Comments on: U.S. Military Dangerously Small

National Review Online: U.S. Vulnerable To New Threats Abroad

[questionevil]

Thank you for clearing that up. You%u2019re right it is all Clinton's fault that the Armed Forces have been reduced, probably the obstruction all those years from that damned peacenik Republican Congress. It%u2019s not like Congress holds the purse strings. Why not blame the damned Soviet Union for collapsing? Until 9/11 we wandered aimlessly from one tin pot dictator to the next until we found someone we could truly hate again to justify our expenditures. It%u2019s definitely not Bush's fault? Sure he squandered a great surge of patriotism after 9/11 and attacked the wrong country, but hell he's the President and a saint. He's more then a saint, in fact we should all help him up onto his cross when ever he fells under appreciated.

Could it be that the real problem here isn't funding, or who controls congress but the fact it%u2019s very difficult for the Military to sell itself to a public that sees one fiasco after another on the News. It may really become an Army of One if this keeps up. Where are all the patriotic sons and daughters of the frothing at the mouth chicken hawk readers of the NRO? If they're so supportive of keeping our troops where they are indefinitely and conceding the notion that having any plan what so ever is giving victory to the enemy why aren't they getting their kids down to the recruitment offices to fill ranks of the proud? Could it be that it's a lot easier to be aggressive and militaristic if you have nothing personal at stake?

[navychief8]

Actually, chief, Rumsfeld wanted to may you smaller, and did make you smaller. So, would you say "Shame on Rumsfeld?"

See the "Rumsfeld Doctrine."

And don't assume that you, or others with "military handles" are the only ones who served. I served from before the Cuban blockade to after the first Gulf War. And I do know what FUBAR means. The last six years have been an explicit and vivid definition of FUBAR.

Another definition of FUBAR is when sailors have to be sent ashore to fight like soldiers.


Posted by down-ndirty


down-ndirty,

read my last post. I know all about Rumsfeld, and am glad he is gone. I agree with what you are saying about the man. In my previous post I was pointing out the silliness of the poster who actually thinks the Military should be even smaller. My opinion is that to accomplish our current missions, our Military needs to grow significantly. Hope this clears up my position. Not really sure how you figured I supported Rumsfeld by my post?????

[navychief8]

In fact, Rumsfeld closed a lot of military bases, against the wishes of the military and the congress.


Posted by down-ndirty at 12:20 PM : Apr 17, 2007

If you havn't already, read Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. It is a well researched factual look at the war and more importantly, how our military was used/misused in Iraq. It tell the good and the bad with out bias. It gives good insight into just how out of touch Rumsfeld was in his planning of the war.

[torocaca]

ajaxrose1 is a troll.

A troll is an individual who chronically posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life, as in, %u201COh, ignore her/him, she/he's just a troll.%u201D

[torocaca]

More FYI for the neocon war chauvinists who like to blame anyone but the Bush administration:

In taking down "...Saddam Hussein, there were at least 50 airstrikes aimed at decapitating the Iraqi leadership. Not a single one was successful. However, there was extensive collateral damage to civilians."

Also, "...without ground troops to secure the [Iraq] border, top Ba'athist regime members fled the country with vast Iraqi funds and foreign insurgents moved into the country. There were not enough troops to defend the Iraqi border from foreign-backed insurgents."

And "...without sufficient troops the country could not be pacified. Without sufficient troops to guard the Iraqi military infrastructure large amounts of munitions were looted. This has led to the current problem of insurgents and their improvised explosive devices (IED)s."

The Rumsfeld Doctrine has been referred to as the 'just enough troops to lose' doctrine.

[torocaca]

"All the left-wing, liberal p-$$ies fussing about the size of the army can thank their former left-wing, liberal p-$$y ex-president Clinton for the reduction of forces that has caused such a shortage now." Posted by ajaxrose1

ajazrose1 is just another uneducated right-wing neo-nutcase who doesn't know ***** from shinola, and is therefore willing to blame anyone he/she doesn't like for Bush's disaster. Actually, from his childish language and name-calling, I'd guess he's just another moron posing as a troll.

FYI: "Rumsfeld wanted only 60,000 troops in the Iraq invasion. [LOL!!!] The Pentagon (General Franks) wanted 400,000. 140,000 went into Iraq. At issue was not the number of troops needed to topple the regime, but the number needed to maintain the peace afterwards. In the days before the invasion the Pentagon had declared that the invasion would last mere weeks, not months. However, the Pentagon maintained that %u201Cboots%u201D were necessary to maintain the peace."
Source: the "Rumsfeld Doctrine"

ajaxrose is just a troll.

[jimfinster]

ajaxrose1:

Bush has been King for 6 years, got everything he ever asked for budget-wise. Get off your friggin soapbox and blame the right guy. Hint: it ain't Clinton!

[ajaxrose1]

All the left-wing, liberal p-$$ies fussing about the size of the army can thank their former left-wing, liberal p-$$y ex-president Clinton for the reduction of forces that has caused such a shortage now. He's the one directly responsible for cutting the forces back as far as he could over the course of his 8 years in office. This idiot actually PAID people to LEAVE the service. The people who carp the most about ANY thing in this country are usually the little left-wing whiners, who are LEAST likely to do ANY thing about it, such as SERVING in any capacity, military or otherwise.

[dirtydog55]

The NRO is extreme right-wing, and like all extreme right-wingers, is pro-war.

War is a very profitable "business" for the wealthy, especially the wealthy conservatives.

The wealthy are not at risk to serve, nor are their children.

[down-ndirty]

opfor, navychief, and xsoldier:

While you are looking up "Rumsfeld Doctrine" take a look at "Powell Doctrine." Both are on Wikipedia. In case you can't "google it" I'll post part of it for you:

"The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

The fifth point of the Doctrine is normally interpreted to mean that the U.S. should not get involved in peacekeeping or nation-building exercises..."

Rumsfeld & Bush should have learned from the "subject matter expert."