Comments on: Top General: Army Near Breaking Point

Chief Of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker Says Army 'Will Break' Without Thousands More Troops

[janish64]

yeah - keep pedaling backwards, randalids...
I can find my way around just fine. Respecting the experience of the troops is a must. Respect, leadership and morale are inseparable. Your implication that an officer has to be led around by the enlisted is insulting to an officer who has dedicated years to education, management AND combat. Furthermore it reeks of old military stereotypes which are NOT conducive to the well oiled units sacrificing around the world.

While I'm still very doubtful that you ever even served in the military, I will give you enough benefit of a doubt to say "Thank the Gods that YOU are no longer enlisted" because today's military has no room for shallow minds like yours.

[randalds]

I challenge every vet in here to tell me they haven't met some officers that were complete morons. Everyone of us who wore the uniform can name at least a few.

[randalds]

"And even the best officer couldn't find his a*ss with both hands without a noncom to tell him how. Got to lead them around like f*cking babies sometimes!
Posted by RandalDS at 01:30 AM : Dec 13, 2006
----------------------------------
----------------And have you met some of these Captains, Majors or Colonels? I did years ago and some of them were dumber then a box of rocks. A lot of them stay in and rise up through the ranks because they couldn't cut it in the private sector. I mean hey there are some good ones too, but there's more then their fare share of moronic a*sholes wearing the brass too.

Posted by janish64 at 04:20 PM : Dec 15, 2006

Yep and I stand by every word. What I can't understand is how you think it's disrespectful? Every officer and noncom in the service knows what I said is true. Some officers do stay in because they couldn't cut it outside and most of them are just like babies who couldn't find their a*ss without a Sgt to show them. Why do you think they pair up butter-bar Lt's with an old Sarge? It's in hopes the officer will learn something from him. Every smart and good officer knows he's no better then the Sgt's that hold him up.

[randalds]

Well janish you're just plain wrong. I won't be rude enough to call you a liar since it seems to be a typical case of right-wing ignorance and blindness (seeing only what you want to see). It's a fairly common affliction, though the number of cases is dropping rapidly as more and more people realize just how badly the republicans have been lying to them. Hope you recover from it someday and actually make an effort to find out the truth, rather then getting all of your propa...opps..."news" from Rush, Bill and FOXNews.

[janish64]

randalids - I know EXACTLY what you said about officers. You are disrespectful to those in uniform, I suppose the value of uniformed lives are 2:1, eh?

You're pathetic - here were your EXACT words:

"And even the best officer couldn't find his a*ss with both hands without a noncom to tell him how. Got to lead them around like f*cking babies sometimes!
Posted by RandalDS at 01:30 AM : Dec 13, 2006
--------------------------------------------------And have you met some of these Captains, Majors or Colonels? I did years ago and some of them were dumber then a box of rocks. A lot of them stay in and rise up through the ranks because they couldn't cut it in the private sector. I mean hey there are some good ones too, but there's more then their fare share of moronic a*sholes wearing the brass too.

[janish64]

Randalids - your post is an outright LIE, unless you consider combat troops to include reservists/guardsmen. In that case, you are just a jerk. They continued to push the military to cut forces BEYOND the expected reduction after fall of the Soviet Union. I know ALL about the budget, I know ALL about the changes in plans, they evolve with every threat and mission.
I don't have preconceived notions about my own damned life. I posted a 1997 article because it accurately reflected our concerns AT THE TIME, and it is not a retroactive summary, like most of what is in current news. I'm sorry that it was too hard for you to understand. I'll try sesamestreet.com next time I need a resource you can comprehend.

[random_radar]

This dovetails nicely with (Democratic) congressman Charles Rangel's proposal to bring back the draft. Enjoy your time now with your sons (and maybe daughters too) because tomorrow they may be dead in America's imperialist meat grinder.

And don't forget to thump your chest and say how proud you are that they gave their life for their government's misguided and counterproductive foreign policy blunders, er, I mean country.

[randalds]

Janish, the government cuts to the military under Clinton was not the same as the Reduction In Forces of the late 1980's. It was review of issues such as supplies being ordered that weren't needed (such as the famous 600 years supply of truck tires) and preparation and closing cold war type bases that we're no longer needed due to the collapse of USSR. The overall number of COMBAT troops remained virtually the same until Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense and was ordered by the current idiot in the White House to create a "leaner, meaner military" for quick responses that was (and still is) much more dependant on so-called "smart weapons". Only then did the "boots on the ground" start to get reduced again as under the first Bush.

Not got a very good search engine yourself it seems. Looks like it only pulls up sites that fit your preconceived notions about Clinton. Ought to get that looked at by a good computer geek.

[janish64]

Frankly6 - Please - if you must address me professionally, call me "Ma'am"
...

To avoid embarrassing yourself in the future,
I highly recommend using a good search engine before posting. In this case, you could have
searched for the names "Bill Clinton" "William Perry" and "Les Aspin" (ps - the last time I checked, Bush was not the CIC who instituted the famous "bottom up review" - he initiated post cold war reductions, Clinton rewrote that with his BUR in 93)

But to assist you - here is an old column from Jim Kitfield which accurately reflected CONCERNS at the time in 1997: http://www.govexec.com/features/0197s2.htm

Are you active duty? And were you active duty in the 90s? And what is your understanding of the risk assumptions of moving so much of our active duty to reserve status? What were military analysts predicting 10 years ago? Well they were predicting that we were going to have too much strain on the reserves, and risk depleting the active duty forces.

And - are you privvy to any of the military planning describing the differences between previous enemies and the new mobilie guerilla/terror tactics?

And I don't drink Kool-aid, but I do dream of pulverising squishy little useless fruits into fine powders so OTHERS can.

[frankly6]

Bush has clearly dug us into a hole in Iraq. The question is do we now want to give him a bigger shovel or a ladder?