U.S. military report: Wars straining U.S. power

[liberal N proud]

NBC News and news services
Updated: 7:46 p.m. ET May 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - After years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is seriously limited today in its ability to fight in other major conflicts.

That's the sobering assessment from the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, who told Congress on Tuesday that the United States would ultimately win another war, but it would take longer and put U.S. forces at greater risk, because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained resources.

Myers expressed confidence that American forces would ultimately prevail in any future conflict.

<more> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7725427/

Is he edging us ever closer to the DRAFT?

[blogbear]

1. Could be that the world is playing American hegemony like an

untuned fiddle..

[Montauk6]

2. The question I have is do we still have a Nat'l Guard to protect these

borders?

[dbt]

3. WHY was Myers allowed to say this?

We have learned that nothing, NOTHING gets out of this Regime unless someone wants it out. Suddenly, here's an outgoing General who says that we don't have enough troops to win the next war quickly.

And what would be the aim of such a statement? Why, to get more troops, of course. But wait. HOW will we get more troops if recruiters are having such a hard time meeting their goals? Stay tuned...

(BONUS QUESTION: What specific items does General Electric, parent of NBC, manufacture that might be of use in wartime?)

[liberal N proud]

5. What don't they manufacture that would be of use in wartime

besides the propaganda they produce through NBC that is.

[izzie]

6. Bush is going to ask for more money.

My guess it is a re-run of RR and they talk war and more money. Keeps your mind off the 'rush to the bottom'

[sweetheart]

4. They showed off their moves

America's traditional enemies watched these conflicts closely to learn
the pattern of forces and command the US uses. Giving away such a
massive strategy card, for a tin pot victory was a huge mistake and the
joint chefs know it.

Modern military conflict is much more like chess, where the game
develops without any pieces being taken until there is an intensive
buildup. Then when the war goes "hot", war becomes decisive very
quickly. In this sense, Gen. Myers is actually saying something much
more drastic than it sounds... as a delay in victory means heavy
losses in the middle game, heavy and a potential need to resort to
nuclear weapons to keep from being defeated. It is no suprise that
bush has set about attempting to engineer new nuclear weapons and
delivery systems... as its a cover for the weakness of the badly
overextended forces. This is what he means by "ultimately prevail"
as in how curtis lemay firebombed 70+ japanese civilian cities killing
millions.... to ultimately prevail.

Good military reconnisance shows how the US military command has used
its various bases and platforms in the field to inter-command and
launch a regional attack. The opponents in a next conflict have
learned this lattice of control, and surely it will be wiped out
early on, in a next conflict. THe iraqi mistake will not be made
again. The joint chiefs have stood by and made the country less safe,
less defensible and have been party to treasonous abuse of the
defensive military. They should be stripped of their ranks and
sent to join Lynddie england in the dock.

[indepat]

7. No shit: who would have thunk it

[Strelnikov_]

8. So, We Spend More Than The Rest Of The World Combined

on our military, and two relatively small conflicts "seriously limits . . its ability to fight in other major conflicts."

Pretty much confirms what I have thought for a long time, that too much of the money spent on our military is being wasted on high tech gadgets that provide little capability during sustained conflict.