Article

2004-08-30 Home Front: WoT

Kerry vs Bush on size of the Army - Bush vulnerable?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-30 01:17|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 WASHINGTON â With commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, no one disputes that the Army has a lot on its plate. But the consensus collapses when it comes to easing the military's charge.

The disagreement has turned political â John Kerry says the Army needs two more divisions, while President Bush argues such an expansion would be unnecessary.
====

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-30 1:24:08 AM|| 2004-08-30 1:24:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Kerry can say all he wants. The proof is in the puding. Kerry has voted to cut military spending without exception.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-30 1:27:22 AM|| 2004-08-30 1:27:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 OS: Kerry vs Bush on sze of the Army - Bush vulnerable?

Hard to see how. Kerry wants to increase the size of the army at the expense of more pressing needs like missile defense. Democrats have a real problem with keeping America safe from nuclear attack.

Even if Kerry doesn't touch missile defense, he's not talking about increasing the total military budget. This means he's going to reduce procurement. The choice is pretty clear - when you spend money on unnecessary manpower, years from now, all you have are the paystubs of the people you paid to wear a uniform, whereas when you spend money on equipment - the equipment is there if you need it.

Some people are bemoaning the turnover in the military as a problem. The reality is that this turnover is a healthy thing. It enlarges the pool of trained personnel that the nation can call upon in a national emergency. By encouraging turnover, we enlarge the pool of trained soldiers while increasing our stores of cutting-edge equipment to keep our people alive and destroy the enemy as efficiently as possible.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 1:36:39 AM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/] 2004-08-30 1:36:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Kerry might authorize two new divisions, but wouldn't equip them. Kerry is trying to drive down his wuss numbers.

Posted by Capt America 2004-08-30 1:49:25 AM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-30 1:49:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 My take:

We need about a division more of troops - and to redesignate and redesign the current active force.

5 elements:

1st - quick reaction forces. The 82nd Airborne and 101st Airmobile and the 2nd Light Cavalry and the 18th Airborne Corps HQ and associated airborne suppor tunits.

Keep them as they are.

2nd - the Light-Mobile forces. Sealiftable, ready to deploy. Keep a Corps of them on each coast, with a forward division and Corps HQ in the P-SWA (Brigade each HQ-Korea/Japan/SWAsia) and E-ME (Brigade each HQ-Germany/E-Europe/ME) on "lilypad" bases. Keep at least two tank battalion teams (2 tank Co, 1 Bradley Inf Co each, + HQ) and one armored cavalry (bradley+tankers+heli) squadron at the Corps level for backbone and heavy urban ops (Tanks are unsurpassed if supported by infantry). Also 1 ranger battalion for each light Corps at the HQ.

3rd - Heavy Corps. Only one active. Ft Hood. 1st Armored Div. 1st Infantry Div (Mech), 1st Cav Div (Armored), 3rd Armored Cav Regiment (Heavy), plus corps artillery (SP), MLRS, Attack Heli Bde, and other heavy Corps elements. One is all we need at the curren trheat levels - and al lthese units are either at Ft Hood or nearby, or else can be pulled in from Europe. These are the linear warfare elements. Only place left to use them is Iran, Korea and maybe Taiwan. Maintian the equipment for two Heavy Corps pre-positioned on RO-Ro ships in pacific and atlantic, rotating the gear to the middle east/sw asia. Keep the "active" equipment at Ft Hood with the Heavy Corps. Kind of liek Reforger -heavy corps leaves its gear int he US for followon elements and mates up with its war gear in theater.

4th - Guard and Reserve: They form the backbone of at least 1 light corps. and 2 heavy corps, and specialty units like Civil Affairs etc. War breaks out - the first reserve heavy corps reports to Ft Hood to train up and pack up, while the regular Army HC grabs the Ro-Ro stuff, and the second Guard/Reserve corps grabs the further away Ro-Ro stuff.

5th - Special Forces. Pretty much expand the Rangers to 2 regiments (double), and the SF to about 50% larger (thats all thats sustainable before you dilute the quality). Maintain 2 reserve SF groups (as opposed to the 1 we have now) and maintain a reserve Ranger regiment.

The active force becomes a lot lighter - units convert from heavy armor and mech and artillery to Stryker Brigades and MP battalions. Adding one more Light Infantry Division to the mix along with the conversion completely releives the stress on units now in the Rock and the Stan.

And don't forget that the Marines (who are not in this discussion) will still have "forced entry" capability that the Army can use to open ports and airfields for the light mobile (Stryker) forces to expand the bridgehead, and the heavy forces to land and follow on off the Ro-Ro.

This gets the Guard/Reserve out of the mix for routine "war on terror" duties, and sets them aside for use in wars where they coudl get to speed quickly - traditional linear heavy warfare is easier to maintain proficiency in part-time than the current mix of insurgency/counterinsurgency that we are fighting now.

Of course, nobody is going to do this - too many people have political stakes to let this happen, and it would require somone to really knock some heads in the Army.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-30 1:54:50 AM|| 2004-08-30 1:54:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 If you dont want to read between the lines above: I agree somewhat with Kerry in that we need more troops, but I'm more along the lines of Bush in that I think we first need to redesign and resturcture our current forces - we are fighting a war on terror with Cold War configured military - which is why its way overstressed - its not configured to do the job it needs to do.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-30 1:56:54 AM|| 2004-08-30 1:56:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 OldSpook.Does the Army have enough Rapid deployment and/or Surge RO RO ships ? I know the Marines are wanting more.Ground up,say 3 years to get a new one.

Posted by crazyhorse 2004-08-30 2:07:13 AM|| 2004-08-30 2:07:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Um did Kerry ever say how he was going to get thoese extra 2 divisions paid for? Unless hes advocating an even BIGGER defense budget to be spent on payroll for the most part it aint going to happen unless you start cutting funding from other projects and operations. This is exactly what the military doesn't want to do. They would rather have fewer divisions but enough money to not just run them all but also give them top line equipment (alright this doesnt apply well to reserve forces and guard units but thats another policy reform issue), or start even giving even worse equipment that could potentially risk many lives and have an extra 2 divisions.

Posted by Valentine 2004-08-30 2:24:23 AM|| 2004-08-30 2:24:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 The Divison is dead. Long live the UEy/UEx/BUA/SUA. Open source stuff, but also shows how out of touch Kerry is. "Give some more of them division thingys." BLUF, we're moving hard and heavy towards UAs. Add the Air Foce, and what you wind up with is heavier MEUs. We're going from about 33 BCTs to 48 UAs. Three formations: Infantry, Armored and (unfourtunately, legacy) Stryker. Killing power is in the BDE, these days. Army Times, AFN, etc are informing soldiers in "legacy" MOSs to reclassify, or be reclassified. All this is below the radar of the "more troops" issue, but very interesting.

Posted by Anonymous6212 2004-08-30 6:42:23 AM|| 2004-08-30 6:42:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 It is not the number of bodies in uniform that count, it is the trained formations - battalion, brigade, division/support headquarters that make a cohesive fighting force. You can fill body bags with 90 days of training. If you want to create a viable cohesive military organization it takes two years of development from recruiting, reassignment and training to develop an organization that can operate to standards within the context of contemporary military doctrine. This ain't your pappy's old Army.

Posted by Don 2004-08-30 7:12:03 AM|| 2004-08-30 7:12:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Readiness, readiness, readiness - that old mantra will not die and will dictate everything. You can't be tired and ready for the next deployment either. I say Kerry should give the army some faster 50' boats.

Posted by Jack is Back 2004-08-30 8:04:09 AM|| 2004-08-30 8:04:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 The Divison is dead

I respectfully disagree.

The division will be a standard formation long after everyone reaches the conclusion Osama died in 2001 in Tora Bora. And brigading army formations, which the army did sometime around the early 60s was a move intended to increase the operational efficiency for brigade combat formations by providing a larger and more experienced headquarters staff, and to enable the brigade formation to fight independantly from all other 'sister' formations without relying on a single centralized headquaters for its logistics or for combat directives.

Under current US Army doctrine, the divisional headquarters provides limited logistical, but greater combat direction in the field ( such as artillery ), and while in the deployment of a single brigade the division is negated as a factor and has a lesser role to play, in a larger deployment, the division has a critical role in combat.

Posted by badanov 2004-08-30 9:14:02 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-30 9:14:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 To OldSpook ....RE: SF

Just wanted to correct a minor point. There are no "reserve" SF groups any more. There are 2 National Guard SF Groups (19th and 20th).

Posted by OscarBravo1 2004-08-30 9:29:14 AM|| 2004-08-30 9:29:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 OS: we are fighting a war on terror with Cold War configured military - which is why its way overstressed - its not configured to do the job it needs to do.

But what does it mean to fight a War on Terror? OS is assuming that the local government will let us in to fight the terrorists. The reality is that local governments are letting us in precisely because of that Cold War-configured military. They can fight off our light infantry, but can't deal with our heavy forces. That Cold War-configured military can bash the door down even if the host government doesn't want to let us in. Note that in Iraq, we are using tanks in urban environments to keep our losses down. The truth is that if we want to keep our men alive, there is no substitute for better equipment. And we won't get that equipment under Kerry, since he will raid the procurement budget to pay for the troops, and may even reduce it beyond levels required to add manpower in order to pay for his expensive social programs.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 9:48:23 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-08-30 9:48:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I meant "reserve" with a little 'r' regarding the current force structure - and I know guys in the 19th. What I want is to move at least those groups the the Army Reserve and out of the Guard - a bit easier to use them without getting a Governer's panties in a twist over federalization. Plus fully staff them and fill them out. I know that some of these are basically small sized and isolated, and seldom if ever exercise above the B level. That needs to change.

Problem is that the Guard budgets are easier to whitewash and pork out, so federalizing a large chunk of these units all at once is a political football that nobody will deal with.

Thanks for the pointer Osc.

Zhang, the problem is that we dont have enough light forces to do the job -and its the light forces that fight the sustained war. One heavy Corps is enough to deal with anything that comes our way, given the Marines can put MEU's ashore and deep inland pretty quickly, and the USAF and Navy can decimate C3I of nearly any enemy within 24-48 hours, rendering heavy forces of the enemy ineffective - they get fixed in place, and can be taken out with PGM. And note that I still maninatin basically a heavy armored brigade task force in each light corps deployed forward.

We simply do not need the number of active heavy divisions we now have - nor the current mix of skill sets. The Army has to be transformed, and the heavy functions need to be pushed to the Guard.

Kerry has a point in that we need more troops. PRoblem is that he has not cuaght on that we actually have a lot of the manpower we already need, its that we have the wrong skillsets for fighting sustained low-intensity wars, like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan now, and Iran, Syria and Pakistan to come.

The question is: how do we pay for it? Kerry has no answer, and Bush is trying to do it too cheaply.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-30 10:01:54 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:01:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 OS: Zhang, the problem is that we dont have enough light forces to do the job -and its the light forces that fight the sustained war.

My point is that artillerymen and tankers can be retrained as light infantry relatively quickly, whereas it's quite a bit more difficult for light infantry to be equipped with and trained up on tanks and artillery. This is the real world - we are not talking about a Democratic proposal that will increase the defense budget. We will pay the price in either missile defense or military equipment (probably both). Kerry's proposal will come at the expense of the equipment that enable our men to survive on the battlefield. Note also that a Cold War military can fight terrorists and big powers like China and Pakistan, but a military composed of light infantry can only fight terrorists.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 10:13:11 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-30 10:13:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 1. Im not sure slowing procurement is such a bad thing. Who is the big conventional player we're going to face in the next 20 years? The elephant in the living room - PRC. If we have the force, WITH ALLIES, to deter PRC, and we can accommodate them diplomatically where justified, it may be pointless to spend on high tech for 2020 - 2050 is another thing. This depends MUCH on your views of PRC intentions, of your views of alliance diplomacy, of PRCs reliance on trade, etc.

2. Is it the heavy divisions that get us access? Or is it economic, military training, diplomatic, and other pressures? Take Pakistan for example, a country that provides us some access, but really would rather not have done so. Was it fear of our heavy divisions? Or need for economic support, fear of our leaning towards India (with economics, diplomacy, tech, military training - not with Heavy divisions)

3. Nonetheless I agree that Kerry to be serious should be talking about INCREASING the DoD budget, not shifting it around. The traditional Dem source for funds would have been to repeal the ENTIRE tax cut. And increasing taxes has historically been a response to war in the US. But Kerry is pinned politically, and will only talk of not going through with part of the planned tax cuts. Both Kerry and Bush lack appropriate seriousness in this regard. (and could we take another look at Liberty bonds, now that we're back in deficits?)

4. High lethality instead of numbers is great for warfighting. But as even Rummy surely sees by now, war IS politics by other means, and nation building is NOT something you can consistently avoid. I still see a need for a force structure that recognizes this. And Im not sure a highly lethal set of light forces is optimal for this task. I continue to see the need for a dedicated nationbuilding force,with specilized skills. Of course neither candidate proposes such thing, and the military are reluctant.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-30 10:20:31 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:20:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 OS: how do we pay for it? Kerry has no answer, and Bush is trying to do it too cheaply.

Bush is trying to get the economy going again. A big chunk of the economic boom of the 1990's came from the peace dividend. Ramping up defense expenditures, given the wrenching economic changes wrought by outsourcing and commodity price increases, is not a good idea. 3.5% of annual GDP is about right, neither too hot nor too cold. (Remember - equipment we buy today will be around years from now, even if we cut military expenditures later on. Troops we add won't).

Kerry will just tear into the military budget for money to fund his social programs. Don't take my word for it - just look at his votes on equipment procurement even during the Cold War. It was thumbs-down to just about every item we currently have in our inventory. Kerry will say anything to get elected. But his Senate votes speak louder than his words.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 10:21:30 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-08-30 10:21:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 The traditional Dem source for funds would have been to repeal the ENTIRE tax cut.

Because taking the working man's money is more important than cutting the number of mouths sucking off the Federal teat.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-30 10:22:50 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-30 10:22:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 LH: And increasing taxes has historically been a response to war in the US.

Increasing taxes made sense during WWII, when the average American paid no income tax and perhaps a nickel out of every dollar earned in taxes. Today, the average American pays about 35 to 40 cents out of every dollar earned. Because of massive liberal social programs, we have wartime budget deficits without wartime military expenditures (WWII expenditures were 50% of annual GDP - today's are 3.5% of annual GDP). If we increase taxes any more, the economy will crumble.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 10:26:57 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-30 10:26:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Obviously, I have awakened today in Bizarro World where the Democrats are demanding a larger army and the Republicans say things are just fine.

Posted by SteveS 2004-08-30 10:55:39 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:55:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 our standard of living is far higher now than in 1940. Incremental income tax rates are already lower after the first Bush tax cut than at time since 1993, if not before. And the economy was not collapsing in the 90's, though the business cycle certainly wasnt a matter of history. Theres no shortage of resources in the private economy - whether tax increases make sense in the short term given the state of the macroeconomy is something else - but the US DoD budget shouldnt be as resource constrained as it is, despite social insurance costs.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-30 10:58:58 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:58:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Zhang Fei said: If we increase taxes any more, the economy will crumble.
The economy will not crumble if we raise taxes. The economy was in a recession and is in a fledgling recovery. Raising taxes won't destroy that...GWB's war already is beginning to.

Posted by RelevantTopic 2004-08-30 11:08:04 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:08:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 LH: Theres no shortage of resources in the private economy - whether tax increases make sense in the short term given the state of the macroeconomy is something else - but the US DoD budget shouldnt be as resource constrained as it is, despite social insurance costs.

The DoD isn't resource-constrained. We are fighting a minor skirmish and have lost less than 1,000 men in the course of a year. In Vietnam, we lost 8,000 men a year, on average, for 8 years. You might say we were resource-constrained back then, but not today. Journos are peddling the line that we are resource-constrained for a number of reasons: (1) they hope that these "constraints" will prevent the US from acting against its enemies and (2) they hope that these "constraints" can be used as a reason to hike taxes. On point 1, it is political, not military constraints, that prevent a campaign in Iran or North Korea. The kinds of casualties being incurred in Iraq are negligible, in the larger scheme of things. On point 2, it is hard to see how increasing taxes during a time of economic uncertainty, and already high taxation, is the correct course to take at this point. It is time to cut some of the socialist programs that weigh the budget down, not increase taxes.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 11:18:39 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-08-30 11:18:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 RT: GWB's war already is beginning to.

Actually, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, are a consequence of the liberals' alliance with the jihadis to inflict the punishment upon America that they feel America deserves for what the liberals feel to be America's transgressions. But the liberals will, in the end, lose. The American people will see to it - if liberal backing for the Communists wasn't sufficient to help them win, there is no way that liberal backing for mere Muslims will ensure their victory.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 11:23:41 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-08-30 11:23:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 I could be wrong but I'd be trying to shift some folks from the reserves and National Guard into the regular military. Reducing the numbers of part-timers in exchange for a buildup of the regular army numbers. During war I would think a certain number of those in the reserve or in the guard would be willing to take the move.

Posted by RJ Schwarz 2004-08-30 12:15:51 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-08-30 12:15:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I've seen some of the stats on young males who might fill the combat arms in a larger army.

Bottom line: unless you are willing to take people who currently are screened out due to drug use, physical limitations or ethical issues (convictions), you do not have a large pool to draw from for a larger army.

You could:

-- put women in combat arms
-- push technology wherever possible (UCAVs being only one example)
-- outsource as much of the combat support functions to civilian contractors as possible
-- decide to optimize with the Army about the size it currently is

Or, you could play politics with the issue:

-- talk breathlessly about an upcoming draft

-- ignore the military itself, which does NOT want an influx of unqualified, unwilling bodies who do not fit into a lean, professional and highly trained / technology-based army

Posted by too true 2004-08-30 12:57:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:57:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Hey, Old Spook -- I owe you an acknowledgement from a previous thread and this is as good a place to do it as any.

A while back you noted that while the standard service pistol is the 9mm Beretta, 'occasionally' some use a .45. Just wanted to let you know my DH is considering bidding on a Heckler & Koch 23 SOCOM .45 that is up for auction after light use in a training facility.

I OTOH am bidding on the Remington 700 TWS. Heh.

We now return you to your usual programming .....

Posted by rkb 2004-08-30 1:08:20 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:08:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Oh yeah, forgot to mention the 700 has the Leupold Vari- X III 3.5-10 optics, i.e. the M24 configuration.

Wish me luck -- it's a sealed envelope bid so I won't have a chance to up my bid if anyone else really wants it.

Posted by rkb 2004-08-30 1:12:07 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:12:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 I continue to see the need for a dedicated nationbuilding force,with specilized skills. Of course neither candidate proposes such thing, and the military are reluctant.
Maybe because it's a DUMB idea. There is no way the majority of Americans are going to buy into that imperialistic dream no matter what clever packaging is used.

In case you haven't noticed living in your Ivory Tower as you do, but War of "Liberation" is a dud-it has no wings. Republican control of the WH[and possibly Congress] hangs in the balance due to GWB being sold that skanky bill of goods by the neocons re: Iraq.

Thanks but no thanks, we don't need anymore "nation-building" wild eyed schemes to totally do a Titanic with the Republican Party.

And no I don't want my taxes to raised by either GWB or Skerry. GWB is just as big a spendthrift as the Democrats. For every buck that is raised by taxes both GWB and Skerry would give 3 bucks to help some illegal alien get free college tuition to get a law degree or send more foreign aid down the sink trap to a communist American hating dictator in an African country. No new taxes. Read my lips.

Cut social expenditures. Throw illegals and their children out of the country unless they want to join the military in combat positions for x number of years. Get welfare recipients to work at MacDonalds or mowing gov't lawns and picking up highway trash-healthy bodies, etc unless there is physical inability. Babies/kids go to onsite day care.

We are not an empire. Democracy is not the best political system for every culture/nation in the world. It is not our right to spread a certain kind of gov't to our liking to other nations. We have a bad rep today because of previous interference in gov'ts of other nations, no matter what good intentions we had, we had no business interfering. Installing democracies is another version of an arrogant nation thinking it knows what's best for the rest of the world. Forget about it.

We don't have a military, volunteer or by conscription, to nation build. People with nation building attitudes should vet their inner ambitions by joining the Peace Corps.

Posted by rex 2004-08-30 1:39:03 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:39:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The Army is moving away from division size elements and going towards Brigade size rapid deployment elements. That way if the mission requires (for example) pure infantry for mountainous regions they deploy one or two brigades and an aviation brigade. Yes, I know 3 Brigades is a division, but if the mission only required 1 or 2 brigades that's how it would supposedly work.
The overall commander would be selected from a pool of officers. At least that's the sketchy poop I've been hearing.
IMO, I think we need 3 to 4 more divisions myself. You can't sell re-enlistment to soldiers when they know they have one year on, one year off combat duty. Who is crazy enough to do that for 20 years? If this IS WW IV then why not bring the strength up to the Cold War Levels. After all, China still has it's eye on Taiwan.(for example) The bad guys aren't just the Islamists you know.
The process doesn't have to be overnight and filled with the "below average placeholders" to make the quota. Prior to the Gulf War draw down when we had ALOT more divisions, and they weren't staffed with "below average" place holders.
I just worry that Rumsfeld's fetish with high tech weapontry (always a crowd pleaser)will forget that the numbers on the paper are more than just numbers.
I know some guys that got back from the Gulf, then PCS'd to 1st CAV division. Not fun.

Posted by 98zulu 2004-08-30 2:07:43 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:07:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 The DoD isn't resource-constrained. We are fighting a minor skirmish and have lost less than 1,000 men in the course of a year. In Vietnam, we lost 8,000 men a year, on average, for 8 years.

the number of casualties doesnt indicate whether we are resource constrained, but whether all tasks can be accomplished. The vetting, training and arming of the Iraqi forces has gone dismally slowly - its better now than in April, but this is 17 months after we went in. We dont have effective control of the Iranian border, to prevent smuggling of weapons, money, and personnel. We can assemble force enough to take one insurgent city at a time, sorta. Meanwhile the insurgents effectively control Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra, and we are only now really dealing with Sadr City after Najaf. And I now of no one who thinks theres really any reserve available for dealing with say Iran, or an emergency in Pakistan, or whereever. The army isnt in dissolution, like the naysayers say, but theres plenty of reasonable people saying its under stress at the current ops tempo.

too true - link? Are you seriously saying that every mentally and physically fit young male in the US signs up? I cant believe that.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-30 2:13:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:13:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 If this IS WW IV then why not bring the strength up to the Cold War Levels.

98zulu, read #27. I've SEEN the recruiting pool analysis numbers.

Posted by too true 2004-08-30 2:14:02 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:14:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 98zulu: IMO, I think we need 3 to 4 more divisions myself. You can't sell re-enlistment to soldiers when they know they have one year on, one year off combat duty. Who is crazy enough to do that for 20 years?

I have the highest respect for the troops, but I don't see troop retention as priority number one. It is better for the country if young single males rotate through the military and get some combat experience before leaving it for the civilian work force. This way, we have a strong nucleus of combat-experienced people available if something really serious does break out.

98zulu: I just worry that Rumsfeld's fetish with high tech weapontry (always a crowd pleaser)will forget that the numbers on the paper are more than just numbers.

High tech weaponry wins wars and keeps our people safe. Depleted uranium armor keeps the folks in our Bradleys and Abrams's safe from RPG's. UAV's and night-vision sensors give our people 24-hour visibility. The operating tempo is tough, but Iraq is almost done.

I predict 3 years at most of sustained guerrilla war before Iraqi guerrillas run out of money, weapons and recruits. Muslims are not exactly clamoring to fight Americans, given the small numbers that are attacking US forces on a daily basis, compared to the Vietcong and the NVA. (You have to read some of the accounts of Vietcong attacks on US military bases - these guys were skilful and uncredibly brave, given the odds against them. Vietnam comparisons are incredibly inapt, Iraqi guerrillas are not fit to lick the boots of their Vietcong counterparts).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 2:23:10 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 2:23:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 I have the highest respect for the troops, but I don't see troop retention as priority number one.
A high tech military means a highly trained military. Not cost effective to keep training new recruits, which is why the military much prefers to hang on the vets. Also you must have a core of noncoms and mid level officers for leadership and training. IIUC there are issues at the major/lt col level.

It is better for the country if young single males rotate through the military and get some combat experience before leaving it for the civilian work force. This way, we have a strong nucleus of combat-experienced people available if something really serious does break out.

Only works if theyre in an organized reserve. IIUC active to reserve recruitment (the proportion of those leaving the active army who joing the NG/R) has been particularly problematic.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-30 2:42:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:42:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 LOT to talk about here, and I love the discussion.

1. Bush is already increasing the military. He's doing it slowly, under the radar, and he's doing it quietly. Actually, the US military added 26,000 slots in 2003, and another 30,000 in 2004. Bush plans to add an additional 40,000 slots a year between 2005 and 2010. The majority of those slots will be Army, but all the services benefit. The spread is about 60/30/10 Active/Reserve/Guard, so it's not all for active service. This from a nephew who's a recruiter. Those numbers are considered about the largest that can be handled with current training facilities. I don't have any information about how these troops will be used, except that there seems to be an emphasis on combined arms training and combined service force utilization.

2. Enlarging the military requires some massive planning and pre-thinking: you've got to consider recruiting, training, equipping, and housing each individual; you've got to consider how to deal with the increased demands on the social, cultural, political, religious, medical, and business portions of both the military and local civilian community; you've got to consider the impact of the families and dependents of the larger military; you've got to consider the change in demographics as large numbers of people relocate; you've got to consider the environmental impact of increased training on the local ranges; you've got to consider the level of crowding on military installations as each is tasked to support a larger number of troops, or the cost of reactivating closed installations; and you've got to completely change the focus of the Base Reallignment and Closure Committee. You've also got to dig out the old crystal ball and look 10, 20, 30 years into the future to determine how to best use that larger military, and train them to be able to accomplish the required mission. I'm sure Don Rumsfeld is going through a bottle of aspirin and another bottle of Tums every day.

3. Money to expand the military has to come from somewhere. There's more than enough fat in the current budget to support a doubling of the defense budget, but every single line item in the budget is someone's sacred cow. We're going to have to have a wholesale slaughter. It's not going to happen before the November elections, which is one reason Bush is currently enlarging the military stealthily. There has to be a day of reckoning, and it will have to be soon - early next term. There's going to be a lot of squealing, and a lot of it's going to come from Republicans. Too d$$$$$ bad - it's long overdue. It needs to start with some changes at the Cabinet level, and extend down to the lowest levels of the bureaucracy. Bush needs to cut the size of the civil service force, and make it stick - even if it means using the military to haul some of those useless pieces of s$$$ out and tossing them into the Potomac. That, too, is 60 years overdue.

There's a lot that needs to be done. We'll just have to wait and see if there's a large enough set of cojones in the oval office to get it done.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-08-30 2:48:20 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-08-30 2:48:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 too true - link? Are you seriously saying that every mentally and physically fit young male in the US signs up? I cant believe that.

No link - these were internal Army documents I read.

I'm not saying every fit male joins ... but the pool is smaller than you might imagine. Around 15% of the age group qualify, IIRC.

Posted by too true 2004-08-30 2:51:13 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:51:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 too true: I'm not saying every fit male joins ... but the pool is smaller than you might imagine. Around 15% of the age group qualify, IIRC.

I can believe it. Not every fit male joins, but the pool of fit males willing to sign up voluntarily is limited. We could cure that problem with a draft that takes in only fit males, but there would be a real backlash.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 3:00:08 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 3:00:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 It needs to start with some changes at the Cabinet level, and extend down to the lowest levels of the bureaucracy

OP, you probably would like (in a grim sort of way) an anecdote from Absolutely American, the idiosyncratic account of West Point from 1999-2002 written by Rolling Stone's David Lipsky. He mentions a conversation he had (circa 1999) with a Pentagon administrator, who complains that West Point is socializing cadets for war-fighting instead of peace-keeping. how unreasonable! how RETRO. After all, as the civilian official notes:

When was the last time anyone did war-fighting?

Lots has happened since then ....

Posted by rkb 2004-08-30 3:03:50 PM|| 2004-08-30 3:03:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 And it used to be such a good engineering school. :)

Posted by Bobby Lee 2004-08-30 3:10:13 PM|| 2004-08-30 3:10:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Still is! HUAH!

Posted by rkb 2004-08-30 3:19:50 PM|| 2004-08-30 3:19:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Not every fit male joins, but the pool of fit males willing to sign up voluntarily is limited. We could cure that problem with a draft that takes in only fit males, but there would be a real backlash.

You are totally nuts. What a clever idea - draft the best of our future and send them to die in questionable wars abroad and let the dregs and chickenhawks live safely back home. What kind of male gene pool is our country left with? Duh.

Posted by rex 2004-08-30 4:07:03 PM|| 2004-08-30 4:07:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 There's not gonna be a draft under President Bush.
This war isn't "questionable"--the President got approval from Congress TWICE, even for Iraq and the funding for same.
To imply that some of our best men aren't serving now voluntarily is slandering them and to "replenish the gene pool" (a
tasteless expression, BTW), many of our military have had babies here already.
If anyone implemented a draft, it would be a President Kerry (retch!), so that he could work the whole Vietnam angle.
The only folks calling for a draft are Party machine men like Dimocrat Charles Rangel.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-30 4:25:42 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-30 4:25:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 rex: You are totally nuts. What a clever idea - draft the best of our future and send them to die in questionable wars abroad and let the dregs and chickenhawks live safely back home. What kind of male gene pool is our country left with? Duh.

To rex, any war that could result in him being drafted is a questionable war. Don't worry, rex - your New York Times-quoting butt probably won't make the cut. I believe there'll be an exemption for physical cowards who foam at the mouth and go into convulsions at the thought of war.

The great thing about a draft is that it pulls the chickens and the hawks alike into serving the national good. Rex naturally objects to having to do anything for Uncle Sam.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 4:26:31 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 4:26:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Zhang, I must admit, the idea of him being screamed at by Marine drill sargent R.Lee Ermey is a beautiful thing!
"Now, drop and give me 50, you maggot!"

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-30 4:46:13 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-30 4:46:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 #31 The Army is moving away from division size elements and going towards Brigade size rapid deployment elements.

You are absolutely wrong. The US Army brigaded their divisional formation precisely to enhance the division.

The US 2nd Infantry? Three briagdes? Sure, two are active, and there is a 'roundout' brgade of reserves/guards in the event of war, except the US doctrine calls for four brigade headquarters ** HEADQUARTERS ** not brigade formations. Even the brigade formation itself is modular and changable, composed of manuever units; it is task organized, just like divisions, just like corps.

As dispatched udner the command of a division, do you think a brigade commander wants to worry about artillery? He doesn't because he knows the division organization takes care of those matters for him/her, leaving the brigade commander and his staff worrying about mauevering and movement.

No, the division is indispensible element of warfighting for the US Army and will be so for a long time

Just because subordinate units are being deployed from a division are brigades doesn't deprecate the importance of the division in combat organizations.

Posted by badanov 2004-08-30 4:46:22 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-08-30 4:46:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 I can't speak to overall numbers of appropriate young men, but I do know that in the big-house neighborhoods of my suburban community, several high school lads signed up upon graduation - Annapolis (future Navy Seal), enlisted (from the TaeKwanDo school, I think either army driver or Marines), and so forth. Their parents are still in shock -- they could all have gone to Harvard, you know! But, what I hear from the kids is 9/11 changed things. So I suspect the required enlistees will show up to fill the slots, if DoD can find the funds.

And Rex, from what I've seen civilians marry and have children about a decade later than military folk, so actually the gene pool percentages may well end up going the other way -- breed early and often gets you to the F2 generation while the other guys are still working on F1!

Posted by trailing wife 2004-08-30 5:37:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 5:37:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 I'm with Rex, the best of the US Army and Marines should be protecting the border against infiltrating gardeners.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-30 6:19:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:19:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 A. To imply that some of our best men aren't serving now voluntarily is slandering them and to "replenish the gene pool"
I did not imply anything of the sort. How did volunteer troops get scrambled in your feeble brain with ZF's draft proposal of leaving unfit young males behind at home and comandeering our nation's cream of the crop to fight his battles while his butt warms a couch stateside?

Listen up, missy. Soldiers who volunteer now do so because they have chosen the military as a career and are motivated to apply themselves to soldiering. Volunteer soldiers are neither dumb or genius. They reflect a cross section of abilities but do meet certain standards. As I understand it specific branches of the military, like Air Force, have recruits who test well above the average IQ. But the key words re: volunteer soldiers are "CHOICE", "MOTIVATION" and "CROSS-SECTION" and "CAREER."

What ZF proposed is hand selecting ONLY the fittest of one age group and one gender in our society and dragging them into combat conditions regardless of their choice for a career in life, regardless of their dreams, because ZF's needs come first...albeit he doesn't need to risk anything himself, which he has admitted, because he himself is neither of draft age nor would anyone in his nuclear family be draftable.

If you don't see something wrong with ZF's totalitarian proposal, I suggest you have no right whatsoever to point your finger at extremist Muslims and call them FASCISTS without looking in the mirror and seeing if that description fits you.

To rex, any war that could result in him being drafted is a questionable war
I have told you countless number of times I am not eligible for the draft. Duh. One does not need to be eligible for the draft to see the obvious flaws of the draft. Why do you think Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld are opponents of the draft, ZF? Let's think, think, think.

The Iraq War is questionable to many people, including Republicans, and more importantly to the undecided voters who could determine the outcome of this election. The Iraq War is GWB's great Achilles Heel. That's whay as disagreeable and flawed a candidate as Skerry is, GWB and him are running neck and neck. GWB could lose the Oval Office for the Republicans because of his misguided decision to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence-it showed poor judgement. Saddam did not represent the threat to the USA oe our national interests as we were led to believe. Apart from you and your hormonally driven harpie pals, most Americans could give 2 hoots about liberating 25 million Iraqis. And as if the Iraq War isn't a bad enough albatross for the Republican Party you and your band of chickenhawks are dreaming up ways of drafting young males to start wars with Iran and Pakistan, maybe even Sudan. Smart, sheer genius. The political Party whose watch it is that a draft is implemented is the party that will not see control of Congress of the Oval Office for many years. So get off your make war pulpit and grab a clue.

I believe there'll be an exemption for physical cowards who foam at the mouth and go into convulsions at the thought of war
That probably worked for you regarding avoiding the draft in the Vietnam War, ZF. You have a PhD in "foaming at the mouth."

The great thing about a draft is that it pulls the chickens and the hawks alike into serving the national good.
What experience do you have with the draft? You were never drafted. You never even gave of yourself by joining the National Guard. You said you were in the basement of one of the towers during 9/11. Did you stay back long enough to help others to escape? After 9/11 what did you do with your new found chest beating machoman-ness? Did you volunteer to search the rubble for survivors? Did you join the National Guard, or an NGO to help the military help the Afghans? Have you ever sent donations to any of the military related charities?

Posted by rex 2004-08-30 6:25:13 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:25:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Ok. Stud farms first, then the draft. Is everyone happy now?

Posted by ed 2004-08-30 6:27:42 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:27:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Shipman: I'm with Rex, the best of the US Army and Marines should be protecting the border against infiltrating gardeners.

Don't knock it - you never know what those gardeners can get up to - those pesticides are what I'd call weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 6:33:52 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 6:33:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#52

"What experience do you have with the draft? You were never drafted. You never even gave of yourself by joining the National Guard. You said you were in the basement of one of the towers during 9/11. Did you stay back long enough to help others to escape? After 9/11 what did you do with your new found chest beating machoman-ness? Did you volunteer to search the rubble for survivors? Did you join the National Guard, or an NGO to help the military help the Afghans? Have you ever sent donations to any of the military related charities?"

Ah, rex, I suggest you answer these questions first, old boy.
Bush and Kerry *aren't* running "neck and neck"--the Mainstream Media only wishes it were so and believes that if they say this often enough, it will be true.
Most Americans understand exactly why President Bush had us topple Saddam and invade Iraq and why it's important to turn Iraq into the first Muslim democracry in the Middle East.
You have fun marching with your compadres in New York yesterday?
"Fox News lies. Fox News sucks." LOL!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-30 6:34:39 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-30 6:34:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 rex: What experience do you have with the draft? You were never drafted. You never even gave of yourself by joining the National Guard. You said you were in the basement of one of the towers during 9/11. Did you stay back long enough to help others to escape? After 9/11 what did you do with your new found chest beating machoman-ness? Did you volunteer to search the rubble for survivors? Did you join the National Guard, or an NGO to help the military help the Afghans? Have you ever sent donations to any of the military related charities?

What chest-beating machoness? I'm a citizen, not a soldier. When my security is attacked, I call upon our leadership to deploy our armed forces to go to war to destroy the menace that attacked us and establish through action the deterrence that will discourage further attacks. (Rex curls up into a ball and whines "Pleeeze don't draft me").

I haven't signed up for the military because I believe national defense is a shared responsibility. If I risk my life in combat, I want to make sure that people like rex are risking their skins alongside people like me. Like I said, I would dearly love to have a gun pointed at rex's back as he is deserting or joining the enemy. Rex calls this sick - I call it a natural sense of contempt for cowards and traitors. This is why I feel a draft with no exemptions is the best solution to this problem of equity. Note that liberals don't volunteer to pay for social programs exclusively out of their own wallets, so it's ludicrous to ask conservatives risk their lives exclusively for the safety of the nation.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 7:23:07 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 7:23:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 When rex uses the phrase "chest-beating machoness", he's adopting the liberal lexicon to distort what the recent military campaigns are all about in order to conceal his essential physical cowardice. These campaigns were not about chest-beating, but about pest control - killing venomous snakes and wiping out hornets' nests. There's no particular glory to it, but it has to be done. The real goal is to destroy an illusion - the illusion in the hearts of Muslims that American foreign policy can be manipulated to their advantage via the mass killings of Americans.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 7:31:08 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 7:31:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 ZF - rex could have been a contendah, but fate has relegated him to Chicken Little. He's intelligent, which makes the fact that he can't see past his Massive Conspiracy Myopia a real shame. Nothing is ever small, nothing is ever right, nothing is ever good - it's all an evil conspiracy run by a cabal of evil geniuses - Illuminati or whatever - but always ending up as Bush's failure. Sigh. It's a sad thing.

Posted by .com 2004-08-30 7:35:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 7:35:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 You have fun marching with your compadres in New York yesterday? "Fox News lies. Fox News sucks." LOL!
Did you see me march in NYC? Did I ever criticize Fox News? If not, I suggest you shut your lying harpie pie hole. You still have not offered any proof to support your last baseless insult calling me a "Jew-hater." I'd suggest you get working on your first assignment before you throw out new insults that you cannot support. You will get snowed under with embaressment for being caught in a lie. Lying harpie Jen, that has a nice ring to it, if I do say so myself.

Most Americans understand exactly why President Bush had us topple Saddam and invade Iraq and why it's important to turn Iraq into the first Muslim democracry in the Middle East
Pray tell where are the studies/polls/research that support your airy fairy conclusion re: "most Americans" understand why we needed to go to war in Iraq to turn Iraq into the first democracy in the ME? How does a democracy in Iraq benefit "most Americans?" Who is to say a democracy will work in the ME..experts like you and ZF? It has never been proven that any Iraqis or Iraq supported terrorists were involved in 9/11 or the first Trade Center attack or the attack of the Cole or as a matter of fact any previous terrorism against America. It was my impression that it was Saudi Arabia that gave material support to virulently anti-American madras who are churning out wannabe terrorists. Yet we are told by the WH that Saudi Arabia is our "friend." Yes? How confusing.

Don't knock it - you never know what those gardeners can get up to - those pesticides are what I'd call weapons of mass destruction.

a. I don't call that is a proper response, ZF, to the questions I raised in post #49. Totally non-sequiter.

b. Guess you, ZF, and your smart aleck Rambo friend, ship, have not read the article posted a few days ago that the FBI fears that AQ is using Latin America as their staging area for the next terror attack against America. Guess you two have forgotten about the high level AQ lady captured by chance in Texas who strolled thru the Mexican border with a one way ticket to NYC and a large amount of cash on her person. But I guess you two knowitall chickenhawks have the inside track [like what do the FBI know next to armchair super sleuths like you?] to information that Iran and Pakistan and Sudan are planning attacks on America? No way can the anti-American corrupt regimes south of the border, including Mexico, ever allow terrorists to live in their midst. If all Hispanics are hard working law abiding family people, err...that does not explain why illegal aliens(primarily Hispanics)occupy 30% of US federal jails.

Posted by rex 2004-08-30 7:57:14 PM|| 2004-08-30 7:57:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Gee, the Libs are bitter because they know their "arguments" and policy proposals (such as they are) are bullshit...and they know we're right.
I am loving it! LOL!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-30 8:06:50 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-30 8:06:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 This was a really great thread up to about 10 posts ago. I learned a lot. Thanks to all (yes, you too Rex.)

Rex, quick question though. If we do identify another nation aiding/abetting terrorists who have or we believe will attack us, how do we respond to that threat? Do we just lob in a nuke? Do we use conventional bombing and level their capital? Do we kill thousands/hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because "nation building" is expensive, dirty business? Or do we just take our licks and look the other way. I'm not baiting, this is a serious question. (Note that I support increased border security, but feel we are in Iraq for the right reasons. We will have a lot better chance of making the needed changes in Iran and SA from there than we would holed up here.)

Posted by remote man 2004-08-30 8:10:51 PM|| 2004-08-30 8:10:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 I challenge the contention that the available pool is too small to support an all volunteer force larger than what we have now. Given that the Navy is cutting 70,000 and the Airforce is cutting 30,000 over the next few years, the demands on that pool are dropping even if the Army and Marines expand by 30K and 10K respectively.

As for you Rex, back on your medication - you are beginning to sound like an anti-war liberal with your ad hominem attacks and abuse of language with inflammatory and pejorative terms, and a dearth of facts.

Iraq is the geopolitical center of the region. Thats why Syria and Iran (and Suadi indirectly) are fighting so hard to prevent a secular democracy from being established there. It has gerat oil wealth from which to grow, lies across all the major lines of communication and supply between the terror sponsors (Iran & Syria) and the cash providers in Saudi. WIth US forces there, we have immense political and military leveral throughout the region. Its a smaller fight now to make a bigger fight later unneccesary.

Rex, you are apparently too busy buying your head in the sand and calling others names and wrapping yourself in some warped Buchannonist/LaRouche version of racist/elitist conservatism to even see the facts much less consider them.

Fact is that we are now in Iraq, for better or worse.

Fact is that they deserve a shot a Liberty, in spite of them bein "brown people" or some other inferior group in your view.

Fact is they have oil that is valuable ot the stability of the economy - and the US is dependant upon the world economy no matter how hard you try to deny it.

Fact is that we can change the region. To quote the Liberty Bell:

PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF

Liberty - its not just for Westerners anymore.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-30 9:57:25 PM|| 2004-08-30 9:57:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 I'm a citizen, not a soldier.
Then don't nominate other citizens with equal rights to you to be soldiers.

When my security is attacked,
Is it always about you? What about young males ages 18-26? Wasn't their security attacked? Was is it just you? Get your nose out of your navel and look at the world around you.

I call upon our leadership to deploy our armed forces to go to war to destroy the menace
No, you said to commandeer young men to fight foreign wars for no good reason, with no specific enemy nation named, just so you can get a false sense of security for your chickenheart soul.

and establish through action the deterrence that will discourage further attacks
How did invading Iraq, a country which never attacked us, accomplish "deterrence"? In spite of invading Iraq, we still have received orange alerts and various plots have been uncovered to attack us - the NYC subways was the most recent incident. So where is the deterrence as a result of the Iraq invasion? We are now a laughing stock of the world. Iraq is our new Vietnam, moron, but worse because there is no North Vietnam that is the named enemy, moron. Tell me what enemy are we fighting in Iraq??? Answer: mainly Iraqis who fighting our occupation. Very nice, a smooth move the invasion of Iraq.

Btw isn't it terrific that our Republican party is letting an Imam deliver the opening prayer on the first night of the convention? I wonder how the families of the soldiers killed by Muslims in Iraq feel about a Muslim Imam leading our governing party in prayer?? Think about it, chickenhawk.

(Rex curls up into a ball and whines "Pleeeze don't draft me").
When have I ever said that? Find the post, ZF. I am NOT eligible for the draft. Rumsfeld and Franks are against the draft. Are they curled up in a ball in your eyes, chickenhawk?

Like I said, I would dearly love to have a gun pointed at rex's back as he is deserting or joining the enemy. Rex calls this sick - I call it a natural sense of contempt for cowards and traitors
You have a borderline personality and you are also a chickenhawk. Bad combination. Get help.

This is why I feel a draft with no exemptions is the best solution to this problem of equity.
How is it "equity" when a fat middle aged chickenhawk like yourself is calling for a draft of single young men ages 18-26? You call that "no exemtions?" What about the fat chickenhawks like you and jen who fall outside this distinctly small group?

Note that liberals don't volunteer to pay for social programs exclusively out of their own wallets, so it's ludicrous to ask conservatives risk their lives exclusively for the safety of the nation.
Non sequiter, moron. What does drafting one gender in a limited age group to risk their lives for fat mentally unbalanced chickenhawks like you have to do with liberals or conservatives or with non-life threatening social programs?

rex could have been a contendah, but fate has relegated him to Chicken Little. He's intelligent, which makes the fact that he can't see past his Massive Conspiracy Myopia a real shame.
And your contribution to this discussion is what, .com? I suggest you stick to posting video clips of dogs dancing, if you have nothing of substance to post. That I criticize GWB for invading Iraq for no reason troubles you? Quite frankly it troubles me that so-called conservatives like you see nothing wrong for our invading a nation that was not threatening us. Who are you going to invade next? Maybe France because they have been making anti-American jokes? Or maybe Venezuela because they have Chavez who is a loud mouth socialist? When don't you think we can invade countries? Doesn't it trouble you that a "mole" has been allegedly found in the DOD who could have influenced the policy for invading Iraq? You don't think that maybe, just maybe whiz kid geniuses like Feith and Wofowitz should have figured out they had a traitor in their midst? Don't you think that maybe, maybe these 2 geniuses of war should have realized that heir darling of Iraq secret WMD information, Chalabi, was pissing on their heads and passing on on information to Iran? You don't think that we have a ship of fools at the helm of the DOD who are getting us into wars even though they are so stupid they cannot identify 2 traitors sharing the same office space. You think whatever GWB says or does is perfect inspite of these obvious "problems" re: infiltration by other nations? No worries, says.com, as long as he dpoesn't have his butt in Najef-yes? Oh btw, speaking of Najef, did you hear the latest, the guy you diss as "Tater"...yuk, yuk...the guy who was responsible for several GI deaths...err, not only has he got a free pass from arrest for murder [you remember how Bremer got lathered up about the arrest warrent of Tater...yuk, yuk Mr."Tater" has just been "invited" to contribute to the political process in Iraq. Maybe he may eventually run for PM of Iraq. Won't that be swell? Maybe I should not criticize GWB-having a murdering thug in a dirty nightshirt participate in the Iraqi political process is very imaginative, well worth 965 GI lives and $87 Billion. Touche. Too bad, .com. I call a spade a spade. Kerry is pathetic and GWB is just a notch above. A nice guy, but you have got to admit,Iraq is a major, major screw up. And I am very p.o.'d about this latest "mole" thigie in the DOD. Oh I'm sure it is all a big mistake even though the FBI has 1 year's worth of surveillence tapes and wire taps. Big mistake.

Gee, the Libs are bitter because they know their "arguments" and policy proposals (such as they are) are bullshit...and they know we're right. I am loving it! LOL!
Time to get suck down more brain food like estrogen, jen, you are hallucinating. Where are the liberals that you see? No offense but you are wasting precious time with mirages and your Jesus loves me songs. Do your research and find when I posted anything that was "Jew-hating" or when I said "FOX sucks." Get busy, missy holy roller.

If we do identify another nation aiding/abetting terrorists who have or we believe will attack us, how do we respond to that threat? Do we just lob in a nuke? Do we use conventional bombing and level their capital? Do we kill thousands/hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because "nation building" is expensive, dirty business?
If a nation has attacked us,of course we should respond with overwhelming force. Who cares about killing civilians in the enemy nation? Did we worry about the Japanese or the Germans?

It's not that nation building is expensive or dirty business. It's just that it doesn't work very often according to plan or in a timely fashion and the only nation I am aware of that was reasonably good at nation building, a long time ago, without leaving massive bad feelings afterwards was Britain. And look at the massive social problems Britain has created with its own society by opening the doors to former colonies to come to the Motherland to settle?

But with regards to Muslim nations, nation building is especially daunting especially Muslims have a different culture, deep tribal loyalties, and believe in an ages old religion that says all non-Muslims are to be converted or murdered. It's not a situation that bodes well for the "occupiers."

feel we are in Iraq for the right reasons. We will have a lot better chance of making the needed changes in Iran and SA from there than we would holed up here
We went into Iraq for falsely stated reasons. If GWB told us that we should invade another nation that was no threat to us to liberate and to position ourselves in the ME, there would have been a move to remove him from office-probably led by the Republicans. Are you kidding me? You think we should invade other nations just because we feel our system of gov't is superior or just because we THINK Iran and S.A. may change their ways if we get close to them? That's absurd.

Like it or not we need to depend on our "old" allies [sorry El Salvadore is not a biggie in my books] to help us on curbing the growth of terrorism for intelligence gathering, for nipping financial backing of terrorism in the bud, for military assistence. We will never beat terrorism. We will never end terrorism. We can curb terrorism so it's not a great threat to us. And for that type of battle, we can't blow off France and Canada and Spain and say lookie here, we've got El Salvadore and Poland to help us with idiotic "pre-emptive" wars that get us nothing but egg on our faces. We'd do a heck of alot better in the WOT with French intelligence officers and Canadian snipers than 2000 Polish soldiers [who do what exactly?] or 200 El Salvadorians [who do what exactly?]

What we need to do is relinquish our dependency on fossil fuels. The days of fat soccer moms driving junior to the local park for T ball practice in a Suburban are so OVER. In year 2020 China is going to need more oil than us and guess what the price of Saudi oil will rocket to when China is counter bidding to us? I think Muslims will be viewed like toy soldiers once China comes on the scene as the new bully boy on the block.

Posted by rex 2004-08-30 11:36:34 PM|| 2004-08-30 11:36:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Can't agree w/you on the tax issue, LH, considering we're still paying for the Spanish-American War w/the 3% telecommunication tax.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-08-30 11:40:44 PM|| 2004-08-30 11:40:44 PM|| Front Page Top

12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg