The Command T.O.C.

General Defends 15-Month Tours - Says Afghanistan is "Whack a Mole"

Link: General Defends 15-Month Tours.

Soon, this general will either be fired or will say he was "misunderstood" and will somehow retract this story. In an interview, the commanding General of the soldiers in Afghanistan defended the 15 month combat tour (Which even the nut Bush has rescinded) and said that troops will need to stay at the current levels or higher, in Afghanistan, through 2011.

But, the best part is when he said they are doing "just a little bit better than just whacking a mole". That does not instill confidence in me, does it for you? Just a little bit better than Whack a Mole? All these soldiers dying for that?

Read the rest of this article and it sure sounds like the beginning of open defiance to the nutbag in chief in the White House.

Marines Called in to Help Decimated Army

I find it interesting that today the Marines are launching a major attack on the Taliban. Where is our ground Army? Y guess is they are truly decimated.

The Army is Far More Broken Than Even I Imagined

I have been writing for a long time about the bad effects of the Iraq war on our Military (mostly Army) and therefore our national security. While sounding counterintuitive,  I believe the strain we have put the Army under has made us far LESS SECURE than we were before we invaded Iraq. Our Army is at it's breaking point and no one can deny that anymore.

I am on many bulletin board sites interacting with soldiers to collect first hand what it is like to be in the Army today. I was recently shocked by the description of the career of an officer, who screwed up it is, and why they are all getting out. Here, I re-post this entirely and hope you read it. It should tell show you that even if this officer is 1/2 right, the Army is a disaster and not just stretched but actually broken. Here goes:

"For the benefit of those who haven't been in active service for a while, here is a look at lifecycle management's effect on officers.

Most BCTs fall under what is called lifecycle management. This was created to provide stability and predictability and intended to be a 3-year cycle from stand-up thru deployment, however in practice its more like 2 to 2.5-years (much to the chagrin of HRC). Lifecycles are stop loss/stop move environments. Once you're in, it is difficult to get out (possible, but not likely. Its ultimately up to the BDE CDR). Lifecycles culminate upon redeployment. To help you understand the lifecycle, I'll use an example of a new BCT."

More convicted felons allowed to enlist in Army, Marines

Link: More convicted felons allowed to enlist in Army, Marines.

Not much of a surprise here. Very expected.. it will get worse.

Army Captains Leaving in Droves; Military Needs to Bribe Them

All I ever hear from the military clan is that those who serve do so out of "love for Country" and patriotism. Well, apparently that is not enough to keep them in the Army during a time of war. Like normal people working at normal companies, it seems it all comes down to cash.

The Army, facing a huge drain on Army Captains (the future leaders of the Army) has decided to try to bribe them to stay. They are offering bonuses of up to $35K. Kind of like a signing bonus for people who already are in the Army. Even with that the Army does not think it will be enough to retain these "patriots". The Army says:

"The cap on the dollars is purely pragmatic, according to Dan Goure, an Army expert and vice president of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Virginia: “There’s a limit on what the Army can spend.”

With the current wars and their related costs, there just isn’t enough money for higher bonuses, Goure told Stripes in a Thursday telephone interview.

“What we have is five pounds of need and a three-pound sack of money,” he said."

I just find it funny that the Military has us all convinced that somehow they serve a higher calling and are somehow "better" than the rest of us. Well, it appears they are JUST LIKE the rest of us. Give them enough money and they will do anything. Hold back the money and they quit.

What Will Military Historians Think 20 Years from Now About This Time?

I read an article today which basically states that GEN Myers (Former JCS) was duped into believing that what was going on at GITMO was within the Geneva convention (see previous Post). Whether he was or not, who knows and I do not want to argue about "what is torture" and what is not.

The reason I bring this up is there is a hypothesis many have had for quite some time which basically states the following: When Military Historians write of this time 20 years from now it will go down as a very "dark period" for the United States Military.

This DOES NOT cover the conduct of the war, the tactics or how individual units/individuals have fought. That will have its own history.

What I am talking about is the strategy and the overall war planning and reasons for the war. Was the entire military structure "duped" into supporting this and will we, 20 years hence, be saying "what were we thinking" or "Why did the leadership of the military allow this to happen? Here is some evidence/ideas/predictions to support that this just may be the case:

    * Many senior generals will come out at some point (my guess is after this CINC is out of office) and say they resigned/retired in silent protest of the war. This will include GEN Powell leaving his civilian leadership position.
    * Many will say they went along with it for personal benefit (i.e., a big job after serving) and will deeply regret it.
    * Many will say "I just did not know" of all the things the administration was really doing behind the scenes.

And to add insult to injury, when this war fails (Which I believe it already has and will be admitted soon... let's face it.. the "SURGE" is more of a retrograde strategy than anything else), the civilian leadership will blame the military.

The civilian leadership has set the military up really nice here. Remember, the civilian leadership has always contended that they are "giving the military everything they need" and , in deference to VIETNAM, the civilian leadership has said "we do what our ground commanders tell us".

So, who naturally, if all this is true, is at fault for the first 4 years of the war which was a debacle by all accounts? It must be the military. Now, I do not believe this. I do not believe they are doing what the military tells them to do. Or, in the best case, they just continue to fire military people until they find one who will do what they want.

So, in 20 years, after this is a known debacle and when military historians write about this time, and when there is enough "space" that current Generals can speak out, I wonder what will be said.

The story of Vietnam has basically become "We could have won but the politicians meddled". I wonder what this story will be?

Top US general 'hoodwinked' over aggressive interrogation | World news | guardian.co.uk

Link: Top US general 'hoodwinked' over aggressive interrogation | World news | guardian.co.uk.

This is a very interesting hypothesis. I have wondered for a while if this period will go down in history as the "dark period" for the military. In other words, has the military been "duped" as this article suggests GEN Meyers was? I wonder if 20 years from now the military historians will say that the military was so caught up and "excited" about actually going to war that they became devoid of all common sense?

It will be interesting to see how this period is treated in the annals of military history.

Are US and Canada Merging Their Militaries?

As we continue the March to one nation across Mexico, Canada and the US (A march by the way which is led by the Republicans), we are learning of an agreement between US and Canada military.

Basically this allows each military to help the other in time of emergency (flood, fire etc.) which is beyond "national defense". Does this mean the militaries are essentially merging? The Arkansas GOP thinks so.

We probably need this since most of our forces who would do this type of work are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's get this straight:

1. US deploys forces to "help" rebuild Iraq.
2. We do not have the money for this so we borrow it from the Communist Chinese.
3. We then realize we do not have enough forces in the States to help ourselves so we ask the Canadians to help us here.

Of course, we need this agreement because our reserve and national guard units are stretched so thin they barely can function in their real mission. The Commission on the Reserves and National Guard issued a report saying our ability to support the "at home" missions is virtually nil. I guess that is what we have Canadians for.

Canada will have forces here, ours will be in Iraq and the Chinese finance it. Good Job Bush.

Four More US Soldiers Killed .. And Other Things

Four more US Soldiers are killed by President George Bush in Iraq. Good to know it is going so well. This leads us to ask why we keep hearing things are going great yet it appears soldiers are still being killed pretty regularly. There are two answers.

The first is very sad and this is the fact that most of America has become immune to this news. When the war started, if four soldiers were killed in a day it would have been a tragedy. But, because of the ineptitude of the Bush administration, four killed in a day is not even something people talk about. In fact, it is seen as "a good day".

Second, the propaganda machine of the Bush administration has successfully made us all think it is going good whether it is or not. And, it certainly is not. For sure the families of the four just killed do not think it is going well.

The data also supports the idea that the surge may be losing its steam. A quote:

"Violence in Iraq dropped sharply late last year, especially in Baghdad and Anbar Province, but the decline in casualties has halted. Since the beginning of the year, Sunni guerrillas and Shiite militants have been killing an average of about one American service member per day."

The $300 per month we are paying to the Sunni guerrilla fighters may be losing its value.

The Strain of The United States Army is Becoming Unbearable

I have written a lot about the strain the US Army is under due to the ill-fated Iraq war decision. This was foreseen and predicted by many experts and even a few non experts like myself. Reuters has written a great article on this and discusses some of the strain the Army is under as it conducts nation building. A few quotes:

"Some U.S. soldiers are now on their third or fourth tours. Deployments have been extended from a year to 15 months, with only a year at home between tours."

The outcome on families and relationships has been devastating (Link is to an incredible story) with wives, girlfriends, fiancees leaving as they cannot take the strain of the deployments either. The story goes on:

"it [war in Iraq] exposed a medical system that was ill-equipped to provide long-term care for a large number of wounded warriors.    

It has eroded the U.S. military's ability to fight another major war. Commanders have said the Air Force and Navy would likely have to take the lead if a new conflict arose, because ground forces are so stretched."

It is incredible that Bush has allowed this to happen to the organization that he is supposed to hold in high esteem. I think the "1-2" that George Bush has pulled on the military is astounding. They love him because they think he is a "tough guy" yet he continues to abuse them beyond all recognition. The abused wife syndrome I guess.

Just for fun... Here is the video where George Bush chastises Bill Clinton for using the American Military in expansionist and "Nation Building" missions. I think George owes Bill one big apology: