• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Military Unprepared for Domestic Threats

A

Anonymous

Guest
Trillions $ being spent in Iraq to make Iraqis safe- citizens Constitutional rights being stripped under the guise of Homeland Security- Billions $ being spent in corporate bought out "Homeland Security Pork" - and building the biggest farce bureaucracy ever---but the folks that should be here training and getting ready to protect the homeland have been stripped to go to Iraq and fight GW's misplanned war- and in turn have made their capability to handle domestic threats/catastrophes appallingly inadequate...

Doesn't surprise me a bit...This Administration has totally and arrogantly forgot about the US populace in their desire to build their legacy Democracy in Iraq....
:(

Report: Military Unprepared for Domestic Threats


By Ann Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 31, 2008; 2:24 PM

The U.S. military's reserves and National Guard forces are not prepared to meet catastrophic threats at home and face an "appalling" shortage of forces able to respond to chemical, biological or nuclear strikes on U.S. soil, according to a congressional commission report released today.

The problem is rooted in severe readiness problems in the reserves and National Guard forces, which would be well-suited to respond to domestic crises but suffer from a lack of personnel and training as well as a $48 billion shortage of equipment, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves said in the report.

"Because the nation has not adequately resourced its forces designated for response to weapons of mass destruction, it does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available. This is an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk," the report said.

National Guard readiness has continued to slide since March, when the commission found that 88 percent of Army National Guard units were rated "not ready," commission Chairman Arnold L. Punaro said.

"We think there is an appalling gap in readiness for homeland defense because it will be the Guard and reserve that have to respond for these things," Punaro said in an interview.

The commission's report concluded that the Pentagon and Congress must act to transform and upgrade the nation's military reserves into an operational force with many of the same capabilities as the active duty forces. The military also must carry out the same kind of exhaustive contingency planning for domestic attacks and catastrophes that it does for developments overseas, according to the 400-page report, which includes 95 recommendations.

"You shouldn't be dealing with WMD [weapons of mass destruction] scenarios with 52 pickup," said Punaro. "It needs to be part of the deliberative planning process."

The commission criticized steps taken so far by the Defense Department and Congress to create an operational reserve force as "reactive" and "timid," saying there had been no serious debate on a matter vital to national security.

Fully training, equipping and manning the military's reserves to create units that can operate interchangeably with active duty counterparts will require greater funding, Punaro said. But he said the reserves are highly cost effective, today contributing about 44 percent of U.S. military personnel but consuming only about 9 percent of the Pentagon budget.

"It's a food fight over resources going on right now," Punaro said. "DOD can't have it both ways. They can't say they want it, but" only if "we don't have to pay for it."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is receptive to the commission's proposals, and Punaro said he expects a "quick turnaround" on the latest recommendations. He praised Gates as a "bureaucracy buster" who embraced most of the preliminary proposals made by the commission in March.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, nearly 600,000 reservists have served in operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or other countries as part of the anti-terrorism campaign. The use of reservists, measured in man days, rose more than five-fold, according to the report.

Without a strong reserve force, the nation more likely would have to resort to a draft, which would be unfeasible politically and militarily, Punaro said.

Established in 2005, the commission is composed of 12 members, including Punaro, a retired two-star Marine Corps general, and several other former military officers.
 

Steve

Well-known member
"Because the nation has not adequately resourced its forces designated for response to weapons of mass destruction, it does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available. This is an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk," the report said.

National Guard readiness has continued to slide since March, when the commission found that 88 percent of Army National Guard units were rated "not ready," commission Chairman Arnold L. Punaro said.

Back when Clinton gutted the military and shifted the active jobs to the reserves.. many in the military felt it was a dire mistake..

many of those career soldiers that were forced out wouild have been "training their reliefs", and the shortfalls would not be as much of an impact..

It should only take congresss a few days to correct this..

add the money and increase the military...

both would also help the economy..

wonder why McCain isn't addressing this now.. or Hillery,.. or Obama.. ????
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Steve said:
wonder why McCain isn't addressing this now.. or Hillery,.. or Obama.. ????
Because it is neither simple or easy. The "peace dividend " that Clinton took advantage of had been planned by both Reagan and Bush as a result of what everyone thought would be a world peace since the USSR had disappeared. Clinton did not feel that it would take a massive military buildup to contain Iraq/Saddam, that localized terrorists could be kept off balance by local government pressure (remember, Clinton kept pressure on Bin Laden, and after the first world trade center bombing, Al Qaeda ONLY attacked places in Nairobi or in the Persian Gulf), and that a contained Iraq could keep Iran in check. Additional pressure and combat efforts would have been made, except for the resistance the Right made when Clinton bombed Bin Laden's chemical plant. It was not felt that a massive military operation, a long term occupation of another country would be in the future. It took a moron like dubya to require one of the most massive infusions of troops, to decide, unilaterally (when you lie to your people so you can get support for a misbegotten adventure, it is a unilateral decision), to occupy a country and plan to remain in country for decades into the future.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I'll say it again.....GW and Saddam are more alike than they are different.

Big egos

Had people around them believing one thing while the truth was something else

People around him we in ' awe' of him and dared not go against him

Did I say big egos?

Both wanted to take over ( and did) countries that did nothing to them
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
I'll say it again.....GW and Saddam are more alike than they are different.

Big egos

Had people around them believing one thing while the truth was something else

People around him we in ' awe' of him and dared not go against him

Did I say big egos?

Both wanted to take over ( and did) countries that did nothing to them

And neither one seemed to care about or what their populace thought...Spending more on their pursuit of their conquests, than they did on their own countries infrastructure or welfare of their citizens...
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Spending more on their pursuit of their conquests, than they did on their own countries infrastructure or welfare of their citizens...

Careful there. Safeguards and Classified information doesn't go out to the media. An awful lot has been done on the homefront post 911. There has been an awful lot of private industry investment too.
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
Spending more on their pursuit of their conquests, than they did on their own countries infrastructure or welfare of their citizens...

well that explains Clinton... why on earth would you want more of his miscalulations... if that was Clinton's plan.. then Clinton was wrong.. Bin Ladin was not contained.. in fact he was planning the worst attack on our soil in the hstory of our country whil Clinton was in pursuit of conquests..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OldTimer
Spending more on their pursuit of their conquests, than they did on their own countries infrastructure or welfare of their citizens...

well that explains Clinton... why on earth would you want more of his miscalulations... if that was Clinton's plan.. then Clinton was wrong.. Bin Ladin was not contained.. in fact he was planning the worst attack on our soil in the hstory of our country whil Clinton was in pursuit of conquests..

Clinton at least had the two bit type of conquests instead of the multi Trillion dollar ones GW has..... :wink:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Steve said:
. Bin Ladin was not contained.. in fact he was planning the worst attack on our soil in the hstory of our country whil Clinton was in pursuit of conquests..
But he chose to do it under the Bush administration........ever wonder why? Bush has brought more recruits to Al Qaeda than all the prior attacks combined.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Steve said:
. Bin Ladin was not contained.. in fact he was planning the worst attack on our soil in the hstory of our country whil Clinton was in pursuit of conquests..
But he chose to do it under the Bush administration........ever wonder why? Bush has brought more recruits to Al Qaeda than all the prior attacks combined.

Do you have proof of that other than what the press tells us? are you privy to information that the rest of us are not?
Seems like some of you have access to some very high intellignece reports that are top secret!
Or are you just spouting your mouth off to hear hear the wind roar?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Steve said:
. Bin Ladin was not contained.. in fact he was planning the worst attack on our soil in the hstory of our country whil Clinton was in pursuit of conquests..
But he chose to do it under the Bush administration........ever wonder why?


Not really...

But if you want an answer..

While it would be speculation.. and a mistake on Osama's part..

Osama believed the same polls you quote.. poll's that said Gore would be in office..

while Gore was not elected.. .. given that he was 9 years into his plan.. and nothing really changed.. he went forward..

Osama and Saddam both miscalculated Bush's actions...

Both expected the same bomb a village,..then ignore the problem action, they had seen from the the past president..

WE now know saddam miscalculated in his bluff against US...

but until Osama tells his story to an American interrogator... we'll never know why he was stupid enough to want to bring the wrath of the US upon himself...
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Smaller cities are now getting funds. The news just mentioned Galveston and another smaller city in Texas getting 31 million in federal money.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Steve said:
. Bin Ladin was not contained.. in fact he was planning the worst attack on our soil in the hstory of our country whil Clinton was in pursuit of conquests..
But he chose to do it under the Bush administration........ever wonder why? Bush has brought more recruits to Al Qaeda than all the prior attacks combined.

Simple. Usama went on trial in the US in 2001. Bush just happened to be the pres then.

It didn't matter who was sitting at the time.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/binladen20501tt.pdf
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Steve said:
Goodpasture said:
Steve said:
. Bin Ladin was not contained.. in fact he was planning the worst attack on our soil in the hstory of our country whil Clinton was in pursuit of conquests..
But he chose to do it under the Bush administration........ever wonder why?


Not really...

But if you want an answer..

While it would be speculation.. and a mistake on Osama's part..

Osama believed the same polls you quote.. poll's that said Gore would be in office.. *** They have TV, cable and CNN in the rest of the world...not just ' jersey'!!



while Gore was not elected.. .. given that he was 9 years into his plan.. and nothing really changed.. he went forward.. [/u]*** They have cell phones in the rest of the world also!!! He could have called and said..."NO"


Osama and Saddam both miscalculated Bush's actions...

Both expected the same bomb a village,..then ignore the problem action, they had seen from the the past president..

WE now know saddam miscalculated in his bluff against US
but until Osama tells his story to an American interrogator... we'll never know why he was stupid enough to want to bring the wrath of the US upon himself...
 

Latest posts

Top