Posted on 09/25/2006 3:54:45 PM PDT by neverdem
There are enough.
Rumsfeld wants to prove, still, his plans to route soldier pay to lucrative, big and sometimes dodgy arms programs as the "better" defense.
He was a Star Wars lobbyist. Pre-9/11 Bush's foreign diplomacy was centered on enabling Star Wars without busting the ABM treaty. Now the Star Wars money is still flowing although it is only plans to intercept some hypothetical North Korean missile they might build a decade of so from now..
Hell, when you're getting shot at, there's never enough troops.
Not sure why you are being so dismissive.
North Korea missiles can reach us....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/
There have been successful intercepts...
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/nmdimg.html
The administration will never do it. In order to expand the size of the military, and fund the extra hundred fifty billion or so it will take, the administration will either have to increase revenue, i.e. tax increase, or cut spending. It has not shown itself willing to do either.
The bullship according to McCain.
"Researchers at conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation call for larger ground forces,"
.
The Words:
http://www.Freerepublic.com/~ALOHARONNIE
The Pictures:
http://www.RickRescorla.com/The%20Statue.htm
The Posts:
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
.
At over $500 billion a year we are spending MORE on the Military then at any time since the Reagan years.
Counter Insurgency is NOT Total War. The usual rice bowlers in the Pentagon, with the willing aid of the porkbarrelers in the political establishment, are using the war as an excuse to push for unlimited funding for every idea they can come up with. A really disgusting effort to use the troops as PR props for their partisan political ends. THAT is what this article is all about.
At it's height we had 500,000 troops in Vietnam. How did that work out for us?
Sending the right troops YES, sending just any troops simply marginalizes your local allies, retards development of effective Iraqi Security forces and provides many many many more targets for the Terrorists. It also polarizes the local political equation as your troops, instead of being Liberators, start to be seen as Occupiers by the bulk of Iraqis.
Conventional troops are not trained or structured for Counter Insurgency missions. Send massive forces into Iraq exponentially increases the cultural friction between average Iraqis and us. EVEN in WW2 between relatively culturally homogeneous British and Americans there was a great deal of friction. Imagine how much WORSE that friction would be in Iraq!
This article is a absolute recipe for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. This would turn Iraq into Afghanistan 2 with us filling the role of the Russians. A really, really dumb idea.
The US Army is currently slated to expand to 48 Combat Brigades by the end of 2007. Rather then a bunch of well meaning, but ignorant, political types trying to direct the military efforts; I suggest this time we leave running the military to the professionals.
I should point out that during the 1980's we had a significantly larger Army, Navy, and Air Force. We have made the necessary decision to expand Ground Forces. This needs be done. Schoomaker's halt for additional budget money is long overdue.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
The whole reason, despite a record setting $500+ billion annual Defense Budget for all this hysteria is to get the American people, to shovel out for what every new way the Bureaucrats and the Congresscritters can dream up to waste the taxpayers money.
Which is why the US Army will expand to 48 Combat Brigades by the end of 2007. Read here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm
I'm pleasently surprised to hear you say that, Johnnie.
You're on the right track. If you think about it, our large conventional presence currently does the same thing, without the benefit of providing sufficient security. More ground troops may provide more security, but at an increased rate of cultural friction.
What we need is to take this endeavor out of the hands of the 'big Army' and put it under SOCOM. They understand counterinsurgency, and can do the job right, if given the chance. Our path to victory lies with fewer, but more culturally sensitive elite forces.
This article is a absolute recipe for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. This would turn Iraq into Afghanistan 2 with us filling the role of the Russians. A really, really dumb idea.
Oddly enough, Afghanistan itself is turning into Afghanistan 2. Iraq will just have to wait it's turn.
The US Army is currently slated to expand to 48 Combat Brigades by the end of 2007. Rather then a bunch of well meaning, but ignorant, political types trying to direct the military efforts; I suggest this time we leave running the military to the professionals.
The 'expansion' to 48 brigades is simply a reorg of the current division/brigade structure into a modern, smaller brigade unit. It's only an expansion on paper; the troop numbers won't increase. You can cut $1000 into four wads of cash, or five or six, but it's still $1000.
Fine, the researchers know nothing about Counter Insurgency. Neither do I. But as a mere observer, I'm willing to say that if we'd had 350K troops on the ground ASAP, it would've been over a year ago.
Frankly, I'm willing to bring back the draft.
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.