Day before yesterday. Dallas Morning News carried the story.
ARMY TO HIT LOW FOR READINESS
"Four Army Divisions - 40 percent of the active-duty force - won't be fully ready for combat for up to six months next year, leaving the nation short in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or eleswhere, an Army official said Friday."</font>[/QUOTE]You obviously skipped over the part that said, "The four divisions in question - the 3rd Infantry Division, the 101st Airborne Division, the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Armored Division - all were at the highest rating for combat, known in Army circles as C-1, when they went to Iraq during the past year...
...The lower readiness levels are expected to last from four to six months, partly because of the repair and replacement of equipment, such as the divisions' hundreds of helicopters and thousands of tanks, Humvees and other vehicles.
Also, troops have to be retrained in their required combat skills, such as firing tank rounds. For the occupation duty in Iraq, some soldiers have traded their tanks for Humvees to patrol Iraqi streets. Now they must become proficient again at their usual military jobs.
Another factor is that, after one-year duty in Iraq, the soldiers need time off to spend with their families, the official said. Moreover, the 101st Airborne and the 3rd Infantry divisions are each being reorganized from three brigades to four or five brigades as part of an Army experiment to increase the combat power of the divisions. That reorganization will also affect readiness.
The official likened the rebuilding of the military equipment to a 50,000-mile checkup on the family car, an effort to "extend the life" of tanks and helicopters. But the official noted that the tanks and helicopters are operating, and that the soldiers from the divisions could be sent overseas to a potential hotspot such as Korea.
So here, in the portion of the article you conveniently left out, we see that the reduction in readiness isn't related to neglect on the part of the Bush Administration but simply a period of resupply, more training and a chance for the soldiers to catch their breath, all of which is perfectly normal after coming off a long term deployment.
Next time you quote an article, please don't insult our intelligence by quoting it so grossly out of context. It's just too easy to find it now with computers and show that you were lying.
[qb]
I guess you missed the part of the article where he said, "the soldiers from the divisions could be sent overseas to a potential hotspot such as Korea.
If something happened somewhere else, we would send them,"
I guess you also missed Michael O'Hanlon's quote in the article: "Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said there was no cause for alarm with the Army's decreased combat worthiness.
"While the readiness ratings are 'worth watching, they can be somewhat arbitrary and misleading. For example, a few dozen broken tanks might lower a division's rating. Those tanks could likely be fixed quickly in an emergency".
Again, you're taking us for a bunch of idiots. As anyone who takes the time to read the article for themselves can plainly see, the article explains that C-3 or C-$ does not mean that they aren't ready to fight in a major regional war, but that "said the divisions will slip to C-3, meaning the unit "may need help" completing its mission, or C-4, defined as being able to complete "some or little" of their combat mission. In fact, the spokesman goes on to say, ""If something happened somewhere else, we would send them," the official said. "There's risk [but] it's a manageable risk."
And as I've explained to you already, and as would be clear to anyone who actually takes the time to read the article, these things are not due to neglect on the part of the Bush Admin, but as a natural result of the regrouping process that takes place after any long term deployment. Or, as the spokesman says in the article, "It's a fact of life".
Oh, so then the fact that it had nothing to do with base closings proves that it was all about base closings. Interesting logic.
Ah, yes, the old Haliburton conspiracy theories. Right up there with Ruby Ridge and "black helicopters." You've been listening to a little too much Art Bell.
Hackworth may have a point, had this had anything even remotely to do with base closings but there's a bigger issue here, since you brought it up. Hackworth says that the 4 bil is enough to "maintain four 15,000-person combat divisions at a razor's edge of preparedness", yet, as we see from the information I provided, coming, with two exeptions, from Clinton's own people, not only were they not "at a razor's edge of preparedness", they were in shambles.
What happened to that "razor's edge of preparedness"?
I know you think you're being cute and that we're supposed to understand that you mean Bush here, but, as you can see from the Hackworth piece you quoted this was all supposed to have happened six years before Bush even took office.
Sorry, but as the information I gave you clearly shows, it has nothing to do with base closings.
Actually, I haven't. The two have nothing to do with one another.
Actually, it's not a slur against them at all, but lamenting the fact that Clinton would send our brave men and women into harm's way (when there weren't even American interests there) and then allow the military that they depended on for theur saftey and very lives to fall into what his own people described as a state of disrepair.
Oh, so then basically what you're saying is that we're the tallest midget in the circus: we might have have crappy equipment, but their was crappier.
Honestly? It took four requests for you to post that article and then when you did, you posted it grossly out of context and we found that it didn't say anything resembling what you wanted us to believe it did, so I'm not holding my breath.
See above. You got caught taking that article woefully out of context in order to prop us your failing argument.
Actually, I said nothing about base closings. In fact, I've pointed out (and anyone can see this from the information I've posted) that it's not about base closings. The stats and statement's from Clinton's own spokespeople say that we're talking about day to day operational budgets.
Look, you can bang the "base closing" drum all you want. In fact, please do. It just shows that your argument is so weak that you have to introduce non-sequiter into the argument to distract is from your failure to bac kup your position.
I believe this is what is called "lying". I've never said anything about the Balkans and anyone who reads my posts can see this. Once again, you've been caught.
You haven't demonstrated that "twice as many divisions unprepared". According to the article you posted, the spokesman calls this routine maintenance. In fact, he goes on to describe it as nothing more serious than the military equivilent of a "50,000 mile checkup on the family car".
[ December 11, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]
