With some 350,000 troops stationed in approximately 120 countries, over 60 percent of the US Army is dedicated to active duty. Currently, the US military is enacting a "one in three" policy in which active duty soldiers must serve one year abroad for every three years of duty.
Meanwhile, the ongoing conflicts have led some to believe that the US military is at a "tipping point" that could lead to serious shortcomings regarding its "ability to field sufficient forces of a high level of quality and equipment that ensures our security," according to a soon-to-be released report by the Washington think-tank The Brookings Institution, obtained in advance by ISN Security Watch.
The report notes gaps in the demand for new equipment and the supply available to forces on the front lines. Several experts note that those shortcomings often are filled with supplies from other US posts throughout the world, leaving those bases with supply and manpower shortages.
Some analysts also warn that while recruitment levels were adequate for 2006, the US Army failed to meet its quotas for the previous two years. With some 500,000 plus troops needed to field a rotating fighting force of 170,000 or so in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military could face a shortage of the fresh faces needed to replenish its legions.
At the same time, countries like Indonesia, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations go largely ignored, a serious concern among some defense and military intelligence officials who warn that those countries are breeding grounds for Islamic extremism and in some cases potential targets for future terror attacks.
"It is certainly far from broken, but serious warning symptoms are becoming clear; small compromises in accepting gaps in personnel and equipment are beginning to have huge consequences."

And the source of this opinion is?

At the same time, countries like Indonesia, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations go largely ignored, a serious concern among some defense and military intelligence officials who warn that those countries are breeding grounds for Islamic extremism and in some cases potential targets for future terror attacks.

I don't understand this part, these are not war-torn nations who need our troops to maintain order, if we started stationing more troops in the Phillipines and started stationing them in Indonesia we would do little more than raise anti-US sentiment in thsoe countries because that's what happens when we make an agreement with a nation to station troops in their territory, which instantly raises them to a status of "Don't f*** with us because look who's on our side!" We shouldn't start opening up new bases in those countries for the sake of having a presence, we could accomplish that with one aircraft carrier.

You're not going to break out the comparison between the Roman Empire and the United States now, are you? Before you do so I feel duty bound to tell that you that those comparisons are all BS.

this comes straight from the horses mouth. these think tanks are just looking to make a story. the rest of the article rings true also, how we wouldnt have the precision weapons available in another conflict.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the 200,000 U.S. military troops in the Gulf have not diminished U.S. warfighting power and 2 million troops are on standby. “And that should not be lost on any potential enemies,” he said. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...805555554.html

Just start the draft back up.

I would suggest that the information came from ISN Security Watch, the original seems to have fallen off their website but here is a copy of it from another site.

US forces stretched thin worldwide
Carmen Gentile, ISN
Some military and defense analysts say the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are diluting troop strength, equipment and morale on other fronts.
By Carmen Gentile for ISN Security Watch (16/11/06)
The continuing deployment of US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan has diluted the pool of soldiers stationed throughout the world to dangerously thin proportions in some areas, according to experts, also resulting in a chronic dearth of military equipment both on the home front and at overseas posts.
The 140,000-plus US troops in Iraq and 30,000 or more stationed in Afghanistan have caused a drain on other long-time US military obligations abroad, such as South Korea, Japan and Germany, notes one military analyst.
Others point out that a systematic redeployment of US troops from the Korean Peninsula's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and other locales has been planned for several years.
Last month, ISN Security Watch reported on fatigue among enlisted personnel and troops - some of whom are on their third tour of duty in Iraq - and the waning morale among reservists and other part-time members of the military.
With some 350,000 troops stationed in approximately 120 countries, over 60 percent of the US Army is dedicated to active duty. Currently, the US military is enacting a "one in three" policy in which active duty soldiers must serve one year abroad for every three years of duty.
Meanwhile, the ongoing conflicts have led some to believe that the US military is at a "tipping point" that could lead to serious shortcomings regarding its "ability to field sufficient forces of a high level of quality and equipment that ensures our security," according to a soon-to-be released report by the Washington think-tank The Brookings Institution, obtained in advance by ISN Security Watch.
The report notes gaps in the demand for new equipment and the supply available to forces on the front lines. Several experts note that those shortcomings often are filled with supplies from other US posts throughout the world, leaving those bases with supply and manpower shortages.
Some analysts also warn that while recruitment levels were adequate for 2006, the US Army failed to meet its quotas for the previous two years. With some 500,000 plus troops needed to field a rotating fighting force of 170,000 or so in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military could face a shortage of the fresh faces needed to replenish its legions.
At the same time, countries like Indonesia, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations go largely ignored, a serious concern among some defense and military intelligence officials who warn that those countries are breeding grounds for Islamic extremism and in some cases potential targets for future terror attacks.
"It is certainly far from broken, but serious warning symptoms are becoming clear; small compromises in accepting gaps in personnel and equipment are beginning to have huge consequences," read the report.
"What keeps me awake at night is what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?" General Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said during a 2005 congressional testimony
The future of military staffing
While the US Army failed to meet its 2004 and 2005 recruitment goals, the US Marines reportedly met its mark for those same years, apparently due to superior marketing, according to John E Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.
"The problem wasn't the product, it was the sales pitch," Pike told ISN Security Watch. The previous "Army of One" motto had proved to be a weak lure for perspective soldiers compared to "The Few, The Proud, the Marines," he added.
"But the Army got a new ad agency and fixed their marketing problems," Pike noted, referring to the "Army Strong" advertising made popular this year.
"With a bond new campaign, recruitment targets were back on track for 2006."
Though recruitment may be back on track, there is a lingering dilemma regarding the US National Guard and Army Reserve, both of which are understaffed and "under-strength" due to shortfalls in everything from uniforms to arms and vehicles.
Budgeting has been blamed by some for the lack of certain equipment, but the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also responsible for some of the setbacks experienced by troops stationed outside those two theaters.
According to Peter Singer, a military analyst at The Brookings Institution, the National Guard has 34 percent of needed equipment, while the Army Reserve has 76 percent of its equipment needs fulfilled.
Singer notes that equipment fatigue rates are higher than defense officials had originally calculated. Vehicles like Humvees that were expected to last 13 years in the field are more often than not wearing out after an average of two years. Light armored vehicles with a projected 30-year life span often last no more than six years.
Without adequate supplies, troops earmarked for deployment will not be combat ready for either front or even service at another foreign US post.
"Then comes a point at which when a unit just isn't deployable," Pike says.
The Pentagon is currently following a "one in five" deployment schedule for military reservists, according to Mackenzie Eaglen, military analyst with the Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation.
That ratio could be reduced in the coming years to the "one in three" ratio used by active duty forces if troop levels on both fronts are sustained for the foreseeable future.
Disengaging from other long-term deployments
US forces are currently scaling back troop levels in other long-term deployments like South Korea, where soldiers have been stationed for some 56 years and have begun a long-term withdrawal plan from the DMZ.
However, disengagement from South Korea is not easy, considering what some say is Seoul's dependence on the US military presence.
"Does anyone think China or North Korea are going to overrun the South? Of course not," opined the Globalsecurity.org director.
Though no one is sure why the US still has troops in South Korea, Pike says, "it's still difficult to just up and leave."
According to Eaglen, a "systematic reduction" in force levels in South Korea - currently around 30,000 - not only is needed to provide replacement troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, but would in essence slowly extricate US military involvement in the peninsula, a goal that has been on the books at the Pentagon for some time.
"Once you make a commitment it's difficult to disengage because people rely on you and consider you an honest broker," she said.
The role of US forces in Djibouti questioned
A lesser-known deployment of US troops is the 1,600-strong US Combined Joint Task Force based in Djibouti.
Its mission, according to a recent Globalsecurity.org report, is to "focus on detecting, disrupting and ultimately defeating transnational terrorist groups operating in the region - denying safe havens, external support and material assistance for terrorist activity."
Western intelligence agencies believe that Somalia and other nations in the region, including Yemen, are recruiting and training centers for al-Qaida and other such networks.
Since moving to Djibouti in May 2003, the task force has worked with local troops in the Horn and East Africa toward "building relationships [with local leaders and informants] for when they might need them later," Singer notes.
The Brookings analyst also notes that the 2002 Predator drone missile strike on Yemen that killed a US citizen was supposedly launched from the US base in Djibouti, which at one time was occupied by French forces.
The interest in the region could one day lead to the creation by the Pentagon of an "Africa Command" similar to the other area specific commands the Defense Department operates.
Carmen Gentile is a senior correspondent for ISN Security Watch.
Recent Articles
Saudi Arabia to build security fence
US arms still dominate international market
UN to consider arms trade treaty – US opposes
Turkic summit to explore commonwealth possibility
For more on the latest world events visit ISN Security Watch. © ISN 2006
Forward to a friend — Unsubscribe — Update Profile


The source website
http://antond.blog.de/2006/11/16/us_...ldwide~1336031

That's very nice of you to provide that source but LeEnfield and all others need to source their articles (especially when asked) or merely state it as an opinion. I am not questioning, it just requesting a source per the forum rules.
6. Be prepared to provide sources for things you have posted, lack of this may be considered spamming.

Originally Posted by DTop

That's very nice of you to provide that source but LeEnfield and all others need to source their articles (especially when asked) or merely state it as an opinion. I am not questioning, it just requesting a source per the forum rules.
6. Be prepared to provide sources for things you have posted, lack of this may be considered spamming.

I don't disagree with what you say but to be perfectly honest I would expect people to do some research on their own before declaring something BS as had they simply typed the thread title into google they would have got about 50 hits with the bulk of them leading to the source.

Yes, that's quite true but it's not very difficult to post a link either. In any event, we have the link and the reminder. That's all we need, thanks.

From the rule quoted it appears that that you don't have to provide any links but should it be queried you should have links handy but that's just my interpretation.

6. Be prepared to provide sources for things you have posted, lack of this may be considered spamming.

Had links been mandatory I am sure the rule would be... 6. Provide sources for things you have posted.
However as DTop has noted we now have a link and a reminder so its no longer an issue really.