Sell It to the Marines

[ted]

Outstanding!

May I reply by the numbers?

1. I agree.

2. Strongly agree!

3. What if it is the countries leaders that are the problem, like in Iraq, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and others? These are not problems with individuals, but with nations. That's why we go after the leadership, and stick around long enough to ensure that the next leaders won't become the same type of problem. There's a fine line there though, and I agree that we shouldn't just take out any old country that threatens us with words. I think we have to look at there actions also. Do they threaten us AND have the capability and intent to strike us?

Off with their heads! (figuratively).

4. I would say that a limited ability to use them are necessary. If congress is out of session, such as they are now to help themselves get re-elected, there needs to be some kind of ability for the President to send in troops anywhere there is a flare up against us. Maybe this could be fixed by ensuring that there is always a skeleton crew of Congressmen working with the ability to make the right decisions at a moments notice?

5. Yup

6. Yes, but there needs to be a fund to help families in dire emergencies. Sorry, I just can't walk by someone in an emergency and neither should we as a nation. Self inflicted idiocy, such as maxing out credit cards and the like, would not be covered.

7. Good idea. Thanks Mr. Bush!

8. True enough, but again I would keep emergencies such as natural disasters in mind.

9. Sounds good but I would add that there would simply be some nations, depending on their posture towards us, that we simply would not deal with. Some kind of emergency shut off switch in place to suspend trade with the problem countries. There's no sense in financing their war against us.

10. That would be nice, but where exactly do we draw the line? I would eliminate wasteful spending as that is where we lose most of our money we give the Fed for running it's operation. Enough of the $300 hammers and toilet seats. The one's costing $150 work just as well.

11. I'm not too familiar with this so I'll just shut up on this one.

12. Do you mean like limitations on trivial law-suits?

13. That would be nice, but most of the media works for one party so I don't think they would be too useful for the cause.

14. Already in place. In fact, every bill is on record.

15. All for it.

16. Nope. Work harder and more effective, to include the military, to help wipe out all drugs and their abusers. (We'll have to put the military to work as they will be home from overseas under your administration. Might as well have them protect us at home.)

17. Oh yeah.

18. As with most issues, this one does need to be handled at the state level. Eliminate the "need' for Federal intervention, and you will naturally have less Federal Government.

Alot of this sounds good, steff.

I would add that we need to keep a strong and powerful military up to date with the best equipment rather than draw them down. One of the most important lessons we should have learned by now is that we can never tell where the next conflict will be or when. If we draw them down again and then have to activate like we had after 9/11, we're only asking for the same type of problems. Underfunding, Reserve units under manned and under trained and other problems were hard to overcome for the WOT. I think it's a great testament to the men and women in uniform that they still preformed well above our expectations so far, besides the unfortunate actions of a few Reservists guarding a prison, one twisted muslim that blew up his chain of command, and 18 cowards that were too weak to accomplish their mission without war time conditions being just right for their tastes.

Thanks.

t.

[tako]

HI, I'd just like to say, The MEDIA, the DEMOCRTS, LIBERALS, HOLLYWOOD,ANT-WAR,ANTI-AMERICANS," AND THE LIKE" Are the ones to BLAME for more of OUR TROOPS getting KILLED EVERY DAY in IRAQ. WHY? The more they PROTEST the WAR and BUSH, "THE MORE THEY ENCOURAGE THE BEHEADERS THEY CAN WIN" Just like in VIETNAM, The BIG PROBLEM IS "THIS IS NOT VIETNAM" The enemy is NOT in the JUNGLE, They are in our CITIES, They are not in UNIFORM, They are dressed like you and me, They are like ALIENS they can pretend to be PEACEFUL, But want to KILL or BEHEAD YOU, Because WE are CHRISTIANS or JEWS, And worst yet, They KILL Indiscriminately, MEN, WOMEN CHILDREN,INNOCENT OR NOT,It does'nt matter! Again this is not VIETNAM, The WEAPONS are NUCLEAR, The ENEMY IS INHUMAN, Keep up the same PROPAGANDA, " 9-11? YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET."...............TAKO

[AnotherTraveler]

I don't blame anyone for the deaths that are also a necessary part of this transition period. Put 2 million soldiers there, we would still have some deaths, check history, this is a very few compared to so many other situations.

I think if I found myself facing the decisions the president does I would be very buzy fasting and praying. Everything on your list Steff has consequences that need to be considered.

Take #1 for example.

1. Begin an exit strategy for Iraq and most of the other 130 countries we have troops stationed at. We have had a military presence in Japan, Germany, France and other countries since WW2, it's time we had an exit strategy. Use our military for self defense only, don't fight uneccesary wars that make us less secure and are not defensive in nature.

Our military doctrine has called for advanced deployment since WWII because our military leaders assume (correctly) that there will be another war and by being staged in a forward environment, we give ourselves several stratigic advantages, making the liklehood of winning far more likely.

We are the only nation on the face of the earth that does this on such a large scale, but every military that can do so wants to do so. Why is it time we had an exit stratigy?

Take two armies, I will attack when I want, you defend when I attack, and you MIGHT resist my attacks a few times, but if you continue in a defensive posture, I will overrun your weaknesses sooner or later, and your defensive military doctrine will go down with the ship.

Concerning #2

As the chief executive, you can by executive order (which you want to eliminate) decide to withhold payment to the UN (congress appropriates executive allocates), and this has been done in the past. I think I would stop paying them immediately and indefinately. Humanitarian efforts would suffer, so you would need to be ready to send those same services in some other manner (unless compassion for the starving is also going to be eliminated).

#3 gets dicey

Quit poking other countries in the eye with a sharp stick politically. Let them know any action they take with people who intend to harm this country will not be tolerated. We will go after individuals, not countries.

How will we not tolorate these actions? If you have already eliminated advanced deployment and already redeclared military doctrine to be defensive only, not only is the threat empty, it is against your own military doctrine! You couldn't do it if you wanted to, and you said you don't want to anyway, so why should any country pay any attention to you?

By the time you get to bright idea #3, your military can't, the UN is mad at you (and probably can threaten you, since the UN is advanced deployed in New York), and now you are going to threaten other countries? Hmmm

I suggest that you would be impeached long before you get to #3, and rightly so, in my opinion. It is senseless to weaken our military because "it is time".

[Steff]

Our military doctrine has called for advanced deployment since WWII because our military leaders assume (correctly) that there will be another war and by being staged in a forward environment, we give ourselves several stratigic advantages, making the liklehood of winning far more likely.

We are the only nation on the face of the earth that does this on such a large scale, but every military that can do so wants to do so. Why is it time we had an exit stratigy?

Take two armies, I will attack when I want, you defend when I attack, and you MIGHT resist my attacks a few times, but if you continue in a defensive posture, I will overrun your weaknesses sooner or later, and your defensive military doctrine will go down with the ship.

This is a false assessment. You are making it on the assumption that we are evenly matched. OUr military is second to none, and it can be maintained that way. There is however no good reason to maintain deployment in 130 countries.

Forward deployment only works well when you have a clearly defined enemy. Forward deployment is a huge risk when you do not.

Concerning #2

As the chief executive, you can by executive order (which you want to eliminate) decide to withhold payment to the UN (congress appropriates executive allocates), and this has been done in the past. I think I would stop paying them immediately and indefinately. Humanitarian efforts would suffer, so you would need to be ready to send those same services in some other manner (unless compassion for the starving is also going to be eliminated).

Executive orders violate the constitutional limits placed on the executive branch. Period. Read again, we are not a handout. If people wish to donate for humanitarian efforts through private charities then they are welcome to do so. To take tax money from the american people for charity is theft.

How will we not tolorate these actions? If you have already eliminated advanced deployment and already redeclared military doctrine to be defensive only, not only is the threat empty, it is against your own military doctrine! You couldn't do it if you wanted to, and you said you don't want to anyway, so why should any country pay any attention to you?

By the time you get to bright idea #3, your military can't, the UN is mad at you (and probably can threaten you, since the UN is advanced deployed in New York), and now you are going to threaten other countries? Hmmm

I suggest that you would be impeached long before you get to #3, and rightly so, in my opinion. It is senseless to weaken our military because "it is time".

First of all, all foreign troops would be removed from our soil immediately. You do not need forward deployment to deploy our troops. We have plenty of logistics to move troops where they are needed.

You do a lot of hand waving here but you don't really point any serious flaws in my argument.

[Guest yod]

You do not need forward deployment to deploy our troops. We have plenty of logistics to move troops where they are needed.

I think we do if the enemy is Iran.

And I also think that Iran has always been the goal of the war on terrorism. We have them surrounded and they are isolated from Syria and Saudi Arabia now.

Brilliant strategy! GW Bush is a genius!

[Guest The Chief]

"You do not need forward deployment to deploy our troops.We have plenty of logistics to move troops where they are needed." HELLO! Maybe you don't follow current military affairs as closely as you imply.

The vast majority of our military sealift capability is under foreign flags (or flags of convenience), such as Panama and Liberia. Seeing as retaining this capability would entail a treaty or agreement of some kind, we have to discount the availability of some 65 - 75% of heavy sealift (RORO, Heavy Lift, Bulk, and Containerized Cargo). The James River Reserve Fleet is a joke; underfunded and ill-kept, it would be more of a hazard to those operating the ships that they ever would be to an enemy. Most of these ships are break-bulk freighters, ill-equipped to handle modern armor and support equipment.

Keep in mind, you want us to have our forces returned to the US, so this would mean that our major Fleet Support Facility at Diego Garcia would be abandoned, and with it our ability to rapidly respond with sufficient forces to threats in the Indian Ocean theater and nearby areas.

Soooo, adding up the damage from an ill-advised drawback of forces, you would have the ability to project a light infantry brigade (airborne, probably the 82nd out of Bragg) within 48 hours of notification, but would have to wait between 2 and 3 weeks for substantial followup forces to arrive, provided the threat area is near a port with useable facilities (hard to transport armor in any quantity by air, isn't it?) If the enemy has anything like minimal air defenses, then we would be faced with attrition of our air transport and mobility assets, which would take months (if productions lines are open) if not years (if they are not) to remedy.

Moving ships from coast to coast would be a 4,200 additional mile proposition, as we gave the Panamanians the Panama Canal, and the current government wants nothing to do with any problems we have with other nations.

Along with that, keep in mind the threat posed by KILO, TANGO, ROMEO, and other submarines (the current Russian cash crop) operating against sealift assets as they attempt deliveries of their cargoes, especially through choke points (Gibraltar, The Gulf of Suez, Straits of Hormuz, etc.). If you have ever attempted to "hold down" and/or prosecute a modern diesel-electric submarine in a littoral environment, you may appreciate the complexity and degree of difficulty involved. Yes, we have excellent ASW assets available; but keep in mind that our long-range aircraft (S-3B, P-3C) are either being phased out or already have been retired, leaving us with a minimally-manned SOSUS network (only 25% functioning at present) and the SH-60's carried aboard the ships themselves, until the new E-767 contract begins producing aircraft.

Also it is rather hazardous, not to say expensive, to attempt and maintain an expeditionary force halfway around the world depending on a logistics train of several thousand miles. If my rocket launcher needs a spare part that is not available onboard, and I have to wait 3 weeks to get that part (which WAS available at that Fleet Support facility we closed just last year under your administration), my combat efficiency has been degraded to an unknown degree, depending upon whether the primary threat to the convoy we are screening is ASW, ASUW, or Anti-Air, making things that much more dangerous for me and my shipmates, if not the entire convoy.

Some "war game," huh?

[Steff]

The vast majority of our military sealift capability is under foreign flags (or flags of convenience), such as Panama and Liberia. Seeing as retaining this capability would entail a treaty or agreement of some kind, we have to discount the availability of some 65 - 75% of heavy sealift (RORO, Heavy Lift, Bulk, and Containerized Cargo). The James River Reserve Fleet is a joke; underfunded and ill-kept, it would be more of a hazard to those operating the ships that they ever would be to an enemy. Most of these ships are break-bulk freighters, ill-equipped to handle modern armor and support equipment.

Keep in mind, you want us to have our forces returned to the US, so this would mean that our major Fleet Support Facility at Diego Garcia would be abandoned, and with it our ability to rapidly respond with sufficient forces to threats in the Indian Ocean theater and nearby areas.

I admit a restructuring of our fleet would have to be done, but I'm sure a pullout of the military could be arranged with little to no adverse effects over 4 years.

As for the military support facility, I'm not suggesting pull out immediately, but a slow phaseout of the facility could be accomplished.

Soooo, adding up the damage from an ill-advised drawback of forces, you would have the ability to project a light infantry brigade (airborne, probably the 82nd out of Bragg) within 48 hours of notification, but would have to wait between 2 and 3 weeks for substantial followup forces to arrive, provided the threat area is near a port with useable facilities (hard to transport armor in any quantity by air, isn't it?) If the enemy has anything like minimal air defenses, then we would be faced with attrition of our air transport and mobility assets, which would take months (if productions lines are open) if not years (if they are not) to remedy.

We can current shuttle people much faster than that. Besides, I cannot forsee a situation needed that many troops being a problem with allies who can provide airfields in a near vicinity.

Moving ships from coast to coast would be a 4,200 additional mile proposition, as we gave the Panamanians the Panama Canal, and the current government wants nothing to do with any problems we have with other nations.

And yet we move military vessels through the canal on a regular basis.

Along with that, keep in mind the threat posed by KILO, TANGO, ROMEO, and other submarines (the current Russian cash crop) operating against sealift assets as they attempt deliveries of their cargoes, especially through choke points (Gibraltar, The Gulf of Suez, Straits of Hormuz, etc.). If you have ever attempted to "hold down" and/or prosecute a modern diesel-electric submarine in a littoral environment, you may appreciate the complexity and degree of difficulty involved.

I spent two summers working on the acoustics of propeller drive systems on the seawolf model in bayview. After seeing the noise levels of other subs I'm not all that worried. Not to mention the new satellite thermal imaging system available for tracking subs nowdays.

Yes, we have excellent ASW assets available; but keep in mind that our long-range aircraft (S-3B, P-3C) are either being phased out or already have been retired, leaving us with a minimally-manned SOSUS network (only 25% functioning at present) and the SH-60's carried aboard the ships themselves, until the new E-767 contract begins producing aircraft.

Airborne reconnescence isn't going to be a problem with the new aircraft, and again we have allies.

Also it is rather hazardous, not to say expensive, to attempt and maintain an expeditionary force halfway around the world depending on a logistics train of several thousand miles. If my rocket launcher needs a spare part that is not available onboard, and I have to wait 3 weeks to get that part (which WAS available at that Fleet Support facility we closed just last year under your administration), my combat efficiency has been degraded to an unknown degree, depending upon whether the primary threat to the convoy we are screening is ASW, ASUW, or Anti-Air, making things that much more dangerous for me and my shipmates, if not the entire convoy.

If I can quick freight 40,000 lbs of boiler tubes to shanghai in less than 3 days I think they can manage.

[papasangel]

The Chief is giving you the view from someone who has been in the service for 20 years Steff. You by your own admission rely on your Military "games". I think you need to step back and rething your position on this. As to airlifting the tubes you spoke about three days is being a bit fast even in times of peace. As to our sealift capabilities you obviously have not visited many stateside bases. We manage it just fine thank you and at a fraction of the cost than if we used commercial means. Also using our own means ensure less risk of something called sabotage.

[Steff]

The Chief is giving you the view from someone who has been in the service for 20 years Steff. You by your own admission rely on your Military "games".

I play tactical military games yes, that has nothing to do with this subject.

I think you need to step back and rething your position on this. As to airlifting the tubes you spoke about three days is being a bit fast even in times of peace.

Not hardly, I could get another set of equipment to shanghai in less than 3 days if I needed to, or pretty much any other location on the globe.

As to our sealift capabilities you obviously have not visited many stateside bases.

I'll admit, I haven't. Just a few.

We manage it just fine thank you and at a fraction of the cost than if we used commercial means. Also using our own means ensure less risk of something called sabotage.

Nothing the government does is cheaper than in the private sector. Anything the military ships if you include the "true" cost I bet it's 5-10 times more expensive.

[ted]

I guess there is a big difference between reading about it and actually doing it.

t.