shotbanner.jpeg

September 05, 2005

Just How Wrong Is Coleman?

In yesterday's column, Nick Coleman said

Today, many citizen soldiers are far away, their boots and bodies being used as Hamburger Helper to stretch out the ranks of the regular Army in Iraq...But with 40 percent of our troops in Iraq coming from the ranks of Guard and Reserve forces (2,600 more Minnesota troops will soon be on their way), Katrina has made it clear: The home front is un-Guarded.
James Robbins in the NRO puts Coleman's argument on a skewer with some of those pesky "facts" that Nick Coleman isn't apparently journalist enough to dig up and write about:
There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard. Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries. Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army.

That’s all? Yes, 10.2 percent. That datum is significant in itself, a good one to keep handy the next time someone talks about how our forces are stretched too thin, our troops are at the breaking point, and so forth. If you add in Afghanistan (15,000) and the support troops in Kuwait (10,000) you still only have 12.6 percent.

And what about the Guard?
So where are the rest? 751,000 (74.2 percent) are in the U.S. About half are active duty, and half Guard and Reserve. The Guard is the real issue of course — the Left wants you to believe that the country has been denuded of its citizen soldiers, and that Louisiana has suffered inordinately because Guardsmen and women who would have been available to be mobilized by the state to stop looting and aid in reconstruction are instead risking their lives in Iraq.

Not hardly. According to Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, 75 percent of the Army and Air National Guard are available nationwide. In addition, the federal government has agreed since the conflict in Iraq started not to mobilize more than 50 percent of Guard assets in any given state, in order to leave sufficient resources for governors to respond to emergencies.

So what about Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf of Mexico?
So is the war in Iraq causing troop shortfalls for hurricane relief in New Orleans?

In a word, no.

A look at the numbers should dispel that notion. Take the Army for example. There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard. Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries. Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army.

That’s all? Yes, 10.2 percent. That datum is significant in itself, a good one to keep handy the next time someone talks about how our forces are stretched too thin, our troops are at the breaking point, and so forth. If you add in Afghanistan (15,000) and the support troops in Kuwait (10,000) you still only have 12.6 percent.

So where are the rest? 751,000 (74.2 percent) are in the U.S. About half are active duty, and half Guard and Reserve. The Guard is the real issue of course — the Left wants you to believe that the country has been denuded of its citizen soldiers, and that Louisiana has suffered inordinately because Guardsmen and women who would have been available to be mobilized by the state to stop looting and aid in reconstruction are instead risking their lives in Iraq.

Not hardly. According to Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, 75 percent of the Army and Air National Guard are available nationwide. In addition, the federal government has agreed since the conflict in Iraq started not to mobilize more than 50 percent of Guard assets in any given state, in order to leave sufficient resources for governors to respond to emergencies.

In Louisiana only about a third of Guard personnel are deployed, and they will be returning in about a week as part of their normal rotation. The Mississippi Guard has 40 percent overseas. But Louisiana and Mississippi are not alone in this effort — under terms of Emergency Management Assistance Compacts (EMACs) between the states, Guard personnel are heading to the area from West Virginia, D.C., New Mexico, Utah, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Alabama, Washington, Indiana, Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan. Thousands have already arrived, and more will over the next day or so.

The New York Times has called the military response “a costly game of catch up.” Catching up compared to what, one wonders. National Guard units were mobilized immediately; 7,500 troops from four states were on the ground within 24 hours of Katrina — a commendable response given the disruptions to the transportation infrastructure.

And this compares to previous disasters exactly how? (emphasis added):
The DOD response is well ahead of the 1992 Hurricane Andrew timetable. Back then, the support request took nine days to crawl through the bureaucracy. The reaction this time was less than three days officially, and DOD had been pre-staging assets in anticipation of the aid request from the moment Katrina hit.
Wow - did Nick Coleman write to condemn the Guard's response during Hurricane Andrew? I don't remember.

But I do remember the administration that was in office when Andrew happened.

If the left didn't have Katrina, they'd have to invent it.

Posted by Mitch at September 5, 2005 08:48 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Mitch,

Thanks for showing how wrong this guys ideas are about troop strength. How wrong is it when Coleman goes on to conclude in the same paragraph: “All to make America safer while our cities fend for themselves and Army Corps of Engineer flood control programs are slashed.” So now he is saying that citizen soldiers should be home and not in Iraq; they would be nearer to help cities like New Orleans fend off the current problems. So now the huge costs of the war in Iraq, reduces the ability of government to justify the huge costs of flood control measures for cities developed on a flood plain.

Posted by: Michael A at September 5, 2005 09:15 AM

You'd better look really hard at Andrew's timeline unless you're casting aspersions at GHW Bush.

On another topic, I wish I had an otherwise worthless and unseen blog I could plug in this comment, but I'll have to do that some other weekend.

Posted by: Observer at September 5, 2005 10:26 AM

Observer,

Your blog would indeed be worthless, if it's as cogent as your comment.

GHW Bush was a "moderate" - the kind of Republican, like McCain, Arne Carlson and Chuck Hegel - the kind that the likes of Nick Coleman swoon over; the kind that are no more than Democrats with better suits.

My "worthless and unseen" blog gets 3,000 visitors on a typical weekday. That puts me #4 in Minnesota, behind Powerline, Captain Ed and Lileks.

Let me know when you get that blog going, Obbo. Love to see the worth and visibility you and your knee-jerk, petty observations bring to the field.

Cheers!

Posted by: mitch at September 5, 2005 10:41 AM

Mitch, I'm sorry, but you misunderstood my attempt at snark. I intended to throw rocks at Eva and her content-trolling via comments to your blog, not at you. I am a regular reader of Shot in the Dark an listen to NARN when I can.

I also leapt to the assumption that you were referring to Clinton in re Andrew.

Posted by: Observer at September 5, 2005 12:10 PM

Doh!

My bad. Sorry.

Posted by: mitch at September 5, 2005 12:17 PM

Ok both of you, to your corners. You both get a 5 minute timeout

Posted by: Kevin at September 5, 2005 01:01 PM

Cooking Recipes - Lots of great recipes to get you cooking great meals http://www.cookingrecipewebsites.com

Posted by: Cooking Recipes at November 28, 2005 01:46 AM

archeologist rougher highlight!saviors relational parliamentary

Posted by: at June 26, 2006 07:50 PM

ship sycophantic tinkle?goggles?counterpoise?Palomar ... Thanks!!!

Posted by: at June 27, 2006 11:46 AM

free interracial sex clip interracial swingers stories

Posted by: Gzbttnhh at October 30, 2006 01:59 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi