itsmeeeeeee

the gop's little war has crushed our military to the point where it can't defend our shores anymore!
sooooooo, let's keep that war going!!!!
whoooo hoooo!



War demands strain US military readiness

War demands strain US military readiness - Yahoo! News


By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned.


Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report.

Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level — pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it.

The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.

On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed that the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter.

"The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant."

He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home. "We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said.

Other key national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war.

On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've got more stability there as an example."

The annual review grades the military's ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy — which would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China.

The latest review by Mullen covers the military's status during 2007, but the readiness level has seesawed during the Iraq war. For example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006.

Last year, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military is working to improve its warfighting capabilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."

Gates is expected to tell Congress that while the primary goal is to continue to increase the size of the military, it is also critical to step up efforts to work with other nations — as well as other U.S. agencies — to bolster fragile governments through economic development and other support.

And it will reflect his drumbeat for the use of more "soft power" to defeat terrorism, which includes the greater use of civilians in areas such as political development, communications and training.

Pentagon leaders argue that nontraditional conflicts — such as the insurgents and terrorists facing coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan — will be the main military battlefields for years to come. And defeating them, they say, will require more than military hardware — or "hard power."

gee, what a novel idea...
but it sounds sooo, so familiar?
what, where have i heard that before?
oh yeah, fools suggested that we fight terrorism this way from the beginning.
but if i recall, mud was calling them terrorist loving chicken shits.
he thought it would make the country more secure to go kick some iraqi ass!

mud, bush, the gop... consistently five or six years behind the curve!

__________________

Richterscale

And us "dirty fucking hippies" have been screaming about this for years. Sometimes it sucks to be right.

__________________
Google Sibel Edmonds

"How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? Who wins?" - Frank Zappa

W.M.DEEEZ

As well, we can't fight those California fires the way we used to...all the cool toys are in Iraq.

__________________
Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got til it's gone

mudwhistle

This is ridiculous. We have the strongest military in the history of the world. Bush just proposed a 7.5% increase in the military budget to keep it that way. But Democrats are sure to oppose it because they hate the military. Then they can make things up about how we "can't defend" ourselves and celebrate because they get to blame it on Bush.

itsmeeeeeee

you damn fool! this assessment was DONE by the military itself!
trying to spin it like it was some left-wing hit job on the military is what's REALLY ridiculous!

jesus! do the world a favor and get a fucking clue, would ya?

__________________

mudwhistle

First of all it isn't true that we can't defend ourselves.

Secondly even if it were that is no cause for celebration.

Thirdly this is exactly why Democrats can't win a national election. You want the country to do badly and then you celebrate it.

Kanadesaga

You know I hate when people don't know what's going on. The military downsizing was the brainchild of then Defense Secretary Cheney instituted as policy by him and enacted under the Clinton Administration. (They didn't think they'd lose in '92), Why? Privitization. And who does Cheney go to work for after that? Haliburton, having never run a company before he is made CEO. And he takes HAL ftrom 18th on the Defense contractors spending list to 7th. Guess it helps to know people, and to be a former Defense Secretary.

If you want to discuss why Clinton downsized, something now the republicans blame him for, but it was one of their own who instituted it, was because he trusted the Joint Chiefs to do what was best for the country, not to go along with Darth cheney and when they retired, not go to work for some defense contractor.

I consider Cheney the most evil and corrupt human on the planet. You can figure out why.

__________________
"..., because hope don't park the motherfucking car."

cheapseats

Problem is, it's all OVER the world.

A household that has four strapping sons who are notably brave, also well trained in firearms, might be considered better defended against threat than households with just a little old lady, a little old man, and a cat.

But those strapping sons do NOT constitute protection of hearth and home if they are half a world away.

__________________

Environment Man

Our military can vaporize any other nation on earth with one submarine or one bomber or a few missiles from orbit and commie hippie pacifist flower child drug influenced welfare dependent tax and spend anti Ameica liberals think we cant defend ourselves?

Kanadesaga

__________________
"..., because hope don't park the motherfucking car."