Stretched too thin By Kay Bailey Hutchison

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030819-094823-5897r.htm

"You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life — but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud."

Those words, written nearly 40 years ago by my good friend T.R. Fehrenbach in the definitive work on the Korean War, "This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness" — still ring true today. Our recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq reinforce those very lessons. We prosecuted a very successful war, but if we are going to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi and Afghan people while preserving the peace elsewhere, we will need young men and women with their boots on the ground. I am increasingly concerned we don't have enough soldiers and Marines to do all the jobs that must be done.

Shortly before he retired, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki advised that postwar Iraq might require several hundred thousand soldiers and Marines to keep the peace. Gen. Shinseki commanded peacekeeping operations in both Bosnia and Kosovo, and he knows what it takes to get the job done right. But if we were to place several hundred thousand troops in Iraq, the unfortunate truth is that the Army may be stretched too thin elsewhere. Indeed, the man nominated to take his place, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, is another who apparently doesn't shy from offering his frank opinion. He recently said, "Intuitively, I think we need more people. It's as simple as that."

--snip--

We must not balance the tempo of how and when we use Reserve units on the backs of active-duty units, and vice versa. We need more troops or fewer missions. Before we lose too many trained and qualified reservists, I hope we address the critical issue: Do we have enough Army and Marine active- duty members for the post-September 11 era of national security? My view is: We do not.

[AnnabelLee]

1. Warning: cliche'

Does anybody feel a draft?

[chaumont58]

3. Yes, and an interesting question is would.....

the New Roman Empire(Western Hemisphere version) draft women?
I wonder if Senator Bailey had an idea that the invasion and conquering of Eye-rack would lead to the current conditions?

[oneighty]

2. Hey Kay

Get "your" boots on the ground.

Do not forget thet inside of those 'boots'

is some mother's child performing for

the war mongering chicken hawks

(your friends) waging this war for oil and

money and greed.

Our children are not a pair of "Boots".

You fool.

180

[Red_Viking]

4. KBH belongs to my beloved Texas

I personally can't stand the sight of her. She's a disgrace with her big old Texas hair and her bootlicking ways.

Ick.

She was a guest performer in "The Nutcracker" a couple of years ago in Austin. Don't be afraid; she didn't put it all out there in a tutu or anything. She was Mother Ginger. They introduced her before the performance. I got up and left.

Would that she could be drafted...oh, happy day...!

RV

[Desperadoe]

5. Why A Draft?

Every time this subject comes up all the DU'ers imagine that the pukes want to bring back the draft. I don't think that is the objective here at all.

Rather, I think what they really want is to privatize the armed forces. Get rid of the government controlled military, with all of it's oversight and government regulations and duty to the Constitution and replace it with the Haliburton/Carlysle, Bechtold/ Root and Brown Private Military, subject only to the whims and wishes of the corporate elite. Then they would truly have their own little private corporate government with their own very big private army..............and no one could stop them from imposing their new world order.

This would be far more advantageous to them on the long run.

[Divernan]

6. Don't let HER define the issue!

One of the most valuable lessons of law school - whoever frames the issue can win the argument. She says the issue is "Do we have enough Army and Marine active-duty members for the post September 11 era of national security? My (Her)view is we do not."

This begs the question, which is how do we define post 9/11 national security. THAT is the issue! Under Bush & the GOP, the USA is the uberpower dedicated to securing maximum profits for key players/Bush supporters through eternal war, through serial invasions of foreign countries which defy Bush or with any natural assets which would benefit said key players/Bush supporters. Under a different president/Democrat we rejoin the community of nations, strengthen the UN/NATO or other regional entities to provide PEACE keeping forces as necessary and go about rebuilding the infrastructure of our country which Bush is so busy trashing for profit.