Casey: Army is ‘out of balance.’
Casey: Army is ‘out of balance.’
In a new interview with Stars and Stripes, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey calls the current state of the Army “out of balance,” stretched by the President’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan:
What I’ve been saying publicly, really since August, is that the U.S. Army is out of balance, and out of balance isn’t hollow, it’s not broken. … But we’re consuming our readiness as fast as we’re building it, and so we’re not able to build depth for other things. We’re running the all-volunteer force at a pace that is not sustainable.
What has to happen is that we have to increase our size — and we’re doing that. … But it will take us three or four years to put ourselves back in balance, and it will take the continued support of Congress and the American people to ensure that we get the resources we need to do that.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah? Well, what you are asking, General, costs money. In case you haven’t heard, we’re broke. BTW, General, who did you vote for in the past two elections?
December 17th, 2007 at 9:53 amDecember 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
damn that liburl logic!!!!
December 17th, 2007 at 10:01 amBut..the Neocons cannot wait for tomorrow..they want war now.
They are beating the drums.
Neocons like wars ..but a Neocon will never enlist in any war to fight.
Now that AIPAC agents psushing for another war and beating the drums to fulfill their PNAC manifesto dreams, Casey himself might be ‘out of balance’ hearing it.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:12 amYou forgot this quote from the General in the same article:
How concerned are you that terrorists will acquire and use weapons of mass destruction?
“That’s the thing that keeps me up at night. I worry about that. I know from my time in Iraq that there are terrorist organizations like al-Qaida actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, and there is no doubt in my mind that if they get one, they will use it against a developed society.
http://www.stripes.com/ article.asp?section=104&article=51056
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 17, 2007 @ 10:08 am
with bush on the case, what do we have to worry about?
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1336
December 17th, 2007 at 10:19 amReich-wingers support the troops senseless murder and death.
Comment by Dr. Matt — December 17, 2007 @ 10:18 am
thats right! they are pro-life right? wait, they are pro-birth, after a child is born, its fair game… and tastes like chicken too!
December 17th, 2007 at 10:20 amSo, ya’ little assnugget: Where are
stationed?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amSir, money won’t buy you “balance”. Wake up!
December 17th, 2007 at 10:29 am“and so we’re not able to build depth for other things”
December 17th, 2007 at 10:32 amOther things like invading Cuba or any small oil-rich country??
You put out a fire by starving it for oxygen, cooling its temperature, or cutting off its fuel. In the long run, the way to stop terrorists is to mitigate the conditions which give rise to new adherents joining their cause. You can never stamp terrorism out completely if you do not mitigate its root causes.
The foolish invasion of Iraq only has fed the terrorist monster and rallied many to its cause. Doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the size of the Army will not deter determined terrorists. But it will break us economically and leave us ever weaker–particularly under the current no tax, but spend big regime.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:34 amCHL, the republican party is solely responsible for the stretched military we have now. You ignore that but jump onto the next election, and feeling the impending doom of your party, you lash out at possibles. All the while you ignore the actuals.
Just another reason why the republican party is at it’s best when it’s not in power.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:35 am“we’re consuming our readiness as fast as we’re building it”
“consuming”?? Is that what all the “kids” are calling it these days?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:36 amIf we were ready to hear honesty, it would be “military personnell are being killed at a faster rate than recruitment rates”, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Doc Rock — December 17, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Well said!
December 17th, 2007 at 10:38 amWhen all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
This country should pay more attention to addressing the root causes of conflict with foreign nations. The best way to assure that our military is not “out of balance” is to alleviate the circumstances that require us to deploy them.
Perhaps when we have a new president in 2009 we can begin to chart a new course in this regard. GDumbya will never recognize this need — he is an untrainable idiot.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am“Out of balance”? This about sums up the Bush Regime and the Congress too.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:42 amHey, General,
December 17th, 2007 at 10:42 amYour commander in chief is unbalanced too!
“If our hopes rely on a Democrat controlled Congress supporting the troops, we’re all screwed.”
And this is based on, what?
“..but a Neolib will never enlist in any war to fight.
Well, if the Republicans would actually enlist in the military that they claim to support, we wouldn’t have an enlistment problem. But I guess they have other priorities.
And which country is going to give terrorists WMDs?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:45 am“We’re running the all-volunteer force at a pace that is not sustainable.”
———————————————
This is obvious to everybody except our illustrious leaders, who not only want to stay the course, but want to invade Iran as well.
If they want to continue playing their war games all over the globe, they need soldiers to do it. How are they going to proceed with this?
1) Re-instate the draft. Hardly likely – it would be political suicide for anybody who even floated a trial balloon on this subject.
2) Continue lowering standards and increasing signing bonus pay to lure more volunteers. When the signing bonuses get large enough, maybe our soldiers will be as well-compensated as Blackwater personnel. This will just increase our rapidly spiralling debt.
3) Contract out more combat help. Ditto on the rapidly spiralling debt.
4) Recognize that our military is being pushed beyond its limits and start scaling back. (in our wildest dreams!)
5) Continue living in a state of denial until January 2009, when the whole mess becomes somebody else’s problem. (most likely!)
December 17th, 2007 at 10:47 amI’d suggest drafting the trolls that foul this site, but on second thought, I’d not trust them to defend a dung pile, let alone our nation.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:51 amCHL: What party do your beloved chickenhawks belong to? I’ll save you some time. The majority of those who support the occupation of Iraq but do not actually enlist overwhelmingly vote Republican. Those are the cold hard facts.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:02 amCHL, that number has been dwindling since the invasion of Iraq. Historically, it’s been the republicans that have been believed to be the major funders of the military and that would filter thru the ranks. The covers have been torn off of that myth and the troops are seeing it’s been the republicans that have left them without the proper equipment. It’s been the republicans that have left the VA horribly under funded.
The damage this administration has done, with the republican approval, to the troops and our military will take decades to recover from. That is if we don’t have another crisis. If we do, then we will have to initiate a draft and major tax increases. Or watch this country crumble.
This is the legacy of the Bush administration and the republican party.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amMore Liberal Doom and Gloom calling for a draft. Good think the General doesn’t share your views.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 17, 2007 @ 11:13 am
What liberal is calling for a draft?
December 17th, 2007 at 11:16 am“Good think” is NOT something you know anything about.
they will use it against a developed society.
http://www.stripes.com/ article.asp?section=104&article=51056
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 17, 2007 @ 10:08 am
That leaves the USA out, after Bushco has finished gutting it and leaves it rotting on the dock. As long as CHL refuses to defend his country, the country will continue to get weaker and move closer to failure.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:21 ammissmolly laid out the scenario rather well but CHL ignores this and gives a pithy stock response about libs calling for a draft. He doesn’t give any of his own suggestions and why is that? I won’t answer for him. I’ll just note he complains but doesn’t offer solutions.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:24 am“What party do your beloved polls tell you most of the troops vote for? I’ll save you some time. Those that “actuall enlist in the military†overwhelmingly vote Republican. Those are the cold hard facts.”
Comment by cold_hard_left
For soldiers who actually answer polls. I’d just love to see the actual voting figures. Perhaps the only reason the military doesn’t compile these stats is because the conservative brass know that it shows a different picture than is portrayed in this Army Times poll. But in any case, polling soldiers in a war zone is a highly suspect tactic.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:26 amI’m really digging the new Auto-Troll-Correctionâ„¢ feature in use here on this thread…
The turnaround is a beautiful thing to behold.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:43 amMemo to Gen. George:
If you run your horse into the ground, he no longer has the
December 17th, 2007 at 11:48 amstrength to carry you.
Rick: What party do your beloved polls tell you most of the troops vote for? I’ll save you some time. Those that “actuall enlist in the military†overwhelmingly vote Republican. Those are the cold hard facts.
-CHL
What “beloved polls” were I referring to? But hey, just to make you happy:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-militpoll7dec07,1,6889712.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
So where DID you serve, high speed? Were you an 11Charlie with the 7th ID at Ft. Ord?
Oh, wait, that was me….
(Shout out to the 9th Infantry Regiment. Keep Up The Fire, Manchus!)
Also, can you provide me with answers for my other two questions? In case you forgot them:
“If our hopes rely on a Democrat controlled Congress supporting the troops, we’re all screwed.†-CHL
And this is based on, what?
And which country is going to give terrorists WMDs?
December 17th, 2007 at 11:49 amI just got off the phone with my friend who’s son is a mechanic north of Baghdad. Her son related how mechanics are being armed sent out with convoys. He spent time in hospital in Germany after injury in shop when tire exploded. Another man lost hearing form incident. Internet access is being denied. Men are wondering what its all about.
The troops, who we all deeply care about, seem to be disappointed in the CinC guy.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:50 amFrom c_h_l’s link:
That’s the thing that keeps me up at night. I worry about that.
I remember the things that kept me up at night as a teenager… ahhh, the times.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:56 amAnd action against Iran will do what to the situation ?
December 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pmIt’s going to take a lot of Helot labor(and tax $) to accomplish the General’s goals. Are the American people going to become no more than Helots, to the Spartan ruling class?? I know a lot of Righty trolls that would do so gladly, but slavery-lite is not for me, and should be completely un-palatable to Free people everywhere.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:25 pmFor the first time in history, the American Military is now majority D, according to voter registration data. Thanks, Dubbie.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pmNeolibs like surrender and defeat…but a Neolib will never enlist in any war to fight.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 17, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Just a couple of questions (and I will probably hate myself for asking):
1) What, exactly, is a “neolib”? I’m the same old liberal I have always been, and I haven’t been aware of any fundamental changes in liberal thinking (unlike the neocons, who have changed the definition of “conservative” to the point where Barry Goldwater wouldn’t recognize it).
2) If we were to “surrender” — to whom would we do this, exactly?
3) Why do you think it’s necessary to enlist to fight a war a person is morally opposed to? It’s not that liberals won’t enlist to fight — it’s that we won’t enlist to fight unjust wars.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“neoliberal” actually describes the R’s since their transformation in the early ’90’s. The “borrow-and-spend” R’s who don’t think a dollar in decline and massive federal debt are necessarily a bad thing. Political scholars use the term to describe them all the time.
c-h-l is just straining to come up with epithets he thinks will bother people, and he unwittingly struck on a real descriptor that, unfortunately, applies to his side, not ours.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pmthe “out of balance” military is a direct result of MASSIVE cuts during president Buttafuoco’s 8 year party in the 90’s when he cut it in half. Then..to make matters worse..billy boy ignored the growing threat of these radical muslim groups in favor of attacking real threats like randy weaver ’s wife and kids and the branch davidian insurgents at waco . After all..these “right wingers ” were outta control, excercising their first and second amendment rights. Its no wonder why Al queda endorses democrats everytime.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:51 amMost of the “massive cuts” in defense were instigated by Bush I’s administration, and were championed by a certain SecDef named Richard Cheney.
And most of those cuts were for weapon systems either deployed or were in development for the Cold War, which by 1993 had ceased to exist. I doubh that the US needed such cancelled systems as the SRAM II and Small ICBM nuclear weapon systems to fight al Qaeda.
Clinton’s defense budgets weren’t much different from Bush I’s budgets, and considering that he had a Republican Congress (the people who hold the purse strings) from 1995 on, are they also to blame for the “massive cuts”?
I would like to know how Clinton went after Randy Weaver, since the Ruby Ridge shootout took place in 1992. Clinton didn’t become president until 1993.
As for the Branch Davidians, do you feel that David Koresh was correct in opening fire on US federal agents?
And I didn’t realize that Clinton received a briefing entitled “bin Laden Plans to Strike US”. Wait, that was the new guy.
Oh, he did actually try to kill bin Laden in 1999, but he was obviously “wagging the dog” back then, right?
And he ignored the radical Muslim threat by
December 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm