Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bracing for Primordial Combat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bracing for Primordial Combat

    Here is another interesting article on planning for urban warfare in Iraq: Bracing for Primordial Combat - Washington Post

  • #2
    These kinds of articles, though not entirely inaccurate, can give the wrong impression to the American people. Yes, urban warfare is bad. Yes, a commander should avoid if at all possible. And Yes, it does equalize the battlefield.

    Yet, authors should do some research. Saddam Hussein does not understand urban warfare, nor does his commanders. US experiences in Somalia and Russia in Grozy can paint a dark picture, but this can be an illusion. In Somalia, a force of 99 men held off thousands of any locals. Many of them had extensive urban combat experience. The American force did incur alot of casualties, but most were due to critical mistakes commanders will probably not make again.

    The Russian Army was ill-prepared for MOUT in 1995 and 1996. Morale was low, and deteriorated early on in the intensive combat operation. The close-in battle usually had the military fighting at platoon and squad level, where Russian leadership is very weak. They didn't grasp MOUT doctrine and fought the battle like their military has for decades- Attrition.

    In 2000, Russian commanders applied lessons learned in rounds one and two to achieve better results. Yet, in my opinion, the Russian military still has alot to learn about urban warfare.

    The US Army is alot different. Leadership at all levels is far better than in Russia. Non-commissioned officers are no less prepared to lead men into battle than commissioned officers. (Some might say they are better.) Most importantly, the US military has adopted the tactic of fighting smart in MOUT. We are not going to just hurl men and equipment at the city until their lines crumble. Our troops will encircle, divide, and conquer. Iraqi troops will find themselves isolated fighting an enemy using combined arms and maneuver warfare to destroy them. If Saddam really knew what he was talking about, he might not be so quick to pull his troops into the concrete jungle.

    I'm not saying it will either easy or bloodless. Small Iraqi units could mount stubborn defenses. Our forces will be solely responsible for the welfare and protection of non-combatants, which will strain our supplies. Boobytraps, and concrete obstacles could slow our advance. And of course, there is the chemical and biological weapon threat.

    Yet, despite this, our soldiers will fare better than the Iraqis. The Iraqi Army depends heavily on centralized command and complicated plans. Iraqi commanders, even at the RGFC level, will have probably have trouble making independent decisions. In MOUT, commanders must be able to carry out their mission without constant instructions from higher command. Maintaining communication is difficult. Troops will always feel isolated, knowing only what is happening in front of them. Commanders must rely on their higher-CO intent and orders to coordinate their efforts with other units.

    Once the battle is joined, the Iraqis will react according to their complicated, well-thoughtout plan. However, if anything goes wrong, their effectiveness and unity will be seriously degraded. This was apparent both in DESERT STORM, and in the Iran-Iraq War. They can't adjust planning to address the situation.

    In order to minimize casualties, the United States will need to rapidly isolate the city, destroy the main force, then consolidate. The longer the battle last, the more casualties we will incur. We will also need to keep advancing. It will be a tough fight, but I believe we will not see a bloodbath unless commanders ignore all the lessons learned, doctrine, and fail to adopt to the situation.
    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

    Comment


    • #3
      I generally agree with Deltaphooh on this, however, any military action on this scale is not without a considerable degree of risk. The Iraqis are not complete idiots and it's not like they have no time to think about this problem and develop ideas for how best to utilize their forces. Their military does not have the same tradition of conducting thorough AARs like a Western army, but they do have a much better appreciation for our capabilities than they did the first time around. They were completely shocked at how effective we were before and adapted poorly to a very fluid situation. Lack of communication and their centralized command style handicapped them as well. That degree of surprise will be difficult to replicate.

      The Iraqis now understand their extreme vulnerability against our forces out in the open desert. Maneuver warfare on this scale is very difficult to coordinate successfully, and the Iraqis learned this lessen well, thus their inclination to take the fight into the urban locations.

      We don't want to give the Iraqis more credit than they're due because that can lead to overcautious leadership, and ultimately, to higher attrition rates. On the other hand we shouldn't assume that they haven't learned anything from Desert Storm and our continual air campaign. At a minimum, they now have a better understanding of what they can't do against us.

      Some have been quick to point out that the Iraqi military is only a shadow of its former self with only about 33% the effective combat power it fielded in 1991. The response is, of course, so is ours. The US Army has shrunk from 16 full active divisions to less than ten divisions, and these often are not 100% strength. Many include a "roundout" brigade from the reserves that is only available in time of war. The Navy and Air Force have suffered similar reductions. Part of this has been offset with better technology, however, training standards are generally somewhat lower than they were in the late '80s and early '90s. All things being equal we're are somewhat weaker now VS the Iraqis compared to what we were in 1991. The Iraqis have lost about 66% of their combat strength since 1991 while we've lost 40-50%. However, since our forces pound for pound were much more powerful to begin with, the 40-50% for us represents a much higher proportion of total combat power lost.

      During Desert Storm a great deal of the Army's combat assets deployed to the Gulf came from Germany. These forces were no longer needed for their original Cold War responsibilities, so it made sense to deploy them. The US military is stretched paper thin at present. Every new mission we are tasked with at this point involves robbing Peter to pay Paul to some extent. If everything goes smoothly in Iraq (assuming a military action even takes place) the US has sufficient combat power to defeat the Iraqi military, however, if the unexpected happens we no longer have several additional divisions just sitting around doing nothing. High casualty rates due to urban combat might eventually erode popular support for military action in the Middle East and could lead to some type of half-assed compromise. Sound familiar?

      Can America defeat the Iraqis in urban combat? Yes, but we shouldn't get too overconfident out it. We are not invincible and one can't help but think of how capable the Germans were when they rolled into Stalingrad. That's not an entirely effective analogy, but this is one area in which we should proceed with extreme caution. This is the one type of fighting that does "equalize" the odds and negate our technology and training advantages to some extent. Just how much of an extent is impossible to tell. Only a war would prove that.
      Editor-in-Chief
      GameSquad.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Good comments. We should make no mistake, it will be a fight, but I believe our troops are better prepared than the Iraqis for MOUT. The media have been drumming the same opinion they did in 1990. "The US Army can't fight and will get their asses handed to them by the Iraqis." While this did nothing to discourage our forces, it's still wrong.

        Military commanders are not scared of fighting in cities because they fear our troops aren't prepared. They fear urban combat because it is usually casualty intensive. They aren't politically stupid. Commanders realize Americans will likely not have the stomach for this kind of warfare, and none want to see their troops get torn apart in a battle people will not support.

        One thing I am very concerned with is how political considerations will influence the Battle for Baghdad. While destroying the city will not be the goal of our forces, severe structural damage is likely. I hope Washinton, in their quest not to inflame Middle Eastearn sentiment, does not impose exaggerated restrictions on our forces that causes unneccessary casualties.

        In the end, American soldiers worst enemy might not be the Iraqis, but the American people.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Deltapooh

          In the end, American soldiers worst enemy might not be the Iraqis, but the American people.
          I probably can see what you wanted to say... but it still does not feel right hear something like this ... ;p
          Attn to ALL my opponents:

          If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

          Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

          Comment


          • #6
            oh ye... maybe this is a better expression:

            the greatest difficulty for the American operation in Bagdah, in the end, does not come from the Iraqi soldiers, but from domestic concerns.

            .... hmm.. still not quite sound... ... hmm... ...
            Attn to ALL my opponents:

            If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

            Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

            Comment


            • #7
              ok.. finally, I think this might sound better:

              The greatest constraint for the American operation in Bagdah, in the end, does not come from either the ability of the enemy soldiers or the ability of the US soldiers, instead, comes from political and domestic concerns.

              .... :P
              Attn to ALL my opponents:

              If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

              Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

              Comment


              • #8
                ER Chaser,

                What Deltapooh says reminds me of what Richard Nixon said in 1970, during the Vietnam war: "North Vietnam cannot humiliate, ridiculize or defeat the United States. Only Americans can do that..." He was referring, obviously, to the anti-war movement and the divided house that was the U.S. at that moment.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I suppose we need....

                  Hello,

                  I am honestly surprised that the US Army is reduced to that size!

                  The US Army has shrunk from 16 full active divisions to less than ten divisions, and these often are not 100% strength. Many include a "roundout" brigade from the reserves that is only available in time of war.
                  I always thought the US Army had perhaps 30 or 40 divisions to start with. Assuming that each division has about 10 to 20 thousand troops.

                  I hope you're not saying that we only have 100,000 soldiers or so to defend USA and to conduct a few major US Army operations especially during the war on terrorism.

                  That would make me furious...

                  Anyway, I wonder what's the maximum number of divisions can USA field in the time of war? In WWII, I've heard that USA could easily field more than 200 divisions, about 3 million soldiers in all, is this true? Of course, it doesn't include the US Navy and US Air Force (I think it came into existence after WWII, the airplanes were under US Army or US Navy's control only).

                  I have to wonder what's happening to the sense of performing the patriotic duty of joining the US Army, after all, we're in war with terrorists!

                  Dan
                  Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                  "Aim small, miss small."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ER_Chaser....

                    Hello,

                    Americans sure know how to kill each other better than Hitler or Giap could ever hope in their lifetimes. All thanks to the greatest generals in the world history, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman!

                    I'll wager a bet that even if Sun Tzu or Genghis Khan were to fight against these fine American generals, they would make short work of Genghis and Tzu.

                    Nobody does it better than an American!

                    Yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased, but I'm a proud American, and I can't imagine supporting a foreign general in glorifying a foreign nation other than America in furthering the "Amerization" of the world!

                    Dan
                    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                    "Aim small, miss small."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The public opinion is a force to be reckoned with. In this day and age of instant information, the American people becomes a part of the force. Think about it. Public opinion can influence political & military objectives, morale, TTPs, and the duration of the conflict. The people can turn victory into defeat (as was the case in Somalia) and defeat into victory, should they choose to.

                      Political and Military leaders are completely aware of this. Their mission is altered to ensure public support. Sometimes, this can a bad thing. In Afghanistan, commanders were concerned the public would not tolerate large numbers of casaulties. So they elected to rely on local forces to do most of the work. We became the support force, ultimately having little power in deciding how the battles were fought. American soldiers could do little to intercede when NA forces basically allowed Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces to escape.

                      Polls indicate less than half of the United States would tolerate casualties exceeding 5,000 dead. This kind of "conditional support" can cause alot of problems in an invasion. Commanders might elect to gambles or hesitate. In either situation, more soldiers can end up dead. Why risk 1,000 when you will not accept 5,000? It doesn't make alot of sense.

                      While the people have a duty to voice their opinion about government actions done in their name, they can't provide limited support. If you are going to ask one man to die, you should make sure it's worth it. I feel it would be a great tragedy to see 6,000 - 7,000 die in futile efforts. If the job is worth you sending 5,000 men to die, it should be worth sending 10,000 into that exact situation.

                      I'm not saying people are wrong to want to limit the war. Yet, we should avoid excessive abuse of this right. If the American people wish to invade Iraq, we should make clear our desire to be destroyed as a nation to defeat Saddam.

                      Originally posted by Cheetah 772

                      Anyway, I wonder what's the maximum number of divisions can USA field in the time of war? In WWII, I've heard that USA could easily field more than 200 divisions, about 3 million soldiers in all, is this true? Of course, it doesn't include the US Navy and US Air Force (I think it came into existence after WWII, the airplanes were under US Army or US Navy's control only).
                      http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...rmy/index.html

                      The page offers a nice Table of Organization for the US Army. We could field a much larger force if the President instituted the Draft. However, it takes months to train, equip, and prepare this kind of force for combat. Modern wars don't last that long. So you can imagine the problem. Leaders underestimated, or didn't care, about the new level of committment "The New World Disorder" required. As Maddog said, Saddam picked a bad time to invade Kuwait. The Cold War had just ended, and downsizing had yet to occur. We could spare the force. This is not the case today. We are danger-close to our limitiations.

                      Originally posted by Cheetah 772

                      I have to wonder what's happening to the sense of performing the patriotic duty of joining the US Army, after all, we're in war with terrorists!
                      Alot of people have joined the Army. However, patroitism is not the sole reason behind it. When the economy slows, jobs disappear, and many turn to the military to for employment. This year, the Army met it's yearly requirement of new recruits last July or August. However, there are not as many positions available due to funding issues. Funding will continue to be a problem. Yesterday's elections indictated the American people are more concerned with the economy than National Security.

                      Originally posted by Cheetah 772

                      Nobody does it better than an American!

                      Yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased, but I'm a proud American, and I can't imagine supporting a foreign general in glorifying a foreign nation other than America in furthering the "Amerization" of the world!
                      As Maddog said, the US military is not invincible. We can do alot of things well, and some thing excellently, but there is always room for improvement. War is a test of committment and will. We can't assume our opponents are lacking in this department. The Iraqi RGFC are committed, and will fight so. Defeating them will not be a simple task.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Good post Deltapooh.

                        It seems to me that the American people (well, at least a sizeable portion of it) is entertaining a lot of wishful thinking regarding war.
                        The survey presents a confused population. On one hand, people want war against Iraq, but on the other hand, they are not ready to accept the casualties that goes with it. I would be worry if I was in the shoes of President Bush. Will the people let the soldiers down as soon as the body count hits a certain number?

                        I think the last Gulf War has been too "easy". Casualties were minimal. Moreover, casualties during the invasion of Afghanistan have also been very limited.

                        Consequently, I suspect that a lot of people might be for war just because they inconsciously believe it will be a free ride, with just a few casualties. A walk in the park. A Nintendo war. Geez, a fun war! Like pixel battalions disappearing on a TOAW screen...But the scope of the next war in Iraq probably means a lot more casualties than before. It won't be Vietnam, but I would not be surprised to see thousands of casualties.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Interesting thread.

                          I suspect the U.S. could swat Iraq like a fly anytime we wanted. It is really not a question of winning, it is a question of how many casualties will we take. I myself would hope for "not many" on either side.

                          Urban combat? One nuke would settle that mess. Or, for my fellow environmentalists, we could forego the nuke and blast the urban area to pieces with a massive conventional airstrike, which would take a little longer.

                          Of course we would not do any such thing. IMO that is what all the hoopla is about, keeping Saddam from having any nukes himself so we can maintain the ability to swat him anytime we wanted. We Americans do love to keep a big stick on hand in case we feel the need to swat someone. I believe it is a refined idea of Teddy Roosevelt modified in the Eisenhower days when we started calling it "brinkmanship" except we, and our allies, have all the aces now I guess you could change the name to "you are on the brink, cause we can blast you and you cannot blast us back."

                          Of course, even though Americans, and the allies, would be rather opposed to seriously swatting someone with nukes, I suspect that Saddam would not at all be opposed to the prospect. Which is the real topic on the table--want to deal with Saddam now, or deal with him when he has nukes? Maybe this is a mute topic because Israel might get tired of the international indecision and decide it is better to mushroom Iraq, than to have Iraq mushroom Tel Aviv. That would be good giant step backward for peace in the Middle East, but nuclear winter might solve the global warming problem.

                          We should have taken care of this back in 91 when we had everyone over there. This is going to be an ongoing thing as long as folks over there aspire to be suicide bombers as a profession (which you know falls well below crack ***** on the socio-economic scale) instead of something a little more mainstream.

                          Just a few thoughts: Never date a woman with a dagger tattooed on her chest, never play cards with a man named after a city, and stop buying billions of dollars worth of oil from nuts bent on world destruction and neverending violence who are using the money to further their insanity and put us in a bind about how many lives we are willing to sacrifice to prevent them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: ER_Chaser....

                            Originally posted by Cheetah772
                            Hello,

                            Americans sure know how to kill each other better than Hitler or Giap could ever hope in their lifetimes. All thanks to the greatest generals in the world history, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman!

                            I'll wager a bet that even if Sun Tzu or Genghis Khan were to fight against these fine American generals, they would make short work of Genghis and Tzu.

                            Nobody does it better than an American!

                            Yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased, but I'm a proud American, and I can't imagine supporting a foreign general in glorifying a foreign nation other than America in furthering the "Amerization" of the world!

                            Dan
                            tzar:
                            lol .... I was teasing you guys by posting those 3 lines ... (seems worked fine ) ...

                            Dan:
                            It has always been a very entertaining topic to compare the famous generals (yes, esp. generals!) of different times and nations ---- and if some1 promote such a thread here, there would be tons of replies, and interesting readings ---- this happened about 1 year ago with the discussion of only WWII generals.

                            Indeed, I need to read more about Gen. Lee, Grant, Sherman..etc... American Civil War is a big blind spot of my history knowledge, but right now I am still too busy with more acient western histories (the Greeks, in particular), I will learn little by little (much limited by my english language, making it very hard to read this kind of literature.) --- then I will be able to discuss more about them with ya
                            Attn to ALL my opponents:

                            If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

                            Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here is a short breakdown of the US Army off the top of my head.

                              XVIII Airborne Corps
                              82 Airborne Division (Fort Bragg, NC) - The division fields around 15,500 paratroopers. This is the premiere rapid reaction force of the US Army and can be "wheels up" 18 hours after notification. The division is very light and easy to move, but suffers badly in firepower. The Army brass prefer this unit to do short deployments and not get tied down with extended peacekeeping efforts.

                              10th Mountain Division (Fort Drum, NY) - This is basically a light infantry division capable of rapid deployment. Doesn't have as much firepower as some other divisions.

                              101st Airborne Division (Fort Campbell, KY) - This is an airborne division in name only. The 101st hasn't been on jump status in many years, instead, the division fields more helicopters than any other US Army division. This division is now the "air assault" division and is probably the most mobile division in the world. It contains two combat aviation brigades with enough UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters to move the whole division in a relatively short period. Like the 82nd, this division doesn't field any heavy maneuver units so it is vulnerable, but lethal.

                              3rd Infantry Division (Fort Stewart, GA) - When the US Army was downsized in the '90s, the 24th Mechanized division was deactivated and the 3rd ID reactivated in its place. Not much changed except the name. This is one of the heavier and more powerful divions in the US Army. It can't deploy rapidly and is very expensive to field, but it brings a lot of combat power with it.

                              III Corps
                              1st cavalry Division (Fort Hood, TX) - One of the most powerful divisions in the US Army this is basically an armored division with a few TOE modifications. Like the 24th, it is slow and difficult to move, but very powerful once it arrives. Usually plays a prominent role in Middle East planning.

                              4th Infantry Division - A standard US Army infantry division, this unit brings a lot of firepower with it. 4ID works closely with 1st Cavalry and does a lot of peacekeeping rotations and deployments to Kuwait.

                              V Corps
                              1st Armored Division (Germany) - The only armored division in the United States Army that survived the downsizing of the '90s. It's sister units, 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions, were both deactivated. This is one of the most powerful units in the Army, but also suffers from the fact that it is spread out all over Germany and is frequently assigned peacekeeping and other duties for extended periods.

                              1st Infantry Division (Germany) - This is the famous "Big Red One" of WWII fame. The division has a proud history, but no longer fields the combat power it once had. It has been deactivated, reactivated, and moved during the drawdown, and like 1st Armored Division, is spread out all over Germany. Only a portion of the unit is currently in Europe, the rest are at Fort Riley Kansas. All of these factors significantly reduce its overall effectiveness.

                              8th Army
                              2nd Infantry Division (Korea) - This division is arguably the most powerful combat unit in the US Army. It is enhanced in several areas due to its role on the DMZ in Korea. This division does not do peacekeeping missions or any other deployments. It's permanent mission is to defend the Western Corridor in Korea (however it does has a small element based at Fort Lewis WA). Although the division is very powerful, it frquently suffers from cronic problems with low morale and constant manpower shortages. Korea is generally considered the worst assignment in the Army and soldiers serve on unaccompanied 12 month "hardship" tours. Living conditions in the 2ID area are poor and it is quite common for soldiers to retire or sign "bars to reenlistment" in order to avoid serving there. Like the 1st ID and 1st AD, the division is spread out on many different installations or "camps."

                              Army pacific Command
                              25th Infantry division (Schofield Barracks, Hawaii) - This is pretty much a standard infantry division, but only 2 of its 3 brigades are in Hawaii. The remaining brigade is at Fort Lewis Washington. The division played a major role in Vietnam, but since then has been used most for training, peacekeeping and other misc missions.

                              The active Army has been reduced to a total endstrength of 480,000 soldiers. This is a somewhat misleading figure however, because only 149,406 of these soldiers serve in the divisions. The US Army has a very high ratio of support vs combat units (or "teeth" to "tail"), thus the numbers of soldiers who actualy deploy and fight are considerably lower than 480,000. There are many thousands of non-deployable technical, transportation, research, and administrative support personnel. It's still the best Army around, but it is only a shadow of its former self.

                              http://www.militaryorder.org/Officer...02/The%20U.htm

                              Since the end of the Cold War, the Army has been increasingly called upon to conduct peacekeeping and stability operations around the world. While the specific readiness impact of these missions varies based on the kind of unit deployed, for most combat-arms units, the skill set required by these operations is very different from their normal combat tasks. As a result, fewer of them are fully trained for combat operations. The impact of this problem is frequently expressed as a ratio, such as “4:1” or “5:1,” based on the idea that for every unit deployed, the combat readiness of several others is impacted as units cycle through the preparation, deployment, recovery and retraining phases of an operational rotation.

                              For example, the U.S. contingent in Kosovo consists of approximately 5,300 soldiers. Using a 4:1 impact model reveals that more than 20,000 troops’ combat readiness is affected by the deployment. In a similar manner, maintaining a 3,000-strong U.S. force in Bosnia reduces the combat effectiveness of more than 10,000 troops. Out of an active force of 480,000 soldiers, this still may not sound like much. However, almost the entire rotational base for long-term deployments comes from the ten active Army divisions that comprise only 149,406 of the 480,000 active duty troops (31 percent). As a result, even small rotational deployments can have a substantial impact on the combat readiness of the Army.


                              If the OPTEMPO (current operations) continue as it has for the last several years and new missions continue to be added, the readiness issues facing the Army will worsen.

                              [By the end of the 1990s, it had become apparent to the Army’s leadership that more active duty troops were needed. Army Chief of Staff General Erick K. Shinseki has warned that the Army is “too small for its mission profile” and that it needs more people. In July 2001, both General Shinseki and Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White testified that they needed 40,000 more active duty soldiers to meet their mission requirements. The Association of the U.S. Army has since called for an increase of 60,000 troops. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks on the United States, the need for more soldiers is even more urgent because the requirements of the war on terrorism and homeland defense will further increase demands on the Army. In recent congressional testimony, several senior officers, including Army General William F. Kernan, Commander in Chief, U.S. Joint Forces Command, stated that more soldiers were needed to carry on the war against terrorism, protect the homeland, and continue to conduct other operations.


                              An operation in Iraq, even a successful one, would stretch US forces right to the breaking point and would certainly require the activation of large numbers of reserve and National Guard soldiers for extended periods. This is becoming very unpopular as many of these soldiers have already been activated to guard airports and such since 9/11. Many face severe financial difficulties when called to active duty due to their low military pay compared to their normal wages. Some have lost their homes or now face large credit card debts.

                              The Army is trying to counterbalance these problems with new technology. When it works it works well, but sometimes there is no substitute for numbers and raw volume of firepower (see Blackhawk Down...). At this time there are no plans to increase troop strength and the Defense Department is already suffering from a projected budget shortfall in spite of a very large increase this year.
                              Editor-in-Chief
                              GameSquad.com

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X