Tour length isn't the problem

Posted: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:00 AM by Hardball
Lt. Col. Rick Francona

Adjusting combat tour length doesn’t solve the problem

Secretary of Defense of Gates announced Wednesday that he is extending the combat tour length for active duty U.S. Army soldiers from the standard 12 months to 15 months, with the commitment that the period between combat rotations will be 12 months. This announcement does not affect the reserve components of the Army – the Reserves and National Guard – nor does it affect the length of deployment for the U.S. Marines, currently seven months.

While that sounds like it will provide more troops for the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, in reality many of the troops are extended for that extra three months anyway. In the past, that was the most effective way to plus up the number of troops: maintain the inbound schedule but retain units about to rotate home an extra three months. In effect, this formalizes the longer tour length that has been imposed on many of the soldiers who have served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The objective is to provide soldiers at least 12 months between combat tours, and at the same time provide higher levels of troops in the region. It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. It will work in the short term, but at some point, you run out of soldiers.

The problem is not the tour length; it’s the fact that we do not have a sufficient number of soldiers – or Marines for that matter – to maintain the scale and pace of operations, the “ops tempo,” currently assigned to the armed forces.

Let’s be clear about our armed forces. Plain and simple, the all-volunteer force works. We have fielded the best-trained and best-equipped military in our history. At the end of the Cold War, we drew our forces down to what are now unacceptable levels. The problem is that there are not enough of them.

There are proposals to increase the size of the land component, the Army and Marines, by as much as 100,000 troops to supplement the existing 500,000 plus troops. That’s the minimum that is required if we are going to maintain presence in the world’s hot spots – right now that is Iraq and Afghanistan – and be prepared to defend our interests around the world wherever challenged. That challenge might come elsewhere in the Middle East – Iran comes to mind – or in Korea, Taiwan, or the Horn of Africa. We must be ready to act when needed, not worry about raising the required numbers after the crisis presents itself. When we decide that a deployment of U.S. forces is required, we need to send them in numbers that indicate we mean business.

We can’t do that now. On at least one occasion in the last year, the Pentagon was forced to deploy the 82nd Airborne Division’s “ready brigade” to Iraq. This is the unit that is supposed to be on call to respond to a crisis anywhere on a moment’s notice. It’s hard to do that when deployed to Iraq.

The interests of a nation of 300 million people can hardly be defended by one half of one percent of the population. We spend about four percent of GDP on defense. In today’s world, that’s not enough.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

All these so called problems go away when we get out of Iraq. Then you don't have to worry about Tours or imaginary enemies. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. Like cutting social programs to pay for Defense.

Eric H, austin, texas (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:34 PM)

Good piece, and we likely need to rethink our troop strength. However, nobody wants to talk about (1) how much this expansion of our forces would cost and (2) who's going to pay for it. So far, neither the President, Congress, or the Senate has had the forthrightness and guts to say to the American public, "Each of you currently owes about $1,500 apiece for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're going to put it into the budget, and you're going to have to pay for it." The other aspect is that we're relying too heavily on National Guard and Reservists, people who thought they might get called in as backups, but instead are part of the backbone of US troop strength.

Tom Mulhern, Gilroy, Cal. (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:41 PM)

4% GDP? Maybe you better look at what that translates into in the Federal Budget. We spend an astronomical sum on defense every year. More than the next 3 nations put together. It's not the lack of money. It's the lack of boots on the ground. We spend our money not on our troops, but on high-tech gizmos to be used against other high-tech armies that we aren't in conflict with anymore. We are witnessing the failure of the high-priced techno-army in Iraq right now. The volunteer army works... sort of. What if the need arises to field 1.5 million troops? 2.5 million? 5 million? Are we going to get that many volunteers? The volunteer army was fine when it was two superpowers pointing huge arsenals of nuclear weapons at each other. The size of one's army didn't hardly even matter actually. Little does in nuclear conflagration. Now that the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, we are back to geographic hotspots, fighting against low tech forces that take manpower to subdue, not gadgets. Cut back the gadgets and you'll find plenty of money, albeit many upset contractors. As for the boots, we are probably stuck there. A draft will never fly, so it is up to the recruiters. A sobering limitation on American military power.

David Bowles, Cincinnati, OH (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:48 PM)

Sounds like a clear assessment of what will be needed to push through I mean protect our interests. 416 billion dollars is what tax payers have spent so far for the Iraq war. Up to 100,000 US soldiers have been wounded. 3300 are dead Up to 700,000 Iraquis have died. You're right, we need much more of this if we're going to get anything good accomplished around here. Let's win this thing!!

Jack Morris (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:51 PM)

Seems to me that we are hardly defendeng our nation of 300 million by atacking, and then losing to, nations of 25 and 30 million. But then what do I know? I lived during the 20th Century and studied the wars of the 19th Century, but I am not still living there as seems to be the case with our military thinkers and those who espouse wasting still more money on a needless military force. After all if a trained army of 200,000 can't subdue a people of 25 million with no army, what good is it? And larger numbers won't make it any better; just more expensive and thus providing even less return for the investment.

Lwee Delaney (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:56 PM)

I always get concerned when I see military personnel promoting a larger military using artifical statistics as justification. The fact is, we deploy more troops internationally than all other countries combined. Likewise, our government spends more on the military than on health care and education -combined - for the same 300 million citizens. I, for one, am tired of paying taxes to prop-up other governments, police the world and benefit people in other countries when those resources could better be used here, in the United States, and have a direct impact on our lives. The bottom line is, the United States would be safer and far-better served if we stopped interfering in the affairs of other countries. Our Constitution did not make us policemen to the world and the aggressive policies that have led to war far too often also foments the hatred of Americans around the world.

Brett Holstien (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:57 PM)

I would like to say that if we went into Afghanistan and took care of the problem there and not have invaded Iraq we would not have had such a down fall in our military. And I would like to know were in the Constitution of the United States that we go in and topple another Countries government. Our forefather's didn't spend their time in writing the Constitution of the United States to see this happen. America has lost a lot of good soldiers for a country that doesn't want us there anymore. So it's time for the Iraqi's to fend for their selves and bring back our troops. Than they will get the message that the US Military are not police officers protecting them. Once that happens then they will do something to protect themselves.

John, Dorchester, MA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:05 PM)

The Colonel might rethink his positon, considering that if the US did not feel the need to meddle in the rest of the worlds private affairs, there would be no need to spend a paltry 4% of GDP on defenese. Spending less than 4% of GDP seems to work very well for the majority of the other 190+ countries on the planet that don't see the need to maintain about 750 military bases in 130+ plus countries around the world.

Mike, Lincoln, MT (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:06 PM)

A well-thought out article. I have always agreed with that famous line, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." It is evident that during times of peace, the temptation to save money by trimming the armed forces to such unacceptably low levels as we have in place today, has proven to be a grave error. It is imperative that we spend the money to bring our military forces to acceptable levels. Asking troops and their families to endure three, four, or more tours of duty in a combat zone as fearfully hot as Iraq is simply asking too much. In the future, we will need to take a serious look at how we can make military service for today's young people a more attractive career alternative. The treatment that our fighting troops are receiving today will certainly have the opposite effect.

Mark Cambridge (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:07 PM)

We spend more on our military than any society in history. We spend more on our military than the military spending of the entire rest of the planet combined. The problem is not that we don't spend enough on our military. The real problem is that in a world full of problems we can only think of military solutions. We cannot bomb the rest of the world into submission. Even Donald Rumsfeld thinks that with our actions we may be creating terrorists faster than we're killing them. If we are ever to "win" the broad global war we're in we're going to have to win some goodwill. Otherwise we're going to need to bomb much of the rest of the world back to the stone age. What was the most effective anti-terrorist activity of the past 4 years? Probably the tsunami aid in Indonesia. In a country of hundreds of millions of people, the perception of the US did a complete u-turn. That action denied radical Islam thousands of recruits. What we spend on the war in Iraq in one month could effectively solve the drinking water problems of the entire third world. If we did that, a crash program to guarantee that everyone in the world would have fresh water and not die of water-borne illnesses, might that win us a little goodwill? Isn't it likely that there would be literally thousands of people who would no longer describe the US as the Great Satan? Look, they're not afraid to die. We can't kill everyone that has learned to hate us unless we want to make the Holocaust look like child's play. Not saying a military isn't needed. Just saying we need some other tools. And if spending more than the rest of the world combined on our ways of killing people isn't enough, shouldn't we stop and take a look at what we're up to?

Jonathan Fribley, St. Cloud, MN (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:08 PM)

Are we the police force of the world? Or is our desire to give democracy to other countries, maintain peace outside the USA, or toppole dictatorships dictated by our economic interests.

ding garcia, baldwin park, ca (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:11 PM)

Congressman Charlie Rangel has been clear on the problems we have with maintaining viable troop strength/numbers. He also proposed a solution....a military draft, across the board. He's right! I believe that every man in the U.S. should be required to serve....mandatory, no exceptions/deferrments. No able-bodied man should get a free ride. You don't pay-you don't play! There is, after all, an odious incongruency in having to stomach draft dodgers and cowards beating the drums of war.

rick rodriguez, corpus christi, Tx (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:16 PM)

We are either at war or we are not. You can’t have it both ways. If we are at war the tour of duty in Iraq should be “for the duration” as it was in WWII, which we won, not for 12 months (or 15) as it was in Vietnam, which we lost. Unpopular – you bet. War should be unpopular. It should be the last step you take. War has to be total commitment, or no commitment at all. Get in, or get out, but don’t try to do it without sacrifice. Anything less should be handled by the “Peacekeepers” in the blue hats.

Wayne, Los Angeles (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:21 PM)

Lt Col Francona is exactly correct. The drawdown of the late 80's and 90's went too far. Then after 9-11 we went on a war path but did nothing to raise the troop levels. The DOD is now spending over a billion dollars on retention bonuses and I would venture to guess that they are having trouble with recruitment. We need more than an "Army of One", we need an Army of a couple million.

Pete K., Hartford, CT (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:22 PM)

That the military is presently too small to sustain the current missions over time is obvious. The problem is that there are only so many who are both fit and willing to serve for reasons ranging from pay to patriotism. Unfortunately the low birth rate of the last 35 years compells a return to the draft. Since the average enlistee serves 6 to 7 years, you need to draft 3 people to replace one volunteer.

Lucas Sarkisian, Binghamton, New York (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:28 PM)

Extending tour lengths, either formally or informally, have a tremendous negative effect on morale. Retention will suffer, and recruiting efforts will struggle just to keep up with the number of soldiers leaving the Army. This is a no-win situation. Telling a soldier that staying in Iraq for an additional three months will enable him to stay home for a year before his NEXT tour in Iraq is a small consolation. Too many of our troops are coming up on their thrid tour in Iraq, and many also have a tour in Afghanistan under their belts. We desperately need a bigger military, and shorter tours in combat zones, rather than longer ones.

Terry Nichols (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:33 PM)

Isn't 4% of the US's GDP several times more than any other country spends on defense?

Nick, Oshkosh, WI (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:34 PM)

So, even though we spend as much money as the twenty next most spendy contries combined on our military, we can't maintain sufficient forces to control the violence in Iraq? Sounds like we've been wasting our money again. I don't it's a lack of military capacity that's the problem, the problem is that our dear leaders are clueless as to how to address the problems we face. If they keep making stupid choices the entire GNP won't be enough to support our military needs.

D. Atchison, Colorado (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:38 PM)

Your budget math is bogus. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (i.e. are paid for through supplementary deficit spending bills). Black budget military spending is not listed as Federal spending and is also not included in published military spending figures. True US military spending is significantly higher than 4%.

lamar ovray (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:38 PM)

Our military should not be asked to police a civil war in Iraq or settle a personal score for the president or secure a country's oil wealth for the vice president. Our soldiers signed up to defend our country. The administration has greatly abused that offer of service and greatly harmed our nation in the process.

Mark F., Seattle, WA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:40 PM)

Amen! Nothing can stop the US military when given mission, method -- and manpower. With authorized force levels that are reasonable, and funding enough to attract the still-surprising number of people willing to risk it all to save it all, we need not succumb to being the 21st-century's paper tiger.

Don Wolford, Plant City, FL (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:43 PM)

Compensation for active duty personnel needs to be more on par with that of the civilian workforce. College benefits are awesome, but active military families endure a lot of hardship living near the poverty level while risking loss of life just for the eventual benefit of a degree and mediocre medical care. Unless you're desperate or have an overwhelming sense of patriotism there is not much motivation to sign on or re-enlist.

Laura (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:50 PM)

The military is broken, its time to bring them home. Or do these die-hard chickenhawks prefer to pull them out ala Saigon? Its coming, what happened in the Green Zone today is a perfect example. We military families are tired of paying the price for this repeated insanity.

UncleSammy (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:50 PM)

The last thing we need is a longer tour of duty, more soldiers, guns, munitions, tanks, etc. What we need is someone in power with the insight and courage to recognize and admit that this Administration's policy of unilateralism and being the world's bully is extremely counterproductive and dangerous, not to mention corrosive to the values that once made this nation great.

Tom Nelson (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:55 PM)

While it is true that the armed forces are over-stretched, I do not believe that increasing the budget is the answer. In fact, I think it has been pointed out recently that every empire with a standing army has fallen (google: Rome). Many of us, our nation's youth, believe that the answer is not to pour more money into Iraq (although Afghanistan needs more funding), but to withdraw from the war entirely. Not everyone feels this way for the same reasons, but I for one feel that this war has if anything increased our vulnerability and stoked more flames, so to speak, with regards to increased hatred towards America around the world. More money is not the answer. Better leadership is what we need.

Gregory Wieber, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:56 PM)

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that very few people want to join the "volunteer" military right now. There are a few people out there who are ready and willing to volunteer to fight a war, but for the most part, people with other options are going to take those other options. I don't see any way to substantially raise the number of soldiers without a dramatic improvement in military pay, which is something that is NEVER discussed.

John H, Tucson AZ (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:59 PM)

As a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division I totally agree and am glad to see that people are starting to see the light. I personally know members from the division who have done 3 tours and know they will be heading back soon. We can not keep up this operational pace and expect to have soldiers enter/stay in the Army. The continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have seriously endangered our other interests abroad and emboldened our normally quiet instigators (Korea and Iran). Increase the size of the Army (if we can find recruits willing to join) but we also need to increase spending for facilities and support. We need to fix this before some other country realizes that roughly 60% of our military is spread out half a world away.

Dan Schram, Las Vegas, NV (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:00 PM)

Since Pres. Bush and VP Cheney have decided that the U.S. will police the rest of the world, the Pentagon needs to accept this reality. Police typically get one month of vacation and work eleven months a year. The U.S. Army and USMC should get used to the idea of being deployed eleven months a year in Iraq, one month at home, then back to Iraq for another eleven months. No more one year incountry then two years resting in the states.

John, California, USA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:00 PM)

"At the end of the Cold War, we drew our forces down to what are now unacceptable levels." This same pattern has occurred throughout the history of the United States. The citizenry isn't willing to pay for a large standing army during peace time. Congress goes along with this desire. The pressure comes in the form of reducing budget deficits. As a result, every time we get drawn into a conflict, be it the Civil War, WW I & II, etc. the same problem arises. There isn't sufficient man-power in the military for the crisis at hand.

Robert Munds, Clinton IL (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:01 PM)

I served 6 years in the Air Force, and 2 tours in the middle east. I think our government (not us - we're not allowed to own such weapons of 'defense') spends 4% of our productivity defending the interests of oil companies and arms manufacturers. In today's world, centralizing power creates pockets for corruption to breed, and a target for our enemies. If power were decentralized, an enemy would have to simultaneously conquer, clear, and hold every square mile of property in America to defeat us. With it centralized, they just have to commandeer the command structure. Are those in control of our command structure defending American principles, or merely grasping for even more power? This is the question we need to continue to ask of our leaders. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Richard Simpson, Pittsburgh PA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:02 PM)

Ah yes, nothing like a war for promotions and increased budgets. The Colonel seems to think that four percent of the GDP of the richest country in the world is not enough to defend it. The colonel makes the following assumptions: That if we were to expand the military it could be done over-night. Most of what I have read is that expect at least 24 to 36 months of lag time. The second assumes you could continue with the modern volunteer army approach without going to the draft. I suspect the next answer to the man-power shortage would be a draft. The problem is this train of thought assumes the American People want to continue with strategies that are aligned more with colonialism and imperialism rather than democracy. Our entrance was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present danger. Our current leaders have abused that lie to the American People for way to long. The hard fact is Iraq is in a Civil War between the Sunnis and Shiites. This means that Iraq is no longer a clear and present danger to the United States. It is time to withdraw. If you do not believe me look at our own civil war. The issues between the North and the South simmered for 80 years. No outside power got involved because Europe had already resolved the issues brought about by the use of slave labor. Now it is up to the Iraqis too resolve their deep religious, tribal and power issues. So Colonel, it is time for the Hardbloggers to look at how to withdraw with a minimum of casualties to the US and what is left of the “Coalition Forces”. Using your words Colonel, why are the interests of the 24 million people in Iraq being defended by an Army whose job it is to defend the 300 million of America? In the 21st century, the world is shrinking. News reach and opinions are expanding as information cost drop. In our current environment the stick is a very ineffective approach win people over.

Thresher, Houston, TX (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:17 PM)

Thank you for this analysis. I hope that us 300 million can continue to support our troops in the field.

A.H., Iowa City, IA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:20 PM)

Lt. Col. -- This is the reason why we need to have a mandatory 2-year service agreement for men after high school -- women can serve in the Peace Corp. If every 18-19 year old had to serve a tour, I bet you anything the public support for this war would erode to the point where congress could easily cut off funding. And get a parade!

Chris, Rockville, MD (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:20 PM)

Our interests seem to conflict with our reality. Most americans I speak with are looking to protect our homeland and leting others support their own intersts. Lets provide healthcare and protect our borders. Lets protect American jobs and infrastructures before putting multinational corporations and the pro-Israel lobby before our own. Signed The People

Dan T. Duluth, MN (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:23 PM)

Col. Francona: The all volunteer Army as the "best equipped and best trained" military in our history is a fiction. An Army that is reduced to recruiting felons, 42 year olds, drug abusers etc. is a hurting Army. I am a veteran of the Army that included draftees and while they were not as "tractable" as volunteers, they for the most part were an intelligent, leveling force in the service. The cohort being recruited now for service is neither our fittest or finest. WWII's soldiers were far superior. It helped that they had a mission that was worthy of their sacrifice also.

Tom Cunningham, Janesville, Wi (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:25 PM)

"Let’s be clear about our armed forces. Plain and simple, the all-volunteer force works. We have fielded the best-trained and best-equipped military in our history. At the end of the Cold War, we drew our forces down to what are now unacceptable levels. The problem is that there are not enough of them. " Having a well trained force deficient in numbers does not show our all-volunteer system is working. Lowering the standards and increasing waivers to let in previously unqualified individuals speaks exactly the opposite. Sure, we can keep jacking up recruitment and reenlistment bonuses. However, I'd imagine any country could have a well-trained undermanned force by just throwing money at potential soidiers. The fact that we have long prided ourselves on the ability to maintain an all volunteer force does not mean it always works. When you have massive needs for manpower and a less-than-popular war, sometimes you need more than volunteers. I agree that our endstrength is too small. However, I do not believe we have been hamstrung simply by caps on troops being brought into the services. That may have been the problem before, but it isn't now. People aren't knocking down the doors to come in or stay without masive cash thrown at them. That tells me force size caps aren't the real issue now.

Jason Rhoades (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:31 PM)

Why don't you just come out and admit what it's going to take to get the necessary numbers of Americans in uniforms to fight Bush's war? Draft may be spelled with five letters, but it's a four-letter word to the neocon warmongers who have put our very security at risk to carry out their geo-political experiment in Iraq. If they truly believe in the mission of this folly, they should have the you-know-what to own this whole mess - and that includes repairing the military they have decimated. Unfortunately, accountability isn't one of this administration's strong suits.

Shelley, Denver (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:34 PM)

I disagree that we only spend 4% of our GDP on defense. It's clearly our highest spending right now, with $250-300 billion already spent or requested on this war. Does the war bring in any money? You could call it an investment in peace, but we haven't really reaped a peace dividend from this war. Seems like more folks just dislike or fear the USA.

DataDoc (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:07 PM)

Why is it you guys keep saying that the all-volunteer military works and then, in the next breath, say that we don't have enough people to protect us? Bring back the draft. It's time every American, both male and female, demonstrated a commitment to the defence of their country. No deferrments, no exceptions. Rich or poor. Everybody gets a turn.

Nick, Homewood, Illinois (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:12 PM)

Amen! Troop drawdowns in the 70s resulted in severe hardships for military families as well as extended overseas and sea tours for the Navy. Then, President Reagon arrived on the scene and we had a president and congress that understood the simple equation of many more people in the world demanded more military to help protect our fellow Americans at home. Now we once again refuse to admit reality demands a larger military. We just can't seem to remember that those who do not pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it.

Lou Robinson, Big Cabin, OK (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:13 PM)

As an Army Reservist who has not (yet) deployed there are a few (a very small number) of us who haven't. I agree with this comment completely "In effect, this formalizes the longer tour length that has been imposed on many of the soldiers who have served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan". Many of my friends have not only been involuntarily deployed (being pulled out of the IRR etc.) and then not being allowed to ETS only to then be told once in country that their tour is extended.

SF, Wayne, NJ (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:16 PM)

Nick, Homewood, Illinois (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:28 PM)

I agree that our military needs to be increased, but I have two questions - 1) Where are these thousands of young people coming from, when they can get better pay, better benefits, and more time with their loved ones in civilian jobs? and 2) While we may be increasing the number of troops, what is being done to increase the training requirements? It is common knowledge, in the Army at least, that the requirements to pass Basic Training have been dropped significantly. It has been necessary to keep everyone who enters training in service merely to keep up the present number of troops. I sincerely hope we are not sacrificing quality for quantity; that will only increase the quantity of dead soldiers.

Jessica Smith, Boise, ID (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:45 PM)

Aright! Someone who recognizes that this country has been lax in its' military preparedness. I've read statistics that show we've depleted our military manpower by approximately 33% since 2001. Is this true? Can someone verify or or debunk this statistic for me? I worry every day for the safety and sanity of our soldiers overseas, especially those in combat zones. Like the old adage goes, "There's safety in numbers". I guess Mr. Rumsfield's theories about required troop numbers have been pretty much discounted, eh? I also hear stories from my neighborhood about locals who are serving in Iraq, who are not allowed to "eliminate" bomb-planting insurgents, even with them clearly in their sights, with no one else around them to be "collateral damage". Is this true, too? If so, why? I've always been of the idea that, in war, if you see an enemy doing what enemies do, you kill the sob, and be done with it. Has this changed? Just thinking out loud.......

Darrel In PA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:00 PM)

i worry about the next war...

ROG, Alb, NY (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:06 PM)

As one of those being deployed soon for the now 15 months, I agree that this is the primary reason for the military being in the hole on troop strength. Without the numbers how are we going to defend the us? Of course I don't see a threat from iraq. With strict border control how could they get into the us? The bad thing about troop levels is like myself I am getting out. What will the numbers be when more get out because of Bush's wargames? All I see here at my duty station is new soldiers who lack the experience needed. Can't do alot without the experience to train them.

fred (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:08 PM)

Thank you! Finally someone who talks some sense. It's not enough troops. What exactly would Bush do if war broke out tomorrow with North Korea? We'd be up crapola creek without a prayer and a paddle! I wish this admin would wake up and smell the very stale coffee-you can't do war on the cheap and there is no such thing as a winnable war!

Copper Girl, Colorado (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:08 PM)

Very nice!!! well done!!! We spend more money on the military than any other nation in the world. Yes, we need more weapons for Bush and the company to bomb other nations. Would it be better to spend some of that for our health care, education and many other thing that we need here.

Max, Columbus Ohio. (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:12 PM)

Tour length isn't the problem, you are right. The problem is sending our military on a mission that has no bearing on our national security. A mission so poorly planned and executed, no amount of money could have whitewashed the incompetence of its promoters. The original rationales for invading Iraq are exposed as the fabrications they were, and simply spending more money to cover the backsides of invasion cheerleaders won't do our nation's interests any good. The key to managing our interests is picking fights that make sense, not more fully funding debacles. We pulled out of Viet Nam and didn't see the "domino effect" all the Chicken Littles had brayed about. We can do the same thing in Iraq: declare victory and go home. Our current Chicken Littles need to step aside, and let clearer heads take over. Our problems "in today's world" are largely of our own making. Until we've begun addressing the core mistake of going into Iraq in the first place, all talk about "properly" funding the sham is mere hand-waving.

Jim D (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:12 PM)

Rick, you are right on! But, need more military/ trigger pullers, not more Aircraft Carriers and F22's although we need all of that too. The volunteer Army is heads and sholders above the troops I comanded in RVN. I am amazed at their professionalism. Whatever it takes. Do it. Elect Republicans and it will happen. If the Dems win, forget it. They will spend the money on bridges to nowhere.

Dave Dougan, Spring, Texas (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:14 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=138564

The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Authors:

Syndicate This Site

Add Hardblogger to your news reader:

ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Tour length isn't the problem

Posted: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:00 AM by Hardball
Lt. Col. Rick Francona

EMAIL THIS

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

TRACKBACKS

The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Syndicate This Site

MSNBC Weblogs

ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Tour length isn't the problem

Posted: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:00 AM by HardballLt. Col. Rick Francona

EMAIL THIS

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

TRACKBACKS

The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Syndicate This Site

MSNBC Weblogs

Posted: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:00 AM by Hardball
Lt. Col. Rick Francona