Finding a useful Army

As Solomon properly pointed out...do you want to take on ISIL in "Iraq"?

I was never a fan of the 2003 invasion. Once a country commits such a thing, the effort has to last for decades if one's belief system is that all this is important.

One of the guys that was asked to consult on the 2003 invasion stated you would need over half-a-million soldiers (not logistics but trigger-pullers) to pacify the country.

Knowing what we know now, I would believe it.

Iraq was created under unrealistic borders in regard to religious demographics.

Without an organisation to keep that together--be that Saddam or the U.S.--it is all falling apart.

Today, "Iraq" really does not exist.

Yet our incompetent D.C. leadership imagines it so.

We do not have a U.S. Army to go back in there. Training skills are perishable. Many of the soldiers who kicked down doors and ran patrols are now out of the Army. Yes there are still some in the Army, but without routine training, resourcing and leadership, we don't really have much of an Army.

A lot of our resources are parked and ill-maintained.

And remember not long ago when a U.S. Army guy said we only have 2 combat-ready brigades?

Including a lot of useless systems like the M-1 tank and Stryker.

2 Brigades and a few DACOWITS divisions.

Sending money to the Middle-East on dumb efforts like small air strikes and small airlift? All marketing by a moronic President.

We have better things to do like securing our border with Mexico. Do the typical rule-of-3s: currently deployed--training/refurb--spooling up for deployment, and we need about 20-some National Guard brigades along our Southern Border.

We need another 15 Brigades for Pacific Deterrence. Another 15 or so for Europe / Middle East. Another 10, just-because for state-side. And more National Guard.

And that is just for the infantry and light infantry.

I use the term "Brigades" but for me that is only a place-holder for operations.

I like Regiments. I only need a Colonel to run them. I can have more "Camps" around the U.S. where more people see the U.S. Military. I suggest an odd organisation too.

A Regiment is "the home". It is smaller than traditional Regiments. It only has 2 Battalions. The 1st Battalion is the one that deploys. The 2nd Battalion is the Garrison activity.

A U.S. military operation would require various deployable Battalions to show up somewhere and form up under an expeditionary Brigade. Or, whatever.

For most Army infantry work, the organisation of the deployable Battalion would look like a WWII U.S. Ranger Battalion. Several smaller light companies. Their duties would not involve holding ground. Their duties would be mobility. Finding enemy concentrations and killing them. Then moving on. Let someone else, like the locals, do holding of ground.

In any event, you won't see something like that with this leadership. Or most likely even the next leadership.

My organisation is also draft-friendly in case of longer efforts (that the nation is positive about standing behind). For real, true, national emergencies, the draft is useful.

But only if there is a healthy, existing, cadre.