Army Stretched to Breaking Point

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Stretched 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.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Full story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/...breaking_point

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not according to Rumsfeld. BUT, according to the commanders on the ground who always soften any criticism of their forces......................

---------------------------------------------
Top U.S. General Says Army 'Stretched'
By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago

DIWANIYAH, Iraq - The top U.S. general in
Iraq acknowledged Thursday that American forces in this country are "stretched," but he said he will recommend withdrawals based only on operational needs.

Gen. George Casey told reporters he had discussed the issue with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker on Wednesday and that the Army chief of staff believes he can still sustain the mission in Iraq.

"The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey said. "But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units."

He reiterated he would only recommend reductions in the more than 130,000-strong U.S. military presence in Iraq based on the situation on the ground.

On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported that an unreleased study conducted for the
Pentagon said the Army was being overextended because of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and may not be able to retain and recruit enough troops to defeat the insurgency in Iraq.

A day later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld disputed that, asserting that "the force is not broken."

Casey spoke after attending a ceremony in which Polish troops transferred leadership of the south-central region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, the first such handover since the war began in 2003. He rejected the idea that early troop withdrawals came because of strain on the military.

"That's not true, and the recommendation to begin the reduction of forces came from me based on our strategy here in Iraq," Casey said. "I made my decision based on operational reasons and I'll continue to do that. As I've said all along, I will ask for what I need to accomplish this mission."

Casey was adamant, however, that U.S. troops in Iraq are getting the job done.

"So, yep, folks are stretched here but they certainly accomplish their mission, and the forces that you've seen on the ground are absolutely magnificent," he said.
http://tinyurl.com/b4jst

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Not according to Rumsfeld. BUT, according to the commanders on the ground who always soften any criticism of their forces......................

---------------------------------------------
Top U.S. General Says Army 'Stretched'
By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago

DIWANIYAH, Iraq - The top U.S. general in
Iraq acknowledged Thursday that American forces in this country are "stretched," but he said he will recommend withdrawals based only on operational needs.

Gen. George Casey told reporters he had discussed the issue with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker on Wednesday and that the Army chief of staff believes he can still sustain the mission in Iraq.

"The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey said. "But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units."

He reiterated he would only recommend reductions in the more than 130,000-strong U.S. military presence in Iraq based on the situation on the ground.

On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported that an unreleased study conducted for the
Pentagon said the Army was being overextended because of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and may not be able to retain and recruit enough troops to defeat the insurgency in Iraq.

A day later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld disputed that, asserting that "the force is not broken."

Casey spoke after attending a ceremony in which Polish troops transferred leadership of the south-central region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, the first such handover since the war began in 2003. He rejected the idea that early troop withdrawals came because of strain on the military.

"That's not true, and the recommendation to begin the reduction of forces came from me based on our strategy here in Iraq," Casey said. "I made my decision based on operational reasons and I'll continue to do that. As I've said all along, I will ask for what I need to accomplish this mission."

Casey was adamant, however, that U.S. troops in Iraq are getting the job done.

"So, yep, folks are stretched here but they certainly accomplish their mission, and the forces that you've seen on the ground are absolutely magnificent," he said.
http://tinyurl.com/b4jst

How is it not according to Rumsfeld? Taking a bit of liberty there with your choice of words. The quote, "the force is not broken", does not constitute your implication.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

How is it not according to Rumsfeld? Taking a bit of liberty there with your choice of words. The quote, "the force is not broken", does not constitute your implication.

You forgot to add the whole quote.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin and close to a snapping point from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, asserting "the force is not broken."

"This armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld told reporters at a
Pentagon briefing. "In addition, it's battle hardened. It's not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons."

Rumsfeld spoke a day after The Associated Press reported that an unreleased study conducted for the Pentagon said the Army is being overextended, thanks to the two wars, and may not be able to retain and recruit enough troops to defeat the insurgency in Iraq.

Congressional Democrats released a report Wednesday that also concluded the U.S. military is under severe stress.

http://tinyurl.com/agsar

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

You forgot to add the whole quote.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin and close to a snapping point from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, asserting "the force is not broken."

"This armed force is enormously capable," Rumsfeld told reporters at a
Pentagon briefing. "In addition, it's battle hardened. It's not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons."

Rumsfeld spoke a day after The Associated Press reported that an unreleased study conducted for the Pentagon said the Army is being overextended, thanks to the two wars, and may not be able to retain and recruit enough troops to defeat the insurgency in Iraq.

Congressional Democrats released a report Wednesday that also concluded the U.S. military is under severe stress.

http://tinyurl.com/agsar

None of that suggests that he is saying it is not thin.

The Army is capable and it is battle hardened, and it is not broken. Nowhere does he say it is not thin.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rascal

None of that suggests that he is saying it is not thin.

The Army is capable and it is battle hardened, and it is not broken. Nowhere does he say it is not thin.

"Army Stretched to Breaking Point" - Pentagon Study

[Rascal]

Even that doesn't mean it's broken...just reached it's breaking point. If it goes beyond that then it will be broken, but as of yet it is not.

[defenseman]

Stretched, yes. Broken, no. You should not applaud nor find any solice if our troops/army was stretched to the point of breaking. That said, the wifey has a cousin over there (army ranger), he's hanging in there. He does admit he is a busy guy these days, thats for sure...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Even that doesn't mean it's broken...just reached it's breaking point. If it goes beyond that then it will be broken, but as of yet it is not.

So, because the army is stretched to the breaking point but hasn't broken yet, we shouldn't be concerned, and the Pentagon study is just liberal propaganda?

I hope that's not what you're trying to say.

[Rascal]

Where did I say we shouldn't be concerned? Where did I say it was liberal propoganda?

I am simply saying, that Rumsfeld was correct in saying that the military is not broken...because it's not. Stretched to the breaking point yes...broken no. Two different things.

[defenseman]

LABF, listen closely, breaking point is another way of saying "we are not accomplishing the mission the army has been tasked with by our country". Do not imply erroneously. The army, continues to perform their mission in all respects, therefore, they cannot be broken. If one assumes something, one is destined to be uninformed and rendered not a credible source. Don't assume anything about our soldiers , they are a motivated group of professionals whose desire is to complete the mission at hand, and come home as soon as possible......all americans should be proud of their sacrifices to their nation....dman

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by defenseman

LABF, listen closely, breaking point is another way of saying "we are not accomplishing the mission the army has been tasked with by our country". Do not imply erroneously. The army, continues to perform their mission in all respects, therefore, they cannot be broken. If one assumes something, one is destined to be uninformed and rendered not a credible source. Don't assume anything about our soldiers , they are a motivated group of professionals whose desire is to complete the mission at hand, and come home as soon as possible......all americans should be proud of their sacrifices to their nation....dman

Sorry but I disagree with your statement about the army cannot be broken. Any army can be broken given the right circumstances and opposition. And I also disagree about what your interpretation of breaking point is.

[defenseman]

You can do that if you like. And, I never said an army or organization similar to an army can't be broken. If you quote, quote correctly...dman

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by defenseman

You can do that if you like. And, I never said an army or organization similar to an army can't be broken. If you quote, quote correctly...dman

I didn't misquote you. You said, "The army, continues to perform their mission in all respects, therefore, they cannot be broken"

If the army is broken it does not continue to perform their mission.

[defenseman]

You are correct and I misspoke. What I meant to say was they continue to perform their mission in all respects , therefore, they cannot be called broken. I do apologize, good catch...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by defenseman

LABF, listen closely, breaking point is another way of saying "we are not accomplishing the mission the army has been tasked with by our country".

Did you read the article citing the pentagon study at the top of this thread?

It doesn't say what you are saying.

Originally Posted by defenseman

Do not imply erroneously.

Do not paraphrase erroneously.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rascal

I am simply saying, that Rumsfeld was correct in saying that the military is not broken...because it's not. Stretched to the breaking point yes...broken no. Two different things.

Yes - two different things, but not much of a qualitative difference in the degree to which we should be concerned, IMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by defenseman

If one assumes something, one is destined to be uninformed and rendered not a credible source.

The source in this instance is the pentagon, bro.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

None of that suggests that he is saying it is not thin.

The Army is capable and it is battle hardened, and it is not broken. Nowhere does he say it is not thin.

C'mon, didn't you read the quote I posted for you?


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

C'mon, didn't you read the quote I posted for you?


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin

That could have been journalistic freedom taken by the writer as there was no direct quote of Rumsfeld saying that. I don't trust the media at all, and unless there is a quote with him disputing the report I'm not going to take some reporters word for it especially in a manner such as this.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

That could have been journalistic freedom taken by the writer as there was no direct quote of Rumsfeld saying that. I don't trust the media at all, and unless there is a quote with him disputing the report I'm not going to take some reporters word for it especially in a manner such as this.

Yeah, I'd never trust "some reporter" against Rumsfeld's stellar record, and those generals on the ground in Iraq that confirmed they are indeed stretched thin don't know what they're talking about according to Rumsfeld.

The secretary suggested he was not familiar with reports suggesting an overburdened military. But, he said, "It's clear that those comments do not reflect the current situation. They are either out of date or just misdirected."

http://tinyurl.com/agsar

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Yeah, I'd never trust "some reporter" against Rumsfeld's stellar record, and those generals on the ground in Iraq that confirmed they are indeed stretched thin don't know what they're talking about according to Rumsfeld.



http://tinyurl.com/agsar

Now there is a quote saying so.