I don’t know about the other options (since I don’t know what they are), but one of the reasons the ‘surge’ was to be temporary was that to increase troop levels in Iraq permanently by that many combat troops was not regarded as sustainable.
That would presumably apply equally to Afghanistan.
Yeah, it looks like there are no more troops available under Adm Mullen’s command at the moment, but that will change over time as their rotations out expire. The other options I was thinking about are diverting troops from other places besides the M.E.
As I noted a couple of years ago, we’ve already diverted troops from Korea, as well as having creatively used our military manpower in other ways to try to make ends meet:
We may have some other feasible options left, but I’d certainly be curious as to why they haven’t been tried already, given what has already been tried.
Our original approach was at fault, remans at fault, and only gets worse the more we try to put out a fire by flooding it with kerosene. Some of us on the wimp-ass left, as opposed to the whup-ass right, told you so. We said that a military approach to the problem was doomed from the git-go, and we were right. The DFH are the Cassandras of our age.
The enemy has no strategic targets, no railheads for troop mobilizations, no industrial centers of armament manufacture. We can totally clobber any target so long as its big enough and doesn’t move around. We are like a man beset by hornets, flailing around with a sledge hammer.
To conduct a “war on terror” means to investigate, infiltrate, and hire snitches. It means setting up listening posts in Hamburg, Ankara, and dozens of other places. It means a struggle of shadows in a “wilderness of mirrors”. It means a subtle war of cunning and deceit. An air strike launched from an aircraft carrier is a lot of things, but subtle it ain’t. A jet lifting off laden with vengeance makes good TV, its stirs the blood lust that drove us nuts in the first place. But all too often that armament has next to no effect on our enemies, save for making their recruitment all the easier.
If we were to invest our treasure and our children sufficient to entirely control the wilderness that we call “Afghanistan”, our enemies would lose an important staging area. And that’s all. You can’t cure a cancer by firing a bullet at the tumor.
The military mindset, which McCain so entirely embodies, is worse than useless for our current crisis. After seven years of seeking vengeance, we have nothing to show for it but casualties. Isn’t it obvious, by now, that if the problem could be solved militarily then the best military in the world should be able to solve it in something less than eight years?
McCain believes in “victory”, he might as well believe in ghosts.
Answer: He hasn’t.
Looking at overall attendance:
Lincoln served three enlistments in 1932, from April 21 - July 10, with less than a week of down time. Granted, he didn’t see any fighting, but it doesn’t seem to be for lack of trying - those little militia units just kept disappearing out from under him. Nonetheless, I still think he qualifies for the “weak justification” list.
Gee, has somebody rewritten US hisrory? Old Abe musta been in good shape, if the US Army wanted him in 1932! 
Until they told him he was going to the European Theater, and he just went all to pieces…
I don’t know if anyone caught Jon Stewart’s ruthless skewering of the McCain “celeb” ad last night, but he actually asked the OP’s question. It goes by quickly (he’s got a lot of ground to cover in that opening segment), but he’s the first person I’m aware of to actually bring up the “I Know how to win wars” (without actually winning one myself, you understand) argument discussed in this thread.
It was only a flesh wound…
Time for you to join up then to fill in the breech. Good luck, soldier, keep your head down, here’s your MRE and rifle.
It’s easy for someone like you to disparage what’s going on, and you have every right to do so, and a lot of your fiery dissent is justified, but our military remains a viable and active fighting force, despite your doom and gloom.
I hate blaming members of the military for the faults of the politicians that put them where they have no choice but to go (not saying you’re doing that).
Also, you’re wrong about the Armed Services Committee. Stupid people just don’t get put on that committee, sorry.
Also, stupid people don’t get elected President either!
I don’t see RTFirefly disparaging the troops at all. I see him saying they have been trying everything they can think of, some of which is questionable in terms of security and/or effectiveness (I don’t like the idea of drawing down in Korea, those troops are there for a pretty good reason, IMO, and lowering standards while raising the enlistment age to meet quotas is just a bad idea. They have almost raised the age high enough for me to join. :dubious: ) After all of that, we are still stretched thin, with not enough troops for the missions they are asked to perform.
As for the Armed Services Committee, all you need to get on it is seniority in the Senate.
Yeah, and seniority on the Senate is given, not earned.
You’re right, I read RTF’s post incorrectly, but I feel like I have to take issue with anyone that would disparage McCain’s service or record on the armed forces.
Not that it makes him special to be President, it doesn’t. He’ll likely lose this race anyway due to the way things are playing out, but it’s no reason to slam the guy for his presumed lack of service, which there isn’t any, let alone pull a **Der Thris ** move and pretend our armed forces aren’t capable of what they are being asked to do.
They are.
If none of this applies, then apologies to** RTF**, but you come off sounding like some kind of expert on the military that really doesn’t understand it nor it’s culture.
I was going to take issue with this but then I remembered GWB wasn’t elected. 
Well, in the sense that it is given to people that are there the longest. But that is the only requirement to get on high powered committees. As noted on the U.S. Senate website:
One of the arguments trotted out about term limits is that it would mean that the senators from the states with limits would lose their powerful committee seats, with the new senators having to take potluck.
They do put less senior people on the various committees, but that is only because they need someone to fill the chairs and everyone is on multiple committees in the Senate. People with name recognition like HRC or Evan Bayh have some say about where they are seated as freshmen senators, but they are the exception.
I did mean FDR and I agree with you on the rest.
Monavis
Why on earth should I do that? There are two ways to deal with the problem of an overstretched military: (1) increase the number of troops, or (2) reduce the burdens on it.
I’ve been for option #2. Those who are fighting option #2 tooth and nail should enlist if they’re able. But they all seem to want someone else to fight our wars, even if there aren’t enough 'someone else’s to go around.
I agree that this is true, but it would be a lot easier on the men and women on the ground in various places if either there were more of them to go around, or fewer wars that they were having to fight at once.
So if you don’t think I’m blaming the military (which I’m not, possibly excepting some generals), why on earth are you injecting this BS into this discussion in the first place? It’s like, “I hate it when people make racist and sexist remarks (not saying you’re doing that).”
I gather the applies to both statements.
Good thing no one has done that. The worst has been to claim it’s not relevant.
Damn, I still can’t figure out whether this is an apology or not.
FGIE, you might try to be more careful with your reading. Nobody here is blaming the military for anything that’s gone wrong in Iraq. Nobody here is disparaging McCain’s military service. And Lord knows I’ve never claimed to be any sort of expert on the military.
OTOH, I’ve been watching the Washington merry-go-round all my life. I do know that total idiots and lunatics find their way onto each and every standing Congressional committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee is no exception.
So there’s no “X is on the Senate Armed Services Committee” ==> “X is smart” implication. Knowing that takes no expertise at all.
If John McCain really knows how to win wars, shouldn’t he feel duty-bound to let President Bush in on the secret? Now?
I rest my case.