Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

We Need More Troops

We have a dyspeptic bunch of Readers Who Comment this morning as they ponder the words of Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan but that they are not available because of the War in Iraq.

This point, from the nation's highest ranking military officer, reinforces an argument that many have made for years -- that the War in Iraq has diverted resources from the real problem -- Afghanistan. But as Josh White writes, "Unlike the critics, however, Mullen sees both wars as vital to creating a stable region and wants to wait for sustained progress in Iraq before trying to shift resources."

The comments are ones we have heard before: there was no real threat from Iraq; a two-front war is never a good thing; the Russians couldn't control Afghanistan -- why do we think we can?; it's really all about oil; President Bush doesn't know what he's doing; maybe it's time for a draft; and, meanwhile, are we getting ready to attack Iran? Etc. Defenders of administration policy are in short supply in this comment thread. Several commenters wonder if it's just a matter of time before Bush fires Mullen.

We'll start with kcbob, who wrote, "At the same time as the President is warning the world, "All options are on the table," for Iran, the head of the nation's military is warning us we're out of spare men and women to send where they're really needed. Is President Bush listening?"

BartonKeyes said, "A shortage of troops in Afghanistan is only the beginning of the problems facuing the military... Thus, Iraq is not simply about Iraq. It is also about how the US can defend its interests around the globe."

odin966 asked, "How long until Bush forces this guy to resign, since he has violated the unwritten rule that one does not openly criticize the war effort in Iraq?... On the other hand, I think Bush is running out of both time and generals."

steveboyington, tongue firmly in cheek, says, "This guy [Mullen] obviously hates America, and gives comfort to our enemies. In a more serious note, in Washington, he is a dangerous man, for he speaks the truth."

And ElectricBill added, "Mullen makes way too much sense and he's telling the truth. Bush/Cheney will probably fire him by the end of the week."

axs1276 observed that "...obviously there is a shortage of troops in Afghanistan. Stealing OIL is far more lucrative than chasing terrorists."

davideconnollyjr wrote that, "The middle east is far more stable without us there, and in any event, it is middle easterners concern and responsibility, not ours... if the Russians could not make any headway (indeed many lives were lost) in the ten years they occupied Afghanistan, I do not see us doing so either..."

glenncg was more succinct, saying, "U.S. out of Afghanistan, NOW! It is not a 'good war'. It's quicksand."

robertsou wrote, "So again, Bin Laden's tactics to bleed the U.S. are proving successful. The economy is in shambles. Our military is stuck fighting perpetual war on multiple fronts and the original target has indisputably grown in strength... that big picture seems largely to go unnoticed by the MSM." [I don't usually argue with our commenters, but from where I sit the MSM have been all over this one.]

jetsfoto said, "So much for that other "Surge" working... One has to wonder, what paranoid, pyschotic dmindest was involved in order to initiate the distorted and costly thinking which has placed our troops and military services in such dire straits for the last six years or so?"

calkid asked, "How much more can our military men and women take? These politicians have sucked them dry mentally, physically and some with their lives. If they want to continue playing their endless game of war, I suggest they fill the needed troop gaps with their own sons and daughters, maybe they'll get the message that enough is enough."

meowomon said, "OK, so what do we do now, rethuglicans and all others who support this war in Iraq? Shall we have a draft? Any takers? What's your answer war mongers?"

csintala79 wrote, "Gee, the rubber meets the road. Critics of the Iraq war have been saying forever that this is the case, and have been pilloried as nay saying traitors. Aren't we in a fine pickle, Ollie. Hey, let's invade Iran!"

bfjackjernigan said, "...Bush must have slept through all of history classes about a two front war when one was never neccessary or justifiable."

lichtme, paraphrasing a famous comment from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, wrote, "Who could have predicted? You fight a war with the commander in chief you have."

And janye1 said, "When a country has an ignorant, ineffective, arrogant,
commander-in-chief, it may run short of troops."

Diogenes wrote, "Bush has hoisted himself on his own petard... If you ask him about Afghanistan, I'm certain he will be as upbeat about it as he is about Iraq. Nothing, but nothing, penetrates his bubble."

billmosby said, "Too bad none of our NATO allies feel the need to help out a bit more. Hard to tell who are the worst behaved- them, or us, for going into Iraq without sufficient resources even for that place, never mind our commitment to Afghanistan."

We'll close with wmboyd, who wrote, "The surge is working so well in Iraq that Osama has redeployed his group where it was needed most, had the least resistance, and could be most effective. He's not concerned that Afganistan has no oil."

All comments on this article are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  July 3, 2008; 9:15 AM ET
Categories:  Afghanistan  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Death to SUVs!
Next: Conservatives vs. McCain


We don't need more troops in Iraq or perhaps in Afghanistan. Human rights and the rules are vital to global security.

World is in sorry state, we have lots of problems around the world. I believe that We made a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place, now we are in their trap, Iraqi want us to do their security and protect their country, I think Sen. Obama's suggestion of 16 months to withdraw our troops from Iraq is appropriate, but I don't think Iraqi government will agree. If they agree or don't agree with our proposal then we will do what is right to withdraw our troops within 16 months. If you give one finger to these Iraqi they will take complete arm, they want everything ready made on a silver plate, they don't care about our troops nor Iraqi people who are dying in Iraq.!!!

Posted by: Akber A. Kassam. | July 21, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

N2HZDM htdioghrdeioh uerhuy h3oh iohgdfiogho isdfhio sdjhdf

Posted by: flow1800 | July 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

CShhmK gdsgdsg sdgsdg dsgsdg dsgdsgsd

Posted by: 18001 | July 10, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

all links free blonde teens free
around in i bang bros the best updated
Good site
[url=]free blonde teens[/url]

Posted by: Michael | July 9, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

So we're all agreed?

We will now transfer all the enlisted troops to the war we NEED to have- against the Bin Ladenists who attacked us. The Bin Ladenists are in Afghanistan (where Bush is losing because of too few troops) and Pakistan (where Bush is losing because he lacks the courage to go where we need to go.)

As for Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq, send only those who WANT the Iraq war. Institute a draft for ALL IRAQ WAR SUPPORTERS- any age, any number of children, and amount of wealth.

Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove will all be eager for the chance to go to the front lines in the war they all believe in, right?

And everyone here who likes Bush's unprovoked war of choice against Iraq will love it just as much once you are all drafted to fight in it, right?

And why aren't you there already?

Posted by: fred | July 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Give to Israel cruise missiles, F-22 fighters and several old nuclear submarines that can be armed with nuclear weapons in intent to give Israel ability to second stick and by so establishment of deterrent ability that deter her foes and secure her existence. It MUST be the responsibility of US and the West to prevent SECOND HOLOCAUST.

Posted by: Nicolas De Marlo | July 7, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

== Defenders of administration policy are
== in short supply in this comment thread.

Defenders of Bush are short on a lot
of things.

The one remarkable fact about the
Bush tenure was that he was never
impeached, removed, or jailed.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | July 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"All I know, is if WE are hit with 'A'bomb, Iran is going to be unmade."

Actually, all eyes will turn to Pakistan at that point. Iran doesn't have a bomb.

Posted by: fzdybel | July 5, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Time to remove President George Walker Bush and Vice President 5 Time Deferment Dick Cheney from office in leg irons and shackles and try them in the United States for War Crimes. These two War Mongerers need to be removed from office before they start their next war in Iran which may turn into a World War with Nukes and affect us all.

Posted by: morriso | July 4, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's a clip hot off the net taken w/o permission from the NIFC website:

"Current Wildland Fires


Fires: 4

Acres: 157498

New fires: 0

Fires contained: 1
Black Mesa (San Carlos Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs): The fire was contained at 1,744 acres.
Information: Call 602-379-6798 x444 or 602-379-9798 or visit the website.
Crystal Peak (San Carlos Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs): 1,058 acres at 90 percent contained. This fire is 23 miles south of San Carlos. Minimal fire activity was reported.
Information: Call (602) 379-6798.
Lane 2 (Prescott National Forest): 7,580 acres at 10 percent contained. This fire is 14 miles northwest of Black Canyon City. Extreme fire behavior was reported. Structures, powerlines, communication facilities, and historic sites are threatened. The community of Crown King is threatened and evacuations are in order.
Information: Call 928-443-8130.
Ethan (Pima Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs): 6,661 acres at 95 percent contained. This fire is 12 miles southwest of Phoenix.
Information: Call (602) 379-6798 x 444 or (602) 79-6798.
Walla Valley (Grand Canyon National Park): 450 acres at 60 percent contained. This fire is 53 miles southeast of Kanab, UT.
Information: Call 928-638-7688 or visit the website.


Fires: 27

Acres: 454,394

New fires: 1

Fires contained: 1
Inciweb is having technical difficulties due to the high volume of Internet users trying to access these sites. The technical staff is working to restore access to the site as soon as possible."

What's the point? Firefighting has two contextual definitions. The objects are related but not identical. However, the same creature is involved in both, and with a limited number of them divided between two objectives, the efficiency of remedy is reduced by 50%. Besides, where will the children play?

Posted by: hillhopper | July 4, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

What ever became of the other half of our forces in Iraq? You know the well paid,American tax payer funded Blackwater
Hitler Youth. Seems that if we are in need of more troops in Afganistan, then these boys should take up the slack and be told what is needed an expected of their stay in Iraq. Maybe they should get to work working for America. What are they there for if not to assist in bringing stability and security to this Iraq fiasco? This many men being paid this much money should be showing some positive contribution to the cause. Why are they never mentioned any longer? I know they are still there sucking our resources.Where is the accountability of these guns for hire? Are they making things better or worse? Surely we should be told what their actual contribution,if any, is.

Posted by: B. Rollens | July 3, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

National: of or relating to a nation, (AKA America)
Guard: the act or duty of protecting or defending, troops attached to the person of the sovereign, (AKA America)

America's National Guard should be armed & at our southern border protcting America from drug cartels & stopping illegal immigrants. They should not be replacing the army pres. Clinton believed should be reduced.

Posted by: Josh | July 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

There seems to be a consensus emerging here:

Send all the enlisted troops to the war we NEED to have- against the Bin Ladenists who attacked us. They are in Afghanistan (where Bush is losing because of too few troops) and Pakistan (where Bush is losing because he lacks the courage to go where we need to go.)

As for Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq, send only those who WANT the Iraq war. Institute a draft for ALL IRAQ WAR SUPPORTERS- any age, any number of children, and amount of wealth.

Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove will all be eager for the chance to go to the front lines in the war they all believe in, right?


Posted by: wpforumtroll | July 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Let's assume that Osama Bin Laden and friends in Iran (and elsewhere in the region) have a strategy to pin down Bush-Cheney. Let's assume that guerilla warfare is used to fight the superior resources of the US. This kind of strategy was effective in Vietnam. After a strike the vietcong fighters would run and hide, before they could be killed. Mosquito fighters. It just goes to show that Wes Clark was right about fighting these wars. They are fought on the ground. They cannot be fought entirely from the air.

If you watch Charlie Wilson's War (starring Tom Hanks) you see that Russian war planes were defeated by Surface to Air missles fired from Afghanistan ground forces.

Also, you can be sure that any home body fighters (i.e. Iraqi insurgents, and Afghan Taliban) will fight forever because 1. they are funded by oil revenues (unlimited weapons budget), 2. they are fighting for Islam (ideological warfare). It feels reasonable to assume that Iran is willing to help Islamic fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has plenty of oil money and cooperation from Russia.

Posted by: Richard Morris | July 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

It seems clear that if we had continued our containment of Iraq as before our invasion we would have enough troops to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are decisions made by the Commander-in-Chief and supported by the Republican congress (including McCain). Invading Iran would require introduction of a draft. Bombing Iran, as suggested by McCain, might not require a draft but would drive the price of oil even higher. Any way you slice it this administration has been a horrible failure. We have lost thousands of troops, 30,000 have been wounded, we have spent, or will, several trillion dollars, the price of oil has spiked, and we are not safer. Time for a change.

Posted by: CDgainesville | July 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Surprise, surprise!
George the Second finds himself lamenting - as did George III -
"Where can I find enough Hessian mercenaries to quell this troublesome insurgency?"

Posted by: asookie | July 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

and to think mccain wants to start another war with iran for israel..can you say draft

Posted by: peter | July 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see Adm. Mullen in the Navy's new test service dress khaki uniform blouse (it was deep-sixed by Adm. Zumwalt in the 1970s, but now is being resurrected and described officially as a "throwback to WWII"). It was always my favorite uniform. Anyway, as long as we're going back to WWII, the only way to stop the escalating insanity that even Adm. Mullen can't provide troops for is to reinstate the draft so he can access bodies. That will so outrage the electorate that they will finally pay personal, passionate, and public attention to the issues the Bushie's would rather handle by means of secret executive orders.

Posted by: wahdeer | July 3, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Sorry - I forgot to sign my perfect solution comment - Linda - Goddess Returns!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

when you look at a countries can see how well that country is doing..ours is worthless in the last 8 years..iraqs worthless next to..syria..kuwait..saudi..with the price of oil and iraq back to pumping oil to levels when saddam was there..with us pumping billions in there..that tells you things are not better

Posted by: tom | July 3, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Fear and ignorance and greed and economic injustice are the fuel for wars. How do we stop that? Not with weapons.
The U.S. must stop thinking it is the greatest nation in the world and that somehow God blesses it, no matter what its policies are.

Posted by: Bill | July 3, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I believe I have found the perfect solution. Send all Republicans loyal to the war who are over 55 to Iraq to fight in this war - not their sons. This will protect our youth brain trust and take care of all those pesky seniors who will bankrupt the Social Security system in a few years. Let's start with the best shot of them all, Cheney, because he talks a great war but is a lousey shot yet we know he can shoot humans. Put him in the front line. Next to him put Bush - he excelled in disregard for human life and has the ability to torture written on his soul.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Some of you have the correct response. The reason was oil and Cheney is pulling the strings. GWB doesn't even know how to tie his shoes.

We analyzed it incorrectly with Pakistan & Afghanistan. Franks was an idiot as was the rest, Rummy, Pearl, Wolfovitz, Yee, Cheney's attorney, etc. The one thing they understood was GWB didn't understand anything. He failed at everything and they knew he had name recognition, but DC ran the boat into the shoals.

So where do we go from here, if there is a here left by Jan 20, 2009?

Posted by: jerry rubin | July 3, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Less to no troops please.

I would also like to see some officials put on trial for this which I see as a crime. Yes, let us have them tried like Saddam was for what they have allowed to happen to our people. A great injustice has occurred. As soon as this term is over, can we let trials begin? I am so disgusted with this.

Posted by: Obama2008 | July 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I blame every idiot that voted for "Monkey Boy Bush!!" Look what the f%#$ happens when you put a complete moron and Satan/Cheney in office. I support our troops, but we need to get the hell out of the middle east and tend to our own country. Imagine what the trillion dollars we will end up spending could do for our own country.

With Bush as our president, I am ashamed to be an American!!!!

Posted by: Martin | July 3, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I blame every idiot that voted for "Monkey Boy Bush!!" Look what the f%#$ happens when you put a complete moron and Satan/Cheney in office. I support our troops, but we need to get the hell out of the middle east and tend to our own country. Imagine what the trillion dollars we will end up spending could do for our own country.

With Bush as our president, I am ashamed to be an American!!!!

Posted by: Martin | July 3, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Odd, in the thread you used for you article I missed seeing a poster by the tag of Theodore Roosevelt, you might want to try reading his posts, you'll become a tad more educated and not need to use Bush the boogie man for your points and actually see WHY we're in trouble.

You will also note that T.R. has called it from the beginning as to the reasons we're in deep stuff. Almost word for word the what the head of the joint chiefs said as concerns our Military capabilities and about Iraq.

You probably don't bother reading anything from T.R. as T.R is a conservative, although not a Bush Republican.

Posted by: John C. Page III | July 3, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

This whole thing would be easier if we simply kept to ourselves. Yes there are moral travesties happening in the world, but we have to recognize which ones are our responsibility, and which actions are appropriate to respond to them.

I hate feeling so hated, I would much rather be ignored.

Posted by: D | July 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The reason for the need of more troops is that the U.S. casualties on the ground in Iraq have not downsized, only the level of their public announcement has.

You'll find a "taster" of what the war really looks like from an Open Source Center placed at the bottom of this article:

Everything called as the Iraq war "news coverage" is nothing but a matrix, a virtual fake reality.

Read the details of how it's done here:

United Nations (Finland)

Posted by: NDHF Net | July 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

With so many troops overseas, how many do we have in the US to protect us in case of a real attack? Homeland security only works when we have people here to protect the homeland!

Posted by: George | July 3, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Easy solution.

Draft everyone who supports the Iraq war, regardless of age, number of children, wealth, etc.

See how many people support Bush's disaster then.

Posted by: wpforumtroll | July 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"IF our NATO partners only sent the troups..."
"IF they would help us properly..."

Geez - after 9/11 there was consent to stand with the US and to help defeat the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. AFAIK us Europeans now send more troops than initially planned, so we uber-fulfill our duty, even against the will of majorities of the peoples here.

But this was never meant to enable W to invade Iraq, and as most who were shock-and-awed in 2003 may remember, most countries opposed the invasion of Iraq and said so, first in private and when the US presented phony evidence also in public.

There was a deal, and now the NATO partners are even increasing their engagement beyond that deal. The US broke the contract, not those who are now bullied in helping them out.

Posted by: om4n | July 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The good admiral has been about as clear as he can with the reality that those military brass who speak the truth are canned shortly thereafter. So much for listening to the "generals."

We learned nothing from the Russian involvement with Afghanistan. We have ruined our nation's moral standing in the world by launching a war against a country that was not a threat against us. Justice would dictate that we go after the criminals responsible for 9/11. In America, we know what happens to police departments that go after the wrong guys: those department are scandalized.

After five years, we could easily face no improvement in either country. Consider our war losses. Afghanistan reverts to the drug growing and smuggling country that it has been with the new Taliban back in power. Iraq becomes an fundamentalist Islam religious state. Recent revelations that Christians in Iraq are fleeing ethnic cleansing and that this is the worst time for Christians in Iraq for 2000 years should open some eyes.

It is sad, yet Bush and his cronies continue in power to do more mischief until January 2009. And the big noise is whether or not Barack Obama has experience to lead our country. Whether he has the experience or not is not a constitutional requirement, Barack does have the mental capability and vision to lead. Bush cannot even talk in coherent sentences and is prone to vulgarity. Sad, sad, SAD!

Posted by: Earl C | July 3, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The United States is run, not by our elected leaders but by a group of very powerful individuals. These people are twisting education, affecting our educational system so that most high school graduates dont know what a federal reserve note is, how it is created. The entire Title 26 tax code is made so that it obfuscate what the income tax is really on...what is the subject of the income tax. Some people believe it is a tax on income but the supreme court made that illegal in 1895, and maintained this in 1916 and 1920.
Now we are at war, because of some grand terrorist plot. and 9/11. Well we are in trouble when Americans try to dismiss the obvious fact that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. These powerful group are selling lemons for oranges and the USA population is buying. Are we going to survive this? ...or are we going to succumb to a life where most of our income goes to inflation, interest, the debt, and other white paper ventures that don't really produce anything?

Posted by: Antonio Alejandro | July 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe that among all the opinions submitted about Adm. Mullen's need for more U.S. troops, not one opinion mentioned the need for a better, more effective US diplomacy. Since our first and most brilliant diplomat, Benjamin Franklin, retired a few centuries ago, the art and intellectual statemenship of effective US diplomacy has deteriorated into its present state of extinction. I guess our political leaders will only revive it again if and when the day comes that our country is no longer the world's foremost military power.

Posted by: Charles Booher | July 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

What?! I thought we had already won in Afghanistan. What happened?

Posted by: Dixie | July 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

This is not a two front war. It is a two theater war. Their is no salient being crushed on two sides.
We need to expand the military as McCain has constantly recomended.
The wisdom of being in Iraq is definitely suspect. However, pulling back is not an easy task. We are going to have to work with nations is solving the problem of Iraq.
Afganistan is a result of our impatience. The Iraq theater created additional problems in Afghanistan.
Here, we really are facing Al Qaeda. The stakes are high. We need to stand up for democratic principles in Pakistan, particularly the rule of law. Resolve along with NATO is very essential.

Posted by: Peter Roach | July 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

If the other UN members that promised to help in Afghanistan, honored their word then there wouldn't be a shortage.

It these same nations had agreed to help us in Iraq, they would have let us down there too.

Yet, even with current events clearly reflecting we can't count on the rest of the world to honor their commitments, there are those in this nation that continually feel we should work in concert with them instead of acting alone.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Ike was right. The military-industrial complex he warned us about decades ago has been operating unchecked and grows by the year. It won't allow itself to be paired down to a managable size. I just hope I'm not around when it snowballs so large that it collapses under its own weight.

Posted by: Fortunae | July 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at how quickly people over 30 and women throw out the D-word (draft). Women always say "men should have no right to deny us the choice to have an abortion" and if thats true then anyone over 26 and all women should hereby silence themselves with their draft recommendations. You're proposed solution could potentially involve me losing my job and my girlfriend, moving to a desert, eating KBR food, showering in electrofied showers, getting shot at, bombed and potentially mutilated beyond recognition so that I can apply my newly learned human killing skills. Where in the constitution does it give our government ownership rights to my very life? They already get a taste of ALL of my occupational efforts to fund this fiasco. I GAVE AT THE OFFICE!!! If a war was just (ie to defend America) nobody would have to be coerced into fighting it.

Posted by: Shutup abt. the draft | July 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I guess the fact that they told us it was a bad idea and not to do it is meangless. if your nieghbor tried to burn the weeds in his lawn out with gasoline against your objections. Would you help him rebuild his house? Or would you just shake your head and wonder what was wrong with him.

We ignored the world and did what bush wanted to do. And now people like you whine the world isn't behind us.

Posted by: sam | July 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I think the only answer to the continued insanity of the Federal Government of the Unites States is to abolish it, in favor of 50 Autonomous States. Perhaps it is time for the American version of the Evil Empire to join its Soviet counterpart, on the decaying pages of dusty history books.

Posted by: James Ash | July 3, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Ancient Rome fell when the administration tried, and failed, to fight wars on multiple borders against people who were fighting to end undue Roman influence in their region. America no longer annexes lands; rather, the U.S. insidiously worms into the fabric of a foreign nation's economic and social policies and disrupts them (i.e.-Iran) in order to bring about greater overseas power for the U.S. and more skepticism of the native ruling elite. Rome did this in places with highly-evolved social systems (Israel and regions of coastal North Africa), but their attempts backfired. The nail in the Roman coffin was the apathy, decadence, gluttony, and morbidity of the Roman people, who had come to view themselves as masters not only of the Mediterranean basin, but of the whole world. The sack of Rome by the Visigoths cost thousands of lives and left a mighty civilization halved and humiliated. Be smart, be skeptical, be warned: READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

Posted by: patrick | July 3, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Admiral Mullen is anice guy,

He ain't no Israeli.
He don't make the calls...

You get it?

Posted by: Steve Real | July 3, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Maybe our troops should be defending the American people instead of defending the private enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan who's only goal is profits for themselves. When are you people going to wake up? This is NOT how our troops should be used.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

We marched into Iraq. Time to march out.

Posted by: Sara B. | July 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I blame Charlie Wilson. Nice goin' Chuck! But surely, all reasonable people will agree that now we've de-nationalized Iraqi's oil production and restored ownership to the right corporations through an exhaustive and heavily-vetted bidding process with total transparency, we can surely get some of the kids from Generation Kill currently stationed in Iraq into Afghanistan. It's going to be a cakewalk. The Russians just aren't very tough.
But we should get started on Emerald City II immediately.
You can't fight evil without A.C. and Chalupas people.

Posted by: stupidwhiteman | July 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Simple solution: clones! It worked in the movies, right?

In all seriousness, instating an economic-class neutral draft is probably the best way to increase troop numbers while decreasing the likelihood of our future leaders taking us into more unnecessary wars. Nothing stops a war movement like the knowledge that we will be putting our own children on the front lines rather than the poor people's children.

Posted by: Waffle365 | July 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Today (July 3) administration officials began "working the refs" by admonishing isreal against striking Iran, knowing full well that such a strike is imminent. Last month Israel conducted an airforce training mission with a range almost identical to the distance between Israeli airforce bases and the (entirely legal) Nantaz nuclear reacter in Iran. If and when the Iranians respond militarily to the strike or even mention the word nuclear we will be be looking at our third front. After all, we are already in the midst of a 400 million dollar covert ops program in Iran as we speak. This will happen soon.
As for the draft, I'm a 24 year old free born man of the USA and nobody, including uncle sam, owns my body.

Posted by: Austin | July 3, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

And when are the troops going to be able to follow into Pakistan? Until that happens more US troops are just more targets outside Camp Phoenix.

As for Iraq, sorry it has a purpose because of where it is located, and who controls the force deployments in that region. As of now, the US has the ability to monitor all forces in the region. And to interdict those that are hostile.

Posted by: VultureTX | July 3, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

All I know, is if WE are hit with 'A'bomb, Iran is going to be unmade...

Posted by: US Citiz'n | July 3, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

We don't need more troops. We need less war.

Posted by: Matt Smucker | July 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Instead of more troops and whatnot, I'd sue for PEACE! Let's try it and see in which direction it takes the military and the Admin. My own guess is that it will end up with US and Iran not only recognizing each other but cooperating to provide a peaceful coexistence in Middle East.

Posted by: hari | July 3, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company