Good point Kula. I still think it's apples and oranges though - comparing the number of troops actually at the post to the total number in service. It makes no real sense as you couldn't possibly deploy anywhere close to all the people in service in any case.
Dd
Kerry blows Agent's cover?
-
Ddrak
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17516
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
-
Torakus
- Ignore me, I am drunk again
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:04 am
Embar,
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm
The numbers might be different because I pulled the Sept. 04 data and there has been a rotation and augment since then, unfortunately the only newer source with accurate numbers is on a .smil site and for some weird reason is classified. But the Sept. numbers were close enough to not make too much difference.
Ddrak,
You are correct in saying that more than the 10-12% Iraq may be part of Partha's contention. The problem is, when people add those numbers up, they are including supply and administrative support personnel in the states, who would still be doing exactly what they are doing today, Iraq or not. They are not deployable personnel except under the most extreme circumstances. I am counted in their equations even though my whole purpose in life over the last three years was assessing ships preparing to deploy and reccommending whether or not to certify them in certain warfare areas so that they could deploy. That role, however, did not mean that I could not drop what I was doing and be reassigned to a ship if needed for some other conflict in some other area.
I think what they are trying to get at by saying half, is that we are at about 50% of our sustainable rotation rates. The way we do rotations is that we have 1 group in theatre, 1 group enroute to theatre, 1 group returning from theatre and 2 or more groups in various stages of training preparing for deployment to theatre. This is normal high optempo mode. Right now we have stepped that up into a mode called surge deployment. That means we have all of that, plus, if need arises we have additional groups, that would normally be in upkeep or maintanence phases in the training and preparation phases, shortening normal maint phases down to selective availabilities so that we can surge deploy a large number of groups all at once.
We aren't at a breaking point at all, we simply are at the max optempo we can sustain for surge deployment. If we had to fight another large scale action elsewhere, we would simply revert back to a high optempo, allocate assets to that and suck up the increased frequency of deployment and decreased stay time stateside. It would not be fun, it would dramatically affect moral force wide as well as recruiting Im sure, but it is doable. Though, I feel we may have drastically underestimated the length of surge requirement for OIF.
Ron
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm
The numbers might be different because I pulled the Sept. 04 data and there has been a rotation and augment since then, unfortunately the only newer source with accurate numbers is on a .smil site and for some weird reason is classified. But the Sept. numbers were close enough to not make too much difference.
Ddrak,
You are correct in saying that more than the 10-12% Iraq may be part of Partha's contention. The problem is, when people add those numbers up, they are including supply and administrative support personnel in the states, who would still be doing exactly what they are doing today, Iraq or not. They are not deployable personnel except under the most extreme circumstances. I am counted in their equations even though my whole purpose in life over the last three years was assessing ships preparing to deploy and reccommending whether or not to certify them in certain warfare areas so that they could deploy. That role, however, did not mean that I could not drop what I was doing and be reassigned to a ship if needed for some other conflict in some other area.
I think what they are trying to get at by saying half, is that we are at about 50% of our sustainable rotation rates. The way we do rotations is that we have 1 group in theatre, 1 group enroute to theatre, 1 group returning from theatre and 2 or more groups in various stages of training preparing for deployment to theatre. This is normal high optempo mode. Right now we have stepped that up into a mode called surge deployment. That means we have all of that, plus, if need arises we have additional groups, that would normally be in upkeep or maintanence phases in the training and preparation phases, shortening normal maint phases down to selective availabilities so that we can surge deploy a large number of groups all at once.
We aren't at a breaking point at all, we simply are at the max optempo we can sustain for surge deployment. If we had to fight another large scale action elsewhere, we would simply revert back to a high optempo, allocate assets to that and suck up the increased frequency of deployment and decreased stay time stateside. It would not be fun, it would dramatically affect moral force wide as well as recruiting Im sure, but it is doable. Though, I feel we may have drastically underestimated the length of surge requirement for OIF.
Ron
-
Embar Angylwrath
- President: Rsak Fan Club
- Posts: 11674
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
- Location: Top of the food chain
Thanks Torakus,
The numbers I had showed about 25,000 Marines deployed in Iraq, another 4,000 in Ahfghanistan (for 29K current in the mid-east), and about 5,000 more to be deployed by August of this year, for a total of about 34K boots on the ground in the mid-east, 29K in Iraq specifically.
The numbers I had showed about 25,000 Marines deployed in Iraq, another 4,000 in Ahfghanistan (for 29K current in the mid-east), and about 5,000 more to be deployed by August of this year, for a total of about 34K boots on the ground in the mid-east, 29K in Iraq specifically.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar
Alarius
Embar
Alarius
-
Partha
- Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
- Posts: 11322
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
- Location: Rockford, IL
Re:
Apologies for the unclear statement. Torakus got at it much better than I did, after he got rid of the snark. I also still maintain that there is no way for us to consider another major offensive action at this time, however you want to define the deployment. Tangling with Iran or North Korea would require a hell of a lot more effort than Iraq did, and at the same time continue to meet our other needs is not viable either economically or manpower wise, unless you're talking about turning Air Force and Navy personnel into plain old grunts, and I don't see that being a reasonable solution.