Fitting the Military to Reality (368,900 U.S. troops in 120 countries

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-menon16jul16.story
Fitting the Military to Reality (368,900 U.S. troops in 120 countries)

By Rajan Menon, Rajan Menon, a New America Foundation fellow, is a professor of international relations at Lehigh University.


At a congressional hearing July 7, the Army's new vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard A. Cody, answered the rhetorical question of whether U.S. military forces were stretched too thin with a resounding "absolutely."

It doesn't take the genius of Clausewitz to figure out what's obvious: With 135,000 troops assigned to the war in Iraq, 17,000 in Afghanistan, 37,500 in South Korea, 47,000 in Japan and 100,000 in Europe, saying that we are overstretched is putting it mildly. In all, there are 368,900 U.S. troops in 120 countries. <snip>

Nearly 40% of the available National Guard and Reserve forces have been tapped for missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. So-called stop-loss policies have been implemented to prevent soldiers from leaving units that have received orders to deploy. The Pentagon has called up 5,600 soldiers from post-active duty "retirement." And policy wonks have brought up reinstituting the draft, though, for political reasons, this effort is unlikely to gain footing.

All of our problems in Iraq cannot be blamed on insufficient forces — the reliance on 135,000 troops to wage a counterinsurgency in a country of 25 million people and an area larger than California. It doesn't help that as yet no Iraqi troops with the numerical strength and training to serve as true partners have emerged. As American casualties in Iraq mount, it will be harder to get people to enlist or reenlist. And for those already engaged in combat, insufficient numbers make the inherent risks of war greater still.<snip>

[rocktivity]

1. Nearly 400K total, and Bush retired the guy

who said they'd need at least 200K to do what he wanted in Iraq properly.

:headbang:
rocknation

[pberq]

2. Why 368,900 U.S. troops in 120 countries?

Can someone please explain why it is we need 368,900 U.S. troops in 120 countries? Is this how you defend "freedom", or could it have anyting to do with the protecting the "rights" of multinational corporations to exploit the rest of the world?

In a related issue, Kerry shows no signs of changing this trend if he is elected. I certainly agree he is better than Bush in many ways, and will vote for him, but what do people here think of this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec270.html

"Kerry has committed himself to ‘a stronger, more comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush administration has ever envisioned’ (my italics throughout). Those Americans who are uncomfortable with George Bush’s Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Security, should blanch at John Kerry’s proposals to enlist the National Guard in Homeland Security and to ‘break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement’. Such barriers are precisely what distinguish free societies from dictatorships. Kerry seems even more obsessed than Bush with weapons of mass destruction, as he is constantly harping on about the danger of WMD being delivered through American ports.

"Kerry voted for the war on Iraq and continues to support it wholeheartedly. He said last December that those who continue to oppose the war ‘don’t have the judgment to be president — or the credibility to be elected president’. Kerry does not even say that Bush has jeopardised US security by attacking Iraq instead of facing down the al-Qa’eda threat: he is not Richard Clarke. Instead, Kerry says, ‘No one can doubt that we are safer — and Iraq is better — because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.’ On 17 December last year, Kerry lent credence to the loony theory that Iraq was the author of the 9/11 attacks, something George Bush has done at least twice. Yet in February, Kerry attacked Bush for planning to hand back power to the Iraqis too quickly — what he called ‘a cut and run strategy’ — even though Bush intends the US embassy in Iraq to be the biggest American embassy in the world, and even though some 110,000 US troops are to remain stationed there indefinitely."

[dbackjon]

5. Actually, on port security, Kerry is 100% correct

"Kerry seems even more obsessed than Bush with weapons of mass destruction, as he is constantly harping on about the danger of WMD being delivered through American ports."


Our port security is a joke - if WMD were ever to find a way into our country, it would be through the ports.

[Morning Dew]

3. absolutely stretched too thin

Any real threat and we'd have a hard time meeting the challenge.

Bushco* is a threat to national security.

[lil-petunia]

4. It is not that we are stretched too thin

it is that we did not finish the job in Afghanistan, and we are squandering our troops in Iraq.

By design. Despite warnings to the contrary. Guaranteed to cause more deaths.