Assignment to Germany during peacetime isn't exactly comparable to deployment to a war zone. Hell, they send family members along with you. (I know; I went twice with dad and once when I served.)

Since WWII, we have not gone the "for the duration" route.

In a new sign of mounting strain from the war in Iraq, the Army has extended the combat tours of about 4,000 soldiers who would otherwise be returning home, defense officials said Monday. The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, which is operating in the vicinity of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, will be kept in place for several weeks beyond its scheduled departure, the officials said.

Several weeks! OMG The Horror, The Horror!

I am beginning to see a pattern here. Current deployment in foreign countries is one year, whether that deployment is in active combat areas or not (my nephew was stationed in Kosovo for one year in 2001 and he was NOT in an active combat area). During the cold war I was stationed in Germany for 18 months. My dad told me that he was in Hawaii for 4 years during WWII, and he was stationed in a chemical weapons battalion (not a combat unit)! What will happen in the next 20 years, will overseas deployment be reduced to 6 months or less?

What ever happened to "for the duration of the war"? Does it make sense to constantly replace experienced troops with those that need 6 months of training before deployment? Dose it make sense to remove troops that, with their experience, have the best chance of survival in combat areas and replace them with troops that, due to their lack of experience, have a lesser chance of survival? Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

We also need to realise that if the government funded the military as according to the stated need of the military, our defence budget would be at least triple of what is provided. When is the last time any group or organizations has claimed that they have received adequate funding from any government, let alone the military?

It's true that the military is underfunded, but that's a function of Congress, not the Administration. Remember that this is America and in America the President purposes, Congress disposes. Congress sets the budget in America, not the President. This is stated in the Constitution, is it not?

The Constitution also states that Congress must authorise the use of military force in places like Iraq, which is exactly what happened, and I'm tired of hearing that this is Bush's war. It's not just Bush's war, it's Congress's war too!

the Services do NOT fight the wars, though the USAF likes to pretend they do at times, see SAC

Ah....but SAC was a "Specified Command," which was a USAF component command AND a Combatant Command. When the Cold War ended, SAC and the Specified Commands went away and now all the combatant commands are "joint" Unified Commands.

DC Loser - ex-SAC Trained Killer

BUT, if he feels strongly enough that those orders are wrong (illegal, incompetent, etc.), he can (and has a moral, and sometimes legal, resonsibility to) put his own backside on the line and go "up the chain" to a higher authority. That sounds like what Schoomaker's doing now - so long as he does it professionally, good on him.

Shinsiki ran into a similar problem. How do you submit a budget to Congress that is obviously bad. Realize the heads of the military branches are in the political game too. Gen. Schoomaker would be ripped apart in Congressional testimony. There is a balance between Civilian control of the military, and blindly obeying orders.

I've linked to you here.

Right now TFM is reading Thomas Ricks' Fiasco. Before anyone writes this book off as liberal propaganda, let me note that Bing West gave Fiasco an excellent review for the National Review of all publications.

What I'm saying is this war looks more...

But in recent budget negotiations, Army officials argued that the service's EXPANDING GLOBAL ROLE in the U.S.-declared WAR ON TERRORISM — outlined in strategic plans issued this year — as well as fast-growing personnel and equipment costs tied to the Iraq war, have put intense pressure on its normal budget.

That only liberal queers count the cost of liberty?

I would say you have to first determine if the current action contributes to liberty, but if the shoe fits...

What do you mean they've passed these things off for a lame duck session because they are too busy with partisan bickering and getting reelected?

We get the politicians we deserve, just register and vote for whoever it is that might accomplish more than posing and promises. Thanks.