Bush Considers Increasing Military
President Bush is seriously considering increasing the size of the military possibly adding 70,000 troops. That would give the military more manpower to deal with destroying Islamist terrorist groups and stabilizing failed states.
For President Bush this is a change in his thinking:
Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring “is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength.”
But Bush yesterday had changed his mind. “I’m inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines,” he said. “And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea.”
Expect the flip-flops to come out. And don’t expect any Bush bashers to give him any credit for changing his mind and making adjustments. It may be too late for Iraq, but Bush has to think about the Long War.
Here is Bush being Reagan instead of trying to run a war on the cheap (and off-budget). As a percentage of GDP the hot Islamist War has cost us less than the Cold War.
Sheer numbers won’t better chances for victory in the Long War. If the new manpower comes from just infantry or people to run high-tech weapons those resources will be wasted. The mix of active vs. reserve has to be examined. More has to go for military police and civil affairs. Conservatives like myself cringe at nationbuilding, but that’s the name of the game. Iraq isn’t a failure…yet. (The failure has been securing Baghdad.) Lessons have to be learned because in the future failed states will be needed U.S. help. It could be a North Korea that imploded after decades of totalitarianism, Iran finally shaking off the mullahs, or African states crushed by famine and disease. Those failed states need to be integrated into the globalized core or they’ll become havens for Islamist terrorists. Any military buildup needs to put emphasis on establishing security and government to encourage economic growth while also projecting firepower.
“U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time”
Well, at least he’s actually come around to a point where he’s at least admitting we’re not winning.
So, please clarify this:
Expect the flip-flops to come out. And don’t expect any Bush bashers to give him any credit for changing his mind and making adjustments.
I’m wondering–are you saying that cries of “flip-flopper” directed at Bushie now would be unwarranted, while those same calls against Kerry in 2004 were fine? Are you trying to use a double-standard to deflect criticism of a “when a Democrat changes his mind, he’s a flip-flopper, but when a Republican changes his mind, he’s re-evaluating” line of thinking?
See, i’m not going to call Bush a “flip-flopper” anytime soon because the term in and of itself is a gross oversimplification of politics. Political issues are always too complex to boil down into such grade-school trminology. But i would like someone on your side of the fence to at least agree with that, and to agree that accusations of Kerry being a “flip-flopper” were sophomoric and unwarranted.