General: U.S. Has Troops to Fight N. Korea

[bemildred]

It's Howdy Doody time, the general says what he has been instructed to say.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's top officer said Thursday that the Pentagon would have sufficient forces to win if called on to fight a war in North Korea, but the conflict would be more difficult without the intelligence and guidance systems devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that about 200,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving more than 2 million troops available for a war in Asia.

Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be "as clean as we would like," he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East.

"You wouldn't have the precision in combat going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war," Pace told a group of military reporters. "You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force."

Who would expect "brute force" in a land war ...

LA Times

[wtmusic]

1. Brute force = more civilian deaths

I guess we'll just have to be less worried about civ casualties :eyes:

[wholetruth00]

45. He means we have the bombs and missiles to fight N. Korea.

[Toots]

47. LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Can tell you never served in the military..

[wtmusic]

55. "You wouldn't have the precision in combat

going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war," Pace told a group of military reporters. "You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force."

Tell us from your unique perspective what else that's supposed to mean. :eyes:

[bluestateguy]

2. You would need a draft for another war

nt

[TheBaldyMan]

53. You need the draft just to stabilise Iraq, ca. 1/2 million troops more

This does not count Afghanistan, let alone Iran (remember them?) and N. Korea.

IMHO Gen. Press-Release is bumping his gums. There is worn out equipment to replace, stores to be found, troops to transport. This would cost a LOT of money, money that the US doesn't have.

The Bush admin has to face facts, they are not fighting either of the current offensives adequately. Another of Rummy's fantasy WWIII-lite adventures will be doomed to failure.

[Divernan]

3. This should provoke angry response from all recently retired Generals

Admirals, and other high-ranking officers, who have publicly stated that the U.S. Military is already stretched beyond the breaking point.

[allisonthegreat]

8. My sentiments exactly n/t

[RedEarth]

4. That must be music to george's ears......

.............

[Tempest]

5. When has Pace ever been right?

Everything he's said about Iraq has been completely wrong.

[Lasher]

6. Oh good, we'll just lob a few salvos from our warships.

But the Navy might be just a little shorthanded because we've been deploying our sailors as ground troops in Iraq. We could always hire more mercenaries for that. Money is no object.

And after that we'll fly over North Korea and drop a few bombs. That'll fix 'em. Not smart bombs, mind you, just the stupid ones. We've used up all the smart ones in Junior's Iraq adventure.

Then all of our soldiers who are stationed in South Korea can just sit tight and everything will be okey fine.

Now where have we employed this strategy before?

[katinmn]

7. 2 million troops avaiable for war in NK? Gee, I bet those

serving their 3rd and 4th rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan would like to know WTF they been hiding!

[elehhhhna]

14. NO SHIT WHERE ARE THERE 2 Million troops? Chile? Are they US troops?

[IndianaGreen]

54. They will have to call up all the reserves and National Guard

and even some old farts like me, either that, or General Pace is talking about armies made of lead soldiers.

[lpbk2713]

9. Sure we do.

If they call up all males and females between the ages of 15 and 75 who have a barely audible pulse.

[LynnTheDem]

10. And enough to fight SOUTH Korea too?

No, general "I'm an asshole & the troops think I'm a lunatic" pace, you do not have enough troops to fight & win against North Korea.

You don't even have enough to fight & win against pissant little defenseless nations like Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's a damned fine reason most US troops despise general pace.

[ChicagoRonin]

11. South Korea

Good thing that there's all those South Koreans in the way to take the casualities that won't be suffered by US air and naval forces.

I have a lot of family in Seoul. The idea of the US even suggesting any military action on the Korean peninsula steams me bad.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Yes, the South Korean factor

North Korea is right north of South Korea, which

1) Has plenty of people whose family members have emigrated to the U.S.

2) Is one of the world's major industrial powers

3) Has plenty of people with close relatives (parents, siblings, children) in North Korea

4) Would inevitably suffer any spillover from a U.S. attack on North Korea, so, for example, if the U.S. nuked North Korea, the South Koreans would almost certainly be severely affected by radiation

5) Has been making gradual overtures to the North to allow family visits and limited trade and tourism between the two halves of the peninsula

[xchrom]

12. lol -- dayum -- now THAT'S a whopper!

[leftchick]

13. lol!

I want what he is smokin!

:smoke:

[atreides1]

15. Pace is on drugs

Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components (456,000 of which are in the Army and Air National Guard).




What Pace isn't saying is that the majority of those bodies are not combat troops, the equipment they have is substandard, the amount of available ammunition cannot sustain a long term fight, and that those units probably consist of troops that have already been deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Besides, if the North came over the border, the US doesn't have the transportation assets to get enough troops there in the time before they surround Seoul.

Pace is truly becoming the 21st century version of Wilhelm Keitel.

'In September 1942 Keitel and Alfred Jodl defended Field Marshal Siegmund List against the criticisms of Adolf Hitler. This resulted in Jodl being sacked and for many months afterwords Hitler refused to shake hands with Keitel. This was the last time that Keitel was to challenge Hitler's military decisions. He was now referred to by other officers as "Lakaitel" (the nodding ass).'

Now doesn't Pace remind you of a "nodding ass"?

[bemildred]

16. "Nodding ass" is good.

The general puts his career ahead of his loyalty to his nation and his subordinates.

[matcom]

17. When I was in the Army....

we referred to those stationed on the DMZ as a 'Speed Bump' if NK ever decided to invade SK

[jayfish]

18. Ummm, How Many Of Those Supposed 2Mil...

are combat troops?

Jay

[IndianaGreen]

62. How many of them are in inactive reserves?

I can see a bunch of middle age men and women being yanked from their civilian lives to fight North Korea. What's next, Junior ROTC?

[maddezmom]

19. kick

[CatWoman]

20. General: U.S. Has Troops to Fight N. Korea

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's top officer said Thursday that the Pentagon would have sufficient forces to win if called on to fight a war in North Korea, but the conflict would be more difficult without the intelligence and guidance systems devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that about 200,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving more than 2 million troops available for a war in Asia.

Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be "as clean as we would like," he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East.

"You wouldn't have the precision in combat going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war," Pace told a group of military reporters. "You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pace13oct13,1,7265599.story?coll=la-headlines-world

[Kagemusha]

21. General: "...Just not on the ground."

Makes much more sense when a sarcastic poster fills in the rest.

[wtmusic]

28. Ex-actly

We have plenty of bombers, plenty of pilots. Let them fall where they may.

[KittyWampus]

22. All Right DUDES! GO FOR IT!

:puke:

how pathetic is it that Pace has to put out this Soviet style crap to stick a shriveled fig leaf over the US military's over extension and weakness.

[TomClash]

23. Rumsfeld the ventriloquist is at it again nt.

[Erika]

24. Is he agreeing with freepers? Just nuke all our enemies?

General Pace has lost credibility as a military person, he's a W puppet.

Of course, he realizes that Americans would never go for a draft.

[msongs]

25. NK has ONE million. how many does bush have who will die for him? nt

[Nihil]

57. Err .. how many is it in the SS detail these days? (n/t)

[DRoseDARs]

26. According to the CIA World Factbook, the only way to reach the 2mil...

...is through a reinstated draft.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males age 18-49: 2,143,873
females age 18-49: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)

[ninkasi]

27. These people are crazy

I don't know how else to describe it. We're losing in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and this general thinks we have the resources to fight a third war? I'm not going to be able to have a good night's sleep until Democrats have gotten control of at least one house of Congress. Sociopaths should never be installed as president of this country, nor should they be able to appoint their cronies into positions of power.

[hobbit709]

29. Think Gen. Pace

will be within spitting distance of the front anywhere in the world? I'll put money on him being behind his desk in his air conditioned Pentagon office. It's easy to talk big when your ass ain't the one getting shot at.

[Monkeyman]

30. What bullshit

GAO put out a report that said we have no combat ready units. Its getting deep

[Beetwasher]

31. Pfffft! I'll Take North Korea and Raise You Iran And Venezuela!!!!

Take that General! AND I'll bet we'll STILL have enough troops to take potshots at Canada! So there!

BRING 'EM ON I SAY!!! BRING 'EM ALL ON!!! :freak:

[CatWoman]

33. you so crazy

:rofl:

[Purveyor]

32. Article: US Fears 'Hell' Of A Response [if America attacked Pyongyang]

PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang.

-snip-

A report this week by US-based security and military analyst Stratfor predicts North Korea could return fire on Seoul with "several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour" -- with up to 25 per cent of shells filled with nerve gas.

Other estimates say the US would need at least 500,000 ground troops to secure against a North invasion of the South.

"When US military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea," the Stratfor analysis says.

-snip-

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20565819-661,00.html

[frylock]

34. squawk!

[NOLADEM]

35. In our nation's middle and elementary schools

He forgot that part.

What an ass.

I am so sick of our first response being to threaten war when we don't like something.

Hollow threats will end up teaching us the lesson once learned by the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

[Erika]

38. Agreed

What happened to the importance of mediation and validation of the other party's views. These are vital to resolutions.

W just put on his John Wayne cowboy hat and threatens to invade or bomb.

[niyad]

36. don't you get to retire medically if you are certifiably insane?

[sam sarrha]

37. this guy gets to retire with 7 figure income on the board of Halliburton.!

[Eurobabe]

39. GOP gets the promise = BUSH 2004 - Four MORE Wars

[Gregorian]

40. If they're such a threat let China take them on.

And it would take less gas to get there.


This country is insane!

Can we have health care please! I just can't imagine spending money we don't have while China looks on in amusement.

[teryang]

41. It's difficult to accept that our leadership is so f...king dumb

I guess China is just gonna sit by and do nothing while they wipe out 30 percent of the N.Korean population again.

China is a party to the Armistice. They don't want war, clearly, but they will defend their sphere of influence. We would lose a conventional war with China in northeast Asia.

[Vulture]

44. That is pretty much it

The geopolitical calculus is complicated. China definitely does not want the US military on their border, though some days North Korea really does turn into a liability as a client state. North Korea is China's problem to solve and the US treats it that way, but the US has the lever of a very modern militarized Japan with which to pressure China into controlling North Korea. A modern military Japan puts a serious crimp in China's geopolitical desires, and China still has a frankly third-rate military. Technology counts for a lot in modern conflict, the US can funnel vast quantities of very high-end weaponry to Japan (at a profit, of course), and even Europe is a generation behind, never mind the Chinese which are much further behind on the military technology curve.

In truth, the US probably would not lose an unbridled conventional war with China, but it would be extremely pointless (never mind expensive) to even engage in such a thing and China would be very reluctant to be in such a conflict. The Chinese government would fall long before such a thing was over. Ignoring the stupidity of it all, the battlefield calculus actually gives the US a very good chance if it was a battle for survival. The US has the advantage of a monster economy, the third largest population, a military capability without peer against a third-rate military (China), and an extremely high historical conversion rate on the battlefield. By the numbers, it looks very good for the US. But there is no political will for it in the foreseeable future and that is all that matters. The people that think the US will get in a military tussle with China in the near future are ignorant blowhards -- it isn't happening.

[teryang]

50. I disagree entirely

The US Armed Forces are currently far too small to engage the PLA. Our much vaunted technological superiority failed us in the last Korean conflict and in the Vietnam war. It is the PLA which is much more sophisticated now, particularly in terms of logistical infrastructure and communications. They would also be readily supplied with the most advanced weapons from Russia.

No power on the northeast asian mainland would accept Japanese military activities regardless of its rationalization.

[Vulture]

51. Say what?

In the Korean War, the US had no significant military technology advantage and they were fighting Russians and Chinese in addition to Koreans, and were outnumbered the entire time. And the US still managed a very high conversion ratio.

Your read of the Vietnamese War is factually incorrect. While the US did have somewhat superior technology by that time, the South was facing a force that had much greater numerical superiority. It is highly ironic that around the time the South had established a decisive upper hand and numerical superiority for the first time in the war after the catastrophic failure of the Tet offensive, the US Congress withdrew support on the basis that they did not trust the estimates of the military. An interesting historical fact is that, for once in that war, the US estimates presented to Congress were correct and corroborated by the North Vietnamese version of that history today. The North's military force was rapidly crumbling and damaged beyond repair when the US withdrew. But again, that was 40 years ago and not really indicative of anything today.

There has been no unbridled military contest against the US military since WW2, and the technological advantage the US has today is vastly superior to what it had even 20 years ago. And that does not solve the simple battlefield conversion ratio problem China will have, something Chinese military historians noted during the Korean war (and which they attributed to American cowardice). The difference between US and Chinese military technology today is qualitatively much larger than the difference between the US and Vietnam during that war.

Russian military technology will not help the Chinese, because it has been falling further and further behind. The Chinese would be better off with weaponry from Western Europe these days. China is buying weaponry from Russia today that would have suffered badly in a head-to-head duel with US systems 20 years ago, and the US is a full generation beyond most of those weapon systems. Russian military technology is only marginally better than it was in the 1980s, and it wasn't all that good then.

You are conflating a lot of unrelated and irrelevant things, and making an odd judgement of capability as a result. If it really came to a no-holds-barred conventional slugfest between the US and China, China would be on the losing end though it would be a very nasty war with a lot of casualties. The current size and state of the US military reflects its current missions, not its capability. China's only advantage is numerical superiority, but that has not counted for much in many decades and it is a small integer factor in any case. I suspect that in such a situation, China would actually lose the support of many of its outlying provinces, but that is a different matter.


And it does not matter if the Asian mainland "accepts" Japanese military activities -- they don't have a choice. Japan can do whatever it wants, being sovereign and with a very large economy, with a high degree of impunity. It is a point of argument in military circles as to whether or not Japan already has the second most powerful navy in the world, so no one (save the US) has a prayer of forcing them to do otherwise. The presence of the US military in the region is the primary thing that keeps Japan from militarizing more than it already has, so it could be argued that the US has done more to disallow militarization than the rest of Asia has.


None of which is a value judgement about any of this, and I do not really care in any case. Keeping a realistic perspective (sans spin), actually makes the actions of everyone make more sense. China would like to be the uncontested power in the region, but Japan will have no problem keeping parity in terms of military capability and they are motivated to do so. China will have to get over that fact eventually. The likely outcome is that Japan eventually becomes more overtly militarized, and the US continues to deal with the region at arms length. The good thing for the US is that its military will not be required to fill the power vacuum as the region's militaries ramp up enough to offer viable pushback on each other. The interesting question is whether or not a military conflict in the region will eventually result between those militaries.

[teryang]

58. You are simply dead wrong

We effectively lost both wars. Your list of rationalizations for those losses is labored.

[Vulture]

64. Scintillating refutation

"Is not!"

A trepanned chihuahua could make a more lucid effort to justify their interpretation of quantum physics.

Apparently you are opaque to nuance? The topic is certainly not one you know.

[daleo]

60. A land war in Asia would chew up the U.S. military quickly

Especially against China - that would be insane.

[Casablanca]

42. If what Gen. Pace is saying is true ...

... WHY IN THE WORLD would he tell this to the L.A. Times? Or does he think that no one in North Korea has access to the American media?

It makes all of the "citizen dissent about Iraq is a national security risk" propaganda crap they spew all that much more obvious as a lie.

[Vulture]

43. That is some, uh, suspect math

2 million troops? From where? Even doing the payroll math, I cannot make that add up in a reasonable fashion. Yes, the US could ultimately activate something like that if it focused its military resources on nothing else, but that would be stupid six ways to Sunday and completely unrealistic.

As a military target, North Korea would probably be easier than Iraq. Seoul would take a serious beating, but the North Korean military would rapidly collapse, and they are a lot more isolated and resource vulnerable than the Iraqis. The fact that North Korea is an easy target for the US military is really quite irrelevant, since we have no business messing with that country (UN declarations aside). From a military strategy standpoint, all the US would have to do is crack that egg and China and South Korea would take over. There would not be any US troops on the ground becaues it is not our playground. Yes, we could "win" North Korea, but not in the way most people are envisioning it. China et al would be extremely reluctant to let US military forces occupy that portion of the peninsula.

Madness all around. The problem is not crushing North Korea, but the geopolitical consequences with respect to its neighbors.

[krispos42]

65. We could probably field over 30 million if needed

We put ten percent of the nation's population in uniform during WW2, some 15 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We are now twice as populous as we were in the 40's.

The real problem, I think, is getting to Asia in the first place. Most transport ships are flagged in other nations, so I don't know if we can draft them into service.

But we would need to transform our economy into Total Warfare Mode in order to do this, same as FDR dead in 1942. No new electronics or other manufactured good for the duration of hostilities. War bonds, drafts, rationing, recycling. War profiteering outlawed, and the guilty are put on a giant deli slicer set on "thin" and sliced into waxed pape before being buried.

Well, it's a nice thought...

Of course, we would not need that kind of committment unless China joined in the fray.

Anyway, we would use up available stocks of missiles and precision bombs rather quickly, which would make our job harder. And once we one the war, we would have to occupy North Korea and possibly China. We'd have to keep tabs on 1.3 billion people in the second-largest country in the world.

THAT would suck!

[Toots]

46. They have learned absolutely nothing from Vietnam

You think the North Koreans have not thought of the possibility that they may get bombed some day. I am quite sure they have an underground complex comparable to or much better than what the Vietnamese had and theirs was impressive. We dropped more tons of explosives on Vietnam than we used in both World War I and II combined and it did not phase them the slightest. The only way to combat North Korea is by sending in troops. We can not blockade them and starve them out because of their long border with China, The only way to deal with Korea is through negotiations and they know this whether they admit it or not. They do love to strut and puff though because they think it makes them look the manly man. GOP has to look the manly man or face their inner selves. And that is not a pretty picture.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. They've already been starved, and yet their government survives

Plus, I think that the South Koreans would be mighty angry at the U.S. for provoking the North.

[Phrogman]

52. Hey, General Pace, what does a chimpanzee's asshole taste like?

Cause you sure seem to be the one to know!

[Eurobabe]

56. How many of those would be 1st time DRAFTEES??

It's getting REALLY windy in the US lately...lots of hot air, and sciroccos...

[aaronbees]

59. Not "as clean as we would like"??

These euphemisms show exactly how out of touch w/ reality these warmongers are. Disgusting.

[BenDavid]

61. But, have we enough

to fight the Chinese and every other country that would support China in going to war against the U.S. This is pretty damn scary when the damn generals have bent over and kissed the ass of bush.

[Earth_First]

63. This is BOLD-FACED propaganda!

According to the Department of Defense figures:

There are 1,426,713 active military personnel, with 2,685,713 total military personnel.

With the 141,000 serving in Iraq, and 23,000 serving in Afghanistan, that leaves a total active military of 1,262,713 in which 70% have seen multiple tours in both countries, and a full 100% of already the circulated combat brigades from Iraq/Afghanistan NON-DEPLOYABLE, how in the world do we figure that we have the military strength to deploy 2 million soldiers to North Korea?!

I'll tell you one thing, I have long since been released from IRR status, but I'll be god-damned if I'm called up to go 'cowboy up' for this cowboy...