Simple Math

Simple math it is.

If my CO wanted my platoon to take out a brigade, those numbers would not work real well. Especialy if I can only fire if fired upon, and can not use gurilla tactics.

Our elected officials want so much, but tie our soldiers hands. This only gets our citizens killed for no reason.

If you want A, B, and C to happen, you must have X, Y, and Z in place.

So to put it simply - We're screwed.

I would say you hit the nail on the head.

Wheel:

I would say he was arguing for a reinstatement of conscription IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE FIGHTING AT CURRENT LEVELS.

The alternative is to stop fighting at current levels.

My personal feeling is that we've got to 'rejoin the fold' Geneva convention wise and in general do some fence mending with the rest of the world. We need to ask the UN to take a more active role in bringing stability to Iraq. We've got to get involved in some active diplomacy that's not about winning and losing but about developing systems that the people who have to live with them can agree to, we have got to reduce the number of soldiers to a more reasonable number. . .

But you're right, haven't heard anything about any of that from either candidate, and won't I imagine.

Plans for reinstating the draft continue to float around. It wouldn't look at all like the one we remember -- the one where a guy like Dick Cheney could get 5 deferments in the blink of an eye. This one will be for both men and women -- no deferments.

If there were universal service there would be far fewer wars. If George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitiz or any of those rats stood to risk their own children, maybe they would have treated this war less like a football game.

If John McCain is elected it's far more likely. As you've all pointed out, we're stretched to breaking point. If he is elected, and follows through on the "occupy the world" strategy, we'll have a draft. Everybody says the public would never stand for it, but the public has stood for some pretty unbelievable things over the past 8 years. I can't imagine why a draft would be any harder to shove down our throats than anything else.

Col. Jack:

At the end of the day, however, in a Republic it's those elected officials whose judgement of national security rules, whether they are knuckleheads or not.

Senior officers "hold[ing] their ground" includes a whiff of MacArthuresque insubordination (and with it, militarism and potentially fascism).

Exactly.

This has been a problem for more years than you or I can remember.

To share a little something from my military time.

I had a CO (Lt. Col.) who would bypass his staff and ask me what my platoon and I thought. I took some rather unpleasant looks from other officers, but I always stood my ground and never was admonished for it. (maybe that is why I never got over SFC.)

I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but my CO thought that the men who had experience made better sounding boards than the "90 day wonders" that made up his staff.

With that said, politicians and appointed officials are more or less "90 day wonders".

Another problem today is budgets. If you tick off the wrong person at the wrong time, you might just loose any chance at getting greener grass on your side of the fence.

cranky:

With that said, politicians and appointed officials are more or less "90 day wonders".

The problem is, nobody voted for you. They did vote for the politician.

The minority of Americans voted for them. Not all of them.

They won a popularity contest of 25% of the voters. I earned my position by my qualifications and hard work.

cranky:

You still don't get to decide these things. If the U.S. was ruled by a military junta you would. But we aren't, so you don't.

It is not about rule, it is about doing the job that we are suppose to do. The military job I am referring to is to protect the U.S. soil, citizens and the Constitution.

You just don't get it do you.

Your solution would be to have the elected officials just run the military the way they see fit. "Hey, I just got elected to office, lets go kill some people for no reason!" If you don't take the expert advice of those who have dedicated their lives to that one thing, you are a fool. I would just rather have a strong country. Not one led by idiots. So much for wishful thinking.

Being popular to the minority does not make you right, it only makes you popular.

The problem is, nobody voted for you. They did vote for the politician.

By the way, I was voted into office once, served one term and got out. I didn't like all the lying, stealing, and illegal things that most politicians do. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.

cranky:

Yeah, I do, it's you that doesn't get it.

I actually generally agree with you and I would gladly vote for a candidate who undertook to take the advice you offer.

However, at the end of the day, it's the knuckleheaded 90-day-wonders whose authority you must accept. In our system, decisions on War & Peace, Life & Death reside in the civilian authority, not in the armed forces.

Now it is starting to make sense.

Let me make an analogy.

You have had chest pain. You are in the hospital.

Two doctors see you, one who has spent his life dealing with the heart, the other a Phd in philosophy. Which one do you want to give you advice on your condition?

This started with a comment about national security.

The point is that the man who spent his life in military service, studies of other cultures, and has the ability to lead several thousand soliders is ignored, and the one who has a poly-sci degree from Harvard and kisses ass gets to make the decision on his "experiance", there is something wrong.

Our first president, was a military man, always asked for opinion and advice from others, even if they differed from his own. He won his battle by seeking the best from everyone. He was so good at how he did it, he was asked to be a king!

I just feel if you have good minds, then use them. If you don't, then it is time to go.

There is a reason that NCO's train our Officers. We have a duty as Americans to train our elected officals. If they don't make the cut, train another one.

cranky:

The point is that the man who spent his life in military service, studies of other cultures, and has the ability to lead several thousand soliders is ignored, and the one who has a poly-sci degree from Harvard and kisses ass gets to make the decision on his "experiance", there is something wrong.

If the guy who spent his life in military service, etc., wants to make the decision, he should run for office and gain the authority of office that is vested by the citizens of the Republic. Otherwise, military guy can advise all he wants, but if the knucklehead with the polic-sci degree from Harvard is President, it's the knucklehead who decides.

I doubt that either of you will convince the other. The president is the "decider." That's the way it is. Now we either have the electorate manipulated and choose an unprincipled person or we elect a person who listens to reason and is able to communicate to the citizens his considered decision. The president must then assume the outcome of his decision. I feel that we must consider the decisions and motivations of the current administration and hold them accountable for what has befallen this nation.

cranky o m,...What if we had been able to really fund the military with funds we spent on Black Water and Halliburton? Obversely, what if we used troops in Afghanistan and paid a larger Black Water contingent with some funding from the government and more coming from Halliburton and most coming from Big Oil? They are the ones to benefit from this incursion.

Why couldn't we fund the military, if we are funding private contractors at a higher rate anyway?

What I see happening is only a direct result of a diminished military force. We don't have the man power to support our troops. That is why much of the transportation, and other services are contracted out now. Private contractors are doing much of the support work that used to be done by soldiers.

And what does Afghanistan troops have to do with funding from oil companies going to a larger private contract have to do with anything?

I don't see anyone benefiting from our escapades in either country as of yet, and truly don't see it coming in the future. Even the prospect of possible oil deals will not change anything on the world market nor affect the price we pay at the pump.

The president is the "decider."

No he is not, he is the policy maker. The House and Senate are the "deciders" as you put it.

The president is the CEO, he only guides, but does not have sole discretion on all decisions.

Col. Jack Jacobs: I would like to see senior officers offer their best advice and not shrink from holding their ground when elected or appointed knuckleheads---of either party---insist on doing things that are injurious to our national security.

I would too. What we have now though, is a situation where you get promoted based on how well you suck up, not on how well you honor your oath. If you're not almost as good a politician as any national candidate, you simply don't get very far. There are some notable exceptions, but by and large the truly honorable people who have no trouble saying "wait a minute, that's not right," get passed over enough times to effectively discourage them from staying in, or from continuing to respond to their consciences.

There are problems with all of those choices.

We have selective service to help if we use the draft. I don't see anything but public outcry if we start the draft again.

Also, requiring a enlistment, would have the same effect.

We need to have responsible government, good benefits for service men and women, and work on retention of the good soldiers we have. We also need to expand our intel network to the state it was in during the cold war. This would help everyone with decision making.

I have racked my brain since the start of several deployments of our troops. I have not seen the need for action based on the role of our armed services. They are to defend our soil, citizens and Constitution. I don't see the need of our troops in some countries we are in now. But it is too late, we have opened the bag and the cats are out.

The National Guard is not the answer. That is something that should remain a tool of the state unless a true "world war" comes about again.

I think I will write an article on what the military is suppose to be used for.

It seems to me that our military are becoming police, while our police are becoming our military.

I whole heartily agree with you.

We need to have responsible government, good benefits for service men and women

Yes! Someone needs to do a documentary on the benefits of the GI Bill and other like minded programs. The media presents it as a bill, for education and makes it a political hot topic. They don't give a background on the program and what advances to society the many graduates have provided.

work on retention of the good soldiers we have

As in the business world, what incentives and clearly understood paths to success are available to service personnel? The marketing around recruitment is a down payment for a home or a college education. Neither discuss a career in the services.

expand our intel network to the state it was in during the cold war. This would help everyone with decision making.

There's still plenty of skepticism surrounding the CIA and other agencies and how they managed the intel before Iraq. The conversation needs to be expanded: information was provided, where did the information get blocked, how many hands held up the process, do organizations need to be streamlined, better organized or better managed?

They are to defend our soil, citizens and Constitution

This would make a great show for the history channel or many others, the role of the various services, what the average American can expect from each and how they have utilized for good or other. This would also benefit recruitment.

The National Guard is not the answer. That is something that should remain a tool of the state unless a true "world war" comes about again.

There are many governors that would agree with you. If they are the "National" guard, then shouldn't be on the U.S. soil? If any common sense thinker were to look ahead many years, we're going to need them at home for disasters (pick any: weather, shortages, uprisings...) and the fallout from those

I think I will write an article on what the military is suppose to be used for.

Excellent idea. Heck get those folks at MSNBC to provide you a few producers and make some documentaries... all that dead air time in the evenings highlighting criminals could be put to good use and might even expand the audience.
I'm not talking about Oliver North's war stories, I'm proposing education on the realities, expectations, role, support, life surrounding the services and how the average American can honestly relate to this information, how it effects them, impacts them and what they could do as a person growing up and looking towards their future or as a voting adult heading to the ballot box. (Sorry about the run on sentence).

Note: where I mentioned CIA and other agencies, I understand that the CIA's primary function is collecting and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and persons in order to advise public policymakers. Since the media focuses on the CIA nearly every time intelligence is mentioned, I too refer to it, but also understand it's not the sole entity for the collection and analysis of intelligence.

At # 4.11 I comment on a president able to provide the citizens with his considered opinion. A corollary would be a citizenry able to understand and support his decision. As to conscription, it's a given that not all could qualify as military, therefore I would support a two year period in which subjects were able to "find" themselves with guidance. After the two year period they would be offered scholarships to follow meaningful careers or to choose the rigors of the military after a period of advanced education, if desired. For those who wish to conquer specific but limited areas of expertise*, such instruction would be supplied.

*intel, advanced engine repair, telemetry, etc.

To this I have only one thing to say.

Why the hell are we over there anyway? We are not an Empire, we are the U.S.A.

Honestly, if we go into another country, we should be there for humanitarian needs, not for military support. Unless we intend on stretching our boarders.

I think that a reasonable argument can be made that the West has expended sufficient blood and treasure in Afghanistan.

My first thought after 9-11 was Iraq, even before intelligence implicated Al-Qaeda. I would have started in Iraq and swept eastward.

Should a new American president find it prudent to withdraw troops from the field, they should be drawn from Afghanistan first.

Heck, if you think that 9/11 gives somewhat a land for free, wherhever it is, of sorts, a free war on an enemy of choice.....

..... why didn't Canada come to your mind? Had just as much to do with 9/11 than Iraq.

Luckily you have still many years ahead before you can vote.

I probably would not be able to persuade you that invading Iraq was the right choice, so I will have to leave it to history to do so. I am certain that years from now, history will show that both Bushs, Cheney, and the neo-cons laid the foundation for a lasting universal peace. God bless them all.

In "The War and the Coming Peace: The Moral Issue" (1918), Morris Jastrow wrote, "THERE are two ways of looking at the great conflict. We may have regard to the issues that lie at the surface, or we may endeavor to probe to the deeper significance of the war for there is always an undercurrent to surface events. On the surface, wars reveal race antagonisms, religious dissensions, political ambitions, or economic rivalries as the more immediate causes, but a closer analysis will generally show an undercurrent that will enable us to reach a better understanding of the real issues involved. At all events, a consideration of the present war's deeper significance will set forth the issue in a clearer light."

The same applies to the present War on Terrorism.

Personally, I would look at it like this.

Afghanistan: War on Drugs

Iraq: War for Oil and revenge

Very simplistic, but true

"the great conflict" reeks of apocalyptic rhetoric. The war in the Middle East has nothing to do with prophecy. It has to do with greed.

Neron Kesar in 7.4

I am certain that years from now, history will show that both Bushs, Cheney, and the neo-cons laid the foundation for a lasting universal peace. God bless them all.

Wow. That's quite a statement. I disagree but not for the reasons that you would commonly expect. I would like to hear more about your position on this. Have you written anything to that effect?

"Zion" is the root of Zionism. Zion is a biblical reference to Jerusalem and the Temple.

The Bible is a Jewish land title to Israel.

I have written about the ephah as the symbol of an economic counter-balance to current Jewish banking interests. There are prophetic overtones in my articles. Go to my column and search for articles with the tag "epaph".

The main problem with our military, and its failure to complete a job that our presidents have tried to use them for in the past, is actually "simple math".

We are not an imperialistic nation. We don't train our troops to take over and secure countries. We train our troops to go in, take out the bad guys, then turn over the country to the good guys.

If you look at all the wars we have fought, the only ones that we can say we won, were only in the defense of others. Any time we try to have an occupation force, we suffer. We are not geared for that.

Is this not a worthy possibility?

Neron,

Is this not a worthy possibility?

It's more than worthy, it's laudable. I'm not sure it's achievable as long as man labors under the false belief that religion makes life better, or that one's religion gives some innate superiority over others, but universal peace is certainly something to be wished for and worked toward.

According to the prophecies, peace is inevitable.

Unfortunately, most people have misread the prophecies, using them to justify an other-worldly escapism or divisivenss between the various faith traditions. Whereas religion has been used to create conflict, it can also be used to create bridges.

The first phase of the present conflict in Iraq required a military intervention in order to lay the foundation for the next major phase; i.e., winning the hearts and minds of the people.

I understand that "winning the hearts and minds" is a phrase that has been much abused and scorned, but we need an honest, unemotional discussion of what this entails.

I will tell you what to me "winning the hearts and minds" DOES NOT mean:

1. It is not exporting a secular, western-style democracy to Iraq.

2. It is not exporting western culture to Iraq.

3. It is not a pure separation of religion and government.

4. It does not mean an end to military strength when the need arises to safeguard law and order.

I will describe what to me "winning the hearts and minds" DOES mean:

1. It recognizes the need for historical and cultural continuity in Iraq.

2. It recognizes the role of religion as a guiding force among all monotheistic believers in the Middle East.

3. It recognizes the need for Iraq to live in peace with its neighboring states.

4. The Palestinians would be absorbed and integrated into Iraq, and when necessary they would be relocated via a program of cultural and economic incentives.

5. A modified democracy would be instituted in recognition of limited self-rule.

6. Pluralism to include the monotheistic religions would be recognized.

These are some thoughts to further spur a discussion and are obviously not exhaustive.

I agree in part with your argument. The National Guard is a good fall back. But the National Guard is no longer a milita anymore. They are for all intent and purpose no differernt than the Reserve.

They originally were to be the "trained citizen soldiers" under the control of each state. Now they are under the direct control and command of the standing army. Not what our founding fathers really wanted.

I too was part of the National Guard and regular Army. We can not expect our citizen soldiers leave their family, jobs, and homes to fight a war that does not directly involve an attack on our soil and citizens. Interest of oil, religion or other reasons are not valid.

The toll on American society is very high. We have doctors, lawyers, carpenters, nurses, and all other professions that are hurt by National Guard units being activated. Families can no longer sustain their way of life when the major bread winners income has been taken away.

My time in the National Guard was in a full time capacity. This helps me understand a little better what happens when entire units are sent away for long periods of time. I know of one professional who lost his home, wife, and two children due to divorce because of an extened tour. His loss was in the range of $250,000 per year in wages. He was not bitter, which suprised me. The worst part of it all, was he sat at a desk, 4 blocks away from his civilian office. After all of this, he was still proud to be serving his country, but wished it was for a better reason.

My views have changed over the years. When I was young, I saw things exactly as you. But once I became older, I then found that somethings are not what they seem.

National Guards are for national emergencies and direct attacks on the nation, just the same as the draft militaries of the cold war era in Europe. They are primarily defensive forces. They shouldn't be used for out of area campaigns at all, IMO, because I doubt that that was what they signed up for. I am somewhat certain that the Guard will have recruitment problems for a long time ahead. I consider what happened and happens a nasty trick being played on them.

I will add something to this argument.

Anyone in the guard, can at anytime, ask for a transfer to active duty. I have seen this. The guard won't stop you, but the regular Army/Air Force can deny that request.

Let's keep the guard doing what it is suppose to do.

As I recall, the Congress approved the war prior to the invasion. It would have been incredibly difficult for Bush to mount the invasion in the face of Congressional opposition.

Congress never declared war. They voted in support of UN Security Council resolutions. Huge difference.