Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 07/25/2005 View Sun 07/24/2005 View Sat 07/23/2005 View Fri 07/22/2005 View Thu 07/21/2005 View Wed 07/20/2005 View Tue 07/19/2005
1
2005-07-25 Home Front: Politix
Centrist Dems Urge Military Enlargement
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-07-25 01:21|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 These aren't centrists - they're just liberals who are looking for a loophole that will weaken America's military while making them look good. Increasing the troop count without increasing the military budget is one way to do that - this would mean decreasing the budget for new generations of military equipment. As Rumsfeld once said - the advantages of improved equipment are with us for decades but R&D can take years or decades - whereas troops can be hired and trained up in less than a year.
Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei  2005-07-25 08:35|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-07-25 08:35|| Front Page Top

#2 Bottom line is that in an emergency, you can hire (or draft) more troops immediately, but you can't get new generations of equipment immediately.
Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei  2005-07-25 08:38|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-07-25 08:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Bingo, Zhang Fei. And it might bring in a draft, which the military doesn't want but Dems do, in the name of "fairness".
Posted by too true 2005-07-25 09:02||   2005-07-25 09:02|| Front Page Top

#4 The draft does not deliver seasoned or veteran officers or [even more important] NCOs. It takes years to develop a cadre large enough to handle any significant increase in force structure. Them's the price of gutting the military after Gulf War I. The Army went from 750,000 to under 500,000. When did the President or the Dem leadership complain about that from 1992 to 2000?

Further, you don't need more troops if all they are really going to do is look nice and aid in natural distaster relief. The enemy has to believe you will really use them in order for the military to be effective. To paraphrase Napoleon - Its better to have a lion at the head of an army of deer, than a deer at the head of an army of lions.
Posted by Hupavith Gletle6588 2005-07-25 09:21||   2005-07-25 09:21|| Front Page Top

#5 too true, I think the reason the Dems want a draft is so that they can arouse anti-war sentiments among those of darft age. In other words, a page out of their old Vietnam era playbook.
Posted by jolly roger 2005-07-25 10:07||   2005-07-25 10:07|| Front Page Top

#6 the DLC did not call for a draft, but for an expanded military.

and as we found in Iraq, you CANT just increase the size of the military on a dime. In particular you cant increase the number of middle officers and non-coms on dime.

They will have to explain how they will pay for it. But so far theyve gone along with increased military expenditures, and i think the DLC would support that.

Im also not sure every high tech weapon system on the Pentagon list is focused on the war on terror.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 10:42||   2005-07-25 10:42|| Front Page Top

#7 "Increased military"=stealth draft.
The Dhimmicrats say it's not a draft, but it is.
"Im also not sure every high tech weapon system on the Pentagon list is focused on the war on terror."
And you would know this because...?
Why is that the Dems here--people like LH and Mike S.--are always "in the know" about high level or even Top Secret intell?
Or at least they pretend to know.
Are they moles at the highest levels of our government?
Were they beneficiaries of Sandy Bergler's pants-stuffing mission?
Or are they just arogant a$$holes?
I'm picking Door #3.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 10:50|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 10:50|| Front Page Top

#8 sorry to disappoint, but no, im not a secret source. This is all publicly available, in books, articles, etc. You can find the whole issue of China vs the WOT and Pentagon procurement discussed in Thomas Barnetts "The Pentagons New Map", by James Fallows, etc. For a viewpoint more focused on the China threat, the military coverage of the Washington Times is very good.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:07||   2005-07-25 11:07|| Front Page Top

#9 I agree with LH on this one. It's not a stealth draft.

I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. That division should be light infantry, mobile, with beefed up civil affairs units and strong peacemaking (not peacekeeping) abilities. We'd use that division, or brigades from that division, in various spots where we need peacemaking done in such a way that the locals behave. As one example: Kosovo.

It would take several years to get such a division trained, equipped, and ready to roll. I'd start today.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-25 11:11||   2005-07-25 11:11|| Front Page Top

#10 Bill Gertz's hysterical screeds in the WashTimes, along with Arnauld de Bouchgraves's op eds, are the 2 aspects of the Washington Times beat that I completely ignore.
Otherwise, their coverage is pretty solid.
Gertz has never been right about an American security issue yet.
And you're not going to read about our Top Secret weapons or what enemy they're designed to tackle in any press source.
Or if they are written about in the MSM, they shouldn't be unless it's just enough information or disinformation to really frighten the enemy.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 11:12|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 11:12|| Front Page Top

#11 what hysterical about Bill Geertz? I dont always agree with his viewpoint, but he seems to have a pretty good idea of whats going on in the Pentagon.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:18||   2005-07-25 11:18|| Front Page Top

#12 Steve, if we do need larger armies, that decision should come from Rummy, not the DLC.
And Rumsfeld keeps saying that the size of our forces is just fine.

Some of our force size depends on recruiting, also.
Between bashing the military about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and subjecting our soldiers to domestic criminal trials for combat deaths and Liberal universities, colleges and high schools barring military recruiters from coming on their campuses to recruit, it's a wonder we have any troops at all.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 11:18|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 11:18|| Front Page Top

#13 "And you're not going to read about our Top Secret weapons or what enemy they're designed to tackle in any press source."

Top secret weapons? You mean ones so top secret its not acknowledged they are in development - well of course we dont know about them, and they might well all be focused on the WOT. You are correct.

I was thinking more along the lines of things that are a matter of public record, like air superiority fighters. The only conceivable reason to spend money on a new, more advanced air superiority fighter, is against an adversary who can contest control of the air. The only adversary that can do that in the next few decades is China.


Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:21||   2005-07-25 11:21|| Front Page Top

#14 "Steve, if we do need larger armies, that decision should come from Rummy, not the DLC.
And Rumsfeld keeps saying that the size of our forces is just fine."

actually that decision is upto the commander in chief, and the congress, NOT the SecDef. And its not at all impossible that a future commander in chief could come from the DLC.

Are you suggesting that it was wrong for Republicans to advocate for higher expenditures on Ballistic Missile Defense in the 90's, cause Bill Cohen was SecDef?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:24||   2005-07-25 11:24|| Front Page Top

#15 "I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. "

Well Steve, I guess those of us who dont agree with St. Donald on everything are expected to just shut up and get with the program.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:26||   2005-07-25 11:26|| Front Page Top

#16 "The only adversary that can do that in the next few decades is China."

"Bull hockey!" as MASH'es Colonel Potter would say.
That incident in Summer 2001 aside, neither the Chinese nor any other power on the globe can touch us in the air.
Do yourself a favor, LH: Google Bill Gertz and check out his track record on "predictions." Not too hot.
On the Chinese "threat," compare Gertz's and Mark Steyn's informed opinions on Chinese domination.
Zhang Fei, can you weigh in on this one?
How we got to arguing about China on this thread, I have no idea, but if we're trying to win a numbers game with the Chinese Army, forget it.
I've been to China. Trust me, their soldiers, while strong in numbers are not very frightening.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 11:30|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 11:30|| Front Page Top

#17 I like to see moderates distance themselves from the ultra-libs. I'm still not going to vote for the lying spineless bastards, but I think they are moving in the right direction.(right)
Posted by Bigjim-ky 2005-07-25 11:30||   2005-07-25 11:30|| Front Page Top

#18 LH - those calling for a Draft are Democrats...helloooo Chollie Rangel! They don't do so to make a more effective military. It's to weaken the military and yet appear that they support it. Traitorous scum
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-25 11:31||   2005-07-25 11:31|| Front Page Top

#19 "neither the Chinese nor any other power on the globe can touch us in the air."

then you tell me - why the hell ARE we spending billions of dollars on developing a new air superiority fighter? Money which COULD be going to expand the army?
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:33||   2005-07-25 11:33|| Front Page Top

#20 "LH - those calling for a Draft are Democrats...helloooo Chollie Rangel"

Yes, but Rangel is not a member or supporter of the DLC, which is the group we're discussing. Are you familiar with the DLC? You didnt happen to confuse it with the DNC, did you?
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:34||   2005-07-25 11:34|| Front Page Top

#21 How we got to arguing about China on this thread, I have no idea

that would explain alot then. Let me review.

DLC calls for more troops. ZF suggested this would weaken the military, as the $ would come out of high tech weapons. I suggested the high tech weapons were not all focused on the WOT. I later explained this more fully, that many are focused on China. There is in fact a debate about the relative prioritization of the WOT and preparations wrt China. ZF has added valuable info to that debate here, and i respect him for that.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:37||   2005-07-25 11:37|| Front Page Top

#22 You brought up China, not ZF, even though he has lots of knowledge on that subject.

You're going around in circles, LH, because you have nothing to say.
And even if you try to put me down by saying that you "respect" ZF and thereby imply that you don't respect what I have to say, that's cool.
I think you're an ass and any "respect" from you would be worthless.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 11:46|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 11:46|| Front Page Top

#23 "You brought up China, not ZF, even though he has lots of knowledge on that subject."

I brought it up because it was relevant to the subject of high tech weapons.


"You're going around in circles, LH, because you have nothing to say."

Then why do you feel so impelled to respond?

"And even if you try to put me down by saying that you "respect" ZF and thereby imply that you don't respect what I have to say, that's cool."

I made it clear I respect him, cause you seemed to by implying that I disagreed with him, and that such disagreement was relevant to this discussion.

"I think you're an ass and any "respect" from you would be worthless.""

Thank you, thats lovely.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 11:53||   2005-07-25 11:53|| Front Page Top

#24 LH, lies, innuendos, half-truths and misinformation have to be met with facts and truths.
America is at war and yet you like to discuss top secret military matters as if we were discussing baseball scores.
That and the fact that you talk as if the DLC, and not SecDef Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, is leading our military cannot be allowed to stand without refutation.
Hillary Clinton isn't president yet and with God's help and mine, she never will be.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 12:01|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 12:01|| Front Page Top

#25 LH - I'm well aware of the faction the DLC comprises - they're the ones out of power, even in their own party, with little of the money-raising force that MoveOn and Soros comprise. How many of their candidate's won last election? Rangel's a senior in the Donk party, and a winner forever. McKinney just got back in office, even Carl Levin's been stabbing the troops with Abu Grahib. Down in flames, and no adults on hand to stop it
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-25 12:10||   2005-07-25 12:10|| Front Page Top

#26 Liberal YES Leftist NYET
Posted by Hyper">Hyper  2005-07-25 12:41||   2005-07-25 12:41|| Front Page Top

#27 I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. That division should be light infantry, mobile, with beefed up civil affairs units and strong peacemaking (not peacekeeping) abilities.

Steve the Army is way ahead of you - but you're a bit behind the evolution of doctrine. Take a look at the new emphasis on smaller units of deployment, with soldiers who rotate units far less frequently. Divisions are for major land battles. Deployable brigades are for the sort of mission you envision.

That said, I'm not sure light infantry quite describes the ideal focus. One reason that there are a lot of autonomous vehicles and smart weapons at the center of Future Combat System plans.
Posted by rkb 2005-07-25 12:58||   2005-07-25 12:58|| Front Page Top

#28 They have exceeded the 4-hour boner limit on Viagra, call the doc.
Posted by Captain America 2005-07-25 13:06||   2005-07-25 13:06|| Front Page Top

#29 LH, has it ever occurred to you that the reason American weaponry is so superior to that of other countries is because it keeps being improved? Countries that decide their stuff is good enough for now end up like France in WWII.

Liberals don't understand prosperity and the power of capital accumulation in free markets. Neither do they understand military superiority and the power of advanced weaponry in a volunteer citizen army.

The "Democratic Leadership Council" is irrelevant of the future of America. They have lost all branches of federal government and won't be back. Asserting that the US Army needs an extra 100k soldiers is as useful as asserting that the police need an extra 100k officers, or the economy needs an extra 1m jobs... It's power-lust made visible through wishful thinking unconnected to cause and effect.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-25 13:09||   2005-07-25 13:09|| Front Page Top

#30 "America is at war and yet you like to discuss top secret military matters as if we were discussing baseball scores.

nothing ive posted here refers to top secret matters. I was discussing questions of strategy, on web site devoted to strategy. Thats what we do here at RB, isnt it? I hate to appeal to the owners again, but am i really out of bounds here in dicussing military procurement issues and their relationship to resources and the size of the army. If JT is correct, and I am out of bounds I will cease to discuss these matters here. Though in that case i probably wont come here much at all, as im not interested in coming here to discuss most of the other issues people here are focused on.


"That and the fact that you talk as if the DLC, and not SecDef Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, is leading our military cannot be allowed to stand without refutation."

We live in a democracy, where citizens are allowed to discuss and critique the policies of the govt. Republicans did that under Dem admins (as was their right) and will do so again in any future Dem admin (and of course people can and do criticize admins of their own party as well).


Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:16||   2005-07-25 13:16|| Front Page Top

#31 The favoring of a troop increase is that they're a disposable (acquisition-wise) and relatively inexpensive asset.

Buying weapon systems and support equipment takes years and money to develop, support and maintain, even in mothballs.

Troop increases are a cheap way to 'boost' the military. Unlike weapon systems. troops have no constituency. No one complains when there's a reduction-in-force. One can even claim that one has reduced the size of government by doing so.
Posted by Pappy 2005-07-25 13:17||   2005-07-25 13:17|| Front Page Top

#32 " LH - I'm well aware of the faction the DLC comprises - they're the ones out of power, even in their own party, with little of the money-raising force that MoveOn and Soros comprise. "

In the past the DLC faction was much stronger on fundraising than the left. I think the left would be unwise to count on a trend of the last two years lasting forever.

"How many of their candidate's won last election?"

I dont have numbers handy. AFAIK they did reasonably well in the last couple of rounds of congressional elections.

" Rangel's a senior in the Donk party, and a winner forever."

Cause hes in a safe seat. Note well, when the GOP does well, and more swing seats switch to Reps, that means fewer centrist Dems. Of course it means more "RINO" Repubs, and you guys dont seem to like them much either.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:19||   2005-07-25 13:19|| Front Page Top

#33  "LH, has it ever occurred to you that the reason American weaponry is so superior to that of other countries is because it keeps being improved?"

and where exactly did i say we need to stop all improvements to weaponry?

Keep on killing those strawmen.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:21||   2005-07-25 13:21|| Front Page Top

#34 You're going around in circles, LH, because you have nothing to say. And even if you try to put me down by saying that you "respect" ZF and thereby imply that you don't respect what I have to say, that's cool. I think you're an ass and any "respect" from you would be worthless.

I'd say JT has gone ad hominem, LH. Ignore it at no risk.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-25 13:24||   2005-07-25 13:24|| Front Page Top

#35 There are NO de facto "centrist Dems";
Lieberman's still around, but he's not allowed out in public much.
Gebhardt's out and so is Zell Miller, by choice.
Rangel's no centrist, nor is Hillary.
The party has swung irretrievably to the Left.
In the Dhimmicrat party, there's only Left and Far Left.

"Increasing the size of the military" is Dem speak for "We're weak, our military leaders are stupid and we can't win."
Highlighting the "threat of China" is another DNC talking point which implies that Bush is ignoring the menace of looming Chinese military might and over-focusing on his "folly" of Iraq where the Dems say we're in an unwinnable quagmire.
And if we are developing new, wonderful weapons, they're "not being used in the WOT."
In helping the enemy win the war, the Dhimmicrats motto is: Leave no talking point behind.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 13:26|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 13:26|| Front Page Top

#36 Not all, Mrs. D.--see my post above this one.
Non-specific critique as to person, specific only to the Democrats/Liberals/"Progressives."
Hardly ad hominem.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 13:29|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 13:29|| Front Page Top

#37 The post above is debate, JT. The one I qoted is ad hominem.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-25 13:35||   2005-07-25 13:35|| Front Page Top

#38 Actually, personnel costs constitute the largest single slice of DoD budget. Just not pay, but housing, feeding, and sustaining eat up a lot. What Rummy has to look at is the long term costs. Regardless of whether you're Rep or Dem, its "Show me the Money!".

There's a lot in the budget people do not consider. Rising medical costs and expansion of health benefits for retirees, Guard and Reserve members, and their families, are putting a strain on the military health care system. Dr. William Winkenwerder, Asst. Secty of Defense for Health Affairs briefed Congress on 21 April. Winkenwerder said that TRICARE expanses have doubled over the past five years from $18 billion to nearly $36 billion. If the trend continues, the program's budget could top $50 billion within five years. Windenwerder estimated that by 2010, about 70% of the health budget will be spent caring for retirees. [Army Echos, May-Aug 2005, DAPE-RSO, Alexandria VA].

Now back in the 70s and 80s those joining the service were given the impression by their recruiters that medical care would be provided in retirement, and it was. However, since the 90s, the retirees have been charged for services which previously were free and have seen other services terminated. New charges are being added as we discuss this now. If you can not or will not sustain the existing force today, why are you call for more bodies requiring more support tomarrow? So, I repeat, "Show me the Money".
Posted by Hupavith Gletle6588 2005-07-25 13:38||   2005-07-25 13:38|| Front Page Top

#39 I'd say JT has gone ad hominem, LH. Ignore it at no risk.

Thanks, Mrs D. I will.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:40||   2005-07-25 13:40|| Front Page Top

#40 Neither is deserving of being ignored, Mrs. D.
And after a heated exchange with me over a dozen or more posts then saying that he/she "respects" ZF's post, the first one on this long thread, isn't likewise an attack on me, who dares to point out the many problems with that one person's posts?
If what I said to LH sounds "ad hominem," that's because there are exactly 2 known Democrat/Leftist trolls on this site: LH and Mike S (neither of which seem to post at the same time. Coincidence?).
Ergo, refuting their incorrect, untruthful talking points tends to sound personal and "ad hominem."
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 13:42|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 13:42|| Front Page Top

#41 now can someone please tell me, if China is no threat, why are we spending billions on a new air superiority fighter?


Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:43||   2005-07-25 13:43|| Front Page Top

#42 "Rumsfeld: China's Military Buildup a Threat
Associated Press | June 5, 2005

SINGAPORE -- China's military buildup, particularly its positioning of hundreds of missiles facing Taiwan, is a threat to Asian security, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Saturday.

Rumsfeld rebuked China at a regional security conference here, saying it was pouring huge resources into its military and buying large amounts of sophisticated weapons despite facing no threat from any other country.

The Pentagon chief's remarks signaled a harder line against China from the Bush administration, which has criticized Beijing over trade and human rights issues but not directly challenged its military buildup.

The director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, Cui Tiankai, was in the audience for Rumsfeld's speech and reacted strongly.

"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui told The Associated Press after Rumsfeld's remarks.

Rumsfeld said the Pentagon's annual assessment of China's military capabilities shows China is spending more than its leaders acknowledge, expanding its missile capabilities and developing advanced military technology.

China now has the world's third-largest military budget, he said, behind the United States and Russia. He did not say how large the U.S. believes China's military budget is.

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.

Cui responded sharply to Rumsfeld during a question-and-answer session.

"Do you truly believe that China is under no threat by other countries?" Cui asked. "Do you truly believe that the U.S. is threatened by the emergence of China?"

Rumsfeld said he does not think any country threatens China and that the United States does not see China as a threat.

Central to the disagreement is Taiwan, a self-governing island Beijing regards as a renegade territory.

China has said it will attack Taiwan if the island tries to declare independence, and it repeatedly calls on the United States to stop selling weapons to Taiwan. Beijing denounced a joint U.S.-Japan statement earlier this year saying the two allies shared the objective of a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue.

The United States is urging the European Union to keep in place its ban on selling weapons to China. Washington argues that any European weapons sold to China could be used in a conflict over Taiwan.

"I just look at the significant rollout of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan, and I have to ask the question: If everyone agrees the question of Taiwan is going to be settled in a peaceful way, why this increase in ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan?" Rumsfeld said.






Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:47||   2005-07-25 13:47|| Front Page Top

#43 "Now can someone please tell me, if China is no threat, why are we spending billions on a new air superiority fighter?"

So we can maintain our air superiority in any and all theaters we are or will be involved in, be it China, Iraq, Iran, you name it.

The best offense is a good defense.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 13:47|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 13:47|| Front Page Top

#44 "then saying that he/she "respects" ZF's post, the first one on this long thread, isn't likewise an attack on me, who dares to point out the many problems with that one person's posts?"

I pointed out that I respect ZF, so no one could interpret what I post about China as representing disrespect for what ZF posts about it. Period. Saying "I respect X" is NOT an ad hominem against Y. Well maybe to the supersensitive in this hyper PC age.

"If what I said to LH sounds "ad hominem," that's because there are exactly 2 known Democrat/Leftist trolls on this site: LH and Mike S"

Does anyone else here think im a troll?

" (neither of which seem to post at the same time. Coincidence?)."

Yup. Ive never posted as "mike S" perhaps we're just on different schedules.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:50||   2005-07-25 13:50|| Front Page Top

#45 "So we can maintain our air superiority in any and all theaters we are or will be involved in, be it China, Iraq, Iran, you name it."

The Iranian air force, and any air force the Iranians could conceivably field, could be easily defeated by current US aircraft types. Ditto for any other middle eastern country or Islamic country. IF we're focused on mid eastern and Islamic countries, than expanding the ground force is almost certainly a higher priority than developing a superior fighter.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 13:53||   2005-07-25 13:53|| Front Page Top

#46 Go play in the schoolyard, LH.

Red China is a threat. Nobody denies it. Only Democrats who believe they can score points against Bush like to change the subject and interrupt adults with questions such as "what about China?" when the current War is against Islamofascism.

Or are you now claiming that the DLC wants to add 100k soldiers in order to attack China?

The Democrats are the dead party of slavery, socialism and multi-culturalism. What they call for is mere interference and distraction. Watching them should be done for entertainment purpose, not to try to learn something important from their political posturing.

The future of America has nothing to do with what Democrats say. The game is over.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-25 13:54||   2005-07-25 13:54|| Front Page Top

#47 As long as the Chinese behave themselves and keep their mitts off Taiwan, our policy is to pretend that they're great guys with whom we can "get along."
What would you have us do, LH, call them out?
Pre-emptively nuke 'em?
I don't think the ChiCom leadership itself knows what they want or what they're doing, they just love all the $$$s they're getting from making and selling us everything and they don't want that to stop anytime soon.
Do us a favor, Libby: Google the topic and do some reading on the topic, especially Mark Steyn.
There's no excuse for having an uninformed opinion, much less to go hauling off demanding military action based on that poorly-formed "analysis."
And, "you know," Hillary Clinton is *engaged* with the problem, too;
her big response to the threats to this country is to have the video game "Grand Theft Auto" more heavily censored because it has links to porn.
She would know this because she probably caught Bill playing with it.
Furthermore, if China has made such great strides militarily of late, it's all down to her hubby, too.
So we owe you Liberals a lot, really--your bitching and moaning about the Bush Administration is just a bonus.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 13:58|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 13:58|| Front Page Top

#48 #41 - LH

Again and again, military men have seen themselves hurled into war by the ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholely uninformed as to the limits of their militiary potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not visaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they may possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to end. [History of Militiarism, Introduction, Vagts, Alfred, Free Press, NY]

Have to ask if anyone envisions a campaign on mainland China? and why? A Taiwan adventure would destroy the American market resulting in an economic depression with resultant social disruption and loss of centralized control by Beijing of its existant territories. How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Shanghai?
Posted by Hupavith Gletle6588 2005-07-25 13:59||   2005-07-25 13:59|| Front Page Top

#49 False LH alternative of the day: either we add 100k soldiers as the Democrats say, or we waste money making better fighter jets we'll use in the Middle East only.

Neither is a reasonable plan. Thanks for demonstrating your irrelevance. I'm glad you, and your Democrat friends, don't control the US military.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-25 13:59||   2005-07-25 13:59|| Front Page Top

#50 "Red China is a threat. Nobody denies it."

Yes, see JTs posts above.


" Only Democrats who believe they can score points against Bush like to change the subject and interrupt adults with questions such as "what about China?" when the current War is against Islamofascism."

Let me review again. The DLC wants to increase ground troops, for the WOT. ZF suggested this would detract from high tech weapons. I pointed out that high tech weapons are largely directed against China, not the WOT. Now there happens to have been a debate IN the Pentagon, that started way back in the '90s and grew more intense after 9/11, between the "small wars" people and the "near peer competitor" people. I was trying to point that out, and put the debate (ground troops vs high tech) in context. Now we have people who seem to deny that any such debate has taken place, despite it being a commonplace around the defense community AFAIK. Apparently cause the serious debate about strategy now taking place doesnt interest them as much as "St. Donald vs the Evil Dems".

"Or are you now claiming that the DLC wants to add 100k soldiers in order to attack China?"

No, i was implying the exact opposite. The DLC seems to be more focused on the WOT (for which the ground troops are important) and less focused on China (for which the high tech is more important) I was expected ZF to respond that the DLC is foolish and naive for neglecting China, and to explain why, a POV that I could have learned from. Instead I get people who think im some kinda spy for repeating the conventional wisdom about the strategic debate in the Pentagon.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:03||   2005-07-25 14:03|| Front Page Top

#51 "What would you have us do, LH, call them out?"

if theyre not an imminent threat, as you say, I would have us focus on expanding the ground forces, not building weapons systems only of use against China. OTOH if they ARE threat, then we SHOULD develop the high tech weapons systems.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:06||   2005-07-25 14:06|| Front Page Top

#52 Lessee... who to believe regards needs, threats, best actions for present and future security of US interests...
Bush / Rummy --or-- DLC / China / Lh

Mmmm. Tough one.

Lol. F**kin' Duh.
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 14:07||   2005-07-25 14:07|| Front Page Top

#53 "False LH alternative of the day: either we add 100k soldiers as the Democrats say, or we waste money making better fighter jets we'll use in the Middle East only"

But that is the debate thats underway, and not just among Dems, either. Lots of folks - dems (at least the DLC ones), Repubs like McCain and Kristol, Pentagon consultants like Barnett, and apparently a large section of the Pentagon brass think we SHOULD expand the ground forces. IF we do, the fear on the part of others is that we will short change the high tech weapons programs, SOME of which, like the fighter program, ARE of use only against a near peer competitor.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:10||   2005-07-25 14:10|| Front Page Top

#54 ROFL, Dotcom!
You, Dave D. and Frank G. are my current triumverate of RB loves!
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 14:12|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 14:12|| Front Page Top

#55 "Bush / Rummy --or-- DLC / China / Lh"

Im lost - when did China suggest that the US needed a larger ground force?

Do you really think its only me and the DLC who think we need a larger ground force?

"I've argued in the past that we should increase the size of the Army -- carefully, with full regard for the need for trained NCOs -- by about a division. That division should be light infantry, mobile, with beefed up civil affairs units and strong peacemaking (not peacekeeping) abilities. We'd use that division, or brigades from that division, in various spots where we need peacemaking done in such a way that the locals behave. As one example: Kosovo.

It would take several years to get such a division trained, equipped, and ready to roll. I'd start today.
Posted by: Steve White 2005-07-25 11:11"

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:12||   2005-07-25 14:12|| Front Page Top

#56  The DLC seems to be more focused on the WOT

lol!! haaahhhaa (sniff, sniff, wipes tear) Thanks Liberal Hawk. That's a good one. And exactly where is it that they plan to take the fight? Not Iraq, of course. Or are we now back to, I voted for it (before Bush lied and people died). We don't need the troops in Afghanistan.

Or do they just need to troops to prevent more atrocities in Gitmo? Are they planning on invading Turkey? Maybe they want to invade Iran.

Tell me liberal hawk..just where exactly is it that the DLC wants these troops to go. Don't tell me where YOU want them to fight, I want to hear where they claim they intend to send them. And a source please. I look forward to hearing where the DLC says they need to actually take the fight.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 14:15||   2005-07-25 14:15|| Front Page Top

#57 I think the comments in this thread are pretty tough on LH, who is not a troll or anything close to it. And I seem to recall a number of comments over the last couple of years to the effect that having another 2 or 3 divisions would be pretty helpful right at this point. While I'm surely not qualified to comment on force structure, we are at the point where the same troopers are going to be pulling their third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's a lot to ask of even the most professional of soldiers.
Posted by Matt 2005-07-25 14:15||   2005-07-25 14:15|| Front Page Top

#58 Unless and until Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the President that we need a larger military, I'd urge the Dems to leave it alone.
Ditto with the weapons system and development.
*Most* Americans are content to let the Pentagon handle the war.
That's why we pay them the big bucks.

("Fools rush in where angels fear to tread..."
Why are Lib Dhimms always so ready to mess with stuff that the American public either doesn't care about or shouldn't care about, like the problems raised by their resident troll here ["We're going to be killed by the mighty Chinese!"" Our armies are tiny!"...and what goes on at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and who told the press that visible Beltway socialite and mother of toddler twins Valerie Plame was an undercover spy on black ops?)
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 14:21|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 14:21|| Front Page Top

#59 From the website of the Project for the New American Century

"Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.


Respectfully,

Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal
Max Boot (respected neocon, author of "Small Wars") Eliot Cohen (former Reagan admin official) Ivo H. Daalder

Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr. (hardline pundit, published in WOT)
Reuel Marc Gerecht (Weekly Standard, AEI) Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)

Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan (AEI, neocon)
Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)

William Kristol (Weekly Standard) Will Marshall Clifford May

Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel McKivergan

Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon

Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka (AEI)
Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt

Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg R. James Woolsey (ex CIA head under Reagan, hardline neocon)



I can't think of a prominent neocon outside the admin whose name is NOT on the above list.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:21||   2005-07-25 14:21|| Front Page Top

#60 "Why are Lib Dhimms always so ready to mess with stuff that the American public either doesn't care about or shouldn't care about"

what exactly is the point of RB, if not to discuss precisely those strategic questions that most of the public ignores?

"like the problems raised by their resident troll here ["We're going to be killed by the mighty Chinese!"

Which i never said. Once again, what I said was IF the Chinese are NOT a threat, then focusing on ground troops makes sense.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:24||   2005-07-25 14:24|| Front Page Top

#61 Saying you want to enlarge the military is like saying you are going to "fix" social security or provide free health care for everyone. It sounds very nice, but it's typical liberal flash and no substance.

You can't just "provide free health care" you have to fund it, find a way to distribute it and make it work. It's not just about getting up there and saying you want to hire 100,000 new health care workers. Yeah..great. So I just hired 100,000 new health care workers. Where shall we put them and who'se going to pay them, and where does the money for their equipment come from.

If the dems really meant that they wanted to add more troops - they'd work with the Pentagon to find ways to fund it - but they do not.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 14:24||   2005-07-25 14:24|| Front Page Top

#62 "Tell me liberal hawk..just where exactly is it that the DLC wants these troops to go"

Well IF the insurgency is in its last death throes, then not Iraq, cause in that case by the time these troops are ready the Iraqis will be handling their own defense. OTOH, its possible we will still be in Iraq more than 3 years from now, and we will need a larger ground force so that commitment stresses our ground force less. We need troops available in the event of many possible contingencies - just cause one isnt currently calling for war with country X, doesnt mean its responsible to ignore the dangers and undercertainty that pervade the world. Esp with the WOT, one doesnt know which country will act in such a way with respect to harboring terrorists, or developing WMDs, that it will be necessary to go to war. Theres also the possiblity that AQ could take over a muslim state again.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:28||   2005-07-25 14:28|| Front Page Top

#63 "So I just hired 100,000 new health care workers. Where shall we put them and who'se going to pay them, and where does the money for their equipment come from. "

theres no shortage of bases in which to put soldiers. And the DLC has plenty to say about the budget in general, IIUC.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:30||   2005-07-25 14:30|| Front Page Top

#64 You quoted "The director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, Cui Tiankai" extensively - by posting the text of an AP "story" - as if his view was part of this debate. BTW, just do the link, next time.

This is simple, you're a Donk. You promote Donk shit and do so using strawmen at least as often as anyone here on RB. Donk shit stinks to many of us. Many, perhaps most, of those who support increased troop levels are NOT military experts nor do they know all of Rummy's global force consolidation plans nor are they always honest brokers regards the best interests of the US - the Pentagon has a fair number of fuckwits just like any other large US agency, they all need serious cleaning to get rid of the Donk shit deposited everywhere during the Fuck the Military Campaign of Clinton's Camelot II era of idiocy. McCain? LOL, right.

I'll take Bush / Rummy, since they are on the line for doing it right and will, therefore, actually try to do it right.

Most certainly the Donk-led efforts to shove a troop increase down Rummy's throat is nothing more than that - transparent political wanking. They should concentrate on those things they know something about. What is that? Well...

It's all OPINION, anyway, mostly uninformed and politically motivated, so Who do you trust? is the real question.

I trust Bush & Rummy.

-fin-
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 14:30||   2005-07-25 14:30|| Front Page Top

#65 niiiice sidestep LH. I didn't ask you if you thought more troops was a good idea - I asked you to show how the DLC intended to use the troops they are asking for. So you give me a list of neo-cons who write that they think it should be considered. Bzzzt. wrong answer.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 14:31||   2005-07-25 14:31|| Front Page Top

#66 "You quoted "The director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, Cui Tiankai" extensively - by posting the text of an AP "story" - as if his view was part of this debate. BTW, just do the link, next time."

I was mainly trying to post Rummys views, to show he considered China a threat (which JT seemed not to realize) Im sorry if i didnt snip enough for you. (Ive had difficulty posting links in the past)

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:32||   2005-07-25 14:32|| Front Page Top

#67 I'll tell you what LH. I'll go for a nice swim. Enjoy my afternoon. You busy yourself looking for where the liberal dems have put themselves on record for wanting to send these additional troops. Not just a platitude here or there, but you hunker down for me and find me a realistic, meaningful proposal by the dems to take the fight to the terrorists. Have fun.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 14:33||   2005-07-25 14:33|| Front Page Top

#68 " niiiice sidestep LH. I didn't ask you if you thought more troops was a good idea - I asked you to show how the DLC intended to use the troops they are asking for. So you give me a list of neo-cons who write that they think it should be considered. Bzzzt. wrong answer."

the neocon list was NOT in response to you 2b, but in response to those who think only Dems are calling for this increase.

Where does the DLC think they should be used? I dont know, and you can check their site as easily as I can. I suspect they take the same position i do on this - they DONT have a hit list in mind, but realize that the WOT is likely to require more US interventions in the future.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:35||   2005-07-25 14:35|| Front Page Top

#69 "It's all OPINION, anyway, mostly uninformed and politically motivated"

I think its possible to bring facts to bear, but you are correct one cant know everything going on in the DoD.

"Who do you trust? is the real question."

I have absolute trust in NO politicians. Not dems, not repubs, not McCain, and not Rummy or Bush.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:37||   2005-07-25 14:37|| Front Page Top

#70 Fair enough.

I DO trust Bush and Rummy - they've done more in the ~4 yrs since 9/11 than I could've ever hoped for - and infinitely more than any Donk putz would've done. They've earned my trust the hard way - by actions.
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 14:40||   2005-07-25 14:40|| Front Page Top

#71 So long as the Dems provide money to the campaigns of Byrd, Rangel, Durbin, etc, there is no "center" to the party. Merely a "far left" and a "loony left".
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-25 14:45|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-25 14:45|| Front Page Top

#72 well how typically liberal. Just demand and you can make it so. Free Health Care! More soldiers! Increased minimum wage! Someone to mow your lawn for you when you stub your toe or get old! Someday we might need more soldiers! Hire 100,000 more!! What's that? Where are we going to send them? hell if I know - somewhere! What more do you need for justifcation than that. Budgets, bean counters (bah, boring) we'll just tax the peasants and tell them the health care is "free".
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 14:46||   2005-07-25 14:46|| Front Page Top

#73 I didn't say that China wasn't a threat, it's just not THE threat.
As Rummy himself said, "You fight the war you've got."
Right now, we've got troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (and sometimes Syria and Pakistan), as well as having troops stationed at various hotspots like the Horn of Africa, Haiti, the Sinai,South Korea and Germany.
If your sole rationale for increasing troop strength is to meet a Chinese buildup, you're sh*t out of luck--we'll never be able to match the Chinese in numbers.
But they can't touch us in any other way.
The ChiComs completely reorganized their army after they saw US take Iraq in OIF--they were shocked that we kicked Saddam's butt and marched to Baghdad in 3 fricking weeks!

What we're trying to tell you, is that the Libs aren't talking facts, numbers and truths--they're just looking for a new way to criticize the Bush Administration.
And you're no exception.
Why do you persist in making post after inane post as if there's substance and truth to what you're saying, when there isn't?
Rummy wants to win this war as much as anyone--and NO. He didn't get where he is today by ignoring any Chinese threat!--if he says we need more troops or if one of his generals says so, then we'll pay attention and so will President Bush.

(BTW, Bill Kristol is anything but a "neo-con."
Are you aware that calling someone a "neo-con" is an anti-Semetic slur and is Lib code for "Jew?")

Fred gives you a button and/or HTML code to post links, LH.
Could it be any easier?
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 14:48|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 14:48|| Front Page Top

#74 RC - if theyre sending national Dem money to Rangel or Byrd, theyre utter idiots. Youre supposed to spend your money on swing races, not safe seats.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:48||   2005-07-25 14:48|| Front Page Top

#75 2b - soldiers are not like health care workers. You have to be prepared for contingencies.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:49||   2005-07-25 14:49|| Front Page Top

#76 BTW - Annual meeting of DLC attracts "hundreds"

at 50 states, what are looking at? The state chair, vice chair and their wives?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-25 14:51||   2005-07-25 14:51|| Front Page Top

#77 "You have to be prepared for contingencies."

Gee - good idea. Try it out on the Clintons, sometime.
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 14:53||   2005-07-25 14:53|| Front Page Top

#78 JT - i never said that China was the rationale for increasing troop strength. If you dont understand what ive been saying, after all these posts, theres no point repeating it.

as for neocons - no, it doesnt always mean "jew". There really is a neoconservative movement, that has advocated a lot of distinctive and interesting policies. If you read the above list, you will notice that at least two of the individuals i referred to as neocons, Woolsey and Gaffney, are NOT Jewish. And of course i was using neocon not in a derogatory fashion, but positively as a credential.


Im confused that you think Bill Kristol is anything but a neocon. are you aware that his father, Irving Kristol, founded the neocon movement, and, IIRC, wrote a book about it? Im quite sure Bill has called himself a neocon - ill have to find a cite.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:54||   2005-07-25 14:54|| Front Page Top

#79 "Annual meeting of DLC attracts "hundreds"

at 50 states, what are looking at? The state chair, vice chair and their wives?"

I dont think they have state chairs - youre not confusing them with the DNC, are you?
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:55||   2005-07-25 14:55|| Front Page Top

#80 Fred gives you a button and/or HTML code to post links, LH.
Could it be any easier

Im afraid they dont seem to work.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:56||   2005-07-25 14:56|| Front Page Top

#81 nope - nice sidestep again
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-25 14:57||   2005-07-25 14:57|| Front Page Top

#82 Then use tinyurl.com and post the link in text.
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 14:57||   2005-07-25 14:57|| Front Page Top

#83 so what makes you think they have state chairs? Why would they have more people? DLC is an org mainly of pols, not a mass organization.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 14:58||   2005-07-25 14:58|| Front Page Top

#84 I smell straw. Minor point, light a match to check, MoveOn, Lh.
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 15:00||   2005-07-25 15:00|| Front Page Top

#85 as for neocons - no, it doesnt always mean "jew". bleah. Talk about an Uncle Tomstein
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 15:01||   2005-07-25 15:01|| Front Page Top

#86 dot com - it was the only point in his post.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 15:03||   2005-07-25 15:03|| Front Page Top

#87 "as for neocons - no, it doesnt always mean "jew". bleah. Talk about an Uncle Tomstein"

what do you mean? Its antisemitic to use the term neocon, in any context? Now this is getting silly.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 15:04||   2005-07-25 15:04|| Front Page Top

#88 lets see

in this thread we've got people who
A. Think that theres no debate within the pentagon about grand strategy
B. People who think that Bill Kristol is NOT a neocon
C. People who think that only Democrats want more troops
D. People who think that you can only justify a military expenditure if you are advocating war against a particular country

Why do some of these threads have such an air of unreality?
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 15:06||   2005-07-25 15:06|| Front Page Top

#89 Matt: While I'm surely not qualified to comment on force structure, we are at the point where the same troopers are going to be pulling their third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's a lot to ask of even the most professional of soldiers.

WWII infantry, most of whom were draftees, fought until they were killed or too severely wounded to continue. Liberals haven't even addressed what we need to make our recruiting numbers (which is probably radically increased pay, and an expanded defense budget), and they want to increase the number of infantrymen.

The reason we always need the latest equipment is because our potential opponents certainly never stop developing theirs. And we never really know what their capabilities are. Until the unexpected happens, and war breaks out. Our equipment is what keeps our military from sustaining big casualties. You can talk all day about training, but against a determined and somewhat capable opponent, equipment is what gives you the edge. Just ask the Brits about the Falklands War, where they lost 257 dead and 6 ships against an American-trained and -equipped opponent.
Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei  2005-07-25 15:07|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-07-25 15:07|| Front Page Top

#90 it's a slur against jews, that you use it just shows how willing you are to align yourself with the left at any cost - even with them mocking you in your own presence. The fact that jews also use the term doesn't change it's underlying vile intent when aimed at the Bush administration. An administration controlled by the Neocon Jewish cabal. Jeesh 6 million dead and you still can't grasp the danger in promting that lie.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 15:09||   2005-07-25 15:09|| Front Page Top

#91 2b did you actually read my post - i was trying to show that most neocons actually supported the DLC position on this issue more than the admin position. How is that supporting the notion of a neocon admin cabal??? Just cause idiot lefty antisemites use neocon to mean jew, doesnt mean neocon isnt a perfectly legitimate word with a perfectly legitimate meaning.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 15:12||   2005-07-25 15:12|| Front Page Top

#92 yes I did read your post. And someone pointed out to you it is used as a slur - which you dismissed and I felt disgusted by.

perfectly legitimate word with a perfectly legitimate meaning.

I suppose using your logic, ni*&er is a perfectly legitimate word with a perfectly legitimate meaning when referring to a black person who, for whatever reason, is not worthy of ones respect. Even so, you won't find me using it.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 15:17||   2005-07-25 15:17|| Front Page Top

#93 "WWII infantry, most of whom were draftees, fought until they were killed or too severely wounded to continue."

Its not clear that the level of exhaustion relative to conventional warfare is the same as that wrt to counterinsurgency. In any case we were willing to allow the training levels of the military to decline - this was total war, with the expectation that once Germany was defeated, wed be at peace, and there was no one else we were likely to fight. If we exhaust our troops in Iraq, or somewhere else, and dont allow them adequate time to train (on all that new equipment you want) will they be ready for the next front of the WOT?

Also, WW2 involved total mobilization of the economy, which undoubtedly changed soldiers expectations.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-25 15:18||   2005-07-25 15:18|| Front Page Top

#94 Lol.

We have a semi-professional apologist who believes the Donks are more interested in protecting US interests and national security than political games. Yewbetcha.

I'm happy I don't pay your salary. I'm retired, so I can post all day - and no one is cheated. You?
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 15:18||   2005-07-25 15:18|| Front Page Top

#95 ZF, this is neither here not there to the main point of the thread (whatever that is), but I agree that the Brits were not optimally equipped for the Falklands War (and I think the lesson there is to avoid being too focused on one scenario, i.e., ASW in the North Atlantic.) But neither were the Brits optimally trained for Falklands War: IIRC the largest single loss of life was among the Scots Guards on the Sir Galahad, who needed to get ashore before the Argie airstrike arrived.

But they did win.
Posted by Matt 2005-07-25 15:19||   2005-07-25 15:19|| Front Page Top

#96 RC - if theyre sending national Dem money to Rangel or Byrd, theyre utter idiots. Youre supposed to spend your money on swing races, not safe seats.

Forget money -- how about party affiliation and endorsement? When David Duke tried to run as a Republican, the Republicans endorsed his Democrat opponent!

Yet the Donks kiss the ass of every extremist who slaps a 'D' after his name. See also, Sharpton.

Why do some of these threads have such an air of unreality?

Because you're here?
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-25 15:23|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-25 15:23|| Front Page Top

#97 liberalhawk you switch topics and ignore facts faster than Clinton says "is, isn't".

Where is the list of specific War conditions and objectives that the DLC is enumerating to justify an extra 100k soldiers? if you can't, or won't, produce it, that settles the case.

Don't argue anything else. Don't quote anybody else. Don't hypothesize. Just give us the detailed DLC justification and budget for an extra 100k soldiers, beyond the increases already approved, in terms of the current War.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-25 15:36||   2005-07-25 15:36|| Front Page Top

#98 Matt: ZF, this is neither here not there to the main point of the thread (whatever that is), but I agree that the Brits were not optimally equipped for the Falklands War (and I think the lesson there is to avoid being too focused on one scenario, i.e., ASW in the North Atlantic.) But neither were the Brits optimally trained for Falklands War: IIRC the largest single loss of life was among the Scots Guards on the Sir Galahad, who needed to get ashore before the Argie airstrike arrived.

The main point of the thread is the question of whether it makes sense to sacrifice new equipment to hire new troops. My argument is no. The problem with the Brits is that they never thought they would have to defend their overseas holdings - the mere threat of the British navy appearing over the horizon would do. We shouldn't have any such illusions - we have more "mutual" defense treaties (and thus, threat scenarios) than you can shake a stick at.

If we need to get new infantry in a hurry, we can do it - far better to get green troops into combat with air cover than have to field experienced troops without air cover. If we need new air superiority aircraft in a hurry, it simply can't be done. Folks like Ralph Peters assume that air cover is America's birthright and that the F-22 is superfluous. The reality is that it is won by American technological superiority that requires the continued funding of new generations of airplanes, ordnance and avionics. Our potential adversaries aren't standing still, and we don't know everything we'd like to know about their capabilities.

Note that India was able to explode a nuke, which requires massive infrastructure, without anyone in the Clinton administration knowing beforehand. And this is in a country, India, that is relatively open, and the penalties for spying aren't particularly draconian. Note that the CIA had to send Joe Wilson the bozo into Niger to determine whether they were selling uranium to the Iraqis. What other things don't we know about our potential adversaries?
Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei  2005-07-25 15:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-07-25 15:43|| Front Page Top

#99 Uh oh, you're talking about "unknown unknowns" - you're penalized 10 points and have to move backwards 3 spaces. Rummy's persona non-grata, y'know. Check with Charlie I Support the troops! Honest! Wrangler regards the remainder.

;-)
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 15:51||   2005-07-25 15:51|| Front Page Top

#100 ZF - good comment.
Posted by Matt 2005-07-25 15:56||   2005-07-25 15:56|| Front Page Top

#101 Centrist Democrats are like unicorns-scarce. Most run as centrists and then head as quickly as possible for the far left.
Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-07-25 15:58||   2005-07-25 15:58|| Front Page Top

#102 it makes sense to sacrifice new equipment to hire new troops.

I found that comment interesting in that the thrust of our Pentagon right now is to come up with smarter technology to decrease the need for troops. And they have been very sucessful.

So what do we get - the usual suspect Donks immediately doing an about face and demanding more troops! Not just a few more, but 100,000 more. Which would of course, mean that money for the superior technology would not be available.

What's most interesting about this is that it isn't even going to cross a serious person's mind that these sleezy Donks have the best interests of our country in mind. Yeah, the sheep, who were yesterday saying "bring our troops home" will bah, bah, and say, "we need more troops", cause that's what sheep do. But the true believers are a small percentage of the population, as Air America proved. Most Americans indeed support our troops and efforts to fight this war.

But what is interesting to me is that the majority of Americans (who are paying attention) will simply realize that this is just another effort by this group of sleezy Donks to weaken our military. And what is even more interesting than that is that we just sort of accept that - that their goal is to weaken the US military. WoW! If you think about it, the fact that these exposed frauds remain in the halls of congress, when their goals are so transparent, is really quite strange.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 16:01||   2005-07-25 16:01|| Front Page Top

#103 which after thinking about it, is really what's going on here. The budgets have been passed - the bean counters have justified the new projects to be funded.

So this whole "more troops" is just more obstructionist donk dealings. Since they can't say - "you can't have the money that was already allocated for the war effort" they will say, "you can't spend that money on technology, we need it for more troops".
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 16:25||   2005-07-25 16:25|| Front Page Top

#104 Robin pointed out to me, a long ways back in this thread: Deployable brigades are for the sort of mission you envision.

Thanks, I could never say that I'm 'up' on all the military doctrine. Yes, deployable brigades of light infantry (or whatever works best) for these peacemaking missions would be very helpful, and I wouldn't object to carefully-planned growth there.

I also understand the point about developing weapons systems that decrease the need for troops -- all for it since that will also keep our people alive. I wonder if such systems will be as useful in a post-conflict situation like Iraq or Afghanistan, where the need for people undoubtedly will be greater. Hence my thought on additional troops. I wouldn't put a number on it since I'm not smart enough to know how many we need, but I do wonder if some additional regular army troops would be helpful.'

A final note: it's getting mighty personal on this thread. No need for that.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-07-25 16:34||   2005-07-25 16:34|| Front Page Top

#105 A few points.

First, two tactical - but very critical - issues wrt increasing the size of the Army. a) To train new troops you need to pull experienced NCOs out of deployment. Senior NCOs are the heart and glue of our armed forces - pulling them out for training duties would significantly degrade the Army. And using lesser NCOs would do the same, it would just take longer. b) The Army is NOT experiencing problems with recruiting people for the combat arms. Recruitment shortfalls have been developing in support specialties where a fair number of people have joined in the recent past as a way to have a job / education without the dangers and rigors of the combat arms. To a fair degree, if we need to, we can outsource those jobs to contractors. There are downsides to doing that, but upsides as well.

Second, if you expand the armed forces now you guarantee that you will be making a huge investment in yesterday's Army, in the face of tomorrow's wars and missions. Even our incredibly professional, agile military in place today sometimes feels like they are risking whiplash as they adjust to uncertain missions, new fighting doctrines -- being evolved as we speak in places like Iraq -- and a whole generation of new weapons and support systems that are just rolling out for test and deployment.

In short, this is -- according to experienced battle commanders and leaders I've talked with -- the exactly WRONG time to be talking about expanding the Army.
Posted by rkb 2005-07-25 19:03||   2005-07-25 19:03|| Front Page Top

#106 That's a good moderating post Steve. The idea of discussing more troops v/s modern technology is a worthy discussion and the baby should not be thrown out with the bath-water.

The problem is that we all know that this particular group does not have the good of the country in mind.

So, in the sense that this group is promoting it, we need to look and see why they are promoting it, rather than to just agree or disagree that more troops are or are not needed. Because if their intentions are to obstruct - then we need to know how and why.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 19:08||   2005-07-25 19:08|| Front Page Top

#107 oops..overlapped rkb's post. Great post.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-25 19:09||   2005-07-25 19:09|| Front Page Top

#108 Thanks RKB.

Drink Warning Jenny!
Unless you were serious of course.
LH and Mike S (neither of which seem to post at the same time. Coincidence?).
Posted by Shipman 2005-07-25 19:24||   2005-07-25 19:24|| Front Page Top

#109 I've carefully stayed out of this thread because I've nothing intelligent to add to the upstaffing discussion beyond posting the original article for your delectation.

However, just for the record, it was only yesterday that I identified myself as a neocon -- in exactly the sense Liberalhawk and the self-identified Neocons use the term (a born and bred Liberal mugged by reality... although the original guys were Red Diaper Babies, and my evolution wasn't nearly so dramatic).

I triple dare any of you to tell me I'm an antisemite for doing so. And then be prepared to take it outside.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-07-25 20:50||   2005-07-25 20:50|| Front Page Top

#110 I'd never call you an anti-Semite, Jen (LOL) but I fear even you have misunderstood the term "neo-con."
Actually the word has very little meaning.
It doesn't really mean a Liberal mugged by reality or the reality of 9/11 who's become a Conservative, although we're glad to have you aboard.
It's used, generally by the Left/Dems/Libs to connote a "certain type" of RightWinger--it was and is code for "Jew" or "Jew-lover"(in my case) because Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were its original proponents.
All we "neo-cons" are supposedly warmongering RightWingers (usually GOPers) who heartily believe and endorse the Bush Doctrine of preemption.
It's really a meaningless term, only used by Leftwing idealogues to denigrate and label their political enemies.
Don't fall for it or claim it.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-25 21:18|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-25 21:18|| Front Page Top

#111 I'm a ConNeo. I thought his acting was wooden and stilted, as usual. I gave it 1.5 stars cuz Carrie Ann Moss looked pretty hot in black leather riding a scooter.
Posted by .com 2005-07-25 21:25||   2005-07-25 21:25|| Front Page Top

#112 LH, I'm a little disturbed: first you say that noone's talking about cutting weapons programs to pay for the troops, but then you go ahead and imply that we need to cut aircraft development to pay for the troops.

The problem is that weapons development has become an expensive and long-drawn-out process. As far as I am concerned, too much has already been cut from procurement: specifically, the Comanche helicopter and (in the earlier administration) the M-8 tank, and the XM-8 rifle (Although there were implementation problems with the latter).

The Pentagon has gotten into the habit of developing weapons platforms from scratch and then after getting the factory set up, cancelling the thing to pay for some need-for-the-moment... that's what happened with the M-8 tank, for instance.

It will be even more expensive, over the LONG term, to do this to the F-22; if we cancel it, we won't be able to rush a replacement project into service cheaply or quickly in the event of a war with China or Russia, which also has an advanced air force.

(Another good example would be the Stealth Bomber, where we built a factory capable of building hundreds of them, ran twenty off the assembly line, and shut it down.)

A quick note about the F-22 fighter: it's not meant for use against _just_ an enemy's air force. A bunch of F-16's would be "good enough" to deal with, for instance, Iran's Air Force, if Iran were cooperative enough to send up their air force and never try to use the SAM installations they have.

The Russian-supplied militaries throughout the world use their SAM systems as cheap force-multipliers for their air forces; they use the same missiles the Russians use as an anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow. They're very fast, much longer-ranged than any currently existing western system, and fly ballistic trajectories outside the atmosphere. I imagine they're good enough to handle any F-16 that isn't flying nape-of-the-earth, but if you send a F-16 down there, guess what? It's a sitting duck for any obsolete fighter aircraft that has a non-obsolete radar-guided air-to-air missile.

The F-22 is meant to fight in an environment where the postulated opponent not only has an air force but hypersonic missiles and phased array radars tied together with their air force using a large computer network.

Iran has purchased that above-mentioned missile system, BTW.

Finally, it's bothersome that the Democrats, who cut the army by four active divisions and two reserve divisions, or about 28%, or 200,000 people, during the 1992-2000 time frame, are offering to restore _some_ of them IF they get to cut one or more of the other services at the same time, and pretending that that makes them strong on defense.

Finally, these cuts weren't performed by some Democratic administration lost in the mists of history; they were performed by the Democratic administration of the husband of the putative nominee, who's trying to pretend she's a hawk now.

But she wants to talk about this expansion as if these cuts never happened on her husband's administration's watch, and they just happened without being the decision of anyone she was connected with.

It appears very dishonest to me.

Frankly, I'm dissatisfied with the funding levels for the military from both parties, but the Democrats for the moment appear to be more dishonest to me, wanting to move money around from recapitalization to manpower in a way that will be _very_ expensive (and probably costly to manpower further down the road) and pretending that's a funding increace. It isn't.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-25 21:58|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]  2005-07-25 21:58|| Front Page Top

#113 Some other time I'll come back and read all this, but it's bedtime. I have enjoyed reading Liberalhawk, from time to time, and hope y'all haven't driven him away. Mike S is even O.K. but not quite as reasoned as LH. If you want a single point-of-view, you're on the wrong (as in 'not right') side of the aisle.

Good night! 11+ posts? Wow. Civil discourse.
Posted by Bobby 2005-07-25 21:58||   2005-07-25 21:58|| Front Page Top

#114 To put it another way: during the late 90's, they moved money from recapitalization to operations to pay for Bosnia.

This is the main reason the US Army didn't have the M-8 tank during the Afghanistan campaign. When Clinton ordered Bosnia without asking for special supplementary funding, it was what got cut.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-25 22:36|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]  2005-07-25 22:36|| Front Page Top

#115 I live in Colorado Springs. Fort Carson, with the 3rd ACR, is on the south. Peterson and Schriver AF Bases are to the east. The Air Force Academy is on the north, and Cheyenne Mountain is on the west. In addition, there are more than 40,000 military retirees in the area. You hear a lot of "stuff" around here, and some of it even makes it into the Gazette, the local (non-liberal) newspaper.

Troop strengths for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force have increased incrementally every year since 2002. The increases are small - on the average of about 300 per service per year. In addition, more than 270,000 Guard and Reserve slots are being added, again only a few at a time. Most, if not all, of the slots are being added in combat arms and intelligence areas. It was all but IMPOSSIBLE to find this information - it took looking through over 4000 pages of government budget information online. Needless to say, it took me most of two weeks, doing little else.

Bush is doing what needs to be done, with Rumsfeld's help. We WILL add an additional division - over a ten-year period, unless the Democrats stop the process. We will also add another active Marine brigade, two Army Reserve support battalions, and at least fifteen independent regiments within the Reserves, and who knows what within the Guard. There are about 4000 slots I couldn't find anything on, half active, half Reserve. Part of the Base Closure program is being pushed to free up more funds that can be used to increase troop strength.

As one general officer politely told me, many years ago, technical superiority is a "force multiplier" - the greater the technical superiority, the fewer number of troops that have to be put in danger. That's why we're working on laser weapons, new fighters, better ships, tactical robots, local reconnaissance capability, and who knows what else. To do anything else would be considered criminal among a sane, intelligent population.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2005-07-25 23:19|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2005-07-25 23:19|| Front Page Top

#116 More PC bywords this week for Socialism and Big Govt - "shared sacrifice", "measured security/response", and "certainty"!?
Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-07-25 23:26||   2005-07-25 23:26|| Front Page Top

23:49 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
23:40 Jennie Taliaferro
23:39 Bomb-a-rama
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:32 Mike Sylwester
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:20 CrazyFool
23:19 Old Patriot
23:18 Classical_Liberal
23:13 M. Murcek
23:09 twobyfour
23:06 True German Ally
23:05 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
23:04 Cyber Sarge
23:03 OldSpook
23:01 bigjim-ky
22:59 True German Ally
22:59 Glenmore
22:59 Cyber Sarge
22:56 True German Ally
22:53 bigjim-ky
22:51 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
22:51 bigjim-ky
22:51 True German Ally
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com