We can disagree on all that verbiage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Sorry Ken, that semantic thicket you are hiding in provides thin cover.
I don't hide.
Quote:
...Simple incompetence is an alternative and I believe very definitely a more plausible explanation in my view.
That's certainly a factor but it doesn't explain the political power of either the Navy and Marines or of the National Guard, does it?[
Quote:
Which, in my opinion, is wrong.
Dueling opinions --as usual, others will make up their own minds. Fortunately.
Quote:
I did note your words about all democracies. I just disregarded them because we aren't talking about all of them, only one.
What's this "we" stuff. You may be talking about one of them, I am talking and have consistently talked about all or certainly most of them in this context. However, I acknowledge that "disregarding" the inconvenient helps give your opinion a slightly enhanced position. ;)
Not to intrude but that's a fair and valid question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
...we have the same two citizens and they have differing ideas. Should the ideas of citizens be weighed upon the merits of the ideas, or should the ideas be weighed upon what the citizens have done in the past? I think the variant ideas should be weighed upon the merits of the ideas themselves, not the rep of those who hold them.
I'd opt for basing the decision on the merit of the ideas. Thus, you lose. Bob's idea is to return in large measure to a formula that worked well for the US for the bulk of our 225 years. Yours, as nearly as I can ascertain, is to maintain the status quo -- a status you continually denigrate -- and / or expanding the Navy.
Personally, I think both your ideas have merit but I also think neither is in accord with political reality... :wry:
The likely outcome is a melding of both ideas with a slight tilt towards the Bob solution.
That's all an aside, I intruded due to this misperception:
Quote:
In Desert Storm we moved a very large force very quickly half way around the world because the civilian leaders thought that is what we should do....I do remember reading that it was a good thing the big army from the cold war was still around.
Your recall of part of what you read is, as always, correct but your summation as occurs frequently is not. That BTW is not an insult nor is it an indication of lack of sophistication or even of ignorance, it is an indicator IMO of nothing more than a lack of experience in the mechanical aspects of fighting wars.
The bulk of the troops in DS/DS came from Europe as the to be disbanded VII Corps was moved from Germany to Saudi Arabia. It bears mentioning that the Corps was inactivated immediately after DS/DS and the large Cold War Army largely disappeared very quickly. That Army continued to disappear in smaller increments for the next nine years plus, the decline in numbers being halted only by the attacks of 9/11/01
However, your major error is "quickly" though I acknowledge that word is relative -- in the context of DS/DS, it was 'quick' only because Saddam Hussein was not very smart. Had he attacked early on and in force, even with the Iraqi Army in the sad state that it was, the outcome might have been very different. It was nice of him to allow us over six months to get deployed, train and organize for the limited objective attack . To any military guy, that six months is not quick. Picture, for example, the difference in actions during the six months from December 1941 until June 1942... :rolleyes:
It's amazing that most units are as good as they are, even the 'bad' ones...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
Maybe incompetent is too strong a term, but then again maybe it isn't.
You can't compare AC and RC units directly. You could compare an RC unit that half way through a combat tour in Iraq with a nearby AC unit that'd been there the same length of time. Folks tell me there was little difference -- and both of them were almost certainly different in a matter of months due to personnel rotation... :rolleyes:
Quote:
You correctly point out that there are active duty units that are poorly led and not combat ready...
I suspect that a fair testing would indicate only a very slight tilt toward the AC but we're not going to test -- or relieve poor commanders (which would provide a comparison statistic of sorts) -- because to do so would upset the Personnel system which by Congressional direction is skewed to give virtually everyone remotely qualified a shot at command. :mad:
Thus, there's no way to know.
Quote:
...so the toxic leader syndrome is alive and well.
One of the SF ODA I was on in the early 80s was not combat ready due to inadequate equipment and training due to being poorly funded...
After my time. During my time, most SF and other units suffered from marginally competent Officers and NCOs far more so than from equipment or funding problems. In units, SF and conventional I later worked with as a DAC, I saw the same thing through out the 80s and 90s. My Son and his friends, most of whom have been at it more than 20 years contend its still true. Both AC and RC units suffer from that.
My observation has been that AC units are generally not nearly as tactically and technically competent as they like to think they and say they are. Proof of that? Read combat award citations -- almost invariably they cite a series of screwups that led to the action. Or just cruise You Tube... :D
Quote:
...so basically I agree, but still think our nation's security for an immediate response is in much better hands with the active duty force. Over time the reserves and NG can be honed into effective units, but rarely is that the case from a cold start.
And I agree with that. We need both, the mix is the issue. We'll see what sorts out...
Both components suffer from excessive parochialism internally between Branches and communities and externally between the components. That parochialism is not helpful to anyone...