[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: From whence the troops? [ Obama voters may want to consider what the logical answer is...hmmm...] WASHINGTON — The shooting at Fort Hood thrust into the headlines the challenges that an all-volunteer army faces when fighting two extended wars at the same time. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on longer than World War II, though not on the same scale, and the military is feeling the strain. That's why it was something of a surprise when Gen. Casey, the Army chief of staff, said over the weekend that he favors sending more troops to Afghanistan. When Casey was the commanding general in Iraq, he opposed additional troops, which led to his reassignment. Perhaps he has seen the light, or he sees a consensus emerging that President Obama is likely to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan, and he wants to be supportive of the commander in chief. Whatever Casey's reasons for coming down on the side of more troops, he epitomizes the complexity and dichotomy of the Afghan question. As Army chief of staff, he has been all over the air waves in recent days talking about how we need to do more to take care of our troops, pointing to the toll taken by multiple tours to battle zones. Fort Hood is the largest military base in the country, and its soldiers have seen more than their share of battle and its after-effects. Suicides are up along with crime and domestic abuse, the sad result often of untreated or unrecognized post traumatic stress syndrome. Yet in the next breath, Casey when asked if the U.S. Army is prepared to send some 20,000 to 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan should that be Obama's decision, he basically said no problem. But where will the troops come from? That's the question Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell posed on the Sunday shows. He said the Pennsylvania National Guard is tapped out, and he wonders where Casey will turn to mobilize additional troops for Afghanistan. The troop withdrawal from Iraq is continuing on schedule, and got a boost this week when the Iraqi Parliament voted to proceed with a national election in January. If that vote had become mired in sectarian debate, the U.S. military would have had a harder time disengaging from the country. Still, soldiers coming off the front lines in Iraq cannot be expected to carry the load in Afghanistan. One of the reasons Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, was retained despite poor performance and concern about his outspoken radicalism was the critical need for psychiatrists in the military, especially a Muslim psychiatrist who could understand and interpret a culture that is alien to most Americans. When the all-volunteer army was instituted during the Nixon administration, it was designed as a core fighting force around which additional forces could be mobilized. It was in large part a reaction to the Vietnam War and the unfairness of a draft that gave exemptions to people with influence and left much of the fighting to the poor and minorities. But the volunteer force as it is currently constituted is not able to keep up with the pace of deployments necessary to fight two regional wars. This is in no way intended to criticize the quality of the soldiers and their service, which is top-rate. But you have to go back before the 1789 French Revolution to find a major war that was fought without conscription. Americans fought the war of 1812 and the Mexican War without a draft, but the Civil War required conscription from both the North and South. The draft is deeply unpopular, but if Americans are not serving and not required to serve, there are limitations on what the U.S. military can achieve. Those limitations should weigh heavily on the president as he decides how to proceed in Afghanistan.
Poster Comment: "But the volunteer force as it is currently constituted is not able to keep up with the pace of deployments necessary to fight two regional wars...The draft is deeply unpopular, but if Americans are not serving and not required to serve, there are limitations on what the U.S. military can achieve. Those limitations should weigh heavily on the president as he decides how to proceed in Afghanistan." Eleanor Clift is a bigtime leftie who writes for Newsweek and appears on The McLaughlin Group News Hour, so if she shilling for conscription, this is a very bad state of affairs, my fellow grass eaters. Dumteedumdum. I doubt Eleanor Clift, being a woman, has ever been conscripted into battle since she's a woman. And I also doubt that Clift's co-writer, Douglas Cohn, has ever been drafted or served in the military. So it's rather hypocritical of them to shill for the "necessities" of war. I hope the Nesters and DUers and kossacks are happy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#1. To: scrapper2 (#0)
Over ten million men served in a five year period for WW2. Now we rerun the same troops over and over year after year.
I love you!
For my money?
Better hide the Ye Olde Sock. They don't call him Golddigger Dakkie for nuthin'.
Just checked it is safely away under me mattress. No one would ever think of looking there.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||