THE PROUD, THE FEW -- STRETCHED TO ITS LIMITS, OUR MILITARY NEEDS ONE MILLION MEN

NY Post ^ | May 25th, 2008 | THOMAS DONNELLY and FREDERICK W. KAGAN

[The_Republican]

For the American Left, there are many reasons to withdraw from Iraq: we're caught in the middle of a sectarian civil war, the Iraqi government is a perfidious ally, Iraq is a diversion from the real war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and so on. Some of these arguments are strategically shortsighted, others are based on false premises (such as the fact that the sectarian civil war is over in Iraq and bin Laden is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan), but at least they are more or less logically coherent. What makes almost no sense is the proposal that we turn success in Iraq into defeat so that we can "fix the military."

Fixing the "broken" military is a reliable campaign talking point for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; the Democrats have embraced the idea that soldiers are a new constituency in their Coalition of the Victimized. Obama's victory speech after the South Carolina primary in January grouped soldiers and their families with "the mother who can't get Medicaid for her sick child," the "teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts" and the "Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Walmart."

The fix-the-military argument was recently made at greater length by the New York Times. On May 18, the paper's editorialists noted that the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a serious toll on the Army and Marine Corps, wearing down not only people but equipment "at an unprecedented rate." Well, the loss rates would not have been surprising to the defenders of Bastogne, the armies at Antietam, or the servicemen and women in any other major war, but it is true that US land forces have been asked to do too much with too little for too long.

[oswegodeee]

"we can then bomb the Middle East into rubble and make them fear us more than they hate us"

I think that it will happen before the end of next decade - My Dad who was a WWII veteran and a lifer in the Army, once said," I don't give a rat's A$$ who likes us as long as they respect us" So as in the Bible "Fear God" to me means respect his power!

[rlmorel]

It may well happen. But I think it is contingent upon us to try this path first.

There will always be time for unlimited warfare if it comes to that. We owe it to ourselves to at least try a different path.

[Gondring]

Being in Europe and Korea for decades was more about the Cold War than nation building. Heck, the Germans had a viable national government only 4 years after the war ended.

I didn't claim that the decades were for nation-building (re-read my post), but regardless of why, they are overseas.

The number of troops in Afghanistan is small, which may be why things aren't going well there at all.

OOOOOOH!!! You're not spouting the party line! I'm TELLIN'!!! ;-)

I actually support the original thrust of the article, which is we need a LOT more troops.

Likewise.

"Nation building" to me means needlessly sacrificing people by tying their hands with idiotic rules.

Governor Bush understood this and quite clearly stated it was not his policy.

Screwing around like we've been doing means hemorraghing money for no benefit.

I think most American families would have preferred a $20,000 check (or $20,000 less on taxes) rather than this war. Recall how a few hundred billion dollars estimate was called "baloney" by Rumsfeld, who said it would be only $50-60 billion? What would we say if a Democrat had gone 40 times over his estimate?

[bvw]

On Memorial Day -- we remember those who never became "veterans". And every one of those remembered would have easily traded his plot of ground -- no matter how famous and respected that plot -- for life.

That's the real service -- to live in a way that honors the life of the honored -- for they did not get that chance to continue it on their own. They left it for us to pick up the slack, and not for us to be slackers.

[itsahoot]

Democrats have no idea how or why war, any war, is fought.

Gee, and to think all of them but this one were started by democrats, excluding of course Lincoln's war.

[cva66snipe]

April 1959: President Dwight D. Eisenhower commits the United States to maintaining South Vietnam's independence.
July 1959: Two U.S. advisors are the first Americans killed in a guerrilla attack 20 miles north of Saigon.
April 1960: North Vietnam begins mandatory military service as its troops infiltrate South Vietnam.
By year's end, about 900 U.S. military personnel are in Vietnam.

Source :http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=515

[itsahoot]

By year's end, about 900 U.S. military personnel are in Vietnam.

I am aware of Eisenhower's little expedition force, I also believe he had no intention of getting involved in a shooting war with these people, having threatened to go nuclear if they pushed the issue. The real war didn't start until the weaker Kennedy moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The country moved into full blown war when Johnson assumed the Presidency.

Guns and Butter Johnson