Quote:
|
Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-
Jinx, not everyone in Iraq is a combat trooper either though more are issued and are carrying weapons because they're in a combat zone. Just a reminder, I am retired military as are a few others here so I have some personal experience from which I speak relative to the military. Even in Iraq they need administrative people, supply people, and people involved with the various logistic points. The forces on aircraft carriers may not set foot on the ground in Iraq but they are involved with maintaining control of the airspace and assist with various operations supporting the ground.
I also know that troops stationed all around the world are involved with mission support in Iraq even if they are not included in the count of those actually stationed in Iraq.
With the Generals and Analysts that comment you have to be very guarded in taking what they say at face value and you also have to be clear about the context in which their comment should be placed. I think you're going to find that some of those analysts who say we're stretched thin are referring to the thin number of troops actually in Iraq expected to accomplish the assigned mission. This is related, I believe, to the surge that Bush has ordered recently.
Don't get me wrong, I think the manner in which this conflict has been prosecuted has been absolutely retarded...but then you would have screamed alot louder had I been the one calling the shots.
|
I've heard people saying this was an issue long before Bush's "troop surge" came around.
And I finally found the stats we are looking for, I believe, on the DoD's website:
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personne...ARY/Miltop.htm
It lays out not just numbers, but locations as well. Most up-to-date is Sept 2006 I think.
Total Worldwide: 1,384,96
Of that about 1,100 are deployed in the US & its territories. Add in those stationed around the globe, and it starts to look pretty "thin".
The real question, I suppose, is how many of those troops in the US and other posts are "available" for deployment to Iraq or elsewhere. Given the number of reserve and national guard troops we've had to send and keep in Iraq, I'm thinking not many...?
"Don't get me wrong, I think the manner in which this conflict has been prosecuted has been absolutely retarded...but then you would have screamed alot louder had I been the one calling the shots."
Yeah, even if you think we should be there, I don't see how anyone could deny how badly it was (or wasn't) planned out. The general in charge now is actually one of the better guys, and is trained in counter-insurgency tactics (they talk a lot about how well he did in
Fiasco, he was one of the few bright spots). I'm worried that it's too little too late, though... :/ And that bit about me screaming louder if it was you in charge I don't get...?!