I got this email today from my sister's friend. It's his opinion, but I found it interesting.
_______________________________________
I had heard some of this from John Edwards, but I hoped that he was just being silly. Apparently Kerry brought this up again in last night's debate, so I just have to blast on this one:
"If elected, Kerry has vowed to add two active-duty Army divisions and would double the number of Special Forces"
1) I'm all for increased number of troops. But given lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army has already begun a pretty drastic restructuring. For every brigade, they are adding a new battalion of troops. Traditional unit types, like artillery and air-defense are being cut back, replaced by infantrymen. Bean-counters are being reduced, guys with guns are being increased. Major organizational shifts like this are a ***** to implement, but the 3rd Infantry Division, my old alma mater at Ft. Stewart, have already begun this process. Kerry's plan to create two new divisions is almost the opposite of this. Yes, there will be more combat troops, but with new divisions comes a corresponding increase in command & staff, supply, etc. So more REMFs. Not to mention the increased costs of activating new divisions and all the associated costs therein. The current buildup plan is much more efficient, and does what REALLY need to be done: puts more guys with guns on the ground.
2)And for me, this is the REAL big one: "double the number of Special Forces." This tells me that anything Kerry ever knew about the military, he has forgotten. The Special Forces are just that-special. They are the Elite. For the Army, the only thing equal or above them is Delta force, and the two have very different missions. Delta is quick reaction, anti-hostage type stuff. Their missions are planned, rehearsed, and usually over in a matter of minutes. They hit hard and fast, and get out. On the other hand, the Special Forces are inserted into indigenous populations to train the locals into soldiers. And then they lead them into battle. Along the way, they do all sorts of public works type projects-using U.S. technology and know-how to help dig wells, build bridges, teach basic hygiene, set up medical facilities. This means that these soldiers are inserted for many months at a time, building relationships with the local populations. It takes a very special person to be able to do these things. They are at the peak of physical fitness. They are incredibly well trained- no mere combat medic here, the SF medic is more like a doctor or field surgeon. Ditto for their commo specialist, and for every other specialty that a Special Forces A-Team is made of.
The point is, these aren't your everyday ordinary grunt. I know, because I used to be an everyday ordinary grunt. Twice a year, once I became a Sergeant, SF would hold a recruiting drive to get people to go through their selection process. Here's where the rubber meets the road: their selection process. It is incredibly challenging, both physically and mentally, designed to push the applicant to the very edge of his abilities. It's a test to see what you can do, and if you will fold. They usually pass between 5-10% of their applicants. And after passing selection, the specialized training begins, which is equally tough, but on a mental level. The medic training alone lasts 2 years. And if you screw up the training program, you're gone.
So these guys are the best of the best. Volunteers in a volunteer Army who have been vetted until only the cream of the crop are left. So how are you going to double their numbers? Unless you can double the number of candidates, there's only one way to do that: force them to lower their standards. And that would be the absolute worse thing that could happen. Quantity over quality doesn't work with SF. If anything, all Kerry's plan would do would be to make the Special Forces less than special. Then we could call them Kerry's Mediocre Forces.
This is a typical Kerry response: do something for the appearance of doing something, rather than for the reality of fixing the problem. Or worse yet, he just has no clue what he is talking about. Whatever. The fact remains that he probably shouldn't be considered as commander in chief of our armed forces, and making sweeping plans for them, when he has no clue of how to use them. Somebody probably told him that SF had been doing a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq.
________________________________________
And I agree with Brandy. I'm so sick of political anything (debates, commercials, threads, news stories), I'll be glad when it's over.