fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
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.
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.
