MAIN | TURTLES | CARS | GAMES | MOVIES | TV | MUSIC | NOTHING | FOOD | POLITICS | FAQ | TOPICS | ARCHIVE
Drudge Report
Fox News
Studio Briefing
The Superficial
TMZ
Reddit

IAlsoLikeTurtles.com

Cali-Drivers-Suck.com

RSS


MANAGE BOOKMARKS


Friday, May 9th, 2008SUGGEST NEWS

U.S. Deploys More Than 43,000 Troops Unfit for Combat
Posted by: Nebuchadnezzar on May 9th, 2008 @ 1:23PM

Link

COMMENTS (4) | WAR | DIGG
COMMENTS
ADD COMMENTS | SEND TO A FRIEND | BOOKMARK | SORT LAST TO FIRST
beardofzeus
Peon

May 9th, 2008 @ 6:46PM

Registered:
2007-08-23
Location:
Posts: 27
This article can possibly be spin. Are all these troops forced? For all we know they could be volunteering despite being medically unfit.

I think that should have been reported.
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom

May 10th, 2008 @ 9:20AM

Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1351
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.
Trainwreck
Marine

May 10th, 2008 @ 2:26PM

Registered:
2003-04-08
Location:
Posts: 317
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.
killer6600
Marine

May 10th, 2008 @ 3:24PM

Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1351
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.

You can Create an Account, it takes less then a minute.


USER:

PASS:


LOST PASSWORD
CREATE NEW ACCOUNT
Which do you prefer?
- Hot Dogs
- Tacos




GFraizer
[Steam Wishlist]
[Amazon Wishlist]
[Facebook]

Exclusive Photos
[How to Pump Gas]
[Fat Lady + Donuts]
[Dog Bike]


EN Special Accounts
-Special Icon
-Address@en.com
-Special Title
-Instant Comments
[Find out more]