Has the U.S. abused it's military so badly that they can't respond to an emergency anywhere?

Question

WULFEN:---I'm not opposed to the war,and I support our president. However, so many soldiers have been deployed so many times into a very difficult environment that they must surely be exhausted.

I served in the Korean war, and I think I would have had an emotional upheaval if they would have sent me back.

You seem to believe those troops serving elsewhere are not needed in those places. ---Don't kid yourself.

Answer 1

LOL!

Dude we have over 3 million troops

We have about 100,000+ in Iraq that leaves us with 2,900,000+ on stand by.

Answer 2

Wulfen, I'm glad you lose count of all the service members deployed to Afghanistan, Kosovo, Kuwait and wherever else.

But apart from that, no, the US is not defenseless. There are still reserve troops, the National Guard and the option of a draft.  

Answer 3

well if the emergecy is taking on the rest of the world your right but besides that I think we can handle whatever the diplomats cant work out. Thats why it is diplomacy first to weed out the wars that arent needed,sometimes. SO you didnt understand what I was implying.

Answer 4

Thanks to the fact that the American military has bases and carriers all over the place, no.

Answer 5

Is this a troll!?

Answer 6

Reading the answers, it sounds like everyone is using statistics to prove that only x percent of the entire possible troops (including reserves) is in Iraq.  What percent of x are not allowed to come home after serving the agreed upon time period?  Back door draft defeats those nice low statistics, and even if the majority of troops aren't deployed, we're in debt now more than ever before so it's of course going to be a drain financially on my kids to deploy more troops for any new emergency.  Bush's rich friends are the ones getting the contracts we're in debt over.

Answer 7

Dude you have no idea what your talking about.

We have NOT abused our military

just because YOU dont approve of a war doesnt mean its not right

Answer 8

to wulfen... 3 million spead over 130 countries is streching us a little thin.  To be completely comfortable we would need at least 6 million troops to be able to be highly trained in ready in every country we are stationed.  

I wouldn't use the term abused here, i would say United States Foriegn policy has "extended" the military but not abused it.

But with how hard it is to recruit, Ron Paul and Barack Obama clearly gaining more money from military troops, and the stop-loss disaster.  I would say less is more and we should bring some troops home.

With all that, the military has preformed briliant.

Answer 9

Nope.  The media likes to make it seem like every single troop in the military is in Iraq right now but there is only about 140,000 total over there right now from every service.  The active Army alone has over 500,000 troops, and at least 30 percent of them never deployed.  That total doesn't count the reserves, the National Guard, and other military branches.

EDIT: By the way, stop-loss is not a "backdoor draft," that was some buzz-word invented by John Kerry to discredit the current administration even though stop-loss exists by the authority of Title 10, United States Code, Section 12305(a) (Google it if you want to) since after the Vietnam war.  Every single service member has this written in their contract and is told by their recruiter that it could happen.  I came in the army almost 10 years ago when we didn't have any major conflicts going on and my recruiter told me about it, so there is no way they aren't being told about it now with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If a service member thought stop-loss was unfair then they shouldn't have joined the military in the first place.

Answer 10

The US military is not abused; they have the capability to respond to emergencies everywhere but if you are referring the the Georgia/Russia conflict their are political and military considerations.  The quick reaction forces are light infantry, ai borne and the Marine Corps but they would have a difficult time against the Russian armor deployed there.  Heavy equipment takes time to prepare and move which is why overseas bases are so important.  The political consideration is that putting the quick reaction forces there to face the Russians means that you will have a shooting war with russia and I do not think the US wants that; the Russian military probably does not either but the Russian leadership is questionable.  US and Russian troops meeting in combat with light infantry (even with air support) against Russian armor would not be a good fight for the US and would almost certainly lead to a wider conflict.