Quoted: "Our military is overextended. Nine out of 10 active-duty Army divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq or have come back from Iraq. One way or the other, they're wrapped up in it.
Now, I've proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the Armed Forces of the United States – one combat, one support."
Now, am I going to feel like a jackass when it's pointed out that this statement makes sense, or has no one else ever heard of a "support division"?
|
Back to your topic.
You're exactly right, I commented on this when he said it. We have Infantry, Armor, Airborne, Cavalry, Air Assault, Light Infantry (MTN) and Marine divisions.
Support troops are not organized into divisions. So what the fuck is a support division? Such a profound lack of grasp of basic 'mil speak' makes me question the competence of the candidate. Especially when the adoring media always oozes with praise for how he has "an amazing grasp of facts at his fingertips..."
By the way, for what it's worth, the US Army is currently undergoing a reorganization that will take us from around 33 combat brigades to 48 combat brigades, largely by utilising more efficient organisation. There will be 4 "unit of action" brigades per division plus seperate Stryker brigades added. Currently there are 3 brigades per division, and the new plan moves more division level assets down to brigade level.
This large increase in flexible, deployable combat power will only require an increase of 30,000 to the Army end strength, and it has already been authorized and is going forward.
The US Army is being transformed to provide 'more thrusts per squeeze'. Stay the course.