Mark,
This is somewhat off-topic, but Time magazine is reporting the Iranians attempted to abduct some American soldiers from inside Iraq on September 7th [External Link]:
"U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on."
Do people still take Time Magazine seriously?
By the way...you're a complete lunatic, Mark. Even Dumbian sounds saner than you.
Anonymous: Thanks for the compliment--I feared I was losing my edge in my old age.
Mark
Ottawa
Carefully conceal from that Martian, however, how that same United States was bestest friends with the former leader of the country involved in one of those "hot wars," how that same United States ignored painfully direct warnings about the terrorist attack that led to one of those "hot wars," how that same United States figured one of those "hot wars" would be a "cakewalk" and over in, oh, six months tops, and how that same United States spent the next several years fabricating one flagrant falsehood after another regarding things like how one of those "hot wars" involved al-Qaeda, WMDs, yellowcake from Niger, and ... and ...
I'm sorry, I've totally lost my train of thought. Where were we going with this?
Looks like Canadian Cynic's mom knows as much about (sorry, make that "as little about") the facts surrounding the removal of Saddam as her blogging son does.
Knock me down with a feather.
“As to implementation, several commenters on an earlier post, "US ground forces tapped out", objected that it was based on a news story in the Washington Post and hence was basically liberal pap. This article appears in the Post's evil conservative twin, the Washington Times: "Is the Army headed for collapse?". It is written by a retired major general, a former commander of the Army War College.”
Mark, Ret. Gen. Scales was saying the Army was “tapped out,” 2 full years ago:
[External Link]
"We have the Army stretched to the absolute limit. Both the Army and the Marine Corps are tired beyond belief. We're beginning to see cracks in recruiting for the National Guard and the Army Reserve. And we're beginning to see bits and pieces of that in the active Army."
He was also hinting in that direction a mere 6 months after the war in Iraq started:
[External Link]
“While the stability mission in Iraq is manpower intensive the forces responsible for performing this mission form a very thin line indeed. Infantrymen bear most of the burden. Yet army and marine grunts make up less than four percent of America’s military, a force only slightly larger than the New York City Police Department.”
(Scroll down to the fourth last paragraph)
Look, there are well meaning individuals, be they military personnel or well-informed observers, who sincerely believe the Army and Marines are “broken,” and who aren’t coming at this from a partisan political angle designed to undermine the mission in Iraq or the Bush Administration.
That doesn’t mean they’re right, and that doesn’t mean that many, many others, particularly in the media, aren’t making the same claim for the expressed purpose of undermining a war and an administration they detest. I think you’re conflating the two, Mark.
I’m all for increasing the number of combat brigades in the American military. If you think that’s what most of the critics have in mind when claiming U.S. ground forces are on the verge of collapse, you’d be wrong, Mark. Their goal is to remove all troops from the fight, not augment those doing the fighting.
In the near future, assuming the critics have their way, American Army and Marine divisions will all be stateside or in peacetime style deployments overseas (with the possible exception of Afghanistan, the “good war”). Their manpower, equipment, ammunition stocks and logistical support capabilities will be replenished, just as the doomsayers advocate. It’s all so seductively simple, logical; keeping the Army at its maximum fighting capacity by keeping it from fighting.
Naturally, that’s exactly what al Qaeda and its affiliates want. Their goal is to survive until they can bring new meaning to the term “asymmetrical warfare,” by taking out an American city. And then they win, because deploying those fresh, battle ready Army and Marine combat brigades can no longer affect the outcome.
Good thing we're closing 2 bases in England.
Posted at 2007-03-31 15:05:18 [PermaLink]"Do people still take Time Magazine seriously?"
Have people ever taken Anonymous seriously?