I remember from my time in the Army that it didn't take a whole lot to be considered non-deployable. The article even alludes to some of those reasons, like need for dental work, eyeglasses, etc. It is also possible that soldiers could have been found non-deployable for a combat MOS, and then reclassified into a support MOS to get around duty restrictions.
The main theme of the article, that the military is short of manpower, is valid. I just don't know that the various chains-of-command discussed in the article knowingly placed unfit soldiers in harm's way. There just isn't enough information to determine if that is the case.
This is actually a fairly small number. As BlueFalcon says, it is extremely easy to be classed as "unfit" for deployment, whether it be medical, or just a matter of personal readiness.
For example, if I miss an annual training refresher, I wouldn`t be considered fit to deploy since I`d be overdue; yet in reality, I`d do just fine over there. As for the medical, yeah; if I have a cavity I wouldn`t be medically cleared to deploy until that cavity got filled. In fact, I think that happened to me back in 2006.
These numbers really mean very little taken out of context, and it is yet another way to undermine the Bush administration while slandering the troops - a favorite tactic of liberals, as we all know.
i`m pretty sure this article doesn`t slander the troops in any way, if anything the article says "we`re short on troops, but these 43 000 people dont` care that they are unfit for action and still go"
saying george bush is a moron for stretching americas military too far and too wide doesn`t mean you`re slandaring the military for not having enough soldiers, if anything it would be slandaring regular joe 21 year old american who`s not in the military
You are unable to add Comments because you are not logged in. If you have an account please login in now.