WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army Reserve, tapped heavily to provide soldiers for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is “degenerating into a ‘broken’ force” due to dysfunctional military policies, the Army Reserve’s chief said in a memo made public Wednesday.

“I do not wish to sound alarmist. I do wish to send a clear, distinctive signal of deepening concern,” Lt. Gen. James Helmly said in a Dec. 20 memo to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker.

The Army Reserve is a force of 200,000 part-time soldiers who opted not to sign up for the active-duty Army but can be mobilized from their civilian lives in times of national need. About 52,000 Army Reserve soldiers are on active duty, with 17,000 in Iraq and 2,000 in Afghanistan, the Army said.The Army Reserve has provided many military police, civil affairs soldiers, medics and truck drivers for the wars.

“While ability to meet the current demands associated with OIF (Operational Iraqi Freedom) and OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan) is of great importance, the Army Reserve is additionally in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements including those in named OPLANS (operational plans) and CONUS (continental United States) emergencies, and is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken’ force,” Helmly wrote.Helmly said military leaders had rebuffed his proposals for change.

The memo’s purpose was to inform Schoomaker of the Army Reserve’s “inability — under current policies, procedures and practices governing mobilization, training and reserve component manpower management — to meet mission requirements” for the two wars, Helmly wrote.'Dysfunctional practices’ In his eight-page memo, first disclosed by the Baltimore Sun, Helmly titled one section “US Army Reserve Readiness Discussion, Past Dysfunctional Practices/Policies.”

The Pentagon, maintaining higher-than-expected troop levels after failing to anticipate that a bloody guerrilla war would follow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s ouster in 2003, has relied heavily on Army Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers. These part-time troops comprise about 40 percent of the U.S. force in Iraq.

Some reservists and families have complained about frequent and lengthy tours in war zones, inferior equipment and scant notice before being pressed into service.

Helmly’s remarks gave fuel to critics of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who argue that his policies and his resistance to a large increase in the active-duty Army are harming the all-volunteer military.

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island called the memo "deeply disturbing,” adding: “By consistently underestimating the number of troops necessary for the successful occupation of Iraq, the administration has placed a tremendous burden on the Army Reserve and created this crisis.”

Volunteer versus mercenary Helmly referred to “potential ‘sociological’ damage” to the all-volunteer military by paying inducements of $1,000 extra per month to reservists who volunteer to remobilize.“We must consider the point at which we confuse ’volunteer to become an American Soldier’ with 'mercenary,”’ Helmly said.

Helmly said Pentagon reluctance to issue orders calling reservists to active duty “in a timely manner” resulted in more than 10,000 reserve soldiers getting as little as three to five days notice before being compelled back into uniform. A senior Army official said Schoomaker and Army Secretary Francis Harvey were reviewing the memo. “Changes are expected over time, and the Army is already working these issues. The memo just brings it to the forefront,” the official said.Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6790738/

Originally posted by Overdose
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army Reserve, tapped heavily to provide soldiers for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is [b]“degenerating into a ‘broken’ force” due to dysfunctional military policies...

If the troop situation were one/half as bad under a Demoncratic administration, the hardcore RightWingers would be screaming ---and i DO mean screaming--- and demanding the president's head on a platter for his having blundered so badly.

But since it's a Republican good old boy at the helm, there will be countless excuses and reasons as to why --"Aw, it's ok" -- ...and... ---"Bush is not to blame, because these things just happen"

Agreed :mad:

Why do I have the feeling that the Draft is right around the Corner?

I blame President Clinton somewhat and the Republican controlled Congress slightly more. Together, they allowed the number of active/ready to decrease by about 40% (I think).

In defense of President Bush (yeah, I said it) it wasn't a pressing concern to either him or Rumsfeld in the first few months of his administration, and once a war starts, it's hard to increase recruitment.

But we should all save some of this ire for the rest of the world for contributing so little.

Originally posted by Brooks

But we should all save some of this ire for the rest of the world for contributing so little.
That would be Bush's fault for running this war so poorly.

Originally posted by Overdose
That would be Bush's fault for running this war so poorly.

Food-for-Oil bribery may also play a role.

Originally posted by Brooks
Food-for-Oil bribery may also play a role.

Bingo

Originally posted by Brooks
Food-for-Oil bribery may also play a role.
American companies were involved, also, Brooks.

Oh, and France and Germany went to Afghanistan, but left once we attacked Iraq (Bush's fault, he launched war)

So, since Bush launched war with Iraq, we had less allies, because Iraq should not have been attacked. Period. Blame Bush, not the UN.

Originally posted by Overdose


Oh, and France and Germany went to Afghanistan, but left once we attacked Iraq (Bush's fault, he launched war)



Thank you for re-stating my food-for-oil-bribery argument.

Originally posted by Brooks
Thank you for re-stating my food-for-oil-bribery argument.
No, it was because Iraq didn't need to be attacked...Brooks. You can think the "food for oil" was all of it, but really, it wasn't.

OD...why would they attack iraq when it makes them so much money?

Originally posted by Overdose
You can think the "food for oil" was all of it, but really, it wasn't.

You are either reading my mind, guessing what I'm thinking or making stuff up. If you interpret "may have played a role" to mean "was all of it" I'll type slower for you.

Originally posted by Brooks
You are either reading my mind, guessing what I'm thinking or making stuff up. If you interpret "may have played a role" to mean "was all of it" I'll type slower for you.
lol, okay, you can nit-pick this all you want. I'm not really here to play your games.

But I find it funny, how it's fine for the Republicans to accuse the UN or France and Germany for not attacking Iraq for oil interests, but if we accuse the United States of attacking Iraq for oil, it's all of a sudden idiotic and moronic. I find the irony amusing.

I don't think criticizing someone for re-stating and totally changing the meaning of your post falls under the category of nit-picking.

Originally posted by Brooks
I don't think criticizing someone for re-stating and totally changing the meaning of your post falls under the category of nit-picking.
bla. bla. bla. *rolls eyes* keep debating pointless stuff...it's kind of amusing.

The fact remains, you republicans get so annoyed when we liberals accuse Bush of going into Iraq for oil...but you find if perfectly acceptable to "think" or "maybe think" that Germany and France didn't go into Iraq because of their special interests from oil. How ridiculous.

Hey....if we go in and take over the oil so that the corrupt UN doesnt reap the benefits....than so be it. The oil is a bonus for us.

Originally posted by Decka
Hey....if we go in and take over the oil so that the corrupt UN doesnt reap the benefits....than so be it. The oil is a bonus for us.
:rolleyes: how lovely.

Originally posted by Overdose
bla. bla. bla. *rolls eyes* keep debating pointless stuff...it's kind of amusing.



If you don't want to defend the little details in your posts, maybe you shouldn't post so many details.

Originally posted by Decka
Hey....if we go in and take over the oil so that the corrupt UN doesnt reap the benefits....than so be it. The oil is a bonus for us.

A few people in this country feel that the ethical thing to do is not kill people in other countries just so the US can have access to oil......their ideology is exemplified by the phrase--"No Blood for Oil!".

Your ideology seems diametrically opposed to that.....your stated ideology can be summed up by the phrase --"It Doesn't Matter How Many People We Kill, As Long as We Get the Oil!"

I don't think that's what he said, Freethinker, but whatever...

Originally posted by Brooks
If you don't want to defend the little details in your posts, maybe you shouldn't post so many details.
If you find arguing little details fun, then that's great. I would rather debate larger ideas, and debate the bigger picture...especially in the threads you have started to debate minor details in.

Originally posted by Overdose
If you find arguing little details fun, then that's great. I would rather debate larger ideas, and debate the bigger picture...especially in the threads you have started to debate minor details in.
That's classic bullshit in a purely unrefined state, OD. You're the biggest word twister who posts here, and it's usually over the slightest detail. I'm not talking about grammar; I'm talking about whole issues.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
That's classic bullshit in a purely unrefined state, OD.
Prove it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You're the biggest word twister who posts here, and it's usually over the slightest detail.
Prove it.

Brooks, you cannot take a simple sentence and comprehend it. You have some deap seated need to twist it around and make it say entirely something different and then lash out at the original poster. You are either playing some twisted little game were you score points by being nast or you are totally ignorant of the english.

Whatever.

OD, it isn't worth debating with someone who refuses to discuss the subject and only wants to talk about semantics and petty wording. He obviously doesn't "get" what you are discussing so he is trying to change the subject.

Originally posted by Overdose
Prove it.
Do you want me to take a poll?

If so, then fine, I will.

Originally posted by Echo2
OD, it isn't worth debating with someone who refuses to discuss the subject and only wants to talk about semantics and petty wording. He obviously doesn't "get" what you are discussing so he is trying to change the subject.

Prove it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Do you want me to take a poll?

If so, then fine, I will.

Okay, you know what? You are so ridiculous. You claim I’m a “word twister” and that’s just retarded. In all the debates I’ve been in on this forum, only maybe twice has someone said, “you are twisting my words”

And your poll will be worthless. Unless each person who votes “yes”, comes up with an example or two. Because the only people I could potentially “word twist” would be the conservatives (who don’t like me, and have a bias opinion on me) and they would clearly just vote “yes” to mock me. While the liberals wouldn't be able to vote, because I usually don’t debate them, so I wouldn’t have a chance to “word twist” against them.

Maybe you don't twist words as much as you use ancillary details in an effort to make them the basis for your whole argument. While it's a pretty weak technique in general, technically, it isn't word twisting - it's just missing the point entirely. I guess you got me there...

Sorry for calling you a word twister.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Maybe you don't twist words as much as you use ancillary details in an effort to make them the basis for your whole argument. While it's a pretty weak technique in general, technically, it isn't word twisting - it's just missing the point entirely. I guess you got me there...
lol, examples?

Many examples have surfaced over time in which affirm my belief, and while calling you out on it isn't important enough for me to go ripping through three months of posts, I'll do you the courtesy of pointing it out next time it happens. The only example I can think of off the top of my head involved condoms and their effectiveness. After I said: Your first point: Contraceptives. Trav said it best; they're 99% effective, and once again, your argument hinges on the 1% of the time they fail. Good call. That MUST be the reason we have so many unwanted pregnancies...

Followed by you saying: Yes, and that 1% is fairly large if it happens to you. It doesn’t matter the percent, it still happens.

Now my question to you is this: was that statement really the basis for your argument, or were you just using ancillary details to prove a completely moot point?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Now my question to you is this: was that statement really the basis for your argument, or were you just using ancillary details to prove a completely moot point?

Yes, and the 1% is large if you think about it. I never said that it was the only reason for so many un-wanted pregnancies. And I never said it was a large reason. I just simply said that the 1% is fairly large if it happens to you, personally.

I'm for teaching both protection and abstinence. A mixture of both would work best.

And the reason we have so many un-wanted pregnancies, is because we don't teach both abstinence and protection in our schools. That's why.

But, please, only 50% of high school teenagers have sex, or so I was told in my health class. So, there isn't as many UN-wanted pregnancies as you would like to think.

Okay, OD.