The stretched army

Townhall.com ^ | September 12, 2002 | Robert Novak

[sheik yerbouty]

Defeatist!

[thegreatbeast]

I hope no one questions this. It's true. We can't prop up Afghanistan, Pakistan & invade Iraq simply because we don't have the horses. We can bomb from here until Doomsday but we don't have troops to put on the ground in all these places. The Peace Dividend, you know.
BTW, if I were a newspaper publisher that is what I would have headlined the Sept. 12th edition of my paper, The Peace Dividend. What do you think?

[Poohbah]

Sounds like a Perfumed Prince who doesn't want to leave the comforts of Heidelburg, Frankfurt Am Main, or Kaiserlautern for someplace icky and sandy like the Gulf.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Big thanks to Clinton for decimating our Armed Services! Traitor!!!! I hope Bush is busy building the stockpile back up.

[Mr. Bird]

Major troops assignments in Korea, Japan, Germany and elsewhere in Europe (well over 100,000)

Well, move 'em out of Europe. All of them. The EU has declared (implicitly) that it doesn't need us, so let them prove it.

I'm not doubting Novak or his sources, but he hasn't wowed me with his opinions on these things in quite some time. It's about time for he, Broder, Safire, et al to pack it in.

[Naplm]

Get our troops out of Germany ASAP,there does that give out some slack, next ask the new Commandant if he has 3 Divisions to commmit, bet I know what his answer will be.
These defeatist are sickening.

[Travis McGee]

Iraq is going to turn into the liberation of a concentration camp, not Stalingrad. They are ready to surrender to UAVs and a humvee with a Major in it.

[LiteKeeper]

mega-dittoes

[Poohbah]

How to tell that your country truly sucks: when your army surrenders to the French.

[Zack Nguyen]

I hope Bush is busy building the stockpile back up.

Perhaps someone else has an opinion, but I have seen little or no evidence that he is. He has not significantly increased military spending, and he has not reorganized to cut waste. The Pentagon is still monterously wasteful.

Does anyone see any reason why we should be in Bosnia or Kosovo? Particularly now that we are in a real war, and not the "photo opportunity" wars that Clinton got us into. Bush should have pulled every one of them out already.

[Zack Nguyen]

Here s a worrisome article.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666276/posts

Phony War

[Poohbah]

Perhaps someone else has an opinion, but I have seen little or no evidence that he is.

Folks at Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and McDonnell Douglas disagree.

He's not buying a lot of platforms, but he's buying a ton of ordnance.

[Poohbah]

I read it back when it was first posted.

It's not one of the National Review's better efforts.

[jjm2111]

"Many young officers heartily dislike Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. "

Huh?

[Tailback]

There's no reason to keep a large number of troops in Europe. All US troops should be pulled out of Europe with the exception of troops necessary to maintain pre-positioned equipment. Former Yugoslavia should be handed over to European control.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

The one thing that really worries me is the US launching a major undertaking like Iraq, then the N. Koreans and Chinese deciding that this is a good opportunity to launch simultaneous moves against S. Korea and Taiwan -- and maybe also Pakistan or India deciding to mix it up, and/or the Arabs & Israelis, etc., etc. We could very quickly see a half dozen wars being fought simultaneously, and these could soon allign into two great blocs. We would then be in WWIII.

[Naplm]

The Pentagon has been wastfull for decades, even a 2 term President will not change that.

[Poohbah]

The one thing that really worries me is the US launching a major undertaking like Iraq, then the N. Koreans and Chinese deciding that this is a good opportunity to launch simultaneous moves against S. Korea and Taiwan -- and maybe also Pakistan or India deciding to mix it up, and/or the Arabs & Israelis, etc., etc. We could very quickly see a half dozen wars being fought simultaneously, and these could soon allign into two great blocs. We would then be in WWIII.

North Korea attacking South Korea--this isn't 1950. China's biggest concern would be over US troops approaching the Yalu River.

China attacking Taiwan--not nearly enough amphibious sealift available for an invasion. A blockade would be of limited effect (Taiwan has large stockpiles of everything), and a couple of Los Angeles-class boats (about as useful for an Iraq war as a screen door is on a submarine) would end the blockade quite quickly.

Pakistan vs. India: India has no particular incentive to invade, and the Pakistani Army is not competent to do so. Who's going to start the war?

[marron]

Yes, we are stretched. But there is a way forward.

Peacekeeping duties must be offloaded temporarily to National Guard troops, and subsequently to Euro troops. I believe this already happening.

Or, if the Euros refuse to handle it, simply abandoned.

National Guardsmen are also being dispatched to Europe to replace soldiers being transferred.

The bases in Germany need to be closed immediately, and this is regardless of what happens in Iraq. We cannot have a major force whose use is contingent upon the permission of a leftist Euro prime minister.

Those troops need to be forward based somewhere closer to potential theaters of operation. I would suggest somewhere in the Asian land mass.