home

Army Stretched Past Capacity

Our Army is stretched past capacity. I'd like to think that this is just a numbers-crunching problem for Iraq.

But the way Bush is going, Iran and North Korea are also on the radar. What if troops are needed in those locations as well?

How will they do it without a draft? For those 21 - 25 year-olds who read TalkLet, I'm curious, would you go?

When it comes to the TL kid, I would say, "'over my dead body you'll take him." The greatest horror show I can remember was back in 1970 when there was a draft lottery to decide who would have to go into the service and presumably to Vietnam. The night of the lottery, I watched tv in Ann Arbor, MI with my male friends, who like me, had just taken our LSAT's and were planning on going to law school. I'll never forget the looks on the faces of those who were dealt early numbers. They just walked out of the room, when their numbers were called. And they didn't come back.

Now, as a parent of a kid in law school, who also is opposed to Bush and to war, I can't even imagine him in that situation. If it happens, I bet I won't be the only parent who says, "Hell, No, We Wont' Go." We'll play Arlo Guthrie's song, Alices Restaurant and find another place to live.

Bush and his neo-cons are determined to destroy our way of life by claiming we need to destroy others' ways of life to set them free. I couldnt' disagree more. We need a different President, one with negotiating skills that Bush and Condoleeza Rice lack. I believe electing Democrats is the best way to get there.

And I hope you all make it happen.

< Isikoff Confirms Abramoff Shopped Photos | Bush: The Non-Lawyer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:34:15 AM EST
    From Alternet: Is A Civil War in Iraq Inevitable?
    And you can put this in your signs-of-things-to-come file: Muqtada Sadr, the cherubic (and Rubenesque) militant young cleric, said on Sunday that the Mahdi Army, which is now a big part of the Iraqi government to be, says that his forces will fight alongside Iran's if Iran is attacked by the United States over its nuclear program.


    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 02:11:08 AM EST
    "Are there gonna be elections this year?" "Why yes! How could you tell?" "Oh, nothing much. Just that the Left is running another draft scare."

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 02:14:57 AM EST
    Thanks for asking. As the father of a Marine lawyer currently stationed with a combat battalion in Fallujah, as a Vietnam veteran and as an early, vocal opponent of Mr. Bush's war, which I consider to be not only illegal but a profoundly stupid conventional-type response to a guerrilla war, I am 100% in favor of restoring the draft. I think we should draft young men and young women, and there should be no deferments, such as Mr. Cheney, pudgy "tough guy" Karl Rove and the whole Bush fan club hid behind during the war in Vietnam (clarification--it's not their avoidance of the war in Vietnam that is troublesome...it is their hypocrisy: they claimed to support the war in Vietnam, but they weren't willing to fight in it, and that's the rub). Let's stuff those College Republicans into some nice uniforms. It'll be good for them. Surprised? Please, don't be. We need to have a genuine, meaningful debate about the meat grinder we are funding in Iraq, and restoring the draft, putting all those nice, white children from Martha's Vineyard and Chevy Chase and Denver and SanFrancisco--and their parents--into the equation looks like the only way to really make that happen. For more than three years we've been recycling a small group of soldiers and Marines through Iraq. Some are being killed, many are being maimed, more still are being exposed to traumatic events that will have long lasting psychological consequences (War "sears the soul" said John Murtha, he meant it, and then Jean Schmidt and her gang of loonies attacked him...)but most Americans don't have any real contact with the process. While this tragedy continues on a daily basis, the President and his little chickenhawk friends keep pounding their skinny little chests, paraphrasing lines from old John Wayne movies and lying and lying and lying to the people of America. And the vast majority of Americans have responded by mostly ignoring the entire fiasco. Americans don't even put those idiotic little "Support the Troops" magnets on their cars anymore. They sleepwalk through their daily routines, shopping and eating and dieting and watching football on tv and yelling at each other on talk radio and talk tv and in the comments sections of blogs, etc., but they really aren't really engaged. And while we live our lives, not much actually changes, and the war goes on, the killing continues and the body count keeps climbing. Restore the draft, damn it, and the war will be over in a month. Again, thank you for asking. Terry Kindlon

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#4)
    by Johnny on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 02:40:28 AM EST
    The difference this time Ras, is it is the pentagon who commissioned the study. Of course, we all know what a bastion of liberalism the pentagon is...

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:26:18 AM EST
    This is very interesting. My 16 year old daughter came home from school yesterday and said they discussed whether girls should be drafted as well as boys if a draft should be put in place. How would everyone feel about their daughters being made to go into the military too? I'm with TL, I think I'd have to find another place to live.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:46:06 AM EST
    I guess the political attacks of the last few weeks aren't working out - that hardy perennial, "the draft", is back on TL! There's not going to be a draft. Heck, the military isn't particularly stretched. It's no longer 1944, and we don't need massive numbers of troops. In fact, all a large body of troops is, is a juicy target for a nuclear armed opponent.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:58:27 AM EST
    Terry - Although our views on the war are different, I agree with your comments. Universal Military Service for all for two years starting three months after graduation from high school or age 18, which ever comes first. The only exceptions would be severe physical or mental disorder.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:22:59 AM EST
    Obviously, JR is smarter than the pentegon which paid for this study, as well as all the Generals who have weighed in on the lack of manpower. There will not be a draft for political reasons, but the US will end up having to withdraw from Iraq and have no men for an expansion of activities.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#9)
    by Punchy on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:00:11 AM EST
    the military isn't particularly stretched Yeah, the Pentagon...they don't know what they're talking about. What do they know about our military, anyway? I'm sure the report they drafted declaring our military was stretched was a work of just a bunch of liberals and enemy enablers. SO many of those types running around the Pentagon nowadays, right?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#10)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:02:51 AM EST
    What I don't understand is why the military stands by Bush. They didn't seem to have any trouble calling President Clinton a draft dodger although he got a deferrment just like Cheney, Newt and countless other Repugs. The military stood by Hitler too and now we all wish they hadn't. Mr. Kindlon- You may think the war would be over in a month if a draft was reinstated but it won't happen unless they draft the Bush twins. Rich people will always have ways of protecting their kids from combat. Oh, and some of us don't need to actually be in a war to understand the horror. It only takes a bit of unbiased knowledge and caring, something most repugs seem to lack.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:06:32 AM EST
    Now, as a parent of a kid in law school, who also is opposed to Bush and to war, I can't even imagine him in that situation. If it happens, I bet I won't be the only parent who says, "Hell, No, We Wont' Go."
    So let me get this straight......What your saying is that Bush is coward who is not willing to send his children to war to defend our way of life, and therefore you also have the right to be a coward who is not willing to defend our way of life. Your reasoning is so flawed, and so flawed in so many directions, that its not even worth discusssing. Also just in case any of you elitists didn't quite catch the inference, lets get it straight. No, just because your child is studying to be a lawyer, does not excuse him/her from his/her responsibility to protect his own existence. Even though you clearly don't believe it, the plumbers, and bus drivers kids don't owe you or your kid anything, except the willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with him/her in the trenches. Perhaps, you should consider your position on this a little bit. Your never going to gain credibility with your "Bush is an elitist, who won't send the twins to war" line, while screeching out the other side of your mouth that your child's going to be a "lawyer" and somebody else's kids need to protect him/her while he is in college. Perhaps you should also consider why President Bush is so willing to publically state that he "is not a lawyer." Perhaps its because of the general publics perception that lawyers really are the souless scumbags that I have described above.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:12:38 AM EST
    According to USAtoday a week or so ago, Army reenlistments were at a 5 year high. Detractors will say this is due to new reenlistment bonuses, but there have been reenlistment bonuses since I left more than 15 years ago.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:16:07 AM EST
    My draft number during the 'Nam days was 11, but I was in college at the time and to top things off, flunked my physical. Cried for a week, yeah right. Iran, Syria, N. Korea. They want to invade, but they can't because they don't have the forces. Murta speaking out was, I think, him speaking for a faction of the Pentagon generals who know the US is way over extended. If they bring back the draft, schools and colleges will erupt. There's already a fast-growing movement on campuses to get the recruiters out.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    Variable: ...lawyers really are the souless scumbags that I have described above. Chill. Ok, what was you're point again? Variable: ...What your saying is that Bush is coward who is not willing to send his children to war to defend our way of life, and therefore you also have the right to be a coward who is not willing to defend our way of life. You are intentionally misrepresenting TL. That whole tit-for-tat thing, for example, is from your imagination. I think TL was suggesting that GWB, and you, have skipped a step. TL: We need a different President, one with negotiating skills... If one were to believe that a war was not necessary, or did not have as its purpose to "defend our way of life," then one wouldn't want to die in that war. Would one?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:33:11 AM EST
    Variable: That is not what is being said at all. What is being said is that if there were a draft to provide more targets in Bush's war of choice, who would go. Those that support war without sacrificing to actually fight in the war are known as chickenhawks. Chickenhawks tend to support war because they know that they, as the priveledged class will never actually have to fight the war, nor sacrifice their children's lives to achieve their noble victory. Terry Kindlon above had a very good post that if ALL of our 18 year olds were drafted we might not be so eager to go halfway across the world to invade a country which is no threat to us. The problem with chickenhawks is their blatant hypocrisy. "Tough Guy" Dick Cheney got 5 deferrments so he wouldn't have to face death or dismemberment, yet he is all too eager to send others to face the same. This has nothing to do with lawyers or kids in law school. Neither Viet Nam nor Iraq had anything to do with protecting our freedoms or our way of life. Both had to do with politicians playing games with others' lives. This administration has taken chickenhawkism to an entirely new level. Not only do they refuse to sacrifice their bodies, they refuse to sacrifice theri tax cuts to pay for the war. Bush has already started talking about making tax cuts for the rich permanent. Not only does he wants someone elses' kids to die in his war, he wants future generations to pay for it. He wants free war for himself, because someone else can pick up the tab. Mpower1952: The military can't not support the President. It's chain of command. The Pres is Commander in chief. The military has to support and follow the President's orders. Otherwise, we would be ruled by a military junta. That is why we have a civilian commander. That is drilled into every officer at every service academy from the time they enter on. It is up to the citizenry to question the Pres., not the militery. As Ben Franklin said; "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#16)
    by Punchy on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:56:40 AM EST
    Variable: The point JM is making, that you seem either willing to ignore or are too partisian to recognize, is that she doesn't support the war. Never did. She doesn't want her kid to go. But that's ok, because there exists a PLETHORA of people like yourself so willing to pimp this war, promote our war-like ways, but aren't enlisted. She's saying "Put up or shut up"--fight this war you're so brash about promoting with your body instead of your mouth. Those that want this war can fight it; those that don't, shouldn't have to. Don't like those rules? Then don't start such wildly unpopular, unecessary wars. So many chickenhawks, so ready to scream about how liberals are weak because we don't want our military engaged continuously for years on end, in an action that wasn't even necessary. Yet they won't step in, step up, grab a rifle, and sit in a desert for 12 months strainght. Nope, your damn computer, a blog, and some wicked nasty comments is how you fight. 5,000 miles from actual danger. You "conservatives" disgust me with your hypocrisy and your arrogance.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#17)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:09:27 AM EST
    Dick- I understand what you're saying about chain of command. But when German soldiers put people in gas chambers, was that chain of command too? I thought if soldiers were given commands that were irrational or depraved, they had a duty to protest or ignore them. What about Mei lai? A soldier was prosecuted for obeying orders. The soldiers in Abu Graib were prosecuted for obeying orders. When can a soldier disobey orders or protest the sanity of their leader?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    Ah, Variable - Just which country are we fighting for? The George Bush America with free speech zones, loyalty oaths (can anyone but a Republican even get in to see the president?), perpetual war for peace, torturing, abandoning treaties, and generally just naming programs like "Clear Skies" that describe the opposite of what is actually intended, etc etc etc. We intend to take our grandson out of this country before he will fight in Iraq. First let the Bush twins go and the rest of the chickenhawks. Aloha to all - lets hope we come to our collective senses if it isn't already too late.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#19)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:43:27 AM EST
    I've already had my draft counselor training. If the draft is revived, I'll be working with my local chapter of the American Friends Service Committee to make sure that young men and women of conscience in my community know what their choices are. The willingness of posters here to give up other peoples' freedoms notwithstanding, the law in this country provides exemption from military conscription for those who hold a moral opposition to participation in war. However, one must be prepared to prove that opposition to exercise the exemption. That's where I come in.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:08:33 AM EST
    The main problem with never having a draft again is that our American culture is starting to slide into a new conception of what military service is. It is now becoming just a job choice, not a possible civic duty. The longer that we have the all-volunteer military, the more people will think that military service is like deciding to become a police officer or a fire fighter: "It's nice for those people that want to do it, and we support them, but we don't choose to go into that line of work."

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    Variable, you missed the point entirely. This has nothing to do with law school. I'd feel the same if the TL kid was a waiter. I don't want anyone's kids to have to fight a war, not even Bush's. Also, I'm going to delete your name-calling and please remember you are limited to four comments a day.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#22)
    by ras on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:31:59 AM EST
    Grunt, Your pt is well taken. Trouble is, the all-volunteer force appears to be the most effective military ever. All, So the Pentagon was willing to commission a contrary opinion from a retired officer? Good for them for going out of their way not to think in a bubble. Doesn't mean the conclusions in the report are right or wrong but it does mean the Pentagon is making an effort to keep an open mind. Anyway, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled draft scare.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    If you want a scary reminder of what the draft was like, check out this recruitment ad from 1968.
    He just lost his chance to make a choice. His induction notice caught him with his decisions down. He waited too long to choose Army.


    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    Punchy and the rest First off, even though its none of your damn business, I served in a combat position in Panama and in Desert Storm, and attempted to reenlist when we went into Afganistan, but was politely told I was too old. I offer this info for no other reason ease your mind and let you know that I am not a part of the elite ruling class. Secondly, you can speak of chickenhawks all you want. The bottom line is each and every American citizen has a responsibility to defend the country and its citizens. All your nonsense amounts to nothing but a huge rationalization aimed at explaining away your irresponsibity and cowardice. Lastly, if you cannot connect the dots and come to the realization that radical muslims groups are attempting to wrest control of lesser developed but established governments all over the world and then accurately see the threat to this nation and the world, it is only because you don't want to see it. Yes, the muslim effort is only in seedling form at the moment. However, in the nuclear age, even a very young radical muslim government is a threat to the world. If you dont understand this, you should thank God that you have people in powerful positions running your government that can see it. I don't say any of what I have just said out of partisan politics, I say it out of pure and simple concern for our generation of people and concern for future generations.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    Two points of note: Lead by example. The strength and efficacy of our military is not defined or enhanced by volunteer service. The effectiveness of our armed forces has a direct correlation to the amount we spend on defense and the superiority of our weaponry. I commend those that volunteer, but as the father of a 16 year old that is flirting with military service ("you did dad") the thought is not appealing to me at all for my son. I tell him that I served "in a different time" and he responds, "Reagan was every bit as aggressive as Bush" and we are at loggerheads. I would be just as proud of him for going to college or serving in the peace corps, but cannot recommend or push it until every serving senator and representative and administration member sends their sons and daughters. Until then, count me as grateful but unwilling to encourage military service to my son.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#26)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    I served in a combat position in Panama and in Desert Storm Variable- If I wanted to emulate the repugs who say they support the troops but denigrate the service of any vet they don't like (Kerry, Murtha, Cleland) I would comment on the fact that the two actions you took part in were cakewalks. See, Panama was a joke, really. And Desert Storm was an air war and the Iraqis surrendered in truckloads. You never went to Baghdad and your wounds, if any, were either too small to count or inflicted in non-combat. So, you've just been swift boated. How does it feel? But the thing is that I would never denigrate your service. How you can stand by people who did this to Max Cleland, (who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam) is beyond me.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    Good swiftboating, mpower1952! I was just about to go all Crazy Joe Davola on you until you admitted the ruse. You were right on point with what a progressive Gulf War 1 vet could expect to receive from swiftboating types.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    I am torn between the beautiful words of Quaker in a Basement and TerryKindlon. My kneejerk position is to disagree with Terry and agree with QIB even though they make different points. Perhaps a solution to bridge the two arguments is that anyone that has any authority to wage war must have served time in the military. I have been reading Temple Grandin's book Animals in Translation In discussing her own contributions to improving the conditions in the meatpacking industry she makes this point: (sorry about the length, I do not have a link for this)
    So the 1960's and 1970's were the golden age, that was a time when people who were in charge of regulation, or who were running the plants, had actually done things with their hands. One thing I've noticed about animal welfare regulators who have never worked in the industry is that they always go for some sort of zero-tolerance approach. If the plant violates one or two agency rules, it has to be shut down. If you don't know anything about the meatpacking business, that sounds like a good idea. Make sure that no animal ever bets hurt, under any circumstances. But in real life that's never the way it works out. In real life what happens it that a plant makes one or two mistakes, so the agency shuts it down. Well, shutting down a plant creates a huge uproar, because you've closed a whole big huge company that employs a lot of people. Management immediately protests the decision, and lots of pressure gets put on the inspectors who reported the violations to clean up his report so that the plant can go back to work. And that's what happens, The plant goes back to work and doesn't get inspected so closely anymore. It doesn't have to be that way. I constantly argue that what we really need to do to protect the animals is sets high standards. People can live up to high standards, but they can't live up to perfection. When you give a plant a good standard-like 95 percent of all cattle have to be stunned (killed) correctly on the first shot every single day- they always do better than they do with zero-tolerance regulation. A lot of times they beat the standard, too. But, regulators today are too abstract in their thinking to see that. They're focused on their thoughts about the animals, not on the real animals in the real plants, so more animals end up suffering. It's not right.


    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 12:14:27 PM EST
    "Are there gonna be elections this year?" "Why yes! How could you tell?
    Because another tape from Osama turned up! That's how!
    In fact, all a large body of troops is, is a juicy target for a nuclear armed opponent.
    Right, because, of course, we tend to keep all of our soldiers in one place in our cities. And civilians are never targets of nuclear weapons. Now, can we get back to discussing the contents of the Pentagon report itself? Was there anything in the report that seemed objectionable? Do you have some deep insights into the state of our military that Pentagon experts do not have?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    Mpower1952, I get your point, but your guilt by association tactic is no more valid than McCarthy's was. If you have ever heard me belittle Kerry's or Murtha's or Cleland's service, then we will talk, but the fact is you haven't. I have never and would never denigrate their military service, but if their ideas are bad I will say so, and sometimes even say so enthusiastically, but don't confuse that with criticizing their service. If you are basing your expectations of politicians on whether they are vets or not, you should quit and begin basing expectations on past policies and directions. Kerry would have been disasterous. TL, I didn't miss your point, I just made some conclusions based on two different threads. Perhaps, I got a little overzealous with my conclusions, and I came dangerously close to calling you a "souless scumbag laywer." That was definately uncalled for, I apologize for it. However, my beliefs have not changed. If you are a person who enjoys the freedoms and opportunities that citizenship in this nation affords you, but don't appreciate that offering enough to defend it when necessary, then you don't deserve any respect or credibility when it comes to national defense issues. Whether or not you are one of these people, I will let you decide.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#31)
    by Punchy on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    Hey Variable! Uh...last time I checked...Iraq was NOT run by Muslims (secular), it did not have nukes, it was not obtaining them (even thought Bush lied to say they were/had). To imply we're in Iraq to prevent all this is a complete and utter lie, and you know it. By the way, you comment "the Muslim effort...". That's borderline racist. How DARE you paint an entire religion as war-like, bloodthirsty, and threatening...

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    Variable, I think you're arguing the inarguable about defending the nation. The problem we have is who defines "defending"? Our nation is in no danger of being taken over by anyone. And when the fiasco that is Iraq, and the neglect that is Afghanistan (where my brother currently is), are considered defending the nation, many people of all stripes are going to rightfully stand up and say no. After all, that's the only thing freedom really is: the right to say no, to not go along with the majority.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    The difference this time Ras, is it is the pentagon who commissioned the study.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#34)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:19:53 PM EST
    If you are a person who enjoys the freedoms and opportunities that citizenship in this nation affords you, but don't appreciate that offering enough to defend it when necessary, then you don't deserve any respect or credibility when it comes to national defense issues. How about people like Bush, who were in the military but deserted? Where does that fall? I'm a veteran, and certainly some of the things I hold against Bush are his cowardice and desertion, if the incompetence and ethical lapses were not enough. I don't insist that a military experience is necessary to having a valid opinion, but it sure seems that there is an inverse ratio between the amount of one's military experience and one's desire for war.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:35:01 PM EST
    Repak Rider-
    .... it sure seems that there is an inverse ratio between the amount of one's military experience and one's desire for war.
    Looks that way to me too. When it is an abstraction killing and getting killed is kids stuff to these guys. Literally kids stuff, which makes it all the more tragic.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:42:16 PM EST
    Repack Rider writes:
    I'm a veteran, and certainly some of the things I hold against Bush are his cowardice and desertion, if the incompetence and ethical lapses were not enough.
    And you are also well aware that these charges are false. Squeaky - Yes. The more you know about war, the less you like it. But you also know that it is best to fight when it is to your advantage. This has been true through out history.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:45:23 PM EST
    mpower1952-
    The judgment of the Nuremberg trials says: The Charter specifically provides in Article 8: "The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment."
    from moon of alabama where bernhard argues that the only way to support our troops is to get them out.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:04:13 PM EST
    And you are also well aware that these charges are false. Gotta link to back you up? If you've suddenly become a mind-reader, there's a spot open for you in Homeland Security, I'm sure you'd pass with flying colors...... No, he is well aware of what Bush's record shows about his activity(or lack thereof) while he was in the TANG, and later in Alabama. That you cannot tolerate disagreement with any position that doesn't osculate the gluteus maximus of Chimpy consistantly is the usual: SSDD.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#39)
    by roger on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:23:55 AM EST
    Jim, W got in the "Champagne unit" while others got sent to war. This is true. Sad that you dont have a problem with that.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#40)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:59:49 AM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ January 25, 2006 06:23 PM The difference this time Ras, is it is the pentagon who commissioned the study.
    LMAO the old "cut and paste" ploy.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#41)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:59:51 AM EST
    The idea of drafting the children of privilege to fight in the wars that their families become so wealthy from is quite an old one...and it has been fronted by some of the most distinguished military men this country has produced, such as Smedley D. Butler, Major General, USMC, who later became an anti-war activist and lecturer. He said in his anti-war classic "War is a Racket!" : The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nation's manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation - it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted - to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get. Of course, it didn't happen, and Butler lived just long enough to see the beginning of WW2. But the truth of what he had to say still follows us through history. The veteran writing this comment you're reading now is totally against conscription of any form that doesn't include those fair haired children of Power who always seem to have 'other priorities' than serving their country when the situations that their oligarchical families create (the Elite of this country are as much intermarried with bloodlines as they are with stock options in each other's companies) and profit from in 'peacetime' create the circumstances leading to war.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:52:31 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - Are you really beating the old TANG issue again? That is so funny....

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:58:16 AM EST
    Jim: Are you really beating the old TANG issue again? That is so funny.... You think it's funny that Bush went AWOL? What amuses you about it?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:33:39 AM EST
    Sorry, PPJ, but you're indulging in the Internet version of holding your hands over your ears and humming loudly at the same time. LOL!

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:21:26 AM EST
    Top U.S. General Says Army 'Stretched' Jan 26, 2006 By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press
    DIWANIYAH, Iraq - The top U.S. general in Iraq acknowledged Thursday that American forces in this country are "stretched,"... "The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that," (Gen. George) Casey said.
    'Battle-hardened' military not overextended, Rumsfeld says January 26, 2006 BY LOLITA C. BALDOR
    WASHINGTON -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin...
    Bush should not have refused Rumsfeld's two resignation offers.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    Jesurgislac and Dark Avenger - What I find funny is your attempt to flog an old discredited issue. Yes. I do. I really do.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    punisher - Perhaps we should bring the troops in Kosovo to Iraq... Now... how did they get there...

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    wow, I'm really amazed, current and past Army general say we have stretched the limits of our ability to make a new war and rethugs disagree with them. BTW, the top American generals, and the iraqis that we put in power, agree that iraq is already in a state of civil war. Gee, bushco just managed to kill thousands of American's (2,222 as of this writing) and are willing to sacrifice millions more so they can, what, rule the world!?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    deleted, commenter warned.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:07:59 PM EST
    Panama, Grenada, Gulf War. Why is it that Republican Presidents only win wars against third world countries? And the chickenhawks brag about it. Except for Vietnam, when a Republican President cut and ran.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 06:39:52 AM EST
    PPJ can laugh all the way to the Arkham Asylum, for all that I care about his crazy ways.......