~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Monday, December 18, 2006
Further Notes
Responding to some things came up here, about force size vs. composition and overall unity of action. In my earlier post I considered adding further details: That the increased troop strength should concentrate on light, counter-insurgency forces, and that we should have a school of counterinsurgency, &tc. Also I did mention as well that other government departments need to be more fully involved, but didn't expound upon it as I felt the post was already long enough. In many ways I agree with the Thomas P.M. Barnett of his books - not so much his weblog - that we need a "Department of Everything Else" and a "Leviathan" force as well as a "SysAdmin" force, and much greater interdepartmental coordination overall.
Anyhow, what I'm saying is I too agree with all that others are contributing on this topic; that's what makes the bloggospheric conversation so great. One person doesn't have to say it all.
However, in their shift of focus to "not how many, but what" they may be losing sight of the IMO need for larger ground forces: Not just so we have additional troops to rotate into Iraq, but so that we don't *appear* so tapped out that others are not deterred.
Oh, and yes, many soldiers are "this is what I do, this is who I am". But there are also a lot of soldiers who feel they are missing half their children's lives, because deployments are so frequent. There is also a sense that, on the path we're on, we're developing a sort of two-tier Army, where depending on your luck (or your connections), you either deploy a lot, or not at all. Not everyone is as gung-ho as perhaps they should be. I know several people who were thinking of a career in the Army, but who don't want to be away from home half the time. Some of these folks have said one year out of three they could live with. A larger force would give us a lot more flexibility.
We must do the other things people have mentioned as well. But I think 8 billion dollars a year spent on additional ground forces, designed to fight the war we're in, would be better than 6-8 billion spent on F-22s - or on farm subsidies and corporate welfare, for that matter (in other words, dittoing VDH on that).
