US Army: What about North Korea?

[MarkOttawa]

Forget any sustained ground action against Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092600732.html?hpid=topnews

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked Congress yesterday to approve an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the Bush administration's 2008 war funding request to nearly $190 billion -- the largest single-year total for the wars so far.

The move came as Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff and former top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned lawmakers that the Army is stretched dangerously thin because of current war operations and would probably have trouble responding to a major conflict elsewhere. "The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," Casey said yesterday. "We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."..

Casey, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee for the first time as the Army's top officer, expressed deep concern over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars' impact on the service. In an unusual move, Casey had asked for the hearing so he could explain the strains on the Army, according to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the panel's chairman.

"Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we can build it," Casey said, explaining that U.S. soldiers do not get enough time at home to train for full-scale combat operations and that equipment is wearing out "at a far greater pace than expected." He added: "I believe we can put this back in balance in three or four years."..

In other words the Free World (if I may be forgiven the phrase) essentially has no capability to fight any new major ground war for any length of time. Not good. Remember also that US Army soldiers are at the moment serving fifteen month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

We dont need to commit ground troops to fight North Korea.The ROK would supply the ground forces and we would add the air and naval power.

 

[CougarKing]

Wouldn't the 2nd ID stationed in South Korea be comparable in capabilities to the 3rd ID when that other division spearheaded the 2003 invasion of Iraq?  The ROK forces could compliment the 2nd ID the same way the British forces that took Basra and the Marine forces that took a different route to Baghdad all complimented the 3rd ID in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

[Red 6]

Hey Cougar Shark: Good question about the 2nd ID, but it is different from every other division in the US Army. It has heavy (i.e. mechanized infantry and armor) and light battalions and only has two brigades stationed in Korea. There are also two brigades based in Fort Lewis, WA but these are available or duty anywhere in the world and have served in Iraq.

 

[tomahawk6]

1 combat brigade in Korea.Here is the current TOE in country.

http://www-2id.korea.army.mil/organization/units/

1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team
Task Force, 1-72 Armor Regiment
1st Battalion, 15th Field Artillery
2nd Battalion, 9th Infantry (M)
302nd Brigade Support Battalion
4th Squadron, 7th U.S. Cavalry
1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion

Combat Aviation Brigade
1st Battalion, 2nd Attack Battalion
602nd Aviation Support Battalion
2nd Battalion (Assault), 2nd Aviation Regiment
3-2nd Aviation Regiment (GSAB)
164th Air Traffic Services Group
4-2nd Attack Battalion

210th Fires Brigade
1st Battalion, 38th Field Artillery
6th Battalion, 37th Field Artillery
702d Brigade Support Battalion

Division Special Troops Battalion
Headquarters 2ID
Warrior Readiness Center
2nd Infantry Division Band

 

[Red 6]

Not to pick nits Tomahawk, but that's still two brigades...

 

[CougarKing]

Gentlemen,

Now that we have an idea what the actual 2nd ID is actually composed of, do any of you still think this would be enough, when combined with much of the ROK Army as well as possibly the addition of an MEU landed from a US naval task force, to stage an invasion of North Korea, if the administration ever decided for it? (I know it's a big IF, but I just wanted to discuss this scenario). T6's mentioning all the US air and naval support should negate the need for more US troops or would it? Would any of you think the 173rd Airborne Brigade might be dropped over North Korea as well in such a scenario? Thanks in advance again.

 

[tomahawk6]

The US is not going to invade the North. Rather the entire posture of UNC/USFK and the ROK Armed Forces is to repel an invasion by the North. The thinking is that given time the communist regime in the north will collapse.

 

[Red 6]

I'm with Tomahawk on this one. Our forces in Korea are postured for a defensive mission and it would take an incredible (like Desert Shield but bigger) build-up to even get close to an invasion scenario.

 

[razorguns]

we dn't need to fight north korea.  that is until they find oil.

we just need 'an enemy' to scare americans.  and thus keep the defense war funds coming in.

it's what leaders do.  create an 'enemy', scare the populace, then take their taxes for defense budgets.  look at where 'defense' ranks in the yearly federal budget.

vietraq was the same thing.  except Bush started the war thinking it would be cakewalk, and iraq oil would be in the hands of hte us and kuwait with haliburton profiting.  obviously didn't work that way.  thou haliburton/blackwater still profited.

r

 

[MarkOttawa]

razorguns: "create an 'enemy', scare the populace..."  Sort of like 9/11?  So you think the US government did it, not al Qaeda?

Afstanovo? Lots of oil there. Though there are good reasons to think that the campaign against Yugoslavia was over-hyped by the US Democratic administration which simply had it in for Milosovic. 

Mark
Ottawa

 

[razorguns]

razorguns: "create an 'enemy', scare the populace..."  Sort of like 9/11?  So you think the US government did it, not al Qaeda?

Afstanovo? Lots of oil there. Though there are good reasons to think that the campaign against Yugoslavia was over-hyped by the US Democratic administration which simply had it in for Milosovic. 

Mark
Ottawa

9/11 is the result of us fucking around in the ME for decades.  Pissing off poor arabs everywhere.  It was coming.

There is no terrorism in switzerland.

r

 

[tomahawk6]

9/11 is the result of us ******* around in the ME for decades.  Pissing off poor arabs everywhere.  It was coming.

There is no terrorism in switzerland.

r

I strongly disagree. There was islamic terrorism well before 9-11.They tried to take down the twin towers in Feb 93, the embassy attacks in Africa on Aug 1998 and the attack on the Cole in Oct 2000. These were some of the most memorable but there were many others. I am afraid you're buying into the nutroots propaganda that the US is the cause of all evil in the world.

 

[MarkOttawa]

razorguns: You suffer from a lack of knowledge--the Swiss had indigenous terrorism in the 1960s (second bullet):
http://books.google.com/books?id=9hrJwYUZvowC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=switzerland+terrorism+jura&source=web&ots=tCDLq4np7T&sig=Ph9dqgz5GBAODYMfC2gDc-zIPZM

Mark
Ottawa

 

[razorguns]

I strongly disagree. There was islamic terrorism well before 9-11.They tried to take down the twin towers in Feb 93, the embassy attacks in Africa on Aug 1998 and the attack on the Cole in Oct 2000. These were some of the most memorable but there were many others. I am afraid you're buying into the nutroots propaganda that the US is the cause of all evil in the world.

large-scale constant attacks by muslims?  where?  name ONE country that has a foreign policy of 'keeping to ourselves' suffers from this?

Politics aside :

we can win this iraq war easily.  stop handicapping the us military out there.  it's ridiculous.  we're now FIGHTING ALONGSIDE guys who used to kill us.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban is now offered a seat in the government.  Same guys who used to kill us.  It's becoming a joke.  We level that place, show them who's boss - then go home.  That's what the US army does is is known for.  This whole 'surge' is is a dollar short, and a day late.

If Rumsmoron had us going on with 500,000 strong like Shineski asked - iraq would've been made secure from day one, and we wouldn't have created widespread anarchy.

No one now has any idea how to solve this besides 'uh, train and let the iraqi military figure it out'.  Our politicians let us down big time by telling us how to do our jobs.

I have friends with legs blown off, can't pay their bills, lost their homes, fighting bureacracy and unemployed - what does society say to them?

r

 

[GK .Dundas]

You are currently  fighting a counterinsurgency campain not a conventional war If the SecDef had done things differently you might not be fighting a counterinsurgency ,however he didn't and you are.
And unless you prepared to kill every Iraqi male between 8 and 80  I would respectfully suggest  that studying  and understanding counter guerrilla ops might just be the ticket. Fortune favors the prepared mind and that grey matter between your ears is perhaps the most dangerous weapon out there.

 

[razorguns]

You are currently  fighting a counterinsurgency campain not a conventional war If the SecDef had done things differently you might not be fighting a counterinsurgency ,however he didn't and you are.
And unless you prepared to kill every Iraqi male between 8 and 80  I would respectfully suggest  that studying  and understanding counter guerrilla ops might just be the ticket. Fortune favors the prepared mind and that grey matter between your ears is perhaps the most dangerous weapon out there.

if we went in 500k strong like Gen Shineski asked, and not be refuted by Rumsidiot - we wouldn't have to kill anyone.

'surges' are too little, too late.  it's 4 years off the starting point.

r

 

[tomahawk6]

if we went in 500k strong like Gen Shineski asked, and not be refuted by Rumsidiot - we wouldn't have to kill anyone.

'surges' are too little, too late.  it's 4 years off the starting point.

r

Sorry but here is a bit of reality. Unless the US had a total mobilization we didnt have the numbers to support a 500,000 man rotation in Iraq. Actually I think Shinseki used 250,000 which also wasnt sustainable.Shinseki used the same argument though for not going into Afghanistan.Shinseki did some good as Army Chief of Staff but he lacked imagination when the time came to shoot.

 

[razorguns]

Sorry but here is a bit of reality. Unless the US had a total mobilization we didnt have the numbers to support a 500,000 man rotation in Iraq. Actually I think Shinseki used 250,000 which also wasnt sustainable.Shinseki used the same argument though for not going into Afghanistan.Shinseki did some good as Army Chief of Staff but he lacked imagination when the time came to shoot.

if we didn't have the resources we either:

1) institute the draft
2) hire more contractors
3) delay the war until we do.

all this is irrelevant tho.  rumsidiot blew Shineski off (funny since Bush now wants to 'listen to the generals on the ground'), and now we got a complete mess that we're trying to throw onto the iraqi military so we can bail and run.

surge = too little, too late.  now they wanna bring them back. lol!

Like I said - this is discussing the military strategy, not even the political argument of us even being there.  plenty of civilians do that on tv.

r

 

[Red 6]

9/11 is the result of us fucking around in the ME for decades.  Pissing off poor arabs everywhere.  It was coming.

There is no terrorism in switzerland.

r

So let me get this straight. You think 9/11 was our fault, is that right? and while you're at it, explain please where we would find these 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq on a long term basis.

Thanks, Mark