I don't write diaries. I don't have a computer where I live, so I don't check the internet/dKos from 11am-3am EST. Yeah, it sucks. Of course, I do have my computer here, but I use it for work the large, large majority of the time. But I figure I should try to start some kind of a diary to chronicle views from inside the military (or more specifically the Army) to the community.
There is a large divide between the military and civilian populace and an even larger one between the military and the liberal elite community (not that all liberals are elite or all elites are liberal. Don't start getting huffy yet.) I hope my diaries will help slow the growth of this gap, and maybe start to shrink it.
A new article (members only) in the ArmyTimes runs through some of the data on the deployed. Of course the first statistic that doesn't sit well:
Since September 2001, a total of 683,380 soldiers have deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, 163,949 of them at least twice, the Defense Department data show.
And that's just the Army.
The article continues on to quote the former commander of the 1st Infantry, Ret. Brigadier General David Grange, who said
"I don’t think they can sustain the rotations the way they are right now without really starting to have severe readiness issues in the Army much more than another year, say through 2007. You’d really be pushing it."
Anyone see a conflict if the Army can't continue to function optimally past '07? (Especially on the back of a certain group's report saying we could pull out "all combat brigades not necessary for force protection" by 2008.)
Ret. General McCaffrey appears, but only to say the Army is too small, and that sustained problems 24 months from now will leave us "withdrawn from Iraq a broken force."
The last few paragraphs discuss problems the National Guard is having to face, due to operational tempo and sustainment length.
The article breaks under the subtitle "more troops, more equipment" as McCaffrey boldly states
"We can not maintain law and order in [Baghdad] with U.S. combat troops unless you brought in an additional 50,000 or more."
The bloc of individuals who want more troops is really going to have to put up a fight to make that position a reality as the mere symbolism of it suggests we are either 'throwing more logs on the fire' or getting really desperate in last ditch attempt to secure Baghdad, train as many Iraqi's as we can, and pull off a Miss Saigon-type exit, clinging to the skids as it tilts toward home.
The last handful of paragraphs, McCaffrey and Grange discuss operational and logistical possibilities, nothing really startling. 'We need to build up Iraqi forces faster. Our equipment is breaking or broken. We're stretched thin,' all things we've heard before.
As I continue to post, I'll try to bring things not only from military publications such as the Army Times and the Stars and Stripes, but also from within the community and on websites Kossacks might not get to in their quotidian internet browsing. (Oh, you want an example? Try military.com's commentary page, here. Sure, there's plenty of conservative viewpoints oozing out to rile and roil you, but surprisingly, there are some voices the dKos community I think would find refreshing. And as long as there are sincere voices on both sides feuding over how to use, protect, and ameliorate the U.S. Army and military as a whole, I'll be listening.