Let's see. Rummie thinks the Army is too big. Commanders in Iraq are now coming out that they don't have enough men. They also want to shrink the size of the National Guard, though that wouldn't be an actual manpower reduction, it would reduce the current maximum strength to the current actual strength. The National Guard is theoretically at the command of the state's governor, though I don't know who pays for them.
So. There isn't enough manpower in Iraq. The Army can't meet recruiting goals, all of the other branches of the armed forces are meeting their goals. The Army is doing stop-loss to keep personnel and units, including Guard and Reserves, longer in Iraq than their originally planned deployment. And Rummie and Bush think they can do the job with less people?!
THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE FRICKIN' JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE! Show me Bin Laden in chains in court.
They need a larger army. They need an army that can fight an irregular war. THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE VETERANS AND INJURED SOLDIERS THAT ARE COMING BACK HOME. I don't know why, but it just occurred to me that the current administration views army soldiers as being interchangeable, replaceable, and with no value, that's why they keep cutting veteran's benefits, but that's OK because Halliburton stock is up to around $80 a share from being down around $20 three years ago. I don't know why I didn't recognize that before. Then again, few people in the current administration actually served in the military.
I don't doubt that the American Army can be smaller and more effective, BUT YOU DON'T SHRINK YOUR MILITARY DURING A WAR! Geez.
Oh, I forgot one point that I needed to make. If Congress votes this down, then can Bush take a bit of a moral high ground saying that he's trying to save the country money to reduce the deficit? The GOP controls Congress, Congress does not seem to be in favor of such a move, so is Bush breaking with Congress?
It's just a mess, that's probably the only certainty in this whole thing. I honestly don't think we are capable of improving things in Iraq, the country has gone to hell and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. If we pull out, we "didn't stay the course" and it's our fault the country has gone to hell. If we stay, it continues to get worse, and it's our fault the country has gone to hell. Even capturing Bin Laden at this point will make no difference in terrorist activity in Iraq and the region (IMO). It can be argued that with Bin Laden out of circulation that the world will be a better place, but I think the actual amount of improvement will not be as significant as people think, he is not responsible for all the terrorist activity in the world, and it will not instantly be Days of Wine and Roses when he is out of circulation.
I should go to bed. :-)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/defense_budget
Full story under cut.
( Read more... )
So. There isn't enough manpower in Iraq. The Army can't meet recruiting goals, all of the other branches of the armed forces are meeting their goals. The Army is doing stop-loss to keep personnel and units, including Guard and Reserves, longer in Iraq than their originally planned deployment. And Rummie and Bush think they can do the job with less people?!
THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE FRICKIN' JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE! Show me Bin Laden in chains in court.
They need a larger army. They need an army that can fight an irregular war. THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE VETERANS AND INJURED SOLDIERS THAT ARE COMING BACK HOME. I don't know why, but it just occurred to me that the current administration views army soldiers as being interchangeable, replaceable, and with no value, that's why they keep cutting veteran's benefits, but that's OK because Halliburton stock is up to around $80 a share from being down around $20 three years ago. I don't know why I didn't recognize that before. Then again, few people in the current administration actually served in the military.
I don't doubt that the American Army can be smaller and more effective, BUT YOU DON'T SHRINK YOUR MILITARY DURING A WAR! Geez.
Oh, I forgot one point that I needed to make. If Congress votes this down, then can Bush take a bit of a moral high ground saying that he's trying to save the country money to reduce the deficit? The GOP controls Congress, Congress does not seem to be in favor of such a move, so is Bush breaking with Congress?
It's just a mess, that's probably the only certainty in this whole thing. I honestly don't think we are capable of improving things in Iraq, the country has gone to hell and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. If we pull out, we "didn't stay the course" and it's our fault the country has gone to hell. If we stay, it continues to get worse, and it's our fault the country has gone to hell. Even capturing Bin Laden at this point will make no difference in terrorist activity in Iraq and the region (IMO). It can be argued that with Bin Laden out of circulation that the world will be a better place, but I think the actual amount of improvement will not be as significant as people think, he is not responsible for all the terrorist activity in the world, and it will not instantly be Days of Wine and Roses when he is out of circulation.
I should go to bed. :-)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/defense_budget
Full story under cut.
( Read more... )