How Kerry Could Outflank Bush On The Military

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NATO AIR, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    this is a pretty good idea for kerry, its doubtful he'd do it, but you never know... it does bring up a good point, because its doubtful bush would do something like this

    http://www.cfr.org/pub6985/max_boot/kerry_needs_muscle_gap_to_run_on.php

    Op-Ed


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kerry Needs 'Muscle Gap' to Run On

    By Max Boot

    Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2004


    The daily drumbeat of disasters in Iraq isn't helping John F. Kerry politically because he hasn't proposed a compelling alternative. On Iraq and national security policy more broadly, he is offering an uninspired "me too" policy of "staying the course" while trying to gain more international support.

    For a better approach, Kerry should emulate the man whose initials he shares. In 1960, John F. Kennedy assailed the Eisenhower administration for ignoring a supposed "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. The charge was false - the Soviets weren't actually ahead when it came to missiles - but it allowed Kennedy to outflank Richard Nixon on the right and narrowly win the election.

    Today we face a real shortage - a shortage of soldiers. The Army has fallen from 18 divisions in 1991 (710,000 soldiers) to 10 today (486,000) even as its commitments have expanded exponentially. Kerry should make the "muscle gap" a centerpiece of his campaign by pledging to do what George W. Bush won't: dramatically increase the size of the Army.

    Bush is being disingenuous when he promises to give commanders in Iraq all the troops they need. The generals won't ask for many reinforcements because they know they don't exist. Just sustaining the current level of 135,000 troops in Iraq is proving almost impossible. Nine of the Army's divisions are either in Iraq and Afghanistan or just returning from there. The only additional one that can be dispatched is the 3rd Infantry Division, which left Iraq less than a year ago after spearheading the drive on Baghdad.

    The Defense Department has tried to address pressing needs by sending 25,000 Marines, but the Marine Corps too is seriously overstretched. If any more Marines are sent, commitments in Haiti, South Korea and elsewhere may suffer.

    We are also relying heavily on National Guard and reserve units that were never intended for such long-term deployments overseas. Overusing them could lead to a recruitment and retention crisis.

    After stubbornly denying that more troops are needed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld implicitly conceded the point by allowing the Army to temporarily add 30,000 personnel over the next few years, mainly by delaying the discharge of soldiers. He is also trying to move soldiers from desk jobs to front-line units. These are Band-Aid solutions for the serious wounds that Bush's policies have inflicted upon the armed forces.

    Four years ago, Dick Cheney said: "What the Clinton-Gore administration has done is to shortchange the military, continue to impose significant burdens on them and not made the kind of investments that need to be made. The military is in trouble today." That may or may not have been true in 2000. It's definitely true today.

    This leaves an opening for Kerry. He has already pledged to increase the military by 40,000, but that's not nearly enough to meet all of our commitments. Just as Bill Clinton promised in 1992 to add 100,000 police officers, so Kerry should promise to add 100,000 soldiers. This would produce about 2 1/2 divisions of combat power (50,000 soldiers) along with a lot of necessary support personnel.

    Such an increase won't be cheap, but it's hardly unaffordable. To help defray expenses, Kerry could eliminate costly weapons programs, like the F/A-22 fighter and the Virginia-class submarine, that aren't needed to fight terrorists and guerrillas. This may not cover the entire bill, however, because the Congressional Budget Office estimates that each new division would cost $9 billion to create and $3 billion annually to operate. And we still need to replace aging military equipment, like 40-year-old B-52 bombers.

    There is no getting around the fact that we have to spend more to fight the war on terrorism. We are spending less than 4% of our gross domestic product on the military; JFK spent about 9%, Ronald Reagan about 6%. It's hard to see how we can afford to stint on defense, because the dangers we face today are, in many ways, more immediate than those of the 1960s or 1980s.

    In making this argument, Kerry will, of course, face some credibility problems. The Bush campaign is already clobbering him for voting to cut defense spending in the past. That makes it all the more imperative for Kerry to turn the "muscle gap" into a major campaign issue.

    Constantly reminding voters of what he did in Vietnam more than 30 years ago isn't going to convince them that Kerry is serious about defending the nation in the future. By campaigning on a hawkish plan to expand the military, he just may make the electorate forget about his dovish votes in Congress.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes a weekly column for the Los Angeles Times.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Very interesting and I agree that we need more troops. Kerry's voting record wouldn't allow for this, but I'm hoping Bush will do it if he wins.

    btw, Max Boot is one of the best military writers around.
     
  3. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    what if kerry said eff it and went for it?

    that is one thing i don't agree with this, this whole idea that decisions you made in the past restrict you from making new decisions in the now and in the future... so if you were wrong in the past, you can't make it right in the present? if kerry admitted he'd been wrong in the past, and saw a crucial need for america's military and as president he would do it, well what's wrong with that?

    it's just like those who criticize bush for going back to the UN after the post-war Iraq went to hell... well Bush realized he was wrong and through his actions, acknowledged he was incorrect, and more importantly, he was going to eat crow with the UN and get it fixed... now we have a nearly soverign Iraq that hopefully will be free of daily terrorist attacks and insurrections...
     
  4. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    They should not even be there. Same with the Balkans.

    I thought some people in SK have said that they didn't want the US there. I seem to remember something about that.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    There is also the problem of the "draft" word . Tricky subject to mess with this close to the election.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Freakin' Nam, that was not a draft. Rather the same as long ago where the rich paid the poor to go in their place. Only this time, they didn't pay them.

    A draft that was fair, not that any are 100% but WWII came close, that may or may not come. But Dillo is right, no talk from DOD or Bush til after elections, if they win.
     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,204
    I almost hope Kerry brings up the draft. it would get quite a few of my friends agianst him solidly.
     
  8. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    That's VERY misleading...at best.

    The military hasn't FALLEN - it was part of a PLANNED reduction in forces - Do you know what the name of the president who was in office during 90% of that is?

    I guess it depends on what your definition of is is.

    ;)
     
  9. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    I actually thought Kerry had publically suggested the size of the Army be increased.

    Though if he had, I'm sure he dropped it immeadiately. The modern day liberal hates the military with a passion. Advocating increasing the size of the military would lose votes for him, as everyone who agrees with that proposition will probably be voting for Bush regardless (the size of the Army will be increased sometime within the next 2 Congresses). Conversely, I'd bet the vast majority of those planning to vote for Kerry would object to such a plan. The effect would be more votes for Nader I believe.
     
  10. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    OK, hadn't read the whole article. It does mention that he's called for the 40,000 increase that I was referring to.

    But how often does he even mention that increase?

    Fact is, he's already positioned himself as being against the Iraqi war in the first place (as if that's really the point anymore), and reverting the nation's policy in the WoT from pre-emptive military action when deemed neccessary to 'strictly a police action'.

    Advocating an increase of 100,000 soldiers would undoubtedly undermine his position.
     

Share This Page