Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jmc1969
"The fact is Z-man knows we don't have the forces for three wars at the same time, but we could have if we increased the size of the Army after 2001."

Rummy (and everyone in the military) knows that we never have. We've never really even had the forces to fight two wars simultaneously.

23 posted on 06/15/2006 7:28:56 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Rokke

You are correct, the plan has really been to "hold" in one conflict, win the other, and then shift forces to win the other. Doesn't sound so great, but in fact we did similar in WWII. Germany was the first priority, moved slower against the Jap's until we had won in Europe.


30 posted on 06/15/2006 7:39:16 AM PDT by conservativewasp (Liberals lie for sport and hate our country. Zarqawi got the message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Rokke
Good afternoon.
"We've never really even had the forces to fight two wars simultaneously."

That would depend upon the type and location of the wars and the enemy we faced. We have fought limited wars many times.

I would guess that TPTB know that a draft would be instituted in the case of multiple large wars. Michael Frazier
60 posted on 06/15/2006 12:07:01 PM PDT by brazzaville (no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson