More Ground Forces (Washington Times Op/Ed)

The Washington Times ^ | 25 June 05

[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.

[Bossy Gillis]

The draft should never have been stopped. It was an excellent learning experience for men. Look how many pansies we have wandering the streets nowadays. They can't even change a flat tire.

[Dutch Boy]

Add that to the restriction of recruiting in high schools. I firmly believe the current recruitment issue is mostly caused by the left. They dirty up the war by casting doubts at every turn. They are near gleeful when something goes wrong. They doubt when something goes right. They mock the actions of soldier and marines. They restrict places where recruiters can recruit. Then they have the nerve to complain they numbers are down.

On the other hand, I went to a HS graduation last night. There were several very patriotic speeches by students and faculty. The last speech of the night listed the names of graduating seniors that were entering the military. There were about three(3) times the number than in previous year. It was a proud moment for our small town.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"They can't recruit enough to maintain current levels, where are the extra 150,000 going to come from?"

They aren't. Democrats are calling for a draft and if the President goes for it, the RATS will then say Bush is drafting their kids.

They are pulling the same crap that they did on Bush senior in 92 with the no new taxes plegde. They forced Bush to raise taxes then accused him of doing it.

[TheCrusader]

"It's not just the MSM. It's people on our side and people in politics that represent our interests."

We agree again.

[Tarpon]

The leftist-MSM and the Democrats are replaying their alleged successes in Vietnam when the public essentially had no voice. Today, the monopoly is broken, the leftists-MSM and the Democrats are in full decay mode.

There are two Americas, the one carefully crafted by the leftist-MSM, and the reality based world. All you have to do is read the leftist-MSM and then read the Iraqi bloggers. Stark contrast -- stick with the bloggers, save the trees.

[KenmcG414]

Sending more troops is the last thing we should do. In this day and age of high end technology its astounding that we can't come up with better ways to protect our troops. We must review our methods of deploying and moving troops. Our troops are dying needlessly from ambushes and car bombs.

[joesbucks]

It's very difficult to determine who a car bomber is. Even the President who has a total focus of security on him isn't necessarily protected, ala Reagan early in his term and Bush while in Russia. All those assets used to protect these guys and Reagan is shot and a man with a greneade is within a few hundred feet of Bush.

How many people are involved in protecting the President and do we want to allocate the same ratio of resources to a troop convoy?

[SandRat]

...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.

(John Kerry+Hillary Clinton) + ("hawks" American Enterprise Institute) * (greatly expanding U.S. ground forces) = Severe Recruiting Shortfall

Severe Recruiting Shortfall = Draft

Draft = POLITICS - Viet NAM ANTI-WAR Style

• Dems can claim Bush Lied in the campaign and should be impeached
  
• Dems ANTI-WAR LEFTOVERS from Viet Nam can have a reunion and every-night on the nightly news force us to relive those vile days
  
• Dems get what they want; the US to lose the war and they have a major card to play in the '06 or possibly '08 elections.

[tangerine]

They can't recruit enough to maintain current levels, where are the extra 150,000 going to come from?

Maybe recruiters need to spend more time in Home Depot parking lots.

[joesbucks]

Most parking lots contain signs for no soliciting.

[Chgogal]

We are divided until we are attacked again. Should Ismlamists dare attack us again the survival of Iran and Saudi Arabia will be questionable. Remember most of us support Gitmo and the WOT. If the other shoe drops so be it. I would think very carefully if I were a rabid Muslim in attacking the US directly.

I am more afraid of a Democrat winning the WH and reversing all that we have accomplished. There have been no direct attacks on US soft targets since 9/11. I wonder why?

[Terpfen]

No, no draft. It would screw up the military. Creating more incentives to join is fine. Forced service is not.