FACT CHECK: The State of the National Guard
FACT CHECK: The State of the National Guard
During a prime-time address tonight, President Bush will “outline immigration reform proposals,” including a controversial plan to deploy several thousand National Guard troops to the US/Mexican border.
Appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America a few minutes ago, White House Counselor Dan Bartlett was asked about concerns that the National Guard was under strain:
GIBSON: So you reject the argument that some Republicans made yesterday that the Guard is already stretched too thin?
BARTLETT: Well, absolutely.
Here are the facts about the state of the National Guard:
- 20 percent of the approximately 130,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq are members of the Guard and Reserve.
- 352 National Guard soldiers have died in Iraq.
- The National Guard Bureau estimated that “nondeployed units had only about 34 percent of their essential warfighting equipment as of July 2005.”
- The Army National Guard “reported that it had less than 5 percent of the required amount of more than…220 critical items.”
- In response to equipment shortages, governors from all 50 states called for the White House to better equip the National Guard so they can “carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties.”
- In April, both the Army Reserve and Army National Guard missed their recruiting goals “amid persistent concern among potential recruits over the Iraq war.”
- With hurricane season quickly approaching, the National Guard will have “more troops at home than last year but with less equipment to handle emergencies.”
- The Louisiana Guard does not have around 100 of its “high-water vehicles” and North Carolina is “missing nearly half its Humvee fleet.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
easy with ith CAPS…we hear you.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:51 amNo chance of a draft so close to mid-term elections,but after that,expect it.
I thought there was well layed out rules and regs about the use of The Guard. Not too sure they were meant to be used as forward deployed operational units in wars of international flavour.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:56 amThe use of the guard (which would mean this is a TEMPORARY solution) instead of hiring more border patrols is an obvious sign that they are not serious about the problem. Isn’t it obvious?
May 15th, 2006 at 10:56 amThe National Guard are NOT trained to guard borders > they are weekend/part-time soldiers!
May 15th, 2006 at 11:01 amThey do not make good combat troops either, so being deployed in Iraq is stupid! They are trained to help out in disasters or to control rioting!
If Bush butt was really concerned about the border, then just after 9/11/01 occured he would have ordered the federal Army to the Mexican border to install fencing and guarding of the border, but during Dubya’s presidency almost 7 million illegal immigrants have crossed into the US > over one million a year! It is obvious that the Bush Regime and many in the Congress want the border wide open to allow drugs into the nation, and to allow a massive influx of cheap exposible labor to be exploited by corporations to maximise profits!
May 15th, 2006 at 11:09 amThis whole immigration “storm” is a diversionary tactic to change the focus away from the indictments coming shortly.
Given their abysmal track record and overwhelming incompetence, why would anyone want this administration to “fix” our immigration system. While I agree it is broken, they are the last ones I want to try and tackle the problem.
I struggle, in vain, to think of a single success of this pathetic presidency.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:10 amActually, I think the point is to break the guard as a functioning force so that their role can be taken over by the regular army. This would be a way around the posse commitatus prohibition against domestic deployment of the army. Say hello to martial law, Bobs and Betties.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:18 amWe at at a (to use BushCo’s own rhetoric) “turning point” in the BushCo Regime. Unfortunaely, I fear that BushCo will soon attack Iran and truly start WW3!
BushCo = LIARS!
May 15th, 2006 at 11:20 amIt’s just more play-acting, man.
Bush won’t follow this up and actually do what he says.
It’s just like every other damned thing they propose: it’s meant to look like they are doing something, when in reality they’re either cutting the program or doing the exact opposite.
The Guard will be OK. Wil the press follow up on anything? Nah………
May 15th, 2006 at 11:20 amJust out of curiosity, why does this still surprise anyone?
May 15th, 2006 at 11:22 amThe National Guard is NOT a band Aid for GW’s Political problems…
May 15th, 2006 at 11:27 amThe Filthy Left is never short of reasons why something can’t be done, never mind that they are always wrong. I’m waiting for the inevitable “It’s a quagmire I tell you”.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:32 amSadly, this is yet another half-assed attempt to solve a problem. Throwing endless resources at a problem in the wrong manner seems to be the most popular course of action for this administration.
1. Bush’s solution will not work. The US and Mexico share 2,000 miles of border, and it would probably take about 96,000 troops – full time – to effectively guard it. Anything short of that is an expensive token gesture. Who knows how effective the weekend warriors will be preventing Mexicans from sneaking through the brush in the rain at 2am?
2. Troops are not the best solution for deterring personnel. That’s why anti-personnel mines were invented. For those who bristle at the thought that the government would confiscate and saturate 2,000 square miles of land and mine it, ask yourself if the Nation’s security is worth it. If not, then why even listen to Bush’s proposal, which is less effective, more expensive, and just as deadly? There’s unwise, and then there’s just plain stupid. If you’re committed to doing the wrong thing, at least do it intelligently.
3. People will not attempt to leave Mexico for the US if it were enjoyable to live in Mexico. Help them improve their economy and governance, and the tide will move south, not north. Heck, people are already moving south and west inside the US… in another 20 years we could promote Mexico as America’s best retirement community…
May 15th, 2006 at 11:33 amOn the bright side, with all the national guard deployed in Iraq and the Mexcan Bornder, there’s fewer troops to round up the disidents and put them in the interment camps.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:39 amI-RIGHT-I
The left also has this annoying habit of being right.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:47 am# 15 rael imperial aerosol kid:
”It seems they cannot leave their dream
May 15th, 2006 at 11:55 amThere’s something moving in the sidewalk steam,”
….
Apparently only Dan Bartlett knows anything — even when he doesn’t know — he knows. His confidence is inspiring. Not.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:59 amThere is also a very subversive effort buried in this proposal. It will be much easier to get young kids to sign up for the National Guard if they are led to believe that they will be stationed on the US borders. Recruiting money runs out May 31st. One sure way to encourage recruiting efforts for the Nat Guard is to show how they will really be just helping here at home. Of course, as soon as they are in they go to Iraq, ostensibly to get urban warfare and desert training necessary to provide the best service inside the US. Just more smoke and mirrors… and deceipt of the worst kind.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:11 pmDon’t forget the stop-loss order that keeps National Guard soldiers enlisted unless they’ve served in Iraq or Afghanistan or in a specialized unit even after their committment date. That’s helped the administration claim the Guards aren’t stretched too thin. Will border patrol be considered a specialized unit?
May 15th, 2006 at 12:13 pmI think this action by Bush, is a band aid move, to prove to the disillusioned base, that he is serious about border security, and immigration. As it has been pointed out, it would take a lot of troops to cover the 2000 miles of the border, and even then may not be enough. China which has no shortage of manpower, has trouble covering the 750 mile border between it and North Korea. A large number of north koreans have gone crossed the border to China, and live illegaly in border towns.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:15 pmHey IRI, Join the Guard/Reserves, travel to exotic lands, meet strange new people, and kill them (but only on weekends).
May 15th, 2006 at 12:21 pmSo that means no of you are going to join the Guard? Too bad I am sure you all would make fine soldiers. Another factoid might be lost on you. EVERYONE in the military today either joined or re-enlisted AFTER we invaded Iraq.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:25 pmRRS,
you forgat to include the stop loss program prevented many from leaving the military, or forced them to re-enlist. I am sure that you will correct this info in your post, and provide a factual link to say the official military recruiting site.
Thanks
May 15th, 2006 at 12:27 pmThe issue isn’t merely overstretching the National Guard or their ability. The issue is that this is blatant pandering to the racist Minutemen base.
I have EVIDENCE that Bush doesn’t care about Border Patrol – it’s called “the budget”.
Read the following article titled “Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents;
May 15th, 2006 at 12:47 pmPresident uses law’s escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force” from Feb 9. I’ll be shocked if the MSM ever mentions these facts…
Krazny,
RRS is just a little (lot) off with the “EVERYONE” claim, and he’s talking about the 1st Iraq war, which was, hmmm, about 15 years ago. So yeah, there are probably some soldiers who are still in the army from that war, which was justified. And you’re right, Stop Loss makes his argument even further off-base (pardon the pun RRS…)
And as for RRS wanting us to go join the guard, I did my 4 (+2 inactive) years in the Regular army already. Maybe RRS should “unretire” if he so supports the war. And, the last I remember, getting to the ranks of SFC or MSG takes a lot longer than 3 years, and requires certain education / bachelors degree… unless there’s a whole lot of battlefield promotions going on and they just waive all those requirements now. But that still doesn’t come close to making them “EVERYONE”.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pmI have a friend who has been national guard, or active duty military since 1992, so there goes RRS’s assertion. I am thinking it is another rushsurdidy, that he heard this morning.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:14 pm[...] Oh, wait, wrong border. Tonight, the two networks (NBC and Fox)will show Bush’s speech (aka a plea to his rapidly shrinking Right Wing base) as he tries to get tough by putting the National Guard on the border. What is the state of the National Guard? Think Progress has the answers, again. FACT CHECK: The State of the National Guard [...]
May 15th, 2006 at 1:28 pmhave EVIDENCE that Bush doesn’t care about Border Patrol – it’s called “the budgetâ€.
Read the following article titled “Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents;
President uses law’s escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force†from Feb 9. I’ll be shocked if the MSM ever mentions these facts…
Comment by Ohioan
I have evidence that nobody in the government save a few “racists” like Tancredo cares about the Border Patrol….20 million Mexicans nationals in the country and growing by 10,000 a day.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:53 pm“I have a friend who has been national guard, or active duty military since 1992, so there goes RRS’s assertion. I am thinking it is another rushsurdidy, that he heard this morning.
Comment by Krazny”
First off, I doubt the Kranzy has a friend, second if your “friend” wanted to leave the Guard threre is no stop/loss preventing him att. Stop loss is ONLY used for a short period of time and FYI NOBODY is FORCED to re-enlist. If you are “caught” in a stop/loss your seperation date is simply extended. If your “friend” is still on active duty it’s because he choose to be there not due to stop/loss.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:10 pmLOL
RRS,
Lets get the sequence straight. My friend who you don’t want to believe in enlisted in national guard in 1992. He made a decision in 2000 to become regular army, because he wanted to be flight trained as a helicopter pilot. He served a tour in Iraq, and is going to be headed back there in a few months. The stop loss program does indeed extend the seperation date, but he and many others are stuck because the military has extended those dates over and over again.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:20 pmIf your “friend†is still on active duty it’s because he choose to be there not due to stop/loss.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier — May 15, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
“Although the Army has made its monthly recruiting goals in the first months of 2006, it has done so by “front loading†its intake of new recruits and by lowering its quality standards. In October 2005, for example, 19 percent of Army recruits were drawn from “Category IV,†the lowest aptitude level accepted — a percentage far higher than the historical average.(…)
Some are being prevented from leaving the active Army by “stop loss†orders. Others are choosing to stay in the active force. Still others, once they get out, do not want to risk being deployed again as a reservist.(…)
This practice has skewed the data somewhat and effectively hidden growing personnel deficits, particularly in the junior grades of the Army.”
The U.S. Military: Under Strain And at Risk
“The Army Reserve has been applying a policy preventing officers from resigning their military commissions if it has a personnel shortage in their particular specialty or if they have not yet been deployed for duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or in a homeland defence mission, officials said.”
May 15th, 2006 at 2:30 pmUS Army Reserve blocks departures
Didn’t Bush tell Vicente Fox today not to worry – the guard is only going to be there as back up. In other words, I am just spreading the bullshit for the Americans, it really doesn’t mean anything.
May 15th, 2006 at 3:07 pmEVERYONE in the military today either joined or re-enlisted AFTER we invaded Iraq.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier — May 15, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Idiot…ever hear of Officers..they do not inlist..they are commissioned thus all captains and above did not enlist or re-enlist after 2003, nweither did the ones who have an 8 year guard enlkistment that only had 1-2 years left on it before stop -los, what were you a cook on perminate KP
May 15th, 2006 at 3:38 pmWhatever position RRS served in the military it was clearly either a non-combat type, or he never served during wartime. That of course makes the basic assumption that he has ever truly served.
May 15th, 2006 at 3:57 pm“Idiot…ever hear of Officers..they do not inlist” Clif. The term “enlistment” denotes obligated services. Officers Extend their service or “Re-Up” just like enlisted. I understand they are not enlisted but I qurestion your undetrstanding. You are quibbling about terms here. No one on active at this moment is there because of a stop/loss measure and if their term of service, commision, enlisment, or DOS has passed they are free to leave the sevicer VOLUNTARILYand choose at some point not to leave.
Granzy, still don’t believe you have a friend in the military. You can’t be caught up in a continuous stop/loss (aint no such thing) and they RARELY run over six months. If your friend is still on activ duty it’s because he choose to be on active duty.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:06 pmSuprised ?
Shocked?
Dis-spirited?
What did you really expect from a bully?
He can’t get any support, so he is going to order the NG to be deployed.
Ordering around people who have to follow his orders.
What I knew was coming was the deployment of troops in the US of A.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:22 pmThe extreme right has been waiting for this excuse (as lame as it is) to deploy armed forces in the USA to get around “Posse Comitatus”. The NG is just the start.
They will wait until wthe citenzenry gets used to seeing armed soldiers across the face of our country, and then . . . .
RSS you stated no one, I mearly pointed out you are full of Rovian bull with a small amount of facts, and what about thne 8 year reserve obligations, that would mean somebiody who signed one in 2000 would have oh say two years left, thus no enlistment or re-up before deployment and the stop loss are real, just because you sit home hiding behind a computor when others are invokluntarily extended, lieing is not going to change the facts others face.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:25 pmYou can’t be caught up in a continuous stop/loss (aint no such thing) and they RARELY run over six months.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier — May 15, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
“[S]top-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military.(…)
With yearlong tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, some soldiers can be forced to stay in the Army an extra 18 months.(…)
Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said that “there is no plan to discontinue stop-loss.(…)”
Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002. ”
Army Forces 50,000 Soldiers into Extended Duty
“If the Army had met its recruiting goals, it might have been able to ease a restrictive wartime practice known as ’stop-loss’ that has kept tens of thousands of soldiers from leaving the service at the end of their enlistment tours or retirement dates, the Army’s No. 2 general said Monday.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:44 pmGen. Richard Cody, the vice chief of staff, told reporters the shortfall in recruiting also means the Army did not grow to its target level of 502,000 soldiers during the budget year that ended Friday. It had wanted to expand by 10,000 soldiers as part of a multiyear plan to fill positions in 10 new active-duty brigades.”
Army’s Stop-Loss Could Have Ended
There is a lot of college republicans who could help the army fill meet its quota.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:47 pmThere is a lot of college republicans who could help the army fill meet its quota.
Comment by Krazny
Good idea. Better than boot licking left wing dope heads and pansies looking for a little college money or a cute guy.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:07 pmPEOPLE… lets try this. please dont respond to MA’s phsycho babble okay? a few of us have decided if you dont respond she will go away eventually. she just wants attention be it negative or vitriolic so lets just ignore what her and IRI say. The minds are 1 can short of a six pack anyway! For honest discourse with a moderate or conservative i’d pick Tundra. even tempered and willing to take points without spewing crap!
May 15th, 2006 at 6:15 pmThere is a lot of college republicans who could help the army fill meet its quota.
Comment by Krazny
Good idea. Better than boot licking left wing dope heads and pansies looking for a little college money or a cute guy.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — May 15, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
go ahead and start down there Texas IRI, just head out, find the college republican headquarters, and convince them to sign up. I would be willing to pass the hat and get you some money so you can travel around.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:20 pm20% of the 130,000 troops being national guard equates to
26,000 Soldiers/Sailors and Airmen
Total number of Guard: The ARNG is more than 320,000 members strong
Means about 8% of the guard are deployed.
(This is if we only use Army National Guard and don’t figure in the other services or reserves which were listed in the 20% figure TP used. The total number of reserve and guard soldiers was 874,000 in 2002)
if that’s the case then 2.9% of the Guard and reserved are currently deployed.
Fact check in case my math is off (Was never a strong suit)
May 15th, 2006 at 10:42 pmhttp://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2002/summary/summary.htm
#44 – Tundra,
May 15th, 2006 at 10:51 pmSo why are the generals so far off?
Heya Walt,
I’m assuming the numbers at the top of the post are accurate. Yes 20% of the force in Iraq is Guard or reserve. That is just saying that 3% of our guard and reserve force are deployed. One of the chief complaints about Iraq is we didn’t send enough troops. It’s not that we didn’t have them (Possibly not properly equiped but for another discussion), It’s that we didn’t send them.
Personally I would rather see the National Guard protecting our borders. Keep them at home guarding our nation (Little pun on National Guard there).
Post 39
Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy
The FY 2002 end-strength of the Active Components was slightly less than 1.4 million
totaled more than 874,000. Additionally, there were more than 312,000 people in the Individual Ready Reserve/Inactive National Guard. In FY 2002, approximately 182,000 non-prior service (NPS) recruits were enlisted and nearly 13,000 prior service recruits were returned to the ranks. Almost 22,000 newly commissioned officers reported for active duty. Furthermore, about 73,000 recruits without and about 81,000 with prior military experience were enlisted in the Selected Reserve. Close to 15,000 commissioned officers entered the National Guard or Reserves this past fiscal year as well. The salient characteristics of these personnel are described in this summary
Total in 2002 (Closest data I have): 2,959,000
May 15th, 2006 at 11:07 pmPercentage of military personal effected by stop loss: .042%
when the draw of the military during the 1990’s congress and both presidents planned on using more of the national guard and reserves to make up shortages in the active duty forces. according to department ot defence 70% of the artillery units in the millitary are nat’l guard and the reservesunits
May 16th, 2006 at 12:53 amTundra when my daughters reserve aviation unit was being deployed in 2004 that was the second deployment for quiye a number of them, they had previously deployed to fill MTOE gaps in other units….
May 16th, 2006 at 1:11 amPercentage of military personal effected by stop loss: .042%
Comment by Tundra — May 15, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
Well, wasn’t that a spin. You missed to measure the soldiers affected by the stop-loss order against the total population of the US -you would have got an even lower percentage.
Had you bothered to follow the links and read the articles, you would have found out that the stop-loss policy applies to the units due to deploy, or deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, not all the other reserves you mentioned, and it is in that context that it should be measured.
Your attempt to minimise the gravity of the stop-loss is ridiculous, bordering on silly with an equal lack of awareness.
Not to mention the fact that, if the Pentagon did not have problems meeting its recruitment goals, there would be no need for a stop-loss order in the firtst place -something Retired Rep Soldier denied even existed.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:23 am49.
Quote you provided
Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve,
Current people in all the armed forces listed. The DOD link listed all of those in addition to it’s stated numbers. over 2 and a half million.
and it is in that context that it should be measured.
That is silly. Of course it is only going to effect units being deployed. If unit A is getting deployed everyone in unit G is completely uneffected.
The term stop loss gets thrown around here often like it is pulling in every soldier and the government is holding every soldier hostage to fight their war. It is simply not true based on the information you provided. People do not get stuck in countless stop loss situations. Yes it exists (stoploss) and effects a very small number of soldiers. I have heard people on here claim they know 3 or 4 people that are “Currently” effected by it. Based on your link of 12,500 current people in the entire armed forces I tend to have to call BS.
It’s not a new concept either. When we deployed to Sinai and Haiti we had people that had to extend for unit integrity. There is always a way out and I would say that those effected knew their duty and knew that they were valuable to their fellow soldiers. Granted it’s opinion but with a number that low I feel it’s a fair one. I am currently 31 (26 as far as the military is concerned) years old. I also had Infantry as a MOS (the most effected MOS). I called in to update my records in 2002 and they said my contract was completed. If they were really in that much trouble they would have called me up by now. I assure you before a draft hits, I will get called up, but it’s not going to happen.
I read the stories on here about the guy who “retired” 4 years ago with one arm that the military demanded return to service and laugh. They won’t pull me in at 31 Infantry qualified but they will pull in a 50 year old one armed man (if he voluntered I could see it).
48
May 16th, 2006 at 2:30 amTundra when my daughters reserve aviation unit was being deployed in 2004 that was the second deployment for quiye a number of them, they had previously deployed to fill MTOE gaps in other units
Oh I fully believe that, they are not all kept due to stop loss though. The reserves are for filling in units that deploy. Sadly they send whole reserve units over as well though and I feel it is against the purpose of it. Just like National guard troops should be state militias (read prepared to defend the states from the federal governments control).
Tundra you should know better they are not short 11B’s but in th MP and EOD specialities they are, along with others, so they would not call U up to fill an MTOE billet you are not qualified to fill,
May 16th, 2006 at 3:09 amPEOPLE… lets try this…
Comment by meg_mac
It’s been tried loser and it doesn’t work. All your ass are belong to me and there’s nothing you can do about it. Besides, your feelings are just hurt that I never respond to your nonsense. Try English.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:28 amAll your ass are belong to me and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — May 16, 2006 @ 8:28 am
Wanna bet? :)
May 16th, 2006 at 8:52 amIRI – U funny:
“loser…All your ass are belong to me…nonsense…Try English.”
and this gem:
“boot licking left wing dope heads and pansies looking for a little college money or a cute guy.”
Hmmm. I’m a heterosexual married man with 3 kids, Army veteran, with a B.S. in engineering, who has never done dope. Oh, and you can call me Liberal.
Now exactly who’s the one on dope ???
;]
May 16th, 2006 at 9:01 am[...] Haussaman’s got a good entry on the subject, so check it out. Also, I would recommend this post at Think Progress that discusses the poor shape of our National Guard, whose personnel and equipment have been depleted by the War on Terra. And, lest I try to best his comments, read Kevin Drum’s impressions of the speech itself: The immigration speech seemed like it was mostly just the same ‘ol same ‘ol. Nickel version: Beef up the borders with troops and high tech wizardry but insist that it’s not “militarization”; start up a guest worker program that’s not called a guest worker program; introduce an amnesty program but insist that it’s not an amnesty program (it’s not, it’s not, it’s not!); and crack down on employers who employ illegal immigrants while pretending that they’re actually victims of highly sophisticated fraud rather than willing coconspirators aided and abetted by the business wing of the Republican Party. [...]
May 16th, 2006 at 9:42 amQuote you provided
Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve,
Comment by Tundra — May 16, 2006 @ 2:30 am
That was not the quote. Or, more accurately, not the entire quote. You forgot to add “currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002.” It is understood they mean “in Iraq and Afghanistan”.
You are engaging in a spin because those other reserves you mentioned are not affected by the current stop-loss order.
That is silly. Of course it is only going to effect units being deployed. If unit A is getting deployed everyone in unit G is completely uneffected.
Exactly the reason why your factoring in the total number of potentially available troops is nonsensical. I was trying to point out to Ret Rep Soldier that 1) stop-loss does exist, 2) there are chances (above 0.04%) that troops deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan will see their stay extended, and 3) those stays can go beyond 6 months, contrary to what (s)he said.
The term stop loss gets thrown around here often like it is pulling in every soldier and the government is holding every soldier hostage to fight their war. It is simply not true based on the information you provided.
You are trying to disprove something I never contended. As I said before, my point was that stop-loss does exist and is preventing people from leaving -contrary to what Ret Rep Soldier said.
Based on your link of 12,500 current people in the entire armed forces I tend to have to call BS.
There you go again. Of the the total number of troops currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are the only ones who can by affected by it), stop-loss affects a percentage far larger then the .04% you came up with.
And that wasn’t even my point originally.
It’s not a new concept either. When we deployed to Sinai and Haiti we had people that had to extend for unit integrity.
Right. I never said it was a new concept. Maybe I am wrong, but I think the stop loss order did not last this long in Haiti. And I do not recall soldiers suing to stop it back then.
If they were really in that much trouble they would have called me up by now. I assure you before a draft hits, I will get called up, but it’s not going to happen.
I suspect a political reason for this. Remember how the war and occupation was going to be a “cake-walk”? How would the administration justify shipping more troops to Iraq?
And as for the military being in trouble, don’t take my word for it. Here is a study done for the Pentagon:
May 16th, 2006 at 1:52 pmStretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon’s decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
Study: Army Stretched to Breaking Point
Use 6,000 national guard troops to guard 2,000 mile of border. That is 3 soldiers a mile. To use them for two weeks of summer camp will take 156,000 soldiers who will get no training at summer camp. That is the only period that have unit training for longer then 2 days. The travel for these troops will be expensive. 156,000 is about 33% of all the National Guard Troops. What a waste of rnoney
May 17th, 2006 at 8:28 pmtest123
May 20th, 2006 at 2:23 am456
May 20th, 2006 at 2:28 amtesting
strong>
May 20th, 2006 at 2:32 amThere are millions of illegal aliens in this country today who entered the United States legally. They failed to leave when their Visa expired and our immigration control system failed to deport them. President Bush’s proposed “comprehensive immigration reform” presents no process to identify those who are here illegally. Without a means to detect illegal aliens enforcement of fines or other penalties is impractical. The proposed “guest worker” program requires workers to return to their home country after a specified period. How will that be enforced?
May 24th, 2006 at 7:50 am[...] Think Progress FACT CHECK: The State of the National Guard Hilferty said there are about 12500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, Comment by Tundra May 16, … [...]
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 pmDoesn’t anyone remember that the Federal Government doesn’t have any authority over State militias? (otherwise known as the National Guard). And the idea that anyone would want to join the military after charging those Marines with Murder, good luck filling the military!!..after watching Ford’s funeral tonight, I realized that all of the problems that we have in this country and the rest of the world have been caused by the arrogant fools sitting in the rotunda tonight. after 9/11, I thought there might be one more attack, where the American People take up arms against the government who allowed 12 miillion muslims to move here, without the consent of the people, or even legal authority to do so. This country is doomed until enought people stand up and use force to remove the sleeping army that lives within our borders. You wouldn’t even recognize Dearborn Michigan as an American town today. And concerning the Mexicans, if our government can’t win against a ragtag army of insurgents in Iraq, and our government is scared to death that they might hurt the illegal Mexican’s feelings by asking them to leave. God forbid China decides to invade us, we would be speaking Chinese in less than 90 days.
December 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pmAl
North Carolina Retirement Communities
Thanks for creating this blog. I thought it was a very interesting read. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:37 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 8:23 pmAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 7:53 am