Exactly Larry, this is the point I am trying to make. Take the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for instance.
We go into Iraq with light skinned wheeled vehicles, and bradley's that are under-armored, and substandard body armor. When the troops start dying at "less than optimal" rates we jump out our ass to get them better equipment. And let's not forget that the force that invaded Iraq had been the product of years of military cutbacks, both in personnel and equipment. Prior to the war, there was not enough money to buy ammunition to do more than a couple ranges a year and one, maybe two tank and bradley gunneries a year. So soldiers are not as proficient in their warrior tasks. And also, since we are fighting two wars, we realize that the small force we have is quickly getting burned out from multiple deployments, so now we have to hurry up and increase the numbers - which means that we are accepting people into our ranks that would otherwise never be considered - people who are severely overweight, people with felony records, people with known gang affiliations, etc.... We push these people through basic and advanced training, get them to their units, and deploy them. Some turn out OK, but many are mega turds, but because we need boots on the ground, they continue to serve and get promoted because it does not matter anymore how you conduct yourself in a garrison environment, all that matters is that you can do great on your PT test and go down range and kill people. Now the wars are winding down, and we are again going to cut defense spending because the military is an easy target when not at war. So we are kicking out tens of thousands of soldiers over the next few years, making it harder to re-enlist so that people are forced out at the end of their terms. Now while I am OK with kicking out shitbags, I am NOT OK with a super small military. Nor am I OK with substandard equipment and training. I am at Fort Benning GA where the Infantry and Armor receive their basic and advanced training. I now have the opportunity to train future infantrymen. What I am hoping though is that we continue to receive the money we need to provide them quality training. As far as what we need to continue to build for? For the future. We don't know who we are going to fight next, but I would bet that it would be a country that has tanks and such, and we need to be prepared for that, just as we were prepared for the Russian Horde had they come running across the border back in the day. Iran, if we had to fight them will not be a cake walk like Iraq was both times (initial invasion, not post). Their military will fight and I am confident that they will fight hard. What I fear is that in the future, we are going to send young men and women in harms way again and again they will not be adequately prepared. On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:29 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry I'm not eligible as a Canadian citizen. > > Thing is at this stage what do we build for? What I also notice since > you bring up history is that in each and every real war (not a so > called event like Grenada), the equipment was obsolete, in horrid > shape or just plain not enough, then later there was a sudden catch up > and in a couple of cases a swamping of the opposition. It seems to be > the American way of war. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:356437 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
