10-01-2004, 12:00 PM
For Jester: The comment Senator Kerry made about "double duty" is disingenuous at best. For decades, reservists were "weekend warriors." They drew two paychecks, one from their regular job, and one from Uncle Sam for their drill duties, staying trained to go to war if necessary.
Since Desert Storm, but more importantly, since Pres Clinton took a slow draw down and accelerated it, the active forces have lost a lot of manpower and force capability that gets put into the Reserves. This allows a few things.
1. Making force structure end strength look like it has met draw down goals.
2. In the case of National Guard units, kept a bit of money flowing into State coffers.
More importantly, when America goes to war, its not "them" who go to war. The Reserve units are so imbedded in the ability of active forces to wage protracted operations that we simply can't go to war without mobilization. Contrast that to the draft years where President Johnson did no activate the Reserves since he could not stand the domestic political heat that would have drawn.
As to Senator Kerry claiming he'd add two divisions to the Army, I cannot believe him. HIs record and his long term sentiments regarding slashing defense and intelligence spending is too strong for that to be a credible claim. I am amazed he uttered those words, it is completely out of character for him.
You get as much military capability as you pay for. We pay for enough to embark on global security as a policy. We still do not have a bottomless pit of manpower.
Anyway, I hope that explains to you a little of what is behind those remarks.
Double Duty? There's some double talk. When you swear to your commission or your enlistment, you swear to go when called. Many were called. It comes with the badge.
Occhi
PS: I will not further comment on the debates. I did not watch them, as I consider them
"A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Cheap entertainment at best, a complete waste of time at worst.
Since Desert Storm, but more importantly, since Pres Clinton took a slow draw down and accelerated it, the active forces have lost a lot of manpower and force capability that gets put into the Reserves. This allows a few things.
1. Making force structure end strength look like it has met draw down goals.
2. In the case of National Guard units, kept a bit of money flowing into State coffers.
More importantly, when America goes to war, its not "them" who go to war. The Reserve units are so imbedded in the ability of active forces to wage protracted operations that we simply can't go to war without mobilization. Contrast that to the draft years where President Johnson did no activate the Reserves since he could not stand the domestic political heat that would have drawn.
As to Senator Kerry claiming he'd add two divisions to the Army, I cannot believe him. HIs record and his long term sentiments regarding slashing defense and intelligence spending is too strong for that to be a credible claim. I am amazed he uttered those words, it is completely out of character for him.
You get as much military capability as you pay for. We pay for enough to embark on global security as a policy. We still do not have a bottomless pit of manpower.
Anyway, I hope that explains to you a little of what is behind those remarks.
Double Duty? There's some double talk. When you swear to your commission or your enlistment, you swear to go when called. Many were called. It comes with the badge.
Occhi
PS: I will not further comment on the debates. I did not watch them, as I consider them
"A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Cheap entertainment at best, a complete waste of time at worst.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete