Military stretched thin

Joseph,

I support the war but I recently saw a statement by Gen. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, on June 27 to the House Armed Services Committee (I don't have the link but readers can probably Google it, I printed it somewhere off the Internet) telling of the impact of the war on the Army's capabilities. And others have made excellent points: waging a war requires a considerable infrastructure of support. Another point to consider is that there are numerous peacetime commitments and deployments that both exist and that have been impacted by the war and paying for this war. Speaking as a Navy Reservist, I know there are reserve units that have been disestablished as a budgetary means of paying for the war. I'm sure there have been similar consequences in the other branches. The other dangerous aspect of this war, IMO, is that it seems clear to me that there is no way that we would be able to respond fully to crises that could break out in other parts of the world. I think there is some truth to my view that the North Koreans timed their missile launches both because they were emboldened by our commitments in Iraq and to test us. IMO, the nightmare scenario is a few years down the road, which is that if China ever feels froggy enough to attack Taiwan (though I believe that China has a much better ability to strategize for the longer term than we, and that they believe they can accomplish such a takeover "peacefully"), other enemies of ours will be emboldened by the stretching of our military and that North Korea may see it as an opportunity to attack the South and Iran or some other Islamic state(s) may see it as an opportunity to attack Israel again. Personally (if not to get a little too off-topic), I believe that one way to help avoid this nightmare is to strengthen our Navy, especially its capabilities in Asia against a rapidly growing Chinese military threat. A topic for another thread, perhaps.

 

Nightmare scenario?

I thought you might list three or at least one nightmare scenario. Navy guys - I won't say anything too bad tho', you did serve our country.

(1) Terrorist groups 'x' link up islamic terrorists.

(2) Biological mutation breaks out of Chinese-Indian research labs and kills one third of the world.

(3) Iran fires nuclear weapons at Israel.

(4) Israel fires nuclear, biological, & chemical weapons at - _______, _______, and ________ .

(5) Israel gives islamic terrorists ________ to launch an attack on ________ and blame the attack on _________.


And except for '1' & '5', most of these are probable in the near term.

 

Oops, wrong thread.

 

Hello All,
I recall during the last presidential debates, Kerry I believe, was asked of the number of U.S military personnel. I am not sure if they were referring to active duty and/or reservists etc.

He answered as if questioning, "1 or 2 million?". The actual number was 3 million as I recall. This caused a little stir as he was running on his military career. I am pretty sure this occurred with Kerry and Bush debating as Bush got it right.

It very well could have been between Chenney and Edwards though. The numbers are close and was mud in their face.

Here is a link which breaks the various deployments down. But in haste I could not find any "totals". I believe it safe to say the number of military personnel active/reserve etc. etc. is well over the 1.4 million.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm


God Bless Them All!:thumbsup:


Ralph

 

This worries me quite a bit as well.

 

If it was Cheney-Edwards, did Bush still get it right? If so, how?

 

Hello Daisy. I do believe it was indeed the Cheney-Edwards debate.

Did Bush get it right you ask?

Irrespective of what you, or even I may think, about the war it goes like this.


Kerry tried to use his military service as his greatest trump card. By playing up to the military all the while criticizing Bush's service, Cheney's non duty, and the war. Yet his vice-presidential running mate Edwards, was clueless in regards to military personnel! "One, maybe, two million?" When it was actually three million.

There was no comparison between the two in these regards. It surprised me no major deal was made of this with the media. They just noted Cheney had spent decades, if not lifetime, in service to this Country including military. So he was privy to such.


To answer your question.
I don't know if Bush/Cheney got it right, or if we(the people) got it right, but at least we did not get it wrong!:thumbs: History will tell the rest.