's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Hey Ed,(6 posts)

Hey Ed,sn69
Aug 18, 2003 1:53 PM

It looks like you might have a cellmate when the Patriot Act Goon Squad comes for you. Don't worry, though, since I've heard from my old boss that the General is a true gentleman.

Will he be the top or the bottom ofOldEdScott
Aug 18, 2003 3:51 PM
our ticket?

Only question is, do treasonous felons qualify?

(Darn, I forgot to put 'Nazi' in the subject line so Doug could 'troll-nm' me.)
"more than half of the Army's deployable strength" ...PdxMark
Aug 18, 2003 4:37 PM
is committed to stabilizing Iraq.

Wow. The old doctrine was 2 simultaneous Gulf-size wars. Now it's one non-war and fingers crossed that there isn't a second. North Korea has nothing to worry about...
Specifically, the national strategy has slowly shifted downward.sn69
Aug 18, 2003 6:22 PM
During the CW, it was predicated on two Major Regional Wars, in particular a Pacific and Atlantic/European front against a Soviet strike. After the USSR fell, the policy was adapted to confront two major regional conflicts, presupposing a North Korean contingient combined with another major offensive like GW1. By the end of the 90s and through 00, that too was being revisited to answer one MRC and one significantly smaller operation like Somalia.

The key to remember is that from 1991 through pre-9/11, the military OPTEMPO (essentially, how much we're sent abroad) increased by just over 61% as compared to the Cold War years combined, including Vietnam.

The old-school policy of containment shifted to one of selective engagement. The salient point, however, was that a succession of Presidents, Repubs and Dem, had a reactive foreign policy not predicated on sound diplomacy backed only as a last resort by military intervention. On top of that, the military was used in its normal day-to-day role of humanitarian assistance, diplomatic/economic deployments and the continuation of the not-so-cold war in Iraq with ONW and OSW.

From that point, the takeaway is that we ARE stretched too thin, we HAVE BEEN stretched too thin, and we will probably CONTINUE to be so, even with a possible change in administration. The question that remains unanswered and not often asked (at least not loudly enough) is what happens when the personnel retention exodus of three years ago (due to the radically high OPTEMPO) begins anew amidst a continuing "need" for forces abroad in support of WW4?!....

Mom was right; I shoulda been a dactah....
i can't see too many of our kids involved in thisrufus
Aug 18, 2003 7:15 PM
signing up for another hitch.
Aug 18, 2003 7:26 PM
As with anything, the economy weighs heavily on peoples' minds. Still, you can't jack around with peoples' lives indefinitely and expect them to stay. Of course, that's what the bureaucratic elements do, in fact, expect.

It's the cyclic nature of this business, in one sense.