Since when is it permissable for political enemies of our administration to "improve" on the administration and the joint chiefs' job of running things?
Whether in Timbuctoo or at the capitol, Yahoos always have loads of "helpful hints" for the President.
The lot of them can take a flying leap.
That also applies equally to know-it-all freepers.
Since when is it permissable for political enemies of our administration to "improve" on the administration and the joint chiefs' job of running things?
...
You really don't understand anything beyond partisanship, least of all democracy, do you? We're always the ones trying to build up the military, but as soon as a democrat suggests it it becomes a treasonous affront to the president's 'divine right' as our leader. Take your head out of your ass for a second and look at what you're actually arguing about.
By the way ? my nephew was in Iraq ( US Marine ) getting shot at ( he got hit by 5 bullets ) for fighting for YOUR FREEDOM.
That also applies equally to know-it-all freepers.
And what does that make you?
I think we need a larger military. I guess I'm a know-it-all since I'm a vet, a former Intel type, a defense contractor on Intel projects since '96 and a contractor working in Iraq right now.
What would I know?
Many hands lighten the load.
Agree with me or not but don't presume to tell me what I can or can not suggest to an elected official, especially regarding things I actually understand.
As compared to the know-it-all Secretary of Defense?
The Secretary of Defense has pursued three main goals:
1) Reform of the Defense Department
2) Waging war against Global Terrorism.
3) Transformation of the military from a Cold War posture.
Worthy goals all, and much needed after the damages inflicted by the last administration. But, the Secretary and his team have made several critical errors in implementing this policy. The biggest mistake that they have made is assuming that future warfare would not require large numbers of ground forces, but rather an integrated network of sensors and precision weapons launched primarily from air and sea platforms. Kosovo provided an early model for this idea and our successes in Afghanistan reinforced this notion. Wars could be won quickly and decisivly through the application of overwhelming precision effects without exposing ground forces to casualties and without entangling the U.S. in a nasty ground campaign. You could therefore, cut the Army by two divisions, reduce the size of the Marine Corps, and use the money saved to transform the Air Force and Navy.
Unfortunately, things haven't worked out. The current war is nasty, as all wars tend to be, and we need a large ground force to ensure success. While Rumsfeld has backed off of his plan to reduce the Army by two divisions, he has not thought it necessary to increase the size of the Army. Many believe that he is wrong, but he is a stubborn man and seems determined to prove his point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I am not a know-it-all, but I do know more than most about this issue and have an informed opinion. While I strongly support the President in his policies in the Global War on Terror, I will not stand up and blindly go along with whatever scheme the Secretary of Defense puts forward. Many other military professionals think the same way.
We are also keenly aware that the only reasons that Democrats are pushing the increase in the size of the Army is that they can thereby demonstrate a difference with the Administration in a way that makes them seem to be strong on defense. Of course, they are no such thing. If given power, they will cut and run at the first opportunity and then proclaim that the need for a strong military has passed allowing them to cut defense spending to help pay for much needed programs.