Comments on: U.S. Military Dangerously Small

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

[samthetvcat]

Okay I can understand where the editors at NRO are coming from - like they think the war is still winnable if only they had the troop size and public support to go full steam ahead and 9/11 would have been the ideal time to capitalize on peoples' patriotism and desire to do something about terrorism.

BUT if you take a step back and really think about who was responsible for 9/11 (Saudi Arabia, Taliban), how much of a terror threat Saddam realistically posed (paper tiger), and whether Bush would have chosen to take on nation-building in Iraq if he had known how unsuccessful that would later prove to be, there was really never any true need for more troops. In the here and now must of us don't believe more troops are going to help - so really for most of us the argument is would guess moot.

[sevenveils]

The US armed forces are supposed to be manned and equipped in sufficient numbers to be able to fight full scale wars in two theaters simultaneously. Our commander in chief has failed miserably in keeping this capacity. Our armed forces have been suffering for almost a decade with troop reductions and cuts in the military budget, denying our troops the very latests advances in technology and equipment. If the US federal government were a public company, the CEO would be charged and convicted of many criminal offenses of mismanagement.

For instance, it is well documented the 5.56mm (.223 cal) cartridge used by US and NATO armed forces lacks adequate punch and killing power, especially beyond 60 yards (56 meters). The current rifles in use today are based upon a controversial fifty year old design tailored for a South Vietnamese soldier. Fifty years ago the Army rejected the twenty-two caliber rifle as inadequate, but politics dictated otherwise. To this date, the amount of money for research and development of a new rifle for US troops is minuscule. As an example, more money is spent advertising Viagra than R&D for a new rifle

[down-ndirty]

"bluestardad, your information is incorrect and very misleading. You have nothing factual to back up your talking points. Rangers are well trained and motivated individuals. They are volunteers for ranger training; most have had the training but have not been to the course to validate it. You apparently know nothing about the military." Posted by xsoldier2

xsoldier2, do you have a source for your rebuttal information? bluestardad's information is correct far more often than incorrect.

[tejasdemo]

I can tell you where you can find over 3000 soldiers. Buried in the ground. They're dead because of George Bush, D ick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfawitz, Fox News, and about one million religious right radicals.

Arrogant SOBs. Go to hell.

[down-ndirty]

"So to say you want to make us smaller, shame on you." Posted by NavyChief

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.

[houchin21]

clinton was a much better president than the idiot we have now. that is why we need hillary to win.

(HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT)

[houchin21]

clinton was a much better president than the idiot we have now. that is why we need hillary to win.

(HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT)

[down-ndirty]

"My point is, Bush has had 5 years to build an army and he's done nothing. He and his co-conspiritors wanted a war on the cheap (lives don't count... only money), and we are now experiencing the results of another of their mistakes." Posted by wogerwabbit

That's right on! Actually Rumsfeld thought that fewer soldiers could do more.

Upon becoming SecDef in 2001, "Rumsfeld immediately announced a series of sweeping reviews intended to plot the transformation of the U.S. military into a lighter force. These studies, led by Pentagon analyst Andrew Marshall, drew widespread resistance from the military services and members of Congress...Rumsfeld pushed hard to send as small a force as possible to both [Afghanistan and Iraq] conflicts, a concept codified as the Rumsfeld Doctrine [failed legacy]." Source: search "rumsfeld doctrine" or "rumsfeld's military"

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

[bluestardad]

xsoldier2; Thank you! Once again flapping your sphincter and not reading the post! These troops go to a 3 week Pre-Ranger course and are back filled into Ranger Units to fill personnel quota! Research it and get back to me do you know how to use google? I dont wanna make you feel bad just educate you!

THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS!

Did you know that the Bush Administration has been back filling Ranger Units with Three Week trained Troops that go to a Ranger Familiarization course and then are back filled in Ranger Units to fill up the unit strength so they can deploy them! These are not Black Tab Rangers but soldiers that are Pre-Rangers just to fill a Ranger Slot and forced to go into combat without the full Black Tab Training Course! DO ANY OF YOU THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO TRAIN AND COMMIT OUR TROOPS INTO BATTLE? Currently over 25 percent of Ranger companies are not filled by Fully School Trained Rangers!

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail] Here is the Republican Party email address too!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[down-ndirty]

"You seem to believe that you can just whistle up an effective Army, whenever you want one. Well, you can train soldiers in 6 months, but, many will come home in body bags while they learn the art of war." Posted by Opfor311

Well, jeez, opfor! Bush had from Sept 12, 2001 to Mar of 2003 to build up his Army. Why didn't he do it? He knew he was going to war.

Even when he had the chance, he didn't adequately protect them with the equipment they needed. Many had to buy their own BP vests. Others had to pay for their "damaged" BP vest when it was shot up.

Tell me, opfor, why didn't Bush use the 18 months to prepare the Army for war? Actually he had over two years to build up the Army, considering that he was planning the Iraq war JUST TEN DAYS in office.

A repugnican president with a repugnican congress should be able to perform miracles. LOL!!

You neocons always try to divert where the buck should stop.