I don't think the White House has thought through the politics of this proposal very carefully.
The White House can't just make the Army bigger; it requires Congress to act. With a Republican congress, that would have been no problem; with a Democratic congress, it means hearings on why we might need a bigger Army. The potential for crushing political embarrassment at such hearings can hardly be overstated.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 03:27 PMsounds like something Kerry proposed in 2004.
What did Clusterfuck in Chief say then?
Posted by Flamethrower at December 19, 2006 04:03 PMI doubt it's crossed his mind to engage a bigger more worldly foreign policy team. At the rate they're bailing over there Condi may even slink out the door.
Posted by mainsailset at December 19, 2006 04:09 PM43: Daddy, for Christmas I'd like a bigger military, especially a bigger Army! And maybe a war with Iran!
41: Well, Uncle Jimmy tells me you haven't been a very good little boy this year, so you're going to have to go and ask your Congress.
43: OK, no problem, they always say Yes! (runs off)
41: God, what a retard. (goes back to reading the oil futures)
Posted by euzoius at December 19, 2006 04:21 PMIt would have been a nice gesture if Goldman-Sachs had given the Christmas bonus 16.5 billion dollars to buy new Humvees for the army instead of Hummers for their fatcats.
Did corporations contribute to the effort during WWII?
Posted by TIKI AL at December 19, 2006 04:23 PMBut of course. That's how that peace-luvin neocon RAND corporation got its start! And, I could be wrong, but didn't GM, Ford and GE get small, token military contracts in return for their patriotic support of the troops? Or am I hallucinating again?
Posted by tempus at December 19, 2006 04:38 PMeuzoius:
For me, the best remembrance I'll have of 2006 was seeing 41 break down and sob at Jeb's departure ceremony in Florida - obvious he was thinking about the miserable failure Little 43 has been all his life. What an utter waste of HW's sperm and Bab's egg. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at December 19, 2006 04:41 PMThis sounds like another one of his non-starters ala "I wanna go to Mars!" Or worse, the 'kiss of dearth' that he has given to agencies like the National Park Service, wherein he does the exact opposite of what he says.
(...to the tune of Elton John's "Levon"...)
And Junie, he wants to go to Mars!
Leaving Cheney far behind.
Take a balloon and go sailing,
while America, America slowly dies!
"I wanna go to Mars!"
Oh, my. Thank you for that precious memory.
Posted by ann at December 19, 2006 05:52 PMHow can Bush increase the size of the military when the military can't achieve their current recruiting goals?
This feint is excreted bovine matter.
Posted by m at December 19, 2006 06:02 PMIt just won't end.
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2006 06:12 PMOh, it'll end. It just won't end well.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 19, 2006 06:13 PM@ann...Glad I could brighten someone's day! :)
Funny, there are rumors that they will send the Army to break a strike at Goodyear so they can get tires for their (the Army's) vehicles. I thought Catch 22 was an Air Force thing?
I agree with whomever wrote that since Americans are being asked to sacrifice their men and women in this WOT, then it's about time that the rich are asked to give up their big fat tax breaks to help fund this catastrophy. What I want to know is just one thing, when are the Democrats in Congress going to stand up and say "enough." You hear that Hillary or anyone else considering a run in 2008?
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2006 06:41 PMPerhaps Bush can get his extra troops by trimming the number of the military involved in domestic spying or involved in those rendition operations that have given us so much false intelligence? There are any number of areas where Democrats can inquire about the usefulness or not usefulness of various military programs. I would welcome those kind of hearings.
It would be far more useful if Bush would return to real diplomacy and find some allies willing to supply troops if they're needed for other problems in the next three or four years. In the end, though, Bush has created such a fiasco when it comes to our broader legitimate foreign policy concerns that we may be forced, at least temporarily, to increase our military troop levels for a few years (this is separate from increasing troop levels in Iraq which I oppose; note that an increase in the Army in terms of being trained and ready would take about two years to fully kick in).
With or without allies, there is nobody out there to fill the vacuum the United States would leave if we don't maintain our strength. Bush's incompetence is leaving a potential window for mischief in the next three to four years because of the damage he has done. I don't like it, but we may need the increases. Such a bill in Congress for a larger Army, if it happens, doesn't get passed, however, without significant answers and concessions from Bush.
Posted by Craig at December 19, 2006 06:47 PMMerry Christmas to all the families who had hopes of their sons, daughters, wives, and husbands coming home soon. It's your gift from George Walker Bush. Remember this gift in 2008.
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2006 06:48 PMin front of a Democratic congress that won't rubber stamp any more lunacy, which will be a new experience for the Bush Administration.
sorry, but they are polishing off their "rubber stamps" as we speak. Witness Reid's recent remarks.
Posted by tgs at December 19, 2006 07:25 PMtgs, you got that one right. I'm not convinced that the new Congress will do the will of the people either. I'll believe it when it happens. I have been disappointed once to often.
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2006 09:15 PMHas Reid changed his position? 12/19/06
e Clock is Ticking, Mr. President
Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. My position on Iraq is simple:
1. I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (The Levin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the first quarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)
2. The President must understand that there can only be a political solution in Iraq, and he must end our nation's open-ended military commitment to that country.
3. These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort and regional strategy.
I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.
It's been two weeks since the Iraq Study Group released its plan to change the course and bring our troops home. Since then, the President has been on a fact finding tour of his own administration -- apparently ignoring the facts presented by those in the military who know best. The President needs to put forth a plan as soon as possible, one that reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq and that withdraws our troops from the middle of this deadly civil war.
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-harry-reid/the-clock-is-ticking-mr_b_36752.html
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2006 10:32 PMDo you agree with Bush's Iraq buildup order?
No 77%
Yes 23%
Total Votes: 65,582
AOL Poll
There are any number of areas where Democrats can inquire about the usefulness or not usefulness of various military programs.
You mean like the Dept of Homeland Security official who traveled to Thailand to bring John Mark Karr back to the states?
Posted by ann at December 20, 2006 04:31 AMNews accounts differ on the recruiting situation in the military. We hear they're hitting goals but also hear tales of markedly lowered standards and fudged numbers. Will they have to sweeten the offer to get additional troops to sign up? I'd imagine recruits are like oil, each additional unit exponentially more expensive to procure. Might that 1.2 Billion$ per 10,000 troops added be a lowball or wildly unrealistic number? You're going to have to have military recruiters permanently ensconced in every high school in America, giving them their own office next to the principal to hit these new numbers. So, the military is going to have ever lower admittance standards, spend rapidly increasing sums of money, intrude deeper and deeper into our schools and homes and struggle mightily to add to standing forces. All this while ill advised wars chew through thousands of current soldiers and hundreds of billions worth of equipment, arms and ammunition. The skin is a little thin on this balloon in my estimation.
Posted by steve duncan at December 20, 2006 07:23 AMI'm very late to the party here, but should we not be asking what size our military needs to be to defend the US as opposed to what size we need in order to engage in imperialistic adventures across
the globe? What about the personel on those 700+
bases we have strung out across the face of the Earth? Would Okinawa face immediate invasion if we zeroed out the troops there? When the building you are in is on fire and in imminent danger of collapse
do you "stay the course" or "cut and run?"