How is it that a country with a population of 303 million and a GDP of $14 trillion can't field an army of 150,000 troops - not many more than Germany, a country of 70 million, surrendered at Stalingrad but continued to fight on for another two and half years. In World War II, the US had a population of 145 million, an economy 1/4 the size in real dollars, and put 12 million men in uniform.

The fact is that, while our spending may be higher than cold war averages in real dollars, in terms of GDP we're still around 5% with Iraq and Afghanistan included. That compares to 9% for Vietnam and 13% for Korea, and 40% for World War II.

The US should declare a draft, raise taxes, and boost military spending to 7% per year. We should have work toward a professional army of 1 million soldiers and 250,000 Marines. This could be accomplished in 3 years if the political will was there to do it.

This is what the Bush foreign policy demands. If not, then scale back massively and abandon the dream of a unipolar world.

We have 70,000 troops in Germany, and over 49,000 trained troops in Kuwait.

Let's start moving some people around, and putting pressure on our so-called allies for more troops. It is a NATO operation.

Iraq is not a NATO operation. It's a US-UK folly. Don't expect any help from the people that knew it was a stupid thing to begin with.

Bill Maher published a great book "If you're driving alone, you're driving with Bin Laden", pointing out what the US government SHOULD be asking of Americans if it really believed that the fight against Al Qaeda was as important as WWII.

The sad truth is that - of course - the war on terrorism is not a real war. Terrorism is a police matter, and there is absolutely NO chance that Al Qaeda could hurt the US as much as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt it. Countries like the UK, Spain and Germany learned that the way to deal with terrorism is to enforce the laws, but not to let terrorists change your society. You engage constructively with less violent groups that represent the same issues as the terrorists, and you work out a solution for the real grievances. You don't join in with the terrorists, since that leads nowhere.

So the issue is not that the US is not doing enough. It's that it did too much.

oh, by the way, there are over 1 million soldiers in the US army (including reserves and guard), and more than 800,000 in the other branches.

Absolutely agree with you. That's what happens when you get a bunch of bad managers, draft dodgers and plain war mongering idiots running the military (yes, I mean you, Bush, Cheney, and all).

I have nothing against people who stay out of the military for their own reasons, but I do when the same people tell us that we aren't patriotic when we balk at their military follies.

"They are the most enthusiastic about warfare who are the least familiar with it." -Vegetius

That about sums it up. Not that there aren't warmongers in the military, but I think they mostly maintain their enthusiasm by remaining willfully oblivious to the overall consequences of war. If you start talking to most of these people about how much the war will eventually cost, for example, they fall back on feeble, Hallmark card defenses like, "But Saddam was a bad, bad man! We're making the world safe for Iraqi puppies an' stuff!" Whatever. Isn't it still important to know how much it's going to cost and how that will impact other facets of the country? "But Saddam was a bad, bad man! We're making the world safe for Iraqi puppies an' stuff!"

Sigh.

I agree, anti-terrorism is mostly a police action. But what do you do when there isn't a police force to fight terrorism?

You aren't interested in taking action unless the action is a bargain? And I thought you were more a man of principle and ideals vice thrift.

I know...I've heard your rant, we are borrowing to pay for the war. And that's all that matters. Haven't heard you offering your own federally funded paycheck for cuts though in order to do your part to stem this money borrowing nightmare.

If our government had had the economic sense to issue war bonds, I'd have gladly contributed to the funding drive by buying some, even if they turned out to be bad investments. If they'd had the economic sense to raise taxes when we committed troops to battle, I'd have paid mine without complaint. But then, if they'd had the economic sense to do either of those things, we probably wouldn't have had many of our very pleasant conversations. ;-)

As things stand, I'm afraid my paygrade is woefully insufficient to counteract the sheer magnitude of our errors in this regard. So given a choice between working pro bono to perpetuate one of the most grievous mistakes that our young country has ever committed or saving up for the comparatively selfish goal of postgraduate education, I do believe I'll take the latter option. I'll contribute by continuing to serve for a few more years, deploying again and perhaps even taking an IA or Riverine Unit for my next assignment, but I have far better plans for my paycheck. :-)

BTW, it doesn't have to a bargain, but our goals should at least be within the realm of what is possible. We should also be realistic about our means in the same way we’d be realistic about working within the laws of physics. Our policy in Iraq is made up of some elements that have failed horribly every time they’ve been attempted and other elements that are born of pure fantasy with no basis in the objective physical reality that you and I inhabit. I suppose it’s somehow appropriate that we’re funding it with imaginary money as well. Gotta love this postmodern metawarfare. ;-)

Now you and I both know that the call to raise taxes is simply a ploy...not a soul would be happy to pay more taxes for a war they don't support. On top of that, would you really buy war bonds for a war you are at odds with too? And the paycheck is more a symbolic gesture than one with any significant economic impact...but hey, if you feel strongly enough that our economy is going down the shitter...such a gesture could be mimmicked. Moving a mountain starts with a shovel.

Your theory assumes that we ourselves wouldn't learn new tactics, theory, or ideas to counter the threats. I suppose if we just continued without adjustment from day one...you would be right. But there have been successes, there are successes right now, and the future will hold more...so at what point do you determine that our efforts are in vain? I'm a prime example of those theories and tactics changing. A year and a half ago, I requested an IA and was basically told, "what the fuck do I need E-6B aircrew in Iraq for?" Now, I'm regularly flying missions over Iraq in an E-6B. Go figure.

The American economy is going down the shitter.

Had we followed the advice of quite a few General Officers who were discredited by the chickenhawks in office we either A: Would not be in Iraq or B: would have taken the Half -Mil. troops to do the job right. Maybe I'm just an old ground pounder but IF things are going so well why the use of E-6's?

BTW when are we going to try to find the body of LCDR Barry Cook, E-6 pilot missing since 91 ??????