Posted on 12/17/2006 5:14:36 PM PST by STARWISE
pretty darn close to giving comfort to the enemy!
You sound like you belong at DU.
Now, that is an excellent question. I'm sure someone has the numbers. I don't question a need to increase our military in these dangerous times... I just prefer it remain voluntary.
Amazingly enough not a word on increasing the size of the armed forces at all. If Clinton is to be condemned for downsizing then shouldn't the President be condemned for failing to increase size? We're fighting with basically the same sized army and marines we had in 2001.
Thursday, January 6, 2005
General Says Army Reserve Is Becoming a 'Broken' Force
The head of the Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force."
In the memo, dated Dec. 20, Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly lashed out at what he said were outdated and "dysfunctional" policies on mobilizing and managing the force. He complained that his repeated requests to adjust the policies to current realities have been rebuffed by Pentagon authorities.
Top general: Army 'will break' without more troops
"At this pace ... we will break the active component" unless more reserves can be called up to help, Schoomaker said in prepared remarks.
Most I know in the military can't stand Powell or Weasley Clark. And this includes many folks...
See page V
Uh, I think you have the wrong guy. I never suggested or hinted that we should support Hezbollah anywhere. If Powell is saying we shouldn't, that's sensible and it wouldn't be part of my criticism at all.
What about it? It says that the active duty army component is 487,000. Look back to 2001 and you'll find that the authorized active duty component was about 487,000. They're staffing the war with reservists and National Guards, both of which have a legislative limit on how long they can serve for any given time. More and more of the load will continue to fall on the active duty army. Yet the administration hasn't increased it's size. Again, you want to criticize Clinton for downsizing the army, fine. I doubt he had any idea we'd be occupying Iraq two years after he left office otherwise he and the Republican congess might not have cut as much. But we're 4 years into the war and the current administration is fighting it with roughly the same staffing levels that Clinton left office with. Which is worse?
You totally missed my point
Correction Non-Sequitur, you have never seen a post of mine criticizing any military person who has served this country.
I will take it that you meant that part of your post for someone else.
P.S. Yeah I know Clinton did not serve.
I recall being stunned that we stopped at the border between Kuwait and Iraq in GW1. Bush 41 later claimed it was his decision. IMO, a lot of the anger and hostility that Bush 43 is taking is the direct result of 41's decision to end the war early. I think that if we had taken care of business then, we wouldn't be doing this again in Iraq, and 43 doesn't want to blame his dad (who would want to blame their parent?).
We don't have to "believe" that he is a product of affirmative action any more - we can see proof positive of it every time he opens his mouth.
Very nice paragraph stating the positions he held. Affirmative action could have been responsible for all of that. I didn't call him a traitor, I call him an incompetent and a yes-man of the first water. OK?
>>Let's be consistent.
You're gonna have to get a loaf of bread for that.
Right on - he didn't win Gulf I, he sat on his butt in Washington, appeared on TV and polished his "shining tail" while other people planned and carried out the war.
Maybe because they are saying the same thing-
"Let me remind the committee, however, that, while new options are explored and debated, my testimony should not be taken to imply approval of shifts in direction."
"In the north, significant progress is being made in transitioning security responsibilities to capable Iraqi forces. Currently, around 80 percent of the sectarian violence in Iraq happens within a 35-mile radius of Baghdad."
" In discussions with our commanders and Iraqi leaders, it is clear that they believe Iraqis forces can take more control faster, provided we invest more manpower and resources into the coalition military transition teams, speed the delivery of logistics and mobility enablers and embrace an aggressive Iraqi-led effort to disarm illegal militias."
Investing more manpower and resources into transition teams. Hmmm.
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Press%20Briefings/Nov%2015%2006%20-%20Senate%20Armed%20Services%20Committee%20Holds%20Hearing%20on%20Current%20Situation%20in%20Iraq%20and%20Afghanistan.htm
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.