U.S. Military Dangerously Small

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

(National Review Online)  This column was written by the editors of National Review Online.

---

Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the Pentagon was extending the tours of most active-duty Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Our forces are stretched, there’s no question about that,” he said. No kidding. More than five years after September 11, the United States is still fighting wars with a military little changed from September 10.

The extensions were necessary in order to give troops a full year between combat tours. But the military should not have confronted a choice between extending tours and giving troops less than a year at home. President Bush has had half a decade to bring troop numbers to adequate levels. He hasn’t, and Gen. Barry McCaffrey offered a distressing summary of the consequences in his latest assessment of the security conditions in Iraq: “The U.S. Armed Forces cannot sustain the current deployment rate. We will leave [the U.S.] at risk to other threats from new hostile actors if we shatter the capabilities of our undersized and under-resourced Army, Marine, and special operations forces…If we do not aggressively rebuild[,] the capability of the force actually deployed in Iraq will also degrade[,] and we are likely to encounter a disaster.” Blame cannot be pinned entirely on Bush. Bill Clinton, lucky inheritor of the Cold War victory his predecessors won, took an eight-year holiday from reality. Not only did he drastically reduce the manpower of the armed forces, he also neglected the procurement of new weapons, ships, planes, and vehicles. Today’s diminished military reflects this dereliction.

And it is diminished. From 1974 to 1989, the Army had 770,000 to 780,000 active troops (all of them volunteers). Today, we have around 508,000. The Navy had 568 ships in the late 1980s; today it has 276, and its manpower is so reduced that it often has to helicopter sailors from homebound ships to outbound ones in order to keep them staffed. The Air Force’s number of tactical air wings has shrunk from 37 to 20, and the average age of its aircraft is 24 years (as compared with nine years in 1973).

There is disagreement about whether the armed forces should be restored to their Cold War size, but there is consensus among military analysts across the political spectrum that they are too small. Today’s strategic environment requires them to be able to engage in multiple regional wars and peacekeeping operations simultaneously, and still have enough resources left over to deter threats and respond to unforeseen dangers. Suppose, for example, that Kim Jong Il’s regime collapsed tomorrow. The stabilization of the Korean Peninsula — and the attempt to orient it toward Washington rather than Beijing — would probably require the deployment of a large U.S. peacekeeping force. But this would be impossible, given the ongoing commitments in the Middle East that we already struggle to sustain. These commitments will sooner or later end, but the War on Terror will last much longer. Meanwhile, China’s ability to threaten the U.S. will only increase — and so must our ability to deter it.

To Bush’s credit, the Defense Department added 30,000 troops to the Army between 2000 and 2006, and it proposes adding 30,000 more over the next five years. This is a good start, but only that. And it does not even begin to address the procurement crisis. As former senator Jim Talent recently argued in National Review, the military cannot maintain its readiness without raising the procurement budget by at least $30 billion per year over the current level.

What’s lamentable is that President Bush didn’t move immediately after 9/11 to rebuild the military. Now, with Democrats in the majority and his approval ratings at a nadir, it’s much harder politically. In all likelihood, the task will fall on the shoulders of the next president. Mitt Romney has called for adding 100,000 soldiers and boosting defense spending to four percent of GDP. These are sensible proposals, and we hope the other GOP candidates make similar ones.

The Left will raise its usual objection — that the U.S. spends more on defense than countries such-and-such combined (an argument countered easily enough by noting that law enforcement spends more than criminals so-and-so combined). And the increase in defense spending under Bush — which has gone primarily toward operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has done almost nothing to boost the military’s size and capability — will give the Left an opening to say, “You need even more?”

The answer is yes. History has an annoying tendency not to end, and the world today is an exceptionally dangerous place. There is no excuse for remaining unprepared.

[bluestardad]

YOU GO TO WAR WITH THE ARMY YOU HAVE! HECK OF A JOB RUMMY! YOU ARE THE WORST SEC. DEFENSE IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA RIGHT UP WITH THE WORST PRESIDENT AND ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY TOO!

[tbweb]

I never understood Military Base Closures while the U.S. was at war or even some Tax Cuts, these are not good ideas when the country is at war. I would even support a temporary "WAR TAX" to expire once the deficit spending is made up. And yes, these wars are being fought with deficit spending so before anyone freaks out over a temporary "WAR TAX" just remember these current wars are being fought on credit! In addition since the U.S. does not have a draft a temporary "WAR TAX" would be a way all Americans can share in the burden!

[rafterman1]

"never understood Military Base Closures while the U.S. was at war or even some Tax Cuts, these are not good ideas when the country is at war."

But that's the problem - the US is not at war. The military is at war. The poor and middle class kids serving in the military are at war. But the rich aren't at war. Nor are the politicians. And the average American isn't at war. Only a small portion of our country is at war.

Only the military has been asked to sacrifice. No rationing. No taxes. No draft. Nothing. The average American has not been asked to sacrifice, therefore Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing but distant mirages, with little affect on their lives.

I saw a doc (on the Military Channel I think). It showed a company of guys kicking in door after door in Iraq, looking for insurgents. And finding them quite often. Several fiefights were detailed and they were nasty. Grenades, rounds, RPG's flying all over the place. And this isn't a rare event. These firefights happen DAILY. One of the guys mentioned saying a little prayer before every door, asking to "get past this door". Then, at the next house door, the same prayer. Every day for months straight. The same houses and the same doors, but always new insurgents behind them. This is the war brought to us by George Bush.

[bizzzz-2009]

If we're going to pursue this war, how about, Mr. President, killing the enemy with something other than the bodies of our own kids? What is all the *** tax payers have paid for the last 40 plus years being used for, Rambo movies? It's bad enough Republicans AND Democrats, over the years, have awarded defense contracts their buddies so they can line their pockets. Now we find out we're not even going to use the stuff?
Now I know what Rumsfeld meant when he described the terror war as a "different kind of war" He meant it's a war that lasts forever and we eventually lose. The kid gloves have to come off, sooner or later.

[rafterman1]

"The same houses and the same doors, but always new insurgents behind them. This is the war brought to us by George Bush."

I forgot to mention they were Marine Corps. It breaks my heart to see those hard chargers reduced to kicking down doors to fight guys in robes and sandals.

[mgibson17]

During the Second World War the entire country mobilized for the campaign.
Those who could fight did; and those could not support the effort in other ways.
The entire country was put on rations thus every citizen was made to sacrifice to support the troops.
Car factories- and appliance factories, shipyards; all came under the auspices of the war dept. Women hung up their aprons to don overalls and hard hats to help build ships- tanks and airplanes.
We prosecuted a war on two fronts and we were victorious.
Now we have private companies being awarded lucrative contracts to supply out troops with the things they need. War has always been a tool of the rich; it%u2019s how you get paid.

The President and Cheney use their influence and affluence to reward those who helped elevate them to power. War is a nice way of paying those people back by awarding large- expensive contracts to your cronies.
Young men are being sacrificed at the front for the love of mammon.
We just don%u2019t have enough of those factories in contract to the resources we commanded back then. The few companies we rely on just cant keep up. And the entire cost to our government coffers is untenable.

[bizzzz-2009]

Mr Bush, we can build more bombs, more rockets, more jets, more weapons. We can't build a human body. Could you please use more weapons and less bodies? Use your head for once.

[jimfinster]

Or maybe it is dangerously large. We have the largest military in the world by far. Our annual military spending is more than the gross GDP of most countries.

With a large military, the President has an irrestible urge to solve all problems by force. Witness our current problems in Iraq...

[clestes-2009]

In his 6 years, Bush has managed to stir up more hatred towards the US, but at the same time leaves the US more vunerable to attack by wiping out the military.

Great going George, you're doing a heck of a job!!

[jimfinster]

In 2007 the United States spent over 50% of the world's total military expenditure, or more than all other nations combined.

Now think about the title of this article.

[Razzl]

Our armed forces are only too small if world conquest is your agenda, which is clearly the case with NRO. If NRO were truly worried about our security they would be earnest about searching for genuine solutions to the potential threats, which consist mostly of diplomacy.

[fascistusa]

Translation : The NEO-CON Fascists want THE DRAFT.

I say go ahead and reinstate The Draft. It'll ignite the 2nd American Revolution.


G*o*D*D*a*m*n The American Elite and Israel/AIPAC.

[okaussie]

As a National Guard member who has deployed to Iraq, I can tell you that I don't blame our nation's youth for not signing up or for existing members for choosing not to re-enlist. You in their right mind would sign up to jump "head first" into quicksand. I believe that there shouldn't be any trouble in getting enlistees though. Everybody that touts a "Bush-Cheney 04" sticker on their car ought to be drafted. Seeing that Bush won with approximately 54 million votes then that's 54 million people who should be going to the recruiters office to sign up and do their patriotic duty. I voted for the other guy and I still served. As I see it, it's always the rich and well to do that give lip service to war and patriotism but when it comes time to ante up they shiver like a frightened rabbit and then hide behind Lee Greenwood and the Flag.

[bluestardad]

billysmith6; you may be right but those of us that are left will hunt them and their entire families down for their treason! They WILL PAY!

[infidel_us]

"What%u2019s lamentable is that President Bush didn%u2019t move immediately after 9/11 to rebuild the military."

Actually, what's really lamentable is that he would have to. If the previous "trespasser" in the White House had been doing his JOB instead of interns, we might not be in Iraq today.

[bill1fj]

During WWII we managed to fight two wars at once but only because just about everyone helped.
Those who could fight did. Those who couldn't fight helped in other ways. Raised money, worked in factories, used less of valuable resources in order to help the troops. Every one was inspired and just about everyone helped out.
It seems like nowadays very few are inspired by our politicians, of both parties, and only the few are willing to help.
We need to vote out all the professional politicians we have now and get some honorable and reliable in those offices.
Does anyone have those type of people in mind that would and could run?

[macusweil]

Thank the GOP!! They controlled Congress this past decade and the Oval office too for the last six years. They were all to busy cutting up the pie to notice the wheels were about to come off.

[talkingham]

The Bushes and the repubs have owned the WH for 20 of the last 28 years yet it's Clinton's fault the military is diminshed. Just another load of lies from a bunch of self serving crooks who call themselves conservatives.

Lack of weapons didn't lose the war in Iraq. Bad planners and their henchmen who were more concerned with lining their pockets than winning the peace. Buncha losers always seem to think the almighty Clinton cotrols everything.

Hey let's see the picture of der Bush on the aircraft carrier proclaiming victory again. Victory of a bunch of crooks.

Brings to mind "Great job Brownie" as Bush prepared to lose the batle of New Orleans on home soil.

[jonny_chaos]

It%u2019s a touching display of support for our troops, which these great men have displayed. I can hear them saying, their mostly poor and without options, let%u2019s work em to death like the Mexicans on the farm, boys! After all, it isn%u2019t like I%u2019ve seen any really important obligations to our citizen soldiers from these guys. Reduce benefits; let them rot in a dirty hospital room, etc. It%u2019s obvious that the general mindset is the military is just there to serve at the whim of the president. Whiney little man... I%u2019m the decider! Yea, so is my kid. He decided not to do his homework and found out decisions can be made, but you have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. Bush thought a little war would help his image, and well, it didn%u2019t. Well, the guy appears to hate America as much as that annoying constitution. Someone needs to give the little guy a nice timeout. And tell him to do his homework, this is America, he must think it%u2019s his duty to destroy it because freedom and strength are not conducive to a police state. Hail the red tide!

[aaabee-2009]

45 Dead In Wave Of Baghdad Bombings
3 Americans Killed In Separate Incidents; 2 U.K. Soldiers Dead After Helicopters Collide North Of Iraqi Capital. April 16, 2007

We Am Winning!!!
Thank you Republicans, for bringing us your brand of Truth, we were confused in the face of headlines like these.

[aaabee-2009]

If the previous "trespasser" in the White House had been doing his JOB instead of interns, we might not be in Iraq today.
Posted by Infidel_US at 04:27 PM : Apr 16, 2007

And Bill had what to do with the Bush's wars?

This is little Bush trying to make daddy proud by finishing up what Big Bush started, taking out Hussein. Remember Desert Storm or were you old enough? Desert Storm is Big Bush, The Afganistan slid to Iraq war is Little Bush. The Bush Oil Wars. Bill may have gotten his cigar waxed but he isn't to blame for the power plays of either the Republican Party or for Bush greed gone global.

[johnshaft4]

Saber rattlers, der Fuhrer Bush and Herr Cheney have no business running off at their alligator mouths to Iran (and elsewhere) before they get their hummingbird a$$'s kick really hard.
We never should have been fighting a war that right wing, war mongering Likud party Israeli Jews boys should have be fighting for themselves.
Go to: NoWarForIsraelDOTcom

[jimfinster]

Why not this article:

"U.S. Military Dangerously Large"

Then we could talk about down-sizing the military for national defense, instead of acting as the world's policeman, engaging in civil wars, and nation building efforts. How about that?

[opfor311]

"And Bill had what to do with the Bush's wars?"

Posted by AaaBee

Let's see, Clinton presided over the second largest Reduction in Force (RIF) in history. Only in the Carter years did we shed more miltary personnel. Most people who served in those two eras remember how severly we bled out the NCO and junior officer corps.

And why did we do it? Because Congress wanted to spend the peace dividend on social programs.

We were just getting through with the necessary rebuilding of our forces under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, when Clinton took us back down the garden path with the "Peace Dividend".

And now what do we have to show for it? A force that has done very well, considering what was required of it, but is smaller than we need.

If Clinton has merely sustained what he was left when Geroge H. W. Bush left office, we'd not be in this place now.

Does that answer your question?

[grazinggoat]

I would even support a temporary "WAR TAX" to expire once the deficit spending is made up. And yes, these wars are being fought with deficit spending so before anyone freaks out over a temporary "WAR TAX" just remember these current wars are being fought on credit! In addition since the U.S. does not have a draft a temporary "WAR TAX" would be a way all Americans can share in the burden!
Posted by tbweb at 02:45 PM : Apr 16, 2007

-This is silly senario you're looking forward to familiarize readers to, in order to push an agenda that you haven't made clear, but of which you are aware. Of course if you represent the NRA and/or AIPAC, and/or the Evangelical Church, well that is understandable, but not necessarily in good view and benediction of the American people.

Americans are sick and tired of this war going on in the Middle-East, for what they're gaining from it. A lot to gain from inner development and in the Americas (Canada, Mexico, Central and South America) before going out and invading other contries.

[wogerwabbit]

Ah yes... the old blame Clinton excuse again... you right wingers are pathetic. As you might recall, we had a pitiful army when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and it didn't take long to build the most powerful armed forces in the world. Instead, this time we give tax cuts to the rich and sweet contracts to Halliburton... yet after 5 years, you still blame Clinton for this mess. Think about it! You guys make yourselves more and more irrelevant with every word you publish.

[johnshaft4]

Even scarier, Bush's brain is "dangerously small".

[opfor311]

wogerwabbit,

Are you saying that there was not a reduction in force in the Clinton years? We had an Army of around 770,000 when I was in the 101st in the Gulf War. Currently, even with the additional troops that were added after 9/11, we only have a little more than 500,000. I was there and saw the offers made to junior NCO's and Officers in the Clinton years.

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. We didn't have a great military in a hurry in World War II, after all...Remember Kasserine Pass?

You misunderstand me, if you think I blame Clinton for everything that is wrong, but I also don't excuse him when he fubar'd the Army.

[reload_223]

I jumped ship during Clinton's time, so did almost everyone in my shop 8 out of 11. Life sucked and they did not want a military. Now at 43 the Army is begging me to join them, Ha. Blackwater is supporting a good portion of security. Maybe it's time for a Foriegn Legion, round up a bunch in africa and asia, they'll fight for $100 a month and be happy to.

[canyoutellme-2009]

Are you saying that there was not a reduction in force in the Clinton years? We had an Army of around 770,000 when I was in the 101st in the Gulf War. Currently, even with the additional troops that were added after 9/11, we only have a little more than 500,000. I was there and saw the offers made to junior NCO's and Officers in the Clinton years.

Posted by Opfor311 at 08:20 PM : Apr 16, 2007

Uhm, when Clinton was in office, the house and senate were Republican controlled. The Republicans authorized this reduction in force.

Personally, i'm all for reducing the size of our military. What i want to know is... if we have 500,000 military personnel, then how come we have MANY MANY troops serving 3 and 4 tours in Iraq? am i missing something?

[myway1234]

Anything goes wrong...blame it on Bill Clinton!

Had we not invaded Iraq based on lies and without supports from our traditional allies, we would not have been in this situation. Instead blaming the current military situation on Clinton, we should impeach that idiot Bush for getting us into this situation.

Don't forget General Eric Shinseki testified in Congress that 300000 soldiers would be needed to prosecute this war. If we didn't have the sufficient troops to do the job adequately then we should have reconsidered our other options such as getting other allies on board instead of adopting the idea from the other idiot Rumsfeld that we went into war with what we had.

[wogerwabbit]

Opfor311, as you might recall, the Gulf War ended. We didn't need 770,000 troops to guard the Mexican border. 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.

[bluestardad]

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!

[rafterman1]

"If Clinton has merely sustained what he was left when Geroge H. W. Bush left office, we'd not be in this place now."

The cuts actually started with Bush I since the cold war ended and the focus was shifted from guns back to butter. But Bush II violated the supreme rule of war - do not fight wars on two fronts.

[grazinggoat]

CBS: 'Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the Pentagon was extending the tours of most active-duty Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan. %u201COur forces are stretched, there%u2019s no question about that,%u201D he said. No kidding. More than five years after September 11, the United States is still fighting wars with a military little changed from September 10'

-This makes me puke when one thinks our society is living on an economy of war. Bush has waited patiently for this event (91101) in order to start a war in the Middle-East. All our economy is intended to attacking and occupying others' livable areas on Earth. Reminds me of wolves packing and killing other groups of animals. Back in the middle of dark ages, humans have behaved like this until middle of last century. Really disappointed by this behaviour.


- Why have we adopted the United Natons charter of Rights? Why do we have the United Nations if not to act according to laws and rules the nations have willingly adopted in hte middle of last century right after the Second World War...

[walt1944-2009]

There is only one solution to our paper thin military and its one the Republicans, neo-cons, right-wingers and armchair generals don't want to hear. BRING BACK THE DRAFT PERIOD!!! Why don't they want to hear this? Because they don't want to go down into history as the party that brought back the draft and thus committed political suicide. The others don't want to hear this because it means the war might be brought to them, and for all their tough talk, they would rather run to Mexico or Canada than put on a uniform.

[opfor311]

What i want to know is... if we have 500,000 military personnel, then how come we have MANY MANY troops serving 3 and 4 tours in Iraq? am i missing something?


Posted by CANYOUTELLME

Ok. Quick explaination for you. We currently have a force of between 115,000 to 155,000 in Iraq. There are an additional 30,000 or so in Afganistan. We have about 15,000 in South Korea. We have around 5,000 in Bosnia/Kosovo, and another 15,000 in Western Europe. So that's about 180,000 to 220,000 of them (or 40% to 45%). Of the rest, there is a turnover of about 60,000 per year, and about 100,000 are in training. The rest are in garrison in the U.S.

These are rough numbers, so I may be off a slight bit. Also I've not counted Marines, Navy or Air Force in my numbers.

But it is clear that if we need to handle more than one crisis at a time (and in this world, that is likely), we must increase the size of the force.

[nearl4511]

Another bait and switch type of article from NRO.

The trouble you see is that (no it is not all Bill CLinton's fault)....
(1) the American People don't like a Draft
(2) there has been a mantra for all things government to come to an end and privatise or more accurately - corporatize.

The second idea has been the mantra of economists and conservatives alike, and was actively manifest in Bush II and Rumsfeld's philisophy of how to execute the Iraq war.

Think of the amount of support money funneled to support corporations that once would have been under direct military control. Consider the grifting contractors that made out like bandits under this philisophy.

It is true, however, that national security cannot be left to 'for profit' corporations and expect that the result will not be graft.

As unpopular as a draft is, I do believe it needs reinstituted. We don't necessarily need as big a military as during the cold war, but we do need the INFRASTRUCTURE in place to bring numbers up to speed if need be. The draft would be for a national service of some kind.

A caveat of this draft is that I do not want to see it in place if blood-thirsty neocons (many of whom edit this magazine) are in power. This of course includes the current administration.

With a large military, the writers of this article do not want security, but the ability to enforce a fascist empire of their own.

Beware the warmongers of NRO and the WS!

[feelfree1]

Re: "U.S. Military Dangerously Small
National Review Online: U.S. Vulnerable To New Threats Abroad"

written by the editors of National Review Online

How obvious and predictable that the same writers who conspired to fool the American public into allowing our Resident to wage a crippling and criminal war, for the sole benefit of defense contractors, big oil, and Israel, and at tremendous expenditure of U.S. blood and treasure- these very same writers are now clamoring to super-size the effort.

It is precisely as a result of the intentional disinformation churned out by government/corporate propaganda factories like the National Review Online , that our armed forces are so badly strained, to begin with. Persuit of their collective ideology has left our defenses weakened, to say the least. Yet they do not feel that our treasury has been sufficiently routed.

I would like to see the staff and editors of National Review, Weekly Standard, etc., placed on permanent assignment, in Fallujah.

[karlimhof]

The answer is yes. History has an annoying tendency not to end, and the world today is an exceptionally dangerous place. There is no excuse for remaining unprepared. - national review -

typical neocon reasoning - everyone knows Bush has made the world a more dangerous place than ever before and has planted the seeds for terrorism for the next 30 years.

let's get off this "military might" trip which has been used to America's disadvantage since the end of WWII.

we can clearly see now how our military can be used for all the wrong reasons - learn and change!

[bluestardad]

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/

Th
e House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

info@go
p.com Here is the Republican Party email address too!

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

[omega39-2009]

If we used our military for DEFENSE instead of imperialistic nation building, we would indeed have a large enough military.

[grumpas]

The solution to the problem is simple!!!!! Quit acting like the neighborhood bully! Quit sticking our long noses into countries politic's that aren't to our likeing and trying to change them! Quit the nonsense of thinking it's our duty to democratize every country on the planet! Quit acting like we are the policeman of the world! That way we could get by with a smaller military! Who knows they might find more young men who wanted to join the ranks of the army if they didn't employ such imperialistic policies! I am certain a lot of counties in this world would appreciate us not trying to ram democracy down their throats!

[xsoldier2]

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.

[navychief8]

Personally, i'm all for reducing the size of our military. What i want to know is... if we have 500,000 military personnel, then how come we have MANY MANY troops serving 3 and 4 tours in Iraq? am i missing something?


Posted by CANYOUTELLME

You are missing something big time. We have around about 140-150,000 troops in iraq at any given time. t continually rotate in relief forces you will see multiple deployments of our service members. As a Navy member, I did four deplyments in five years between 2001 and 2005. And we (the Navy) are supposed to be the least burdened. But hey, wwe have about 20,000 sailors serving in Iraq, Afganistan, and soem other lovely places to help make up for the Army and Marine shortfalls. And thses are sailors who many times just rotated from sea duty and had already been deploying forthe past five years. Oh, and the Airforce doesthe same thing. So to say you want to make us smaller, shame on you. Why don't you anti up and enlist so you can see how it works first hand. Then maybe you will change your tune.

[down-ndirty]

"Actually, what's really lamentable is that he would have to. If the previous "trespasser" in the White House had been doing his JOB instead of interns, we might not be in Iraq today." Posted by Infidel_US

Ah, yeah! When the going gets tough, the weak run and hide! Or blame it on the past! LOL!!

This is BUSH'S WAR! He is the "self proclaimed" WAR PRESIDENT! And he got in way over his head, just like he has done in every other business that he was ever involved in...and failed miserably.

Don't you read anything besides CBS news?

[tomar0317]

Unfortunately, the military remains the sacrificial lamb. When it comes to budget cuts, it's the military that gets cut. Medical care, family assistance, and better equipment are so lacking for our military it's truely unbelievable. Even our current troops will be shafted by modern day cuts and yet they continue to do what'ts asked of them. The "right" and the "left" should realize that without these troops, they're freedom of free speach won't be there!

[down-ndirty]

"If Clinton has merely sustained what he was left when Geroge H. W. Bush left office, we'd not be in this place now. Does that answer your question?" Posted by Opfor311

Nope! You've never been able to answer questions, opfor.

The question is "Why did Bush go to war with an inadequate Army?"

As I said in a previous post, this is Bush's War, not Clinton's. Funny, with you neocons the buck always stops somewhere else, usually with the previous administration.

OBTW: Clinton had a repugnican congress for most of his term. Whose buck is it now?

[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.

[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!