But I thought that........
We needed to have a smaller, more flexible force?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/growing_the_military_1
Increase the size of the military takes it from one that can combat an enemy uses an undefined battle field and creates one that is an occupying force. Isn't that we arn't doing in Iraq? Occupying? We needed a large military for the cold war in case we had to overrun eastern Europe and OCCUPY the land. That's one reason we had a large military. Now in the modern era of conflict we won't be OCCUPYING land, we'll fighting small, shorter, less personel intense conflicts. But that doesn't make Bush or Dick feel safe. They need a large military. Currently we would be stretched to capacity to fight a two front war (Iraq/N.Korea), by increasing the size of the military, we also increase the chances of this happening. Why train and equip a military if you don't use. Isn't THAT why we're in Iraq?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/growing_the_military_1
Increase the size of the military takes it from one that can combat an enemy uses an undefined battle field and creates one that is an occupying force. Isn't that we arn't doing in Iraq? Occupying? We needed a large military for the cold war in case we had to overrun eastern Europe and OCCUPY the land. That's one reason we had a large military. Now in the modern era of conflict we won't be OCCUPYING land, we'll fighting small, shorter, less personel intense conflicts. But that doesn't make Bush or Dick feel safe. They need a large military. Currently we would be stretched to capacity to fight a two front war (Iraq/N.Korea), by increasing the size of the military, we also increase the chances of this happening. Why train and equip a military if you don't use. Isn't THAT why we're in Iraq?
posted by Joseph @ 17:27
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home