Expand the military? Who wants that?
The Army, Obama says, should grow by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000 members.
Should this be something we back when we are winding down a war? Well maybe so...It's serious issue. With long term consequences...
...or maybe not. It's up to you in the primaries. The logistics of continued war require cannon fodder placed in the firing line. Clinton & Obama promise 100,000 more. Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckebee say me too with 100,000!
To support our troops, we need to ensure we have the personnel and resources needed to maintain a strong America and safe world by...
adding At Least 100,000 More Troops.
Some Democrats in Iowa want it:
http://www.caucus4priorities.org/...
Expand the military?
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/...
Edwards questions expansion.
The issue rests on certain strategic assumption. Are we planning to be in Iraq still? If so, the 100,000 are needed to continue the occupation. If not, the whole rationale for expansion falls apart. The 100,000 are key to the continued occupation of Iraq. Here is Edwards:
The current administration's mismanagement of the military has gone far beyond these missions, leading to a very dangerous situation for our troops, their families, and our nation. We are sending some troops back to Iraq with less than a year's rest. Military leaders are warning about "breaking" the force. It is tempting for politicians to respond to this situation by trying to outbid one another on the number of troops they would add to the military. Some have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, giving little rationale for exactly why we need this many men and women, particularly with a likely withdrawal from Iraq. But the problem of our force structure is not best dealt with by a numbers game. We must be more thoughtful about what the troops would actually be used for. Any troops we add now would take a number of years to recruit and train, and they would therefore not help us today in Iraq.
As president, I will rebalance our forces to ensure that the size and capabilities of our military match its missions. We must have enough troops to rebuild from the debacle in Iraq, to bolster deterrence, to decrease our heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve members in overseas missions, to provide additional support for our brave troops fighting in Afghanistan, and to deploy to other trouble spots when necessary. I will double the budget for recruitment and raise the standards for the recruitment pool so that we can reduce our reliance on felony waivers and other exceptions. In addition, I will increase our investment in the maintenance of our equipment for the safety of our troops.
Edwards is not so sure we need more boots. We need to get out of Iraq. If someone is sellingthe "100,000 more troops" Conventional Wisdom they are clearly contemplating a continued occupation of Iraq. What else do you want an entirely New Army (there are only about 150,000 troops in the British Army in total) to deploy?
Here is Clinton endorsing the expansion of the military. This is rather strangely sold as a progressive position:
http://www.third-way.com/...
"We call on Congress to immediately consider and pass this vital piece of national security legislation, and we urge the President to put aside his administration’s resistance to Army expansion and to support and sign the US Army Relief Act. America needs troop levels commensurate with the threats we face from abroad."
The legislation comes on the heels of a report that Third Way issued in May entitled Boots on the Ground: Increasing the Size of the Army to Meet the Missions of the 21st Century. That report recommended an increase in Army end-strength by 100,000 troops, the amount called for in the legislation introduced today.
Is that what you want, you Progressives? Other Dems are at it too, Sadly.
For these reasons I think it is important that people take a hard look at Barack Obama’s major foreign and military policy speech which he gave yesterday in Chicago.
Reading it this morning has confirmed my worst fears. It differs little than the formulas being presented by Hillary Clinton....I found the number of his positive references to Republican Senator Lugar indicative of Obama’s agenda and deeply disturbing. While Obama speaks in terms of the need for "a new vision", his rhetoric is rife with America-first chauvinism, rejects "the notion that the American moment [read global hegemony] has passed", an insists that the U.S. once again fill "the position of leader of the free world.", and building a "21st century military."
You may see it as a hatchet job. But how does Obama and Clinton's promise of Military expansion differ from The Republican Policy? Not very much as it turns out...Romney, Thompson, Giuliani promise the same policy of military expansion.
Here is Romney's policy:
Romney's 100,000
Governor Romney Will Expand The Military. Our military suffered a dangerous decline under the Clinton Administration and the Congress in the 1990s and has faced serious strains as we confront Jihadist threats following 9/11. To support our troops, we need to ensure we have the personnel and resources needed to maintain a strong America and safe world by:
- Adding At Least 100,000 More Troops To Our Armed Forces. By expanding our military's size, we can help alleviate some of the stress faced by our current Armed Forces and National Guard and military families.
- Committing 4% Or More Of Our Gross Domestic Product To Defense, A Policy Recently Supported By The Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff. This will help provide the resources needed to make long-overdue investments in equipment, weapons systems, modernization, training, health care, family programs, and treatment of our wounded soldiers.
eerie similarities seen here with added Commondreams author snark:
Obama says that "There are five ways America will begin to lead again when I’m president."
Here is some commentary about the first two of Obama's five points...
- "bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq and reinforcing on the critical challenges in the broader region."
a. Note the use of the word "responsible." His "plan" calls for phased withdrawal of all combat troops by March 31, 2008, with U.S. troops remaining in Iraq and "over-the horizon" to "prevent chaos in the wider region and to fight Al Qaeda. This is a reaffirmation of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and of the use of Iraq as "host" for U.S. military bases, and as Phyllis Bennis has pointed out, could leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq.
b. He notes that "Hamas and Hezbollah feel emboldened and Israel’s prospects for a secure peace seem uncertain." (There is no mention of Israel’s continued occupation of much of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the Wall, or Israel’s nuclear arsenal which contributes to Iran’s belief that it "lives in a dangerous neighborhood."
c. Obama raises the fear of the "challenge of Iran" and the centrality of the war in Afghanistan (where the U.S. is backing war lords, Karzai remains the mayor of Kabul, and negotiation with the Taliban continues to be ruled out.)
I tend to agree with this analysis. All sorts of code words here. The words are critical...
- To build "the first truly 21st century military...we must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world." This includes the "ability to put boots on the ground" while there is no mention that U.S. military spending already equals that of the rest of the world’s nations combined, and that basic human needs in this country are being sacrificed on the alter of military spending and the military-industrial-complex, Obama says "I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines" – nearly 100,000 more U.S. warriors!!
Obama goes on to say that "No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests" (Middle Eastern, Caspian Sea or Venezuelan oil??) He then uses the 1991 Desert Storm war as the multi-national model for the "use [of] force in situations other than self-defense..."
He also describes "effective diplomacy and muscular alliances" as essential to "the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity", complementing "our" military to "ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option." While this is not the Bush II "romance of ruthlessness", it gives primacy to military frames of reference, seeing diplomacy as complementing U.S. military power and not (as a non-pacifist liberal might expect) the reverse.
Seems like it's a done deal with this guy. So America, and you progressive denizens of the Dkos dungeontubes enjoy your hegemony! But consider these closing thoughts that happen to be a great analysis of the crowd:
There is an eagerness here in the United States for a new face, for healing words, and for a new vision of the United States’ role in the world...There is also a tradition of a large sector of the U.S. peace movement identifying with and being co-opted by what it perceives to be the most liberal and/or charismatic presidential candidate.
Here's link about some Iowans with a solution to America's addiction to war. My point wil be argued as crude but as Scipio noted: "Money is the Sinew of War."
http://www.sensibleiowans.org/
cut the troop levels cut the spending-- the war party ends.
Or maye it'll embolden the Chinese...It's up to you caucus goers.