Replies

I have two responses to this.

One: the generals in Iraq say they have enough troops. The idea that we're "stretched thin" is a myth put out by liberals and the media (but I repeat myself). Remember, these are the same people who gutted the military for eight years under Clinton.

Two: let's say we're stretched thin. Okay, let's reassign troops from areas where they just take up space to areas where they're needed We have troops deployed to, what, over 100 countries? Why the hell haven't we cleared out the base in Germany, for example?

The size of our Army should be increased much more than this. We should also be spending a lot more money on our defense while cutting spending on domestic welfare programs. Our Military is stretched a little thin and we need to be able to take on relatively small operations like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan while being fully prepared to deal with any sudden conflicts with Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and possibly even Russia. Right now we might now have enough troops to deal with a sudden conflict with a nation like China while keeping our other commitments. With the size and wealth of our nation we should have a much bigger military and we should be spending a much higher percentage of our GDP on defense.

One: the generals in Iraq say they have enough troops. The idea that we're "stretched thin" is a myth put out by liberals and the media (but I repeat myself). Remember, these are the same people who gutted the military for eight years under Clinton.

Unfortunately, this is not entirely a myth. By any reasonable standard we are stretched thin. We will continue to succeed, mission after mission, but the margins will start to slip unless we can find a way to get the optempo back under control. This is true in an operational sense, and in a morale sense.

Reorganization would be a better way to solve this problem, including converting more non 'military' MOS billets to civilian ones. We have a lot of bodies that are not as gainfully employed as they could be.

Two: let's say we're stretched thin. Okay, let's reassign troops from areas where they just take up space to areas where they're needed We have troops deployed to, what, over 100 countries? Why the hell haven't we cleared out the base in Germany, for example?

This is a good idea, and alludes to force reorganization. We have a lot of structure that is still Cold War focused, and old habits die hard. After the coming troop shuffles you'll see a far more flexible force.

There are good reasons, on a geopolitical level, to demonstrate that you can flatten governments halfway across the world while lowering taxes and not breaking a sweat while doing it. Such a demonstration of force sends a message, and it carries with it great credibility. Still, that case can be made that we've made our point, and now it makes sense to take an honest look at our current operational requirements.

Okay, let's reassign troops from areas where they just take up space to areas where they're needed We have troops deployed to, what, over 100 countries? Why the hell haven't we cleared out the base in Germany, for example?

That is happening already, but.......These troops need to be replaced periodically-12 months is not unreasonable. We have troops in Afghanistan, who need replacing too...and in several other countries in support of terrorism. They all need replacing at some point. The Klintooms dessimated the Army and then handed this administration a war on terror. They are now feeling the effects of these decreases. We need an increase of MUCH more than 10,000 to maintain...AND to invade IRAN when the time comes.