Rumfeld's War

Rumsfeld Says Military Not Overextended
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 25, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Rumsfeld.html?_r=1

Rumsfeld denys the U.S Military is a 'Thin Green Line'. He says Those serving in Iraq make up a Manpower pool of 380,000, while the total military complement of the U.S. military is two million soldiers, including Reserves and National Guard. He acts like this is proof. This Author wants to know Why an excess of 50% of the military personnel serving in Iraq are on their Second or Third tour, and Why about 40% of the Personnel in Iraq consist of Reserves and National Guard units? The Author does understand the difference between Combat and Combat Support units, and the threat to the viability of the U.S. Military is not centered upon Pentagon office perssonel, and I believe this is the full complement which Rumsfeld asserts exists. It is something which must be considered.

In the earlier report obtained by The Associated Press, Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote it under Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency

This Statement may be assessed as true, though this Author remembers the Vietnam Conflict, and believes a Two million Troop force in Iraq would be equally incapable of breaking the back of the insurgency. Iraq remains a Problem which demands a political solution, not a military one. Palestinians brought Humas into the Government, basically in Voter revolt against a foreign military continuing military operations against themselves. It has been standard Government propaganda that Iraqis want the U.S Military in Iraq, but how many Iraqi citizens have died because of this self-same intervention? It does not even enter into the innate Iraqi knowledge that the bloodshed will not end until American troops are removed from Iraqi soil.

The Army fell more than 6,600 recruits short of its goal of enlisting 80,000 troops last year, the first time it missed its annual target since 1999 and the largest shortfall in 26 years.

A new law will let the Army attract older recruits, raising the top age from 35 to 42. In addition, financial bonuses for enlistments and re-enlistments have increased.

Do We need parents of High School kids serving on the front lines? That itself states that the 'Thin Green Line' is too thin. The Problem is not that the Clinton administration starved the Military. The truth is that superfat military Supply Contracts for weapons systems which will not reach military complement for a decade, if then, are starving deployed Troops in the field. Suppling Troops rather than fanciful Weapons does not ensure Corporate profits. The starvation of the U.S. Military comes from the Bush administrations. lgl