← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 16490 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-01-29
2005-01-29 15:32 | User Profile
Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces January 28, 2005
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 Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.
Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)
Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)
William Kristol 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
Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)
Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg
I agree with them up to a point. The force structure should be increased while the U.S. should be shedding itself of its bloated force structure overseas. Where I don't agree with them is on the people who are going to command this force. Most of the people who signed the above are the same people who created this mess in the first place. To allow them to command is to give them another opportunity to invade more countries for the last thing they want to do is to simply try to stablize things in Iraq and leave. Any force increase should only be done with this in mind and securing the borders- and nothing else.
Kristol and company remind me of an old cartoon I saw in National Lampoon years ago. There was a beautiful dead woman lying on a gurney, surrounded by a mortician, a coroner, a policeman and a janitor. The coroner and the mortician are engaged in converstion ignoring the other two. The janitor has a crazy, lustful look on his face as he gazes upon the dead woman. The policeman is looking at him while he takes his handcuffs and locks them around the dead woman's ankles. Most of the signers above are like that janitor and just as evil and need to be dealt with in the same way.
2005-01-29 16:21 | User Profile
You can tell how free a country is by the number of bodyguards that it's leader has, last time I counted Bush had about 40,000.
It is the job of a country's army not to make war but to keep peace, as you can see what we have now is a hoard of invaders.
This is only the beggining of the end of America as we know it.
2005-01-29 21:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]> And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military...........
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.
I agree with them up to a point. The force structure should be increased while the U.S. should be shedding itself of its bloated force structure overseas. One thing sort of shoved under the table - how are they going to get these numbers, with a volunteer army? Isn't that the $10,000 question? (Hint - ever hear of something called - "the draft")
Where I don't agree with them is on the people who are going to command this force. Most of the people who signed the above are the same people who created this mess in the first place. I posted an intersting Chronicles article on this
[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16416]America's Unthinking Military[/URL]
2005-01-30 19:25 | User Profile
The simple translation of this neocon letter is: "We need more Imperial troops if the subjugation and 'democratization' of Israel's other Middle Eastern neighbors is to go more smoothly than has been the case with operations in Iraq."
2005-01-30 21:39 | User Profile
Angler,
Yep, I noted all the noble and practical sounding language these b#$%^*s use to hide their real purposes.
2005-01-31 14:52 | User Profile
Badonicus, on his blog here -- [url="http://littlegeneva.com/badlands/index.php?p=301"]http://littlegeneva.com/badlands/index.php?p=301[/url] -- has helpfully bolded the names of some of the signers of this open letter. Perhaps they have something in common? :unsure:
Respectfully, Peter Beinart - Jeffrey Bergner - Daniel Blumenthal - Max Boot - Eliot Cohen
Ivo H. Daalder - Thomas Donnelly - **Michele Flournoy** - Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
** Reuel Marc Gerecht - Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired) - Bruce P. Jackson ** Frederick Kagan - Robert Kagan - Craig Kennedy - Paul Kennedy ** Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired) - William Kristol **- Will Marshall
Clifford May - Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) - Daniel McKivergan
** Joshua Muravchik - Steven J. Nide**r - Michael Oââ¬â¢Hanlon
Mackubin Thomas Owens - Ralph Peters - **Danielle Pletka -** **Stephen P. Rosen**
Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired) - **Randy Scheunemann** - Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe - **James B. Steinberg**
2005-01-31 16:59 | User Profile
Q,
I should have done the same thing with this thread, but to me, it was obvious who were the primary supporters of this. This lays it out for all to see. I wonder about Peters. When he isn't writing about military affairs he writes with the viciousness of the most rabid Likudnik.
2005-01-31 23:16 | User Profile
Gary Schmitt also sounds like a Jewish name, though I could be wrong.
It's kind of tough to rely on names alone as a way of determining membership in the Chosen Tribe. Of course it's often rather obvious (e.g., Larry Silverberg, David Goldstein, etc.), but then you have people who have Jewish mothers but Gentile fathers and surnames.
As we all know, there are many "honorary Jews" among our fellow Gentiles as well. Many (though certainly not all) evangelical Christians fall into that "Judeophile" category. Such people probably account for a lot of the neocons' political strength.
2005-01-31 23:48 | User Profile
Angler,
He might as well be a Jew if he isn't. He and Shulsky have worked together.
[url]http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/schmitt/schmitt.php[/url]
2005-02-01 02:04 | User Profile
When it comes to Jews names dosen't mean anything, I mean my 14 great grandfathers name could have been Juan Ponce de Leonstein and he changed to Juan Ponce de Leon....... never can tell with those people.
If I ever find out that I am a Leonstein ill do a Sepuko number.
2005-02-01 06:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]One thing sort of shoved under the table - how are they going to get these numbers, with a volunteer army? Isn't that the $10,000 question? (Hint - ever hear of something called - "the draft")
I posted an intersting Chronicles article on this
[url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16416"]America's Unthinking Military[/url][/QUOTE] this is exactly what it is going to come to. So now the Jews and their greedy neo-con puppet traitors can send unwilling young men to die in their war games, instead of just selling some phony idea of "patriotism" to the misguided. This scum truly makes me sick.
2005-02-01 12:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired)[/QUOTE]
This name rings a bell - I remember reading about this guy after Gulf War I. He was involved in some incident where a group of retreating Iraqi soldiers where allegedly killed several days after the ceasefire.
A Google search came up with this, can't vouch for it's credibility:
[url]http://www.militarycorruption.com/barry.htm[/url]
2005-02-07 23:45 | User Profile
Hello,
I am pleased to know that neo-conservatives are ready and going to achieve peace on earth by military occupation. I look forward to Bush 2 helping to build the Third Temple in Israel. Ralph Nader refered to Bush 2 as 'Militarist-Messiah", i see that he truly is. May the neo-con god bless us with Empire and Mexican Immagration.
Thankyou, WesleyWes Founder [url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti-Catholic[/url] :thumbsup: [IMG]http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp040304neocon.jpg[/IMG]
2005-02-08 00:37 | User Profile
LOL! There is more truth to that "magazine" cover than the sheeple realize.
2005-02-08 01:15 | User Profile
Those of you who think that there will be peace in Palestine with the Palestinians holding only 6% (or less) of their own land are nuts.
How would you like for China to come into the US and honor us by letting us keep 6% of the US and they keeping the rest??????? no way Jose.
2005-02-08 02:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Those of you who think that there will be peace in Palestine with the Palestinians holding only 6% (or less) of their own land are nuts.
How would you like for China to come into the US and honor us by letting us keep 6% of the US and they keeping the rest??????? no way Jose.[/QUOTE] yeah, I don't understand why so many people would expect them just to lay down and accept this. But the Israelis don't truly want "peace" either. No matter how much of the bigger piece of the pie they stand to get, they(being Jews) want it ALL. So I am willing to predict that before or just a little bit after any "peace treaty" is signed there will be a Mossad, uh I mean, Hamas attack. Then we can all see how those great humanitarian Jews and their plans for peace were destroyed by those "evil" Palestinians.:caiphas: