- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:41 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:41 am to Ace Midnight
quote:I am in favor of trimming those units best suited to LIC (old term) and focus almost exclusively on HIC. The fact we have light infantry (and I am a 25th ID and 10th MTN guy) puts you in places to engage lower spectrum threats just because you can. Forget that foolishness. Build your heavy force to face 4 threats and let SOF handle +1. And I agree, no way you can mobilize a force every six years. There are going to be significant incentives to be a part of that force. I am all for a multi compo force instead. Break down these cultural walls between the compos the MIC has created since Vietnam. Get the American people involved (which was a major reason for the realignment of the USAR to CS/CSS roles).
The proposals that say we should trim to a few mech/armor heavy units
0
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:45 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Good luck with those cats having jobs. You're a plumber? Well, you have to shut that shite down 1 out of 6 years?
I have a reservist that will be gone for over a year starting in April. His job isn't going anywhere.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:47 am to Darth_Vader
Baw, again, you are looking at a compo pure unit. What if that was a multi comp where the readiness was kept at a higher level at lesser cost? We have abandoned mult-compo several times over my career because the AC did not want to change their methodology. Maybe it is time to change and return to more of what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
The original militias were divided (roughy) along the lines of traditional militia (lower state of readiness) and the Minutemen (much younger and fit, more highly trained) Use that concept to start a discussion on multi-compo.
The original militias were divided (roughy) along the lines of traditional militia (lower state of readiness) and the Minutemen (much younger and fit, more highly trained) Use that concept to start a discussion on multi-compo.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:50 am to Ace Midnight
quote:Well the Marine Reserves had a battalion in the initial pushes of both the Gulf War and OIF. It can be done the Army just didn't want to.
No Guard maneuver unit was certified "combat ready" and deployed for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. They were just getting to that point when it was all over. It was support and services units, primarily, that deployed and a couple of field artillery brigades. For OIF, you didn't really see NG rotations until OIF-2, or about a year after the invasion (give or take).
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:52 am to GeauxxxTigers23
The Marines invest much more time and effort into the USMCR. And it shows.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:54 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Good luck with those cats having jobs. You're a plumber? Well, you have to shut that shite down 1 out of 6 years?
1. That's part of the deal. If you can't meet that then don't enlist. Everyday there are millions of Americans that don't enlist in either the active component or the reserve component because they would prefer to focus on a civilian career. During the height of the Iraq and Afghan wars a guardsman could expect to be deployed at least that much.
2. As stated earlier in this thread, I'd be willing to provide tax breaks to companies that hire servicemen to offset the hit they would take when their employees are mobilized.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:58 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I haven't insulted you personally and I typically don't make a habit of that.
Youve called me and Wolfhound idiots like three times in this thread
Three times each or what? I know I just told whatshisname not to act like an idiot.
I am not worried about your comments because I haven't said anything was not reasonable, in my interpretation or in my facts.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 9:59 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The proposals that say we should trim to a few mech/armor heavy units and LOTS of special operators make more sense than "only" Navy/Marines - at least there is some flexibility
The Marines could handle the SOF mission. In fact that was basically how it was done pre-WWII.
quote:Go in, kill Bin LAden, not stay for 20 years.
WTF is the navy going to do about Afghanistan for example?
quote:Have lots of tanks in the national guard.
And good luck fighting anybody with tanks.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:00 am to WhiskeyPapa
Keep up old man or fall out of the formation and let the truck pick you up 
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:00 am to Wolfhound45
quote:Proof that it can be done.
The Marines invest much more time and effort into the USMCR. And it shows.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:02 am to GeauxxxTigers23
I have had lengthy discussions with a USMC LtCol that serves on I&I duty with 4th MED BN. It comes down to commitment and investment. The Marines do it right and they get much better outcomes.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:03 am to Wolfhound45
The I&I model is much better than the AGR model
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:04 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
The Marines invest much more time and effort into the USMCR. And it shows.
There is certainly not as much looking down on the USMCR and USNR by the active components are there is on the Army/AF side - but the latter did change a lot during OEF/OIF.
As we discussed earlier in the thread - the USNR was really a lifesaver in the Pacific - they bolstered the numbers fairly quickly and provided a lot of key contributions. The "Total Army" concept was supposed to be that way, but it never really got past the haves and have nots.
Ironically, and in support of GT23's overall point, Guard and Reserve units are better at some things because they have life experiences that regular force lifers just don't get being in uniform.
And, Colonel, your point nests with his about "capability vs. threat" - the political decision maker is always focused on countering the emerging threat, while the DoD has largely been focused on capabilities - and this makes perfect sense. Politicians never conceive employing force in a vacuum and often just want to threaten it anyway. Military strategic thinkers want a wide range of capabilities, because - particularly lethal capabilities are adaptable to a wide range of contingencies. The last thing you want to hear from your boss/bill payer is, "We want you to do X" and you have no unit trained to do it and no real capability to accomplish it.
Thus the conundrum - the MIC paradox if you will.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:04 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Yes it is. And that is from someone who has been AGR for thirteen years.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:09 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Ironically, and in support of GT23's overall point, Guard and Reserve units are better at some things because they have life experiences that regular force lifers just don't get being in uniform.
Cyber is probably the best example of this.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:09 am to Ace Midnight
quote:That's because of the I&I model imo, at least on the Marine side..not sure how the Navy does it. The active and reserve components of the USMC work together much more closely than the Army does.
There is certainly not as much looking down on the USMCR and USNR by the active components are there is on the Army/AF side
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:10 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Baw, again, you are looking at a compo pure unit. What if that was a multi comp where the readiness was kept at a higher level at lesser cost? We have abandoned mult-compo several times over my career because the AC did not want to change their methodology. Maybe it is time to change and return to more of what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
The original militias were divided (roughy) along the lines of traditional militia (lower state of readiness) and the Minutemen (much younger and fit, more highly trained) Use that concept to start a discussion on multi-compo.
What you're describing is the modern army brigade when he we've had since the early 1980's. Even if a brigade is designed as "infantry" or armor" that doesn't mean its purely either. All army brigades are comprised of infantry, armor, and artillery con pontes complete with support units.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:11 am to Centinel
quote:
Cyber is probably the best example of this.
Another one is human intelligence.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:11 am to Wolfhound45
Realistic training cost money, even the marines are shining the wall at drill these days.
The fight for resources has the grownups distracted and readiness goes right out the window with the baby and the bath water when that happens.
The fight for resources has the grownups distracted and readiness goes right out the window with the baby and the bath water when that happens.
Posted on 3/18/17 at 10:12 am to Ace Midnight
And Civil Affaris
Page 17 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News