Posted on 02/27/2005 2:19:07 PM PST by rightalien
How Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld keeps from tearing his hair out, I’ll never know. He has to put up with regular confrontational testimony sessions with Congress, constant criticisms from retired flag officers, and, most recently, a group of senators proposing their own long-term stationing plan for US forces overseas.
Reuters reports that during a bi-partisan Senate delegation visit to Afghanistan, Senator John McCain declared that the US needs to establish permanent joint bases in the country to provide a long-term support arrangement with Afghanistan. Senator Hillary Clinton was also among the group that was touring the country to gauge political and economic progress since the US-led coalition overthrew the Taliban in 2001.
McCain stated the need for a long-term strategic partnership, and that this relationship is,
"not only for the good of the Afghan people, but also for the good of the American people, because of the long-term security interests we have in the region." Asked about specific support, he replied: "We mean by that economic assistance, technical assistance, military partnership, including -- and this is a personal view -- joint military permanent bases." [emphasis mine]
Senator McCain may not have been aware of DoD’s transformation initiatives in basing of US troops, but his idea is exactly the opposite of our 21st century concepts. Ever since the US started to deploy forces to Central Asia for the War on Terror, large, Hometown, USA-type bases were already deemed obsolete and not logistically sustainable. Instead, short-term “lily pad” bases were set up to provide the required combat capability with the flexibility to establish an appropriate amount of life support given the operational situation. The concept
…is less focused on specific troop deployments than on extending broad military capabilities, US defense officials say. Especially vital is the "forward basing" of air and sea power able to skirt national boundaries and political sensitivities as well as the prepositioning of large, off-shore stocks of tanks, armored vehicles, weapons, and other military equipment that incoming troops can readily draw upon.
Therefore, McCain’s goal of large permanent bases is problematic, especially in a place like Afghanistan. Operationally, CENTCOM has always wanted to maintain a small footprint in the country. If Senator McCain gets his way, we’ll find our military presence used as a vehicle to spread US taxpayer dollars to the Afghan economy without any tactical reason to do so. After all, as these bases become more entrenched, we’ll need more locals to work on-base, our troops will need more time off because of extended tours in the region, the camp follower pool will increase, and, of course, new family member amenities will eventually have to be constructed.
We’ve just cut the umbilical cord with Germany after 60 years of the same type of base development. The last thing the US military needs is another decades-long, expensive infrastructure program that logistically ties down our forces and limits our strategic mobility and vision . Sadly, it appears that the most difficult challenge to the transformation of our military lies in our own Congress.
Yet his head is stuck somewhere else.
Clinton/McCain 2008 - it's coming, folks.
I know. He's an honest, forceful, forthright man who doesn't give a crap about a-holes who blather about things they understand nothing about and have the spine of a jellyfish. That's why.
Tearing his hair out? I'm surprised and rather disappointed he doesn't tear them a new a-hole.
FMCDH(BITS)
FMCDH(BITS)
This is one reason the MSM so loves McCain...they're both outdated.
Welcome to FR. It really doesn't matter who runs with Hillary, does it? Least of all to her.....
Right on! I told my wife when this happened, it was a mistake. General Gardner knew every power broker in Iraq, and many by first name, and they trusted him.
If Rummy and team, with Gardner in charge, could have stayed in control, the "insurgency" problem probably would not have been able to developed as it did.
Right on! I told my wife when this happened, it was a mistake. General Gardner knew every power broker in Iraq, by first name, and they trusted him.
If Rummy and team, with Gardner in charge, could have stayed in control, the "insurgency" problem probably would not have been able to developed as it did.
I think McCain/Clinton is more likely.
gen. Gardner fired himself by having hs pictue taken smoking that cigar in the Palace looking like a FAT CAT.
A "permanent" presence in the ME is a given. Either in Afghanistan or Iraq, but you can count on it.
Not!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.