U.S. Military's ability to respond to additional crisis at greater risk

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has upgraded to "significant" the risk facing the U.S. military's capability to respond to another crisis in a timely manner, according to two U.S. military sources familiar with the matter, CNN has confirmed.

General Peter Pace sent the classified assessment in the last several days to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. By rating the risk as "significant," Gates under law, was then compelled to send his own classified report to Congress on how the military would deal with such a risk.

The upgraded risk rating is higher than the previous assessment, but officials said they did not know the last time, if ever, the risk was labeled "significant."

They emphasized that the U.S. military could still muster forces and equipment to deal with another contingency, but said the Gates report details the measures that would required. An additional deployment would cost more and require the use of troops who might not initially be well trained as front line combat forces, the officials said. For example, an additional crisis could require a massive mobilization of the National Guard, depending on the contingency.

more: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/26/monday/index.html

[Monkeyman]

1. Duh you broke it now fix it Gates Rummy left you a broken military

[Purveyor]

2. Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Hikes Military Risk in Newest Assessment

WASHINGTON — The military has upgraded to "significant" the level of risk it faces in defending the nation, and attributes the higher level to the additional stress placed on the Armed Forces by ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

--snip--

The "significant" level means Defense Secretary Robert Gates will have to lay out to Congress "a risk mitigation assessment" detailing what the Pentagon is doing to lower the risk and how quickly the military can respond to another crisis.

A U.S. military official said the assessment found the military is currently less capable of taking on another challenge because of the stress on the force caused by repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

If another conflict broke out involving the United States, the military could prevail but it would likely be more difficult because the Armed Forces are not as well-trained and equipped as they would be if the Pentagon were not already engaged in two wars.

---end of excerpt---

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254730,00.html

[BOSSHOG]

3. We have to fight them over there, because we can't fight them over here

The bottom line serious issue coming out of this news is that bush now has to get a new JCS. One a little more loyal. One not wanting to politicize things for a republican by telling the truth.

[babylonsister]

4. Deserves a rec'd. Why isn't Congress putting the kibosh on 'the surge'

because the US isn't adequately protected by its troops, because we don't have nearly enough here?
And great question, if troops are needed else where besides fighting these wars, we're SOL.

[951-Riverside]

5. Wow we're turning into the next USSR

[maddezmom]

6. AP: Gen. Pace: Military capability eroding

~snip~

The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace's review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its warfighting abilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."

Pace's report comes as the U.S. is increasing its forces in Iraq to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. And top military officials have consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining the Army, Marine Corps and reserve forces and taking a heavy toll on critical warfighting equipment.

The review grades the military's ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy — which would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Cuba or China.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_strains_5

[Up2Late]

7. HOOOAHHH!

Not sure how that would be spelled, but I think most know what it means.
(I think it means "I Hear and Understand!")

[okoboji]

8. in other words .....

we should be very afraid if Canada decides to attack us?

And yet no one in the bush mess seems to care, why? because if push comes to shove, we can always use our nuclear bombs and just end the world forever.


For the love of god, would someone please tell me, or at least reassure me, that bush, cheney, rice, and the rest of them will be brought to justice any time soon?