Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Report: Military not ready for U.S. attack

  1. #1

    Default Report: Military not ready for U.S. attack

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...s_N.htm?csp=34

    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% 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% 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.
    Oh, that's right...we're fighting them "over there".



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Exactly. And how people can say they support TWO overseas wars when we cant even defend our own home, I cant fathom!!!!
    PMs are a Ninjas best friend.

  4. #3

    Default

    Yep, and while the military is spread all over the world. There are hardly any troops right here in America to defend us from an attack. All offense and no defense spells trouble. we're leaving our king wide open for checkmate

  5. #4

    Default

    This should be mailed to the RON PAUL CAMPAIGN!
    KEEP THE REVOLUTION ALIVE! RUN FOR OFFICE!

  6. #5

    Default

    hello draft

  7. #6

    Default

    does this mean if canada or mexico attact us right now, they'll be marching to washington DC in no time?
    Bringing in Supporters One at a time!
    Become a Precinct Captain! http://voters.ronpaul2008.com/

  8. #7

  9. #8

    Default

    I'm a bit skeptical. This is referring to "Combat ready" troops. Well..that's quite different than being a first responder to a terror incident in the continental US. Being combat ready and entering a war zone where there are multiple hostilities has little bearing to being prepared for an NBC attack. That's why the National Guard trains in two areas...Federal mission and Domestic. I'm in a National Guard unit that deals with NBC threats primarily.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Why Government Doesn't Work

    The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles

  10. #9

    Default

    Yep. Folks whine and cry when someone suggests we bring the troops home, but those same cowards aren't bright enough to understand that we've just about broken our military.
    In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd Morris View Post
    I'm a bit skeptical. This is referring to "Combat ready" troops. Well..that's quite different than being a first responder to a terror incident in the continental US. Being combat ready and entering a war zone where there are multiple hostilities has little bearing to being prepared for an NBC attack. That's why the National Guard trains in two areas...Federal mission and Domestic. I'm in a National Guard unit that deals with NBC threats primarily.
    The article deals specifically with NBC attacks.

    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."
    They are not talking about a war on American soil as much as being able to respond to a nuclear, biological or chemical attack inside our borders.

  12. #11

    Default

    It's just lucky for us that all the bad people in the world are confined to Iraq and Afghanistan right now - or we'd really have something to worry about.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dreicher View Post
    It's just lucky for us that all the bad people in the world are confined to Iraq and Afghanistan right now - or we'd really have something to worry about.
    by "bad people " you mean?
    Bringing in Supporters One at a time!
    Become a Precinct Captain! http://voters.ronpaul2008.com/

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rollingpig View Post
    by "bad people " you mean?
    Those that would do us harm. What other definition of bad people is there? I was being sarcastic (and apparently failed).

  15. #14

    Default

    "This should be mailed to the RON PAUL CAMPAIGN!"

    It should also be sent to everyone on your email list!!!!!!!

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dreicher View Post
    Those that would do us harm. What other definition of bad people is there? I was being sarcastic (and apparently failed).
    don't worry about it... Semantics ..

    Some of us get what you are saying.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Why Government Doesn't Work

    The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles

  17. #16

    Default

    The report is addressed to four congressmen and senators.
    Duncan Hunter and John McCain are 2 of the 4.

    P.S. I did call the campaign press desk and informed them of the report.

  18. #17

    Default

    McCain is a tool.

    My dh started to try to contact the campaign via email the other night, but we couldn't figure out which email might be the best. He came home from work and was going off (again) on some of the challenges ahead, I told him he needs to tell Ron's people. Anyway, on the site, the press secretary and other people listed didn't seem to have direct email links. He is active duty, and is accutely aware of how broken our air community is right now in a particular service. He was wondering if Ron is getting any info/briefs from the military community. Not just say from retired guys, but from some that have been in a while and are still active right now. Obviously unclassified, but still, he could use some talking points on the situation that are more specific. McCain is out to lunch right now with the military. I don't think half the military has really figured it out themselves yet to be honest. There are decisions that have been made for these surges whose cost will be coming soon. We are to the point that we would not advise our children to go in if they were older, and he was brutally honest with someone we do know considering joining and going air (after hearing, he took a pass). We do still think it is an honorable profession, with some very talented individuals in many areas of the military. However, he will be leaving/retiring the community in 2-6 yrs, and we see that what those behind us are inheriting is a mess....thanks to our overcommittments everywhere. We need to bring our troops home, and then start replenishing our parts, supplies and allow for training again so we have an actually defense for our country.

  19. #18

    Default

    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".

    Translation... they don't have enough troops to go door to door disarming us and relocating us to those new camps they are building.
    If you try to be everything to everybody, you'll end up being nothing to nobody.

  20. #19

    Default

    I might be the minority, but I do not want to see the military patrolling our streets "protecting" us from boogeymen. I can protect myself.
    .
    "Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won."
    - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  21. #20

    Default

    Your not in the minority here. Troops are NOT supposed to be used to "police" here or at abroad. During attacks of any kind we should not be stripped of our arms, our belongings, or our dignity. We shouldn't be forced with innoculations either. We shouldn't be placed into a "herd" mentality in the time of crisis. We should still retain our rights, or what is the whole point of fighting?

    However, we do need to bring the troops home to help protect our borders and fly our borders imo as I do not think if we are serious about border patrol, that the current border patrol can't do it alone. Plus, wasn't the military really supposed to be the border patrol (defending our nation) when not overseas? We need to merge the two when we are not at war (to help aid border patrol, not replace them), and then be able to have a plan to break out the active duty component to war if we need to go overseas as a nation to protect ourselves (not nation building).

    On another note....did anyone catch this article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/mil...rss_topstories ? I'm so outraged. Leave it to CNN to cast doubt on our men and women returning from overseas about their mental stability. Read it, read between the lines, it is a smear piece, not as much about calling for help like it says.

    My husband says it is brilliant, as how can you then say "I want to be less safe" and ditch programs that they place on service members in the name of "good". However, they are getting bogged down in do good programs that, while helping a few, hurt many in tying up their precious time. A lot of these programs steal time away from their jobs and from their families. The answer isn't more mental health aid, but less deployments for nation building. And, btw, notice that although they say suicides have risen, they are still lower than the general population....and the statistic may be very faulty as while they have risen, so have the amount of people in war time because of the surge.....I'm guessing if an unbiased study was really done, we'd find it has risen very little all things considered.

    Now the government, like much of the general population, is alienating military members. The last thing they need is the government trying to screen them all for mental unstability. I feel we are headed into a situation where people will be looking at all returning from war as potentially unstable with PTSD, when actually that still affects very few. They mentioned self-inflicted gun shot wounds. Well, with the new legislation restricting gun ownership to vets that suffer from PTSD (and vaguely written from what I heard), are they then going to start restricting all military from owning guns unless they are screened first? We are heading down a slippery slope. If they disarm those who know how to use guns best, what is stopping them from sending in others to peoples' homes eventually to get the rest? Military members and their families should retain the right to bear arms to protect their families and homes. They should not have to prove themselves to keep this right.

    Why does Ron Paul have so much support from the military? Because we are waking up...not just to the nation building, but also to the hostile way our government would like to truly treat us. Don't even get me started on the lobbying going on to the Pentagon to try to use RFID in sub-dermal implantable form or tattoo to track our men and women as "assets". Military members are bound by oath (which they all take very seriously) to serve, regardless of administration. They are also restricted in their speech and rights by taking that oath. However, there is coming a point where the government will overstep its' bounds (like calling for RFID chips or tattoos), and then I would not be surprised if people leave in droves. Let me be very clear, I am not talking about violence at all here. I'm merely saying you can't treat your troops this way and have them continue to fight non-stop. They have rights too. We have already seen a lot of our peers leave (between stop losses that is...), unfortunately many of the most talented have already left. We are trying to stick around, because the young ones coming in need good training and leaders, but it will become harder to stay if the current attitudes prevail (from both do gooders on left and right). We are watching very closely right now...
    Last edited by bj72; 02-03-2008 at 03:07 PM. Reason: typo

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iwantchange View Post
    Yep, and while the military is spread all over the world. There are hardly any troops right here in America to defend us from an attack. All offense and no defense spells trouble. we're leaving our king wide open for checkmate
    Not only that, but we don't have a goaltender to block the empty net..

    I am serious when I say the powers that be are probably planning an attack on US soil to show people terrorism is still a huge threat. This way they can brainwash more people into wanting more wars overseas, and making more money for the elite (and not us) fulfilling their agenda.

  23. #22

    Default

    Are we ready?
    Hell no.

    Many people don't take into consideration the 12 to 18 million illegal alien invaders already in place here.
    Mexican truckers are now moving freely across the nation.
    One 53' van could move quite a pile of small arms into the country where they could be stockpiled throughout awaiting issue.
    Could they be awaiting orders?
    From La Raza? Chavez?
    If you heard that that was the plan would you believe it? Maybe some would, but most would not. That info would be relegated to tin foil hat discussions and promptly dismissed.
    If the Supreme Court comes back with an unfavorable ruling on the 2nd amendment we could very well be left as sitting ducks after the initial gun confiscations.
    A sweeping early AM assault even with primitive weapons, machetes and such would be devastating in possibly just one night.
    Our government is not taking this possibility into consideration.
    Our police could not respond to a sweeping nationwide attack such as this. They are good at handling isolated calls but they could not respond with the force required to stop a wide scale attack.
    Remember the two guys that terrorized L.A. a few years back?
    Imagine that on a scale of 12 to 18 million nationwide.
    We are not prepared at all, especially with our own government basically undermining the 2nd amendment and attempting to Disarm its citizens.
    We are the Militia.
    We must remain vigilant and armed.
    To the teeth.

  24. #23

    Default

    Diesler

    There are meds for your condition. Try them and try to enjoy your life and remember...live and let live.

    Long live insurgents.....and remember that insurgents are technically by definition freedom fighters trying to throw off the yolk of invaders. So......are Americans insurgents because they want to stop illegals from invading their country? Yes. Are Iraqis, bless their souls, insurgents trying to get rid of invaders in their land? Yes again. Now, what part of that don't YOU understand?

    Seriously.....you need to take a vacation in some country where guns are outlawed and where crime is much less of a problem because the government gives drug dealers the death penalty and gets users into re-hab. You Americas down there have had personal firearms for years and your crime just gets worse and now America is an armed camp. WHY????

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vancouverite90210 View Post
    You Americas down there have had personal firearms for years and your crime just gets worse and now America is an armed camp. WHY????
    I'll give you a hint: it's not because people have the right to own guns. Use your small Canadian brain and try to figure out for yourself why things have become worse here, if you can.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vancouverite90210 View Post
    Diesler

    There are meds for your condition. Try them and try to enjoy your life and remember...live and let live.

    Long live insurgents.....and remember that insurgents are technically by definition freedom fighters trying to throw off the yolk of invaders. So......are Americans insurgents because they want to stop illegals from invading their country? Yes. Are Iraqis, bless their souls, insurgents trying to get rid of invaders in their land? Yes again. Now, what part of that don't YOU understand?

    Seriously.....you need to take a vacation in some country where guns are outlawed and where crime is much less of a problem because the government gives drug dealers the death penalty and gets users into re-hab. You Americas down there have had personal firearms for years and your crime just gets worse and now America is an armed camp. WHY????
    Hey Asshat from Canada
    I live and let live everyday just fine and drug free.
    Do you need a drug for everything?
    Did you think I was talking about Americans carrying out an attack like that?
    I was talking about the 12 to 18 million illegal invaders attacking us in our weakened state.
    And I didn't say a damn thing about Iraq. Whats that about?
    American citizens are not insurgents. We are Sovereign citizens with rights and
    I stated a very possible scenario that my fellow Americans and I might possibly face on our own sovereign soil.
    Our armed citizens are our only defending force at this time in the face of wide spread hostility.
    Disarmament is not an option we can afford.
    If I were you I would worry about being disarmed by the Queen in my own country, which you already are, rather than sticking my nose in the business of the American people who still have the inalienable God given right to own and bear firearms.
    Oh yeah,
    When we finally get enough of this shit down here we will probably run these invading bastards north across your borders because it will be a hell of a lot easier to run them toward your no firearms bearing ass than trying to run them back through Mexico.
    Its just a thought pal. You might want to consider it.
    As far as crime getting worse here goes, 12 to 18 million illegal invaders will tend to cause that to rise a bit.
    Last edited by Dieseler; 02-04-2008 at 09:53 PM.

  27. #26

    Default

    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% cheaper than active duty troops.

    The national guard also gets less training and higher death rates in Iraq because of the cutbacks in training. This sounds penny wise and pound foolish.

    Here is what Colonel Hackworth had to say.

    http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...5.963958799796

    http://www.hackworth.com/archive.html

  28. #27

    Default

    Primbs,

    Good post. This is why my dh is probably gonna stick it out in the active duty instead of finishing out with the reserves or guard. Training has suffered at the active duty level, but it is still better for the most part than the reserves. If he finds an active duty slot at a reserve squadron, I'd want it to be a non-deploying (few and far between...but there are some), or really research the squadron's record and capabilities before considering jumping over.

    Hey, I ran into this a while back while researching RFID and Real ID. http://www.ddj.com/embedded/192204845 (RFID for military members, “VeriChip Wants To Test Human Implantable RFID On Military”) There were several articles in different trade magazines that mentioned this...then nothing. Are they still in talks? Anybody know if there have been any updates on this front I've missed?

  29. #28

    Default

    The Joint Chiefs of staff agrees that the forces lack proper training.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080206/D8UKPL900.html

  30. #29
    The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click

    "All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
    Thomas Jefferson
    June 1826



    Rock The World!
    USAF Veteran






« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •