But DUDE!! I just got my 5 pack of signs put up! They cost me $25 BUCKS! What am I supposed to take them DOWN now?
(/sarcasm)
Posted on 06/25/2005 4:13:30 AM PDT by leadpenny
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050624-105725-2869r.htm
It's not every day that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and hawks at the American Enterprise Institute agree on a matter of public policy. But when it comes to expanding U.S. ground forces, they do. So far, the Bush administration has opposed expansion. Its logic is one of short-term crisis-management and spending priorities: Expansion would be a recruiting burden for the Army, the administration argues, and money is better spent on transformation. Both complications are real; it makes sense in the immediate future to worry about them. But neither is an argument against more ground forces in the long run. To fight the war on terror, the United States will need to add perhaps 150,000 or more combat infantrymen to the Army and Marine Corps in the coming years.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I would question any additional troops if the administration truly believes the insurgency is in it's last throes.
A pro-Bush woman caller made the point that the op/ed made no mention of more troops for Iraq. I didn't catch it either until she pointed it out.
They can't recruit enough to maintain current levels, where are the extra 150,000 going to come from?
A logical conclusion to the piece if you connect the dots is that since it claims the war on terror will need more troops and the war on terror is being fought in Iraq, then it must be in Iraq where troops are needed. But no, it didn't explicitly call for additional troops in Iraq.
I find this happening more and more often. I hear something on Rush, come to a logical conclusion, check the transcript and that is not what he said. I listen to a speech by the President or someone from the administration, come to a conclusion and then check the transcript and my conclusion and the transcript don't match. The wordsmithing is interesting.
We're in WWIII. Reinstate the military draft. Bush's "war on the cheap" aint gonna make it. He clings to the fiction that an all volunteer military can deal with
the demands of 40-50 million islamofascist sadists each seeking his 72 virgins by killing americans. Too great a burden on a relative hand full of patriots.
"The Republicans failed miserably in Iraq because of a lack of ground troops. I am on record for trying to increase manpower in Iraq, but the Republicans lacked the insight and the political will to listen to my suggestions...yada yada yada"
Their interference with with local population creates resentment that aids the irregulars and makes the government we are supporting look like patsies. It also sends the local government and its supporters the message that they don't have do the hard, bloody, work themselves because the Americans will do it for them All that without (given the rules of engagement) a corresponding increase in pressure on the irregulars. What is worse the higher troop levels make it easier for the fifth columnists in this country to attack the war and raise pressure to "bring the boys home" before the war is won.
Given a free hand Oliver Comwell or William T. Sherman could win this war with higher troop levels, but that sort pacification campaigns they waged in Ireland and the Confederacy would never be allowed today (I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just stating it).
Our troops are there to keep the lid from coming off until the Iraqi Government wins this war its self. We need enough troops there to kep the lid on and not a battalion more.
Why do I get so upset when I read about Washington trying to run the business of military professionals??? Could it be that I remember the last war that was run by politicians? Why can't we let the military do what they do best without audacious interference from those who haven't a clue how to win at hopscotch, much less a war???
Perhaps, students of history could enlighten our legislators what happened in Viet Nam.
Did you not know that when elected to public office that you become an expert on everything?
That is the $64 question?
I'm sure the the US Air Force, the US Navy and many DOD Civilians are trying to shore up their force structures against cuts.
The bottom line is, however, that the US Army is not getting enough recruits right now to sustain the current force structure.
But DUDE!! I just got my 5 pack of signs put up! They cost me $25 BUCKS! What am I supposed to take them DOWN now?
(/sarcasm)
"Reinstate the military draft."
We're inching in that direction, I believe.
Those who would do America harm on our soil have not attacked on a 9-11 scale for just that reason. They know we are divided and they don't want to wake the sleeping giant. What is going on in Iraq on a daily basis does not (un)divide us.
I agree with you, I've noticed this over and again. If you don't pay very strict attention to all the details, including the festooning of facts and the play with words, the media will generally lead you to conclude something other than the truth. ~ The more discerning you are, the more you will detest the media.
I wish it were otherwise, but it is not. We must carry on until the Iraq insurgency winds down, the Iraqis take over their own defense, or we sustain another strike.
How stupid of me not to remember that!!!!!
Silly me, I thought the liberals had something constructive to say.
This is just typical of the democRAT way of "solving problems" by throwing people and money at them. They think that if it takes a woman 270 days to make a baby, then 270 women can make a baby in 1 day.
It's not just the MSM. It's people on our side and people in politics that represent our interests.
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.