A few questions about the military.

Can anyone give a rough estimate of how many " reservists " were
called up for the first gulf war and how many were called up for
the second one ?

If it helps just limit the scope to the boots on the ground and in the air in the mideast on the first day of official fighting on the ground there.

How is it there were a half million people to send the first time and now there seems to be a problem coming up with a fresh 150 thousand people to rotate out the people that have served their tour ?

Did 2 or 3 hundred thousand people quit the military and not get replaced ?

And another thing, moof is for peace all the way and therefore there is little or no knowledge of how any of the military is supposed to work.
That said, (LOL for whoever that phrase wrankles) it really seems that even without knowledge of the inner workings of the military, you use your regular troops to carry out a " war " and if you get in trouble or it takes longer than the orginal plan, and after you have rotated your regular troops in and out a time or two " THEN" " MAYBE " you call on your reserves to help out and fill the gap so the regulars can have a bit more rest or not be deployed as long. Now is this just off the wall nonsense ravings of a admitted fool as far as the military goes or does a good leader hold their reserves in reserve instead of sending them in , in place of regular troops at the very begining ?

OK to upset now to proof read, deal with it or feel free to ignore.

but if I post it'll kick the thread in case somebody who does know the actual numbers can enter.

The reduction of active duty troops and closing of military bases started during the Reagan Administration, back around 1986 or so. I don't know how much of that was Reagan's idea and how much was the idea of Democratic legislators in Congress and the Senate, but it was a continuing policy to reduce the standing military force, and I'm sure it continued during both Bush I and the Clinton years. It's expensive to maintain a standing force, so I guess they elected relying on ready reserves and active reserves as an alternative to paying people to be full time soldiers. Not only that, but beginning with Reagan, the tendency to assume Russia was the enemy, and that nuclear warhead-based munitions were the only effective defense, started to be the 'conventional wisdom' at the Pentagon, at least from my observation. It wasn't thought, back then, that 'ground wars' would be the wars of the future -- it's why they wanted to route money into developing high-tech fighter planes and 'smart' missiles.

I don't know -- these are an uneducated peacenick's observations, I'll be honest. I really just wanted to kick the thread for you, so somebody who knew something could post in it.

a rough estimate on the figures will be close enough and a simple common sense opinion about using the reserves first instead of holding them in ... well .... reserve would be nice as well.

It is beginning to sound like for all the noise about being strong on support for the military no one in washington is willing to really support them.

It seems like a lot of the Soldiers in U.S. Military should get a huge pay raise, and to start funding it, no elected official in congress or the executive branch should get a dime of pay the whole time there is a war being waged anywhere where soldiers are being killed everyday.
After all with the exceptions of a few democrats no one in Congress is in danger of losing their life or limbs while doing their job.

Legislation was passed to cut spending and the place to start cutting was the military. I remember clearly - I was Active Duty Army when the cuts began. (I have never understood why Clinton never defended himself when people blamed him for "decimating" the military.)

Anyway, it was thought that one of the ways to reduce militray spending without affecting readiness was to shift a number wartime needs and responsibilities from the Active Duty troops to the Reserves and private contractors. At the same time, it was decided that we didn't need as many Reservists, so some Reserve units were deactivated and there hasn't been tme to reactivate them, fill them with trained troops and deploy them.

To make a long story short, when * approached the Generals in the military to get advice about Iraq, * kept retiring Generals until he found one that said, "Yeah, we got enough people to invade."

They already were 'downsizing' technical fields and bringing in civilian contractors for things like flight simulators and avionics in 84-88, when I was around it. Many of the guys in my first hubby's field did their four or six years, got out, then turned right around and took jobs with the contractors making twice what they'd been paid in the military to do the jobs.

Sorry i can't promise these numbers are correct

"Total number currently on active duty in support of the partial mobilization for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is 148,442"
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/guardandreserve/a/reservedeployed.htm

"After the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, more than 84,000 U.S. reservists were activated; 40,000 served in the Gulf War zone."
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20030109/opinion/739036.html

Also you have to keep in mind clinton decreased the size of the military something on the order of 709,000 Regular (active duty) service personnel and 293,000 reserve troops.

I seem to remember tht most of the Reserves back then were support troops, and not combat. Kinda like now, but now they end up in combat. And, of course, Desert Storm didn't last as long as this mess has. We also had a lot of Navy and other real allies along, which we don't have there now. So, we actually had only about 100,000 more of our people involved back then, most of those Navy and Air Force, while now it's almost all Army and Marines over there.

So, the actual US troop numbers are pretty close. What's different is that we need a lot more on the ground to stabilize things. Last time, it took half a million and we just threw Iraq out of Kuwait.


This is just the Navy's accounting of Desert Storm personnel buildups, but gives an idea:

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsdec.htm

11 Dec
DOD announces new U.S. troop strength at over 260,000 in region; updates numbers of intercepts - 4,833; boardings - 583; diversions - 22; 121,940 Reserves/National Guard recalled: 6,877 Navy, 16,495 USMC. Coalition forces strength in excess of 220,000.

14 Dec
Navy implements DOD-authorized limited stop loss action to retain personnel with skills which are critical and in short supply due to extended medical requirements of Operation Desert Shield. The Navy's second use of this authority affects all Navy doctors, nurses, hospital corpsmen and medical service corps personnel whose dates of retirement or separation fall on or after 2 January 1991. SECNAV activates 769 additional Naval Reservists from 44 units.

18 Dec
DOD announces new U.S. troop strength at over 270,000 in region; updates numbers of intercepts - 5393; boardings - 668; diversions - 26; 124,943 Reserves/National Guard recalled: 7249 Navy, 17,066 USMC. USS MONTGOMERY diverts a freighter in the N. Red Sea. Sealift update: 253 ships in support, 200 under MSC operational control; 188 offloads completed (approximately 10.2 billion pounds of unit equipment and petroleum products). 20 Dec DOD announces new U.S. troop strength at about 280,000 in region; updates numbers of intercepts - 5509; boardings - 679; diversions - 27; 127,293 Reserves/National Guard recalled: 7314 Navy, 17,375 USMC. USS INDEPENDENCE (CV-62) returns to San Diego homeport from Persian Gulf deployment. Members of Reserve Squadrons HCS-4 and HCS-5, the Navy's only combat Search and Rescue squadrons, are deployed in the Middle East. SECNAV activates 289 additional Naval Reservists from 28 units.