Last time I looked Baghdad hadn't moved.
Bush II is a good president. I'm glad it's him in the White House not Al Gore. However, Bush II is not what we need right now. What we need is Reagan II.
Posted on 09/16/2002 1:13:31 PM PDT by SBeck
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:47:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Last Wednesday, the president was everywhere. But on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, FDR worked quietly in the White House as America battled Japan on Guadalcanal, U-boats on the Atlantic, and Rommel in Tunisia. In the previous 365 days we had quadrupled defense spending and military production, doubled military manpower, turned the Battle of the Atlantic, invaded North Africa in history's then largest amphibious assault, begun the Burma Road, engaged Hirohito's air force, bombed Tokyo, checked the expansion of the Japanese Empire, and triumphed at Midway and in the Coral Sea.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Fire away.
That's all well and good when the enemy is in one place. Al Queda is EVERYWHERE, and it will take a while before many of their leaders can be brought to justice. The arrest over the weekend of one of the planners of 9/11 is proof that the US is not sitting on its hands waiting for the bad guys to do something again so we can catch theme in the act. There is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes about which the public does not know, nor should it!
If I remember right, Mark Helprin was a major apologist for x42. That helps me to put his attitude into perspective.
As in Afghanistan?
And to commit an expeditionary force of this size, at such a distance, in the face of rapidly forming Arab unity, with the possibility of enforced denial of overflight; the closure of Suez; and the naval, air, and ground-force participation of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt;
Too late, Mr. Helprin: those obstacles are evaporating as we speak.
plus the certainty of stressed and inadequate U.S. support because of the uncorrected degradation of our forces, would be the imprudent gift to Saddam of a chance he would not have were we to move in strength.
When will this "degradation" be corrected: a year, two years? Does Helprin assume we can wait that long? If Saddam gets nuclear weapons, the condition of our forces will be irrelevant.
I thought Helprin had some good points in earlier articles (he is a great writer)-- but his continued obsession with massive military buildup/spending is getting a bit thin, and Scott Ritterish, considering the threat we are facing.
Last time I looked Baghdad hadn't moved.
Bush II is a good president. I'm glad it's him in the White House not Al Gore. However, Bush II is not what we need right now. What we need is Reagan II.
Though the president campaigned to restore the military, he has not. His first defense budget represented virtually no change; the second -- after Sept. 11 -- a minuscule increase; and the third, though much trumpeted, a wholly insufficient one. In the peacetime years of the latter half of the 20th century, the U.S. annually spent an average of 5.7% of GNP on defense; in wartime, 13.3%. Less the purely operational costs of the "war," the president's third budget is 3.1% of GDP. The Clinton administration directed a larger share of America's resources to defense even as it severely degraded the military of which President Bush is supposedly the savior.
I'm glad some reporters are finally spelling it out. Indeed Bush is not an active and ready to roll pro-military POTUS. He is a carbon copy of his dads administration's failed policies if he does not alter course.
If you are going to war no matter what you first prepare the nation and the military. That means a build up. NOT A CALL UP OF RESERVES TO FILL VACANT ACTIVE DUTY POSITIONS BEFORE YOU EVEN GET STARTED. We as a nation are thanks to Bush SR, Clinton, & Bush JR far too reserve dependent. That continuing policy is going to catch us in a bad way if not changed.
Has GW Bush yet to address such issues as over extension and over deployments policies that his dad and Richard Cheney put into action? The over deployments and over extensions are a direct result of the defunding and reduction put in place as National Defense Policy by GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, and now G.W. Bush as well follows this ill fated policy.
As Helprin eloquently pointed out, words and chatter only. What we need is a true alliance, as in WWII; what we need is to decisively mark the enemy and engage, as in WWII; and what we need is a national gut and spine check.
My bad; it was my conservative knee jerking! But my argument still stands. I just looked up some other articles by him and he has the same argument; Bush is going after the wrong folks. I don't think we know WHO Bush is going after at this point, and that's a good thing. It keeps the objects of the hunt in the dark. But at the same time, I think the Bush Administration is planning to go after the countries that are sponsoring the terrorism. He can't go in until he had his duckies in a row, and it takes a lot of time for that to happen.
It is easy for journalists to snipe, but I do believe there is a lot going on of which we are unaware.
Patton: A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.
cooperation with foreign internal security apperatus is a must. That will not be accomplished in most cases by throwing our weight around indiscriminately.
This is about patience and planning and then pouncing.
The writer's most salient point is about the lack of public involovement in the struggle. There seems to be disconnect between what we, as citizens, are being asked to do....which is go shopping.
Not really. It could quickly become a WW3. We are not building up for that senerio or others such as we attack Iraq and the entire Middle East joins the fight, we attack Iraq and North Korea attacks South Korea, we attack Iraq and China goes for Tiawan. This is what disturbs me about Bush military planning. There seems to be none beyond being far too reserve and alliance dependent. Eventually that policy will be tested by our enemies. The best measure that can be taken to prevent this is substaining a strong active duty force which can take the abuses both equipment and troop wise of these ever increasing extended deployments. The number one function of Government is providing for defense. Our military is indeed showing the wear from 13.5 years of neglect.
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.