I got a chuckle out of a local news station calling last Saturday “the deadliest day yet in the war on terror.” Right, we all know much Iraq had to do with terrorism.
Oh, and here’s a timely article on Total Force.
The current U.S. military structure – known as the “Total Force” – was implemented after the Vietnam War. The system was designed to require activation of Guard and reserves personnel in order to wage war. Defense officials ensured that war-fighting capabilities were integrated across the active and reserves components to such a degree that, as an Army chief of staff, Gen. Creighton Abrams, is said to have claimed, “they’re not taking us to war again without calling up the reserves.”
Abrams and others recognized that when reservists are mobilized, whole communities are affected to a much greater degree than when a draft is conducted of only young eligible men. Their primary concern was that when reservists went to war, troops serving abroad would have more support “back home.”
But the Total Force had another goal as well – to act as a check on indiscriminate or capricious uses of military force. Recent experience in the Balkans and the Middle East demonstrates that it is easier to send troops abroad than it is to bring them home. And history shows that Congress rarely has acted against a president to limit the use of force. Thus, the Total Force was designed to compel Congress to scrutinize military operations. As employers give up workers and as families say goodbye to soldiers augmenting active forces, Congress should be pressured by constituents to act. In sum, the sacrifices of waging war – or even keeping peace – are supposed to spread throughout our democratic society to such a degree that our elected officials are forced to debate the wisdom of sending troops abroad.
Could the US military use restructuring? Yes. Could it use an increase in active-duty non-combat troops? Yes. Is it all Clinton’s fault? No.
So does 9/11 not count as the first salvo in the “War on Terror?”
So does 9/11 not count as the first salvo in the “War on Terror?”[/quote]
Iraq has what to do with 9/11, again?
Iraq has what to do with 9/11, again?
It had a handy “evil overlord” that Dubyah thought he could overthrow and parade in front of the world when it was clear that his chances of finding Bin Laden and restoring anything approaching law and order in Afghanistan was practically zero?
bmulligan- Bin Laden and Somalia? What?
Also, it’s questionable to use the word murder in that case.
quatoria- You’re an idiot. Read it again, slowly if necessary, and try and figure out what the people are trying to say.