You made the statement that I disputed. You can't defend it by asking me to prove it isn't true. I can do just that, but not until you make an effort to back up your claims.
I did. I guess you don't read links..... But like I thought, you have groundless claims... I unlike you, supported my statement with facts. I will post AGAIN. "During the last drawdown, in the 1990s, regular Army partisans argued Guard units were so under-trained they couldn’t get up to speed in time for anything but a prolonged conflict. (Their prime example was Guard brigades that missed the 1991 Gulf War because the regular Army kept saying they weren’t ready, which Guard advocates say was deeply unfair). After 12 years of hard fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, where regulars, reservists, and guards fought side by side and were mostly treated as interchangeable, it’s almost impossible to make the effectiveness argument anymore. “With the 850,000 Guard and Reserve personnel mobilized since 9/11, how many family housing units, enlisted barracks, military commissaries [etc.] did we build [for them]?” Punaro asked rhetorically. “The answer is zero…. We never built any.” (By the way, the total number mobilized actually hit 877,735 this week)." "Just weeks after he took charge of the Reserve Forces Policy Board in October 2011, Punaro launched an in-depth study of the “fully-burdened life-cycle cost” of active and reserve component personnel. It is that widely-cited study which declared: “a Reserve Component service member costs less than 1/3 that of an Active Component service member.” “The cost of an RC service member, when not activated, is less than one third that of their AC counterpart. According to RFPB analysis of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, the RC per capita cost ranges from 22% to 32% of their AC counterparts’ per capita costs, depending on which cost elements are included.” "Note three crucial words: “when not activated.” "That means the 1:3 ratio only holds true as long as the reserve or Guard member is not given mobilization orders, put on active duty, and deployed – which is what military personnel are ultimately for. Reservists and Guardsmen cost 1/3 as much as their active-duty counterparts because they’re on retainer." http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/active-vs-guard-an-avoidable-pentagon-war/ http://ra.defense.gov/rfpb/_documents/RFPB_Cost_Methodology_Final_Report_7Jan13.pdf
So a week ago Obama said that pot isn't as harmful as alcohol. Liberals are dancing around, pot advocates are happy but I say FUCK THAT. Quit being a pussy Obama and tell the truth. This pisses me off and especially at pot advocates for gushing over this. Sure it's more than any other president, but it's not nearly enough. His DEA is still locking up people for pot, people are still rotting in jail over nature, and anyone with any type of a brain knows that weed is harmless. So I say, fuck you Obama, you wanna be, you poser.
I am all for increasing special ops forces for special ops missions, I just disagree with the notion that we can dispose of our ground forces.. But sooner or later we are going to get into another full-invasion like Kuwait '91 or Iraq '03 or a similar ground-pounding war, probably in Korea. Got to have infantry for that. Got to have tankers for that. Trained professional heavy ground forces. Dude I challenged your assertion and asked you for evidence. But keep reading. Ask Shane what he thinks about reserve effectiveness. A few units are top-notch, many other less than optimal. The reserves are indeed performing better, but are still not as effective as active units. I'll offer this . . . UNIT COST AND READINESS FOR ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENT OF THE ARMED FORCES It is a long 2013 document but written clearly. It basically states that the best way to operate a military force is using a balance of active and reserve forces. There are tradeoffs regarding quick deployment versus lower costs. The Military wants to retain a flexibly in regard to the AC/RC mix. Essentially the peacetime costs of the reserves is predictably lower than the cost of active units. That extra cost is that necessary to achieve rapid deployment. So much of what goes into their desired mix of active/reserve components is based on what they asses to be the short-term threats and the nature of those threats. Reserve components cannot deploy as rapidly, as frequently, or remain deployed as long as active units. They assess that active units can deploy twice as frequently as reserve units. This essentially doubles their effectiveness. So . . . depending on what you perceive the nature of the threat to be, our Best Interests can call for more or fewer reserves. But never reducing the actives ground forces to zero.
Fake arguments as I never said "Zero" I clearly said special units in which you would include an elite trained force to respond at a moments notice. Also to include units like the 82nd air-borne, Rangers, etc. It should be more selective and get rid of the Joe-Rifle units.
Well, you said "The marines should be rolled to reserves only along with the Army forces." Doesn't making the Marines and Army into "reserves only" eliminate the active ground troops? Maybe you made a misstatement. Happens to all of us.
Why don't you re-quote my message in its entirety? Here I will help...... "Our military should consist of Navy/Air Force for active services. The marines should be rolled to reserves only along with the Army forces. Excluding special forces."
Well, OK. We've already agreed that more special forces is good for our current situation. They aren't really regular ground troops like infantry, artillery and armor, though. Do you want regular army and marine ground forces made into reserve-only or not? That will clear things up.
OK so you would have to retool things a bit and have rapid response teams active. Like the airborne etc. You would want some "normal infantry etc", but have them smaller in size and better trained. Basically reclassify them into elite active forces. There is no need for the bloat we have now. Further, being that majority of the numbers would roll into the reserves, you would have to retool the deployment schedules to "enforce" a rotation. Every troop should deploy or be kicked out. This would ensure guys are well trained and not "green" given another world conflict. I believe there are smarter ways to handle a global force than we do now. The Navy seems to be the most efficient of all the branches IMO.
Disagree that we are "bloated", but the waste needs to be tightened up for sure. And the skyrocketing procurement costs should be a national scandal. The military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is still squandering $billions every year. I just thick that some heavy infantry, artillery and armor units will always be needed for rapid deployment. Both the actives and the reserves are having issues with undeployable units and especially undeployable personnel. Not sure how they will deal with it. Many of the undeployable people are females and it is politically unacceptable to reduce female personnel. Probably. But the world isn't getting any smaller and there is a critical mass below which we can no longer be a global power.
