The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to

[kach22i]

So say the Neo-Con's themselves at; The Project for the New American Century.

They also say:
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War.

Is this true?

Link to their latest letter to Congress:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Hey, I'm all for a strong military and one which can respond to the dangers of today world, but I also say we have to be way more selective and wise when it comes to starting wars and accepting world missions.

Let us not be the fool (again).

[Nathans_Dad]

Does this mean the Democrats are going to run on expanding the military??

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Does this mean the Democrats are going to run on expanding the military??

No it means that the guys in the Bush administration who signed that letter back in 1998 urging Clinton to invade Iraq are up to their old tricks again. The only thing changed is the signatures.

Jan 2005:

Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal

Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder

Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.

Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)

Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan

Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)

William Kristol Will Marshall Clifford May

Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel McKivergan

Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon

Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka

Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt

Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg R. James Woolsey

Jan 1998:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Note: Dick Cheney signed several letters but not this one.

[Nathans_Dad]

I can see the speech now...Hillary is accepting the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Her speech is eloquent, bringing tears to the eyes of those in attendance. Her platform is based on fiscal responsibility and increasing the size of the military...uh...wait a sec...something ain't right here...

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I can see the speech now...Hillary is accepting the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Her speech is eloquent, bringing tears to the eyes of those in attendance. Her platform is based on fiscal responsibility and increasing the size of the military...uh...wait a sec...something ain't right here...

The last Clinton ignored the Project for the New American Century, why would Hillary be any different?

This whole nation destroying/building thing is the work of a cult-like faction of the Republican Party................you made it happen by voting for it - TWICE!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by kach22i
The last Clinton ignored the Project for the New American Century, why would Hillary be any different?

This whole nation destroying/building thing is the work of a cult-like faction of the Republican Party................you made it happen by voting for it - TWICE!

Until Reagan, the Democrats held the record for military build-ups and foreign military adventurism; now Bush is attempting to outpace Reagan in military expansion. Anyone know who's ahead between these two?

The US military is already larger than the next 27 countries added together, that is you add military number 2 through military number 28 and they don't equal the cost of the monstrosity we Americans are burdoned with.

The US military needs a huge shrinkage; first surgery then an extensive and tightly controlled diet.

That done, we can turn to carving off the rest of the government piece by piece.

[Mulhollanddose]

This is a lie...The Generals in the field are calling the shots. The only byproduct of more troops would be more casualties. If more casualties were incurred this would be blamed on Bush...This is simply another attempt at undermining the war effort by casting false doubt on Bush and demoralizing the country...It is the vietnamization of Iraq.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
This is a lie...The Generals in the field are calling the shots. The only byproduct of more troops would be more casualties. If more casualties were incurred this would be blamed on Bush...This is simply another attempt at undermining the war effort by casting false doubt on Bush and demoralizing the country...It is the vietnamization of Iraq.

Wow, talk about doing a 180!

I forgot again, you right wing guys never click a link and read as little as possible. It's laughable that two of you have taken to attacking the neo-con institution which formulated GWB's foreign policy.

Simply amazing - like attack dogs gone off the sent.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by fastpat
Until Reagan, the Democrats held the record for military build-ups and foreign military adventurism; now Bush is attempting to outpace Reagan in military expansion. Anyone know who's ahead between these two?

The US military is already larger than the next 27 countries added together, that is you add military number 2 through military number 28 and they don't equal the cost of the monstrosity we Americans are burdoned with.

The US military needs a huge shrinkage; first surgery then an extensive and tightly controlled diet.

That done, we can turn to carving off the rest of the government piece by piece.

Pat, if you really hate America and the way its run, why in the hell are you still living here?

You advocate open revolution against the government, will not "work from within" to get things done legally and just generally want everything cut off at the knees and redone.

The reason why we are spread so thin is that there used to be several superpowers in the world taking care of the worlds issues. Now there is one and we are trying to be everything for everyone...

[tabs]

The Generals are NOT calling the shots...Remember they wanted 400,000 troops for Iraq, but what they got was 155,000. The WH is running this war.

The Neocons have never represented mainstream Republican thinking...

I really have lost a lot of REPECT for these Nimrods in the WH. The very fact that they obstrutficate is contray to Republican ideals.

[tabs]

Cheney and Rummy pride themselves on their ability to play Harball Washington Politics.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by tabs
The Generals are NOT calling the shots...Remember they wanted 400,000 troops for Iraq, but what they got was 155,000. The WH is running this war.

No, the Generals ARE calling the shots and THEY recommended the troop levels we see.

(just in case you weren't pulling a chain)

[rcecale]

Originally posted by fastpat
The US military needs a huge shrinkage; first surgery then an extensive and tightly controlled diet.

That done, we can turn to carving off the rest of the government piece by piece.

What's your story, Pat? Passed over for promotion and then forced into retirement before you wanted it? You sure seem awfully bitter towards the military.

Randy

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by tabs
The Generals are NOT calling the shots...Remember they wanted 400,000 troops for Iraq, but what they got was 155,000. The WH is running this war.

The Neocons have never represented mainstream Republican thinking...

I really have lost a lot of REPECT for these Nimrods in the WH. The very fact that they obstrutficate is contray to Republican ideals.

Funny how Bob Woodward makes no mention of this in his book on the run up to Iraq. In fact, he devotes quite a few pages to how much broad authority Bush gave the generals in writing up their invasion plans and how insistent he was that they not invade before they all concurred they had what they needed for the job. I guess Woodward is just a Republican apologist now.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Pat, if you really hate America and the way its run, why in the hell are you still living here?

Typical neo-con think, confabulating the federal government as America. The federal government has never been America, isn't America now, and will never be America in the future. If you want the government to be America then I suggest you leave, North Korea comes immediately to mind wherein the government is seen as the country, when the great leader dies thousands commit suicide.

You advocate open revolution against the government, will not "work from within" to get things done legally and just generally want everything cut off at the knees and redone.

No, not redone; undone. Government has outlived its usefulness.

The reason why we are spread so thin is that there used to be several superpowers in the world taking care of the worlds issues. Now there is one and we are trying to be everything for everyone...

I'm working very hard to change that. The US government is running a worldwide empire; I and many others aim to stop that. We will bring back political and governmental isolationism. All of the troops will not only be home, most will be able to get jobs that are productive for themselves and their families instead of enforcing empire.

[Rick Lee]

"I'm working very hard to change that. The US government is running a worldwide empire; I and many others aim to stop that. We will bring back political and governmental isolationism. All of the troops will not only be home, most will be able to get jobs that are productive for themselves and their families instead of enforcing empire."

Pat, you live in fantasyland. In some small way I grudgingly admire your strict adherence to Libertarian doctrine. But geeze man, live in the real world. Isolationism is dead and buried and won't be revived in your or my lifetime and for good reason. Events far from our shores directly impact things on the ground here. This won't change and we cannot ignore reality. You can, but most others see some responsibility is called for here. Sticking your head in the sand and wishing it away is not any way to run a national security policy.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
"I'm working very hard to change that. The US government is running a worldwide empire; I and many others aim to stop that. We will bring back political and governmental isolationism. All of the troops will not only be home, most will be able to get jobs that are productive for themselves and their families instead of enforcing empire."

Pat, you live in fantasyland. In some small way I grudgingly admire your strict adherence to Libertarian doctrine. But geeze man, live in the real world. Isolationism is dead and buried and won't be revived in your or my lifetime and for good reason. Events far from our shores directly impact things on the ground here. This won't change and we cannot ignore reality. You can, but most others see some responsibility is called for here. Sticking your head in the sand and wishing it away is not any way to run a national security policy.

National Security policy is due to the empire run out of Washington, D.C. That empire endangers all of us, is responsible for the militarization of generations of Americans, the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of young Americans, and steals thousands of dollars out of the pockets of each American to fund empire annually.

We don't need it, have never needed it, and won't miss it (unless you earn your living from it) when it's gone.

Not only is my head not in the sand, I'm more aware than you are about what needs doing. If the snake of government is threatening, cutting off it's tail isn't the answer, cutting off it's air is.

[kach22i]

We are an empire (cultural and economic), question is should we rule with a sword alone?

This map has expanded in the last three years, is that really the right direction to go?

There are so many questions the general American public has not yet asked. We have looked to our leaders to do our thinking for far too long. No easy answers, lets at least agree on the right questions the rest should fall into place.

[fastpat]

Excellent post, thanks for the graphic.

When I retired from the military in 2003 we had troops stationed and active in more than 120 countries, possibly as many as 130 countries.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by fastpat
Excellent post, thanks for the graphic.

When I retired from the military in 2003 we had troops stationed and active in more than 120 countries, possibly as many as 130 countries.

That is an Empire, however it's our cultural influence and economic strength the Muslim extremist fear. Hard to show that in a graphic.