Author Topic: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...  (Read 33866 times)

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« on: January 31, 2008, 10:26:21 AM »
No kidding.

Solution proposed? A three-tier force of about 4000 troops. With a few hundred first responders.

For the whole damned country. Now, picture 4000 troops just trying to maintain order in one metro area. Just one.

And they wonder why we want to be able to have enough guns and ammo to defend our families from looters?

Quote
US military may not be ready for attack

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterThu Jan 31, 11:25 AM ET

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in  you're either ready or you're not."

In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.

"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical, biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending on the type of incident.

Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.

"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.

He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.

The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.

Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.

Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.

Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.

In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.

Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops  to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands. Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs will be met.


280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2008, 10:29:09 AM »
This is news?
Avoid cliches like the plague!

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2008, 10:29:46 AM »
So how many troops are currently in Iraq?
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Finch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • Fading Freedoms
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2008, 10:31:23 AM »
Well Geez, maybe if we brought our troops home from other countries, we might be better able to defend our own.

 rolleyes
Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2008, 10:33:04 AM »
No, if the troops were here, the Democrat party would just downsize the military again like Clinton did. Don't try to pretend that wouldn't happen.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2008, 10:34:10 AM »
We still got pitchforks and torches.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2008, 10:36:03 AM »
I still think they ought to revive State Militias, myself.

Yeah, you go and train, you report once a month, but there's no possibility you'll be sent elsewhere. You would be defending your home. It's just that you'd receive military training and have access to military equipment.

I think a lot of people would sign up for that.


El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2008, 10:41:53 AM »
Revive?  We never gave it up. grin

Mane, feds would never go for that.  Too much power given to the states. 

I foresee an expanded DHS.
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2008, 10:45:24 AM »
Revive?  We never gave it up. grin

Mane, feds would never go for that.  Too much power given to the states. 

I foresee an expanded DHS.

I'd like to see DHS go and have the Civil Defence like during the cold war era come back.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2008, 10:48:00 AM »
Revive?  We never gave it up. grin

Mane, feds would never go for that.  Too much power given to the states. 

I foresee an expanded DHS.

I'd like to see DHS go and have the Civil Defence like during the cold war era come back.

What, with cheerful yellow hardhats, and duck-and-cover films? I thought that was mostly just feelgood thumbsucking for the masses. They knew full well that a nuclear war would be unsurvivable, so they gave people stuff that made them feel useful.

I remember reading an old CD pamphlet about making bomb shelters that explained that radiation could be defeated by putting a right angle in the entrance to your shelter.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2008, 10:49:18 AM »
Revive?  We never gave it up. grin

Mane, feds would never go for that.  Too much power given to the states. 

I foresee an expanded DHS.

I'd like to see DHS go and have the Civil Defence like during the cold war era come back.

What, with cheerful yellow hardhats, and duck-and-cover films? I thought that was mostly just feelgood thumbsucking for the masses. They knew full well that a nuclear war would be unsurvivable, so they gave people stuff that made them feel useful.

winner winner chicken dinner... 
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2008, 10:57:49 AM »
Clinton's Fault!!!!

Anyone else remember this other President, name of Bush? Had a Secretary of Defense by the name of Cheney, as I recall... I dunno, maybe that was a hallucination.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2008, 11:03:57 AM »
And who did the force reduction then, Wooderson?


Chris

  • Guest
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2008, 11:09:59 AM »
The problem is that no one recognizes as a reality that the US could be attacked.  People see 9/11 as more of a criminal attack than an act of war.  So, what do we do in response to 9/11?  We develop DHS, and throw millions at "first responders" meaning police and fire agencies.  Of course, DHS get's ripped off from time to time, like the Coalition of Police Chiefs taking a couple of million in grants, and spending it on God knows what, since it's a political/lobbying group, and not a real law enforcemente agency.

And the military?  The Cold War is over, right?  So we don't need a large standing military.  Cut back to spend money on other (pork) projects.  the war of the ftutre is a small scale intense action, so we don't need many divisions of forces.  After all, we watched the bombsight films during Gulf War I and II.  Just bomb them.  What?  The Army/Marines have to go in afterwards?  Nah, just bomb them.  And if "them" happens to be on our own soil?  Then it's a criminal/law enforcement matter, right?

Too many people who are "in the know" refuse to recognize that terrorism on any scale is a real threat to the US homeland, and respodning with police officers is much like responding to a house fire with a fire extinguisher.  You might save the day if you are damned lucky, but more often than not, it's not going to work.

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2008, 11:11:21 AM »
Quote
And who did the force reduction then, Wooderson?

Obviously not the sitting Republican President, right?

CLINTON'S FAULT!!!!!!

Hey, wait... if you want to blame the Democratic Congress for troop reductions under a Republican President, will you be blaming the GOP House for troop reductions under a Democratic President?





(Nah.)
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,666
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2008, 11:22:06 AM »
If a military force IS assigned to directly protect CONUS . . .

a) the troops will be in one area;

b) their guns will be securely locked up in a different area;

c) their ammunition will be securely locked up in a third area.

d) Nobody with the keys will be available, or willing to issue guns & ammo without three tiers of command REMFs signing off on the orders.

Remember, this is the Stateside US Military, where men on guard duty have been mugged and robbed because their weapons were unloaded - and their leaders STILL refused to issue ammo.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2008, 11:26:13 AM »
Quote
US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...

Why would the US military want to attack the US?.....
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2008, 11:26:50 AM »
If a military force IS assigned to directly protect CONUS . . .

a) the troops will be in one area;

b) their guns will be securely locked up in a different area;

c) their ammunition will be securely locked up in a third area.

d) Nobody with the keys will be available, or willing to issue guns & ammo without three tiers of command REMFs signing off on the orders.

Remember, this is the Stateside US Military, where men on guard duty have been mugged and robbed because their weapons were unloaded - and their leaders STILL refused to issue ammo.

I wonder if it will take an actual attack of some sort here for us to adopt the Swiss model. I always liked that one, myself. All citizen-soldiers keep a functional weapon and ammunition at home, and if called up, report with both to an assembly point ready to go.

But, nah, they'd probably just form a committee to study the possibility of recommending a revision of the suggestions to another department regarding on-base weapons storage policies, and then the 4000-page report would get filed and lost.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2008, 11:57:58 AM »
pfffttt. Just more fearmongerging pap for the masses.

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,317
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2008, 02:39:16 PM »
Quote
He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.

Wrong. The crux of the current problem is that the Pentagon is using the National Guard as an integral part of the U.S. military -- as front line and rear echelon troops in foreign countries, which is NOT the role of the National Guard. The role of the National Guard is supposed to be ... to guard the nation.

What it boils down to is that, if the U.S. expects to continue maintaining large military presences (is that a word?) all over the globe, in order to simultaneously secure the "homeland" we simply need more troops. We need more regular Army, we need more reserves, and then we might (or might not) have enough National Guard troops to fulfill their role.

It ain't all Slick Willie's fault, either. Don't forget Donald "Let's rumble" Rumsfeld. Rummie was so fixated on the wonders of high-tech toys that he continually underestimated required troop strength while simultaneously grossly overestimating the efficacy of said toys. When his top general told him he wasn't sending enough troops into Iraq to "secure the peace," did Donnie listen? Hell, no -- he canned the general and installed someone who told him what he wanted to hear. And we're still paying the price of not having secured Iraq when we first toppled Saddam, when the Iraqi people liked us and were grateful to us from driving the sorry sot out of power.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but neither party wants to be the one to 'fess up and acknowledge that we need a larger military if we're not going to bring home enough troops to defend home base.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2008, 03:36:24 PM »
Ok, I don't expect anybody else here to be a retired warmonger, or to have attended Air War College, but Rummy was well into the process of scaling things back per his bosses' (GW and Congress) orders, as early as August of 2001.  Those rumblings were happening as far back as 1993, if memory serves me correctly. The original plan was for the DoD to sustain and decisively win two regional wars on the globe, and still be able to provide support for a smaller regional conflict and/or homeland threat, using the 1.37 million troops at its disposal.

Times have changed, and so has our stomach for war and readiness. (Deja Vu', anybody?) The current policy after Rummy's overhaul is what's called a simultaneous win/hold plan, where we can still win one conflict, but merely hold an aggressor from making further advances in a second location.  Troop and budget cuts forced that decision, which was supported by both Dems and Repubs. 

I remember the "Hollow Force" military of the Carter administration, where engineless jets sat on the ramp, maintaining the outward appearance of a fully mission-capable unit.  I hope we aren't too late to prevent that scenario again.  sad
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,800
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2008, 06:22:32 PM »
The scale back from Cold War strength started with Bush Sr. and continued under Clinton. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

doc2rn

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2008, 06:39:10 PM »
I just think it is a crummy thing to do to US Forces to put them on protracted hold while the civil war goes on around them. It happened in Yugoslavia, it happened in Somalia, Congo, Liberia(sp?), Afghanistan, and Iraq, the trend is ever present the problem with history is those who did not live it are doomed to repeat it.
They wanna kill each other so bad and duke it out, I say let them.

meinbruder

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2008, 06:51:16 PM »
This is news?

No, not really.  Its a bit disturbing the AP is reporting it worldwide.  Nothing says, aid and abet like putting the weakness of the American Military under the magnifying glass of the world press.  The fact that a retired Marine Major General is the foghorn for the report is also disappointing.  If he is no longer in the game, why would he criticize the players?  The lack of a co-coordinated defense plan for the contiguous states dates back to the forties so this really isnt news now.  The cost of the study could have been better spent planning to correct the problem.  It looks like a typical congress-critter expenditure to me.     

Da Bianhua
}:)>
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.....

Da bianhua
}:)>

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2008, 06:59:14 PM »
Yeah, that was my first instinct, the press is publicizing this in order to encourage al-Qaeda.

Lolita Baldor, huh? Sounds foreign to me...
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."