insight.

What I see is the leadership looking to transform the military to meet the cellular threat of an enemy that has adapted his TTPs. I hope it indicates that there will be no more spreading democracy and instead a simple killing of bad guys and departure.

And that is a great thing as I like bad guys dead. My concern is the future of our fighting forces as in 10 years down the road. Rumsfeld is focused on the 25m target (somewhat) and that is great, but he is failing to plan for the 50m target that he is going to have to engage at some point in time. When that time comes, will we have the fighting force capable of dealing with that threat?

There have been several strykers taken out by RPG's and there has been Bradleys and even a few M-1's.

NousDefionsDoc · 12-15-2004, 13:53

What would you do for the 50M target?

Stargazer · 12-15-2004, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

What I see is the leadership looking to transform the military to meet the cellular threat of an enemy that has adapted his TTPs.

What does the acronym TTP mean? Please.

12-15-2004, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stargazer

What does the acronym TTP mean? Please.

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.

NousDefionsDoc · 12-15-2004, 15:52

Tactics, Techniques, Procedures

Tool Box.

brewmonkey · 12-15-2004, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

What would you do for the 50M target?

While I certainly would make sure our supply lines did not depend on wheeled vehicles coming from another country down roads we dont control. Although it looks like someone in the Airforce has finally pulled their head out of their ass though on this one and starting today the AF will be flying supplies directly in to some of the bases in Iraq. It only took them 21 months to figure this out though.

That would be a start but what about the AF's capabilty to move the military to where it needs to fight. What about the Army's capabilities to fight that battle? Where have all the Armor & Heavy divisions gone? Like we are doing right now I can take any Joe, give him some remedial training and turn him in to a grunt. It is damn difficult to take someone and turn him in to a tanker or a Bradley crew member or many of the other jobs.

With the current situation in Iraq, if we are going to be in this for the long term our current forces are not going to be cutting it. We have soldiers with less then 3 years in the Army who have spent 2 years in a combat zone and are in line for their 3rd and in some cases 4th tour in OIF/OEF. If this pace keeps up and we wont have an Army at all to worry about fighting anywhere. The need for a bigger military is certainly evident and the use of the NG/RC soldiers is not working like they hoped it would and has sent NG recruitment in to a tailspin. Recruiting for the NG was off by 12.5% with the bulk of that number coming from soldiers leaving AD not enlisting in to the NG. This leaves NG units without experienced soldiers which in turn increases costs as now we have spend more money finding recruits who then require the training they will need to do the job.

If the pace we are going stays the same we are going to have a tough time keeping up. The draft is not a remote possibility and keeping people past their ETS dates is only going to fly for so long before it backfires. How are we going to maintain the current missions much less future ones at this pace? Where are we going to get the troops for this?

We need more units, more equipment and most of all we need the men and women to fill those rolls.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author are influenced by lack of sleep and daily use of pain meds. They give him a unique insight that no one else seems to understand, of course neither does he half the time.

NousDefionsDoc · 12-15-2004, 16:48

Quote:

While I certainly would make sure our supply lines did not depend on wheeled vehicles coming from another country down roads we dont control

How? You can fly a lot of it, but not everything. What will you do when they shoot the planes down?

Quote:

That would be a start but what about the AF's capabilty to move the military to where it needs to fight. What about the Army's capabilities to fight that battle? Where have all the Armor & Heavy divisions gone? Like we are doing right now I can take any Joe, give him some remedial training and turn him in to a grunt. It is damn difficult to take someone and turn him in to a tanker or a Bradley crew member or many of the other jobs.

Do you want heavy divisions or airmobile divisions? Why do we need heavy divisions to fight terrorist cells? Are the insurgents in Iraq out gunning us with their armor?

I can take any grunt and teach him to operate a tank or a Bradley given enough time - what's the point here?

I just heard SECDEF say they are planning for 10 more Brigades. I think they are looking at a modular MEUSOC concept. Makes sense to me.

**Airbornelawyer** · 12-15-2004, 17:44

The mid-2005 through mid-2006 rotations for Operation Iraqi Freedom include the 4th ID with 4 brigades and the 101st with 4 brigades. Unless they are counting the aviation brigade, is this to be the first test of the UA reorganization?

BTW, the rest of that rotation includes the 172d Stryker BCT; the 1st BDE, 1ID; 1st BDE, 10th Mountain; and 48th Infantry Brigade (Separate) from the Georgia Guard.

3rd and 4th Brigades of 10th Mountain will be going to OEF, along with Florida's 53rd Brigade HHC (I think the brigade's HQ was the only part not called up for Iraq). I didn't even know 10th MTN had a 3rd and 4th Brigade, so I guess these are UAs too.