Repeating a mistake by downsizing the Army again

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/repeating-a-mistake-by-downsizing-the-army-again/2012/01/05/gIQA8fHfdP_story.html Repeating a mistake by downsizing the Army again
By Robert H. Scales, Published: January 5, 2012







Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.

Here we go again. President Obama made the same mistake Thursday in announcing his new military strategy that virtually all of his predecessors have made since the end of World War II. He said:

“Moreover, we have to remember the lessons of history. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past — after World War II, after Vietnam — when our military was left ill-prepared for the future. As commander in chief, I will not let that happen again. Not on my watch.”


Unfortunately, Obama’s plan does exactly that. It forgets the lessons of history. Some facts: Harry Truman seeking to never repeat the costs of World War II reduced the Army from 8 million soldiers to fewer than half a million. Without the intervention of Congress, he would have eliminated the Marine Corps entirely. The result was the evisceration of both land services in Korea, a war Truman never intended to fight.

With Dwight Eisenhower came the “New Look” strategy that sought to reduce the Army and Marine Corps again to allow the creation of a nuclear delivery force built around the Strategic Air Command. Along came Vietnam, a war that Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson never wanted to fight. But by 1970 our professional Army broke apart and was replaced by a body of amateurs. The result was defeat and 58,000 dead.

After Vietnam, the Nixon administration broke the Army again. I know. I was there to see the drug addiction, murders in the barracks and chronic indiscipline, caused mainly by a dispirited noncommissioned corps that voted with its feet and left. Then came Jimmy Carter’s unique form of neglect that led to the “hollow Army” of the late ’70s, an Army that failed so miserably in its attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran.

The only exception to this very sad story was the Reagan years, when the land services received enough funding to equip and train themselves to fight so well in Operation Desert Storm. Then tragedy again as the Clinton administration reduced the ground services, intending to rely on “transformation,” a program that paid for more ships and planes by reducing the Army from 16 divisions to 10. In the George W. Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld continued a policy that sought to exploit information technology to replace the human component in war. Had it not been for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Army would have gone down to fewer than eight divisions.

So, here we go again. The Obama administration will reduce its long-service, professional land force to pay for something called “Air Sea Battle,” a strategy that seeks to buy more ships and planes in order to confront China with technology rather than people. This strategy shows a degree of a-historicism that exceeds that of any post-World War II administration. So much for remembering “the lessons of the past.”

Here’s what the lessons of the past 70 years really teach us: We cannot pick our enemies; our enemies will pick us. They will, as they have always done in the past, cede to us dominance in the air, on sea and in space because they do not have the ability to fight us there. Our enemies have observed us closely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have learned the lessons taught by Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein: America’s greatest vulnerability is dead Americans. So our future enemy will seek to fight us on the ground, where we have traditionally been poorly prepared. His objective will be to win by not losing, to kill as an end rather than as a means to an end. And we will enter the next war again tragically short of the precious resource that we have neglected for six administrations: our soldiers and Marines. Can you imagine the sheer stupidity of claiming to know that we will need more smaller special forces and not a larger force capable of handling a large enemy force both of which China and Russia represent? One does not get to choose!! The given excuse is coupled with the other claim that budget constraints force this decision. Well that to what extent it is true was engineered just to be used all along as I started pointing out years ago! Obama has five years to engineer this excuse and then go on ahead with his plan. I love being right about what the bastard will do but not the reality that he puts this nation in grave danger by succeeding with his treason! Remember this our nation downsized our military just prior to WW2 and now repeats a mistake that cost us ever so dearly in treasure and it many, many thousands more American lives lost! I predicted this was where the bambastard was heading all along and did so first months of his first term. I am not at that forum and have no great desire to say I told you so to them. Although still a member there I could easily do so but it serves no purpose. I say f-them just as I say f-Obama. They were fools just as he is a lying fool that serves as a puppet to do his masters biddings. So far when it comes to history , military and likely future actions I am lightyears ahead of most people. I was right about China too. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Not surprised one bit with the announcements today by the RINO SecDef, who is only smart enough to repeat whatever Obama, and the Democrats who HATE AMERICA want the American people to hear.

We've (I personally) have seen, and experienced this Downsizing of not only the Army, but the rest of the forces as well, several times in the last 40 years.

We all saw it with LBJ's buildup of Vietnam, only to be taken down by Nixon...then Carter.

After Reagan, and the 1st Bush re-built our strength....Clinton came along and began to destroy it again.
Doesn't anyone notice how DEMOCRAT Presidents always use the Military as the TARGETS to make cuts, instead of cutting GIMME PROGRAMS to the people who ENJOY never working for their stolen Wealth from Other Americans?????

[logroller]

The fact is Japan attacked us because we refused to trade with them, not because our forces were too weak. We'll not see a full scale war with tanks and artillery the likes of the 20th century's great wars, because the battlefield has changed.

[Jeff]

The fact is Japan attacked us because we refused to trade with them, not because our forces were too weak. We'll not see a full scale war with tanks and artillery the likes of the 20th century's great wars, because the battlefield has changed.


Log I agree the battle zone has changed no doubt but strength in numbers always works unless of course you are trying to destroy something from the inside out.

[logroller]

Log I agree the battle zone has changed no doubt but strength in numbers always works unless of course you are trying to destroy something from the inside out.
I agree there's strength in congregation, but it always works, unless...like how the USSR outnumbered our troops during the Cold War, and they collapsed. But that war of attrition had two formidable foes and our economy outperformed theirs. No one spends even close to what we do on defense; and does anyone even have the number of soldiers we do? We should be focused on economic strength, our military is ample.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The fact is Japan attacked us because we refused to trade with them, not because our forces were too weak. We'll not see a full scale war with tanks and artillery the likes of the 20th century's great wars, because the battlefield has changed. Wrong. Do you really think they attacked us
thinking they would not win!!!! Preposterous! Of course they thought they could defeat us! Which means they thought America was weak enough to attack. And they were right because our military had been so greatly cut after ww1. The proof of that was this nation had to play rapid catch up in mobilization /training of men and in building war munitions immediately after joining in the fight WW2! Sure we had cut off sending them raw materials to build their ships , planes and run their war but they knew eventually we would stop them taking foreign territory and seeking control of all of Asia . They saw us weak enough to think one single surprise attacked would win for them. An inescapable conclusion backed by historic evidence= the Pearl Harbor sneak attack. Every history book I've ever read cites how after THE Pearl Harbor attack our Navy came very close to losing and the dangerous time of that possibility was not a short one! The factor you cited pales in comparison to the biggest one= that of our downsized military.. In fact , its greatest point is our continued supply of Japan may have bought some more time but they knew they'd have to attack us eventually and their Pearl Harbor attack plans were made before we cut off supplying them. In war you do not open up another additional front, to attack another enemy that has enough might(military power) to stand a damn good chance of defeating you unless you view their military as weak enough to be defeated.. The Japs reasoned our military was weak enough to defeat. They came to that conclusion because it had been so greatly downsized. An utterly unavoidable truth. Now Obama has announced he wants al nukes destroyed and intends to never use one as President. This removed great treat to the players seeking more world power. And we see the aggressive moves I predicted coming to be a reality, both China and Russia are engaging in them now. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree there's strength in congregation, but it always works, unless...like how the USSR outnumbered our troops during the Cold War, and they collapsed. But that war of attrition had two formidable foes and our economy outperformed theirs. No one spends even close to what we do on defense; and does anyone even have the number of soldiers we do? We should be focused on economic strength, our military is ample.USSR went up against America WHICH was stronger . USSR TRIED TO OUTSPEND US ON MILITARY AND LOST THAT RACE TOO. Our might and power has been the single greatest deterrent to WW3. OUR WEAKENING BY OBAMA POLICIES AND WEAK LEADERSHIP SPURS THIS RENEWED MILTARY EXPANSION BY BOTH CHINA AND RUSSIA. Numbers of human troops will always matter until we get automated android soldiers and then it will be numbers in automated android soldiers. War is about the destruction of enemy forces, LESS FORCES EASIER DEPLETION. JUST THAT SIMPLE. As long as we do not use nukes ,numbers matter. Are we going to use nukes every time? -Tyr

[logroller]

Wrong. Do you really think they attacked us
thinking they would not win!!!! Preposterous! Of course they thought they could defeat us! Which means they thought America was weak enough to attack. And they were right because our military had been so greatly cut after ww1. The proof of that was this nation had to play rapid catch up in mobilization /training of men and in building war munitions immediately after joining in the fight WW2! Sure we had cut off sending them raw materials to build their ships , planes and run their war but they knew eventually we would stop them taking foreign territory and seeking control of all of Asia . They saw us weak enough to think one single surprise attacked would win for them. An inescapable conclusion backed by historic evidence= the Pearl Harbor sneak attack. Every history book I've ever read cites how after THE Pearl Harbor attack our Navy came very close to losing and the dangerous time of that possibility was not a short one! The factor you cited pales in comparison to the biggest one= that of our downsized military.. In fact , its greatest point is our continued supply of Japan may have bought some more time but they knew they'd have to attack us eventually and their Pearl Harbor attack plans were made before we cut off supplying them. In war you do not open up another additional front, to attack another enemy that has enough might(military power) to stand a damn good chance of defeating you unless you view their military as weak enough to be defeated.. The Japs reasoned our military was weak enough to defeat. They came to that conclusion because it had been so greatly downsized. An utterly unavoidable truth. Now Obama has announced he wants al nukes destroyed and intends to never use one as President. This removed great treat to the players seeking more world power. And we see the aggressive moves I predicted coming to be a reality, both China and Russia are engaging in them now. --Tyr
Once again your prideful arrogance overwhelms your reason. Where did I say japan thought they wouldn't win?
Your strawman is rejected. Let me know when you wish To have a sincere debate.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Once again your prideful arrogance overwhelms your reason. Where did I say japan thought they wouldn't win?
Your strawman is rejected. Let me know when you wish To have a sincere debate. I never stated you said that. I stated you said just the opposite. That surely the japs thought they could win, could defeat us and then I cited why they thought that. Anybody attempting a diversion it is you now doing so.


The fact is Japan attacked us because we refused to trade with them, not because our forces were too weak. ^^^ This is your quote. I disagreed and showed why they thought our forces too weak. And that was they had been so drastically downsized. Twas' no strawman presented. What you call prideful arrogance is actually a great knowledge of history. I am well studied in wars and generals etc. Its been my passion since about 12 years old, that's 48 years and hundreds and hundreds of books bought ,read and studied. -Tyr

[logroller]

USSR went up against America WHICH was stronger . USSR TRIED TO OUTSPEND US ON MILITARY AND LOST THAT RACE TOO. Our might and power has been the single greatest deterrent to WW3. OUR WEAKENING BY OBAMA POLICIES AND WEAK LEADERSHIP SPURS THIS RENEWED MILTARY EXPANSION BY BOTH CHINA AND RUSSIA. Numbers of human troops will always matter until we get automated android soldiers and then it will be numbers in automated android soldiers. War is about the destruction of enemy forces, LESS FORCES EASIER DEPLETION. JUST THAT SIMPLE. As long as we do not use nukes ,numbers matter. Are we going to use nukes every time? -Tyr
We haven't declared war on China, nor Russia, nor did we declare war on the Soviet Union. The facts aren't on you side so you get LOUD.

[Abbey Marie]

Speaking of so-called old fashioned fighting with troops, does China's overwhelming numbers of people worry anyone?

[CSM]

Interesting. Just to add some gasoline to the impending flamatory discussion:

1) After the attack on Pearl, the US industrial (manufacturing) might was brought to bear and able to develop and equip a formidable fighting force. What they could not equal in technology they made up for in numbers (German tanks and Japanese planes, for example). Currently, we do not have that manufacturing capability (steel industry all but gone, reliance on other countries for resources, etc) and our technological edge, whille in some ways still leading, is swiftly beginning to wear away.

2) The US economic engine is in decline (still running though) and certain nations are on the rise. China is one of those countries, for example.

3) The US is coming out of a period of decades of war. While it could be argued that the American people didn't have much stomach for recent conflicts to begin with, they have even less now. Our politicians are so wishy-washy you cannot rely on them to make a case for ANYTHING but especially for war ... even if attacked directly.

4) US foreign policy has always been somewhat complex but up until WWII it was pretty straightforward (generally speaking). It is far less straightforward these days and, in many cases, we are sending mixed signals at home and abroad as to who are allies and who are enemies.

Just a few thoughts that have an impact on what and how much we should fund.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We haven't declared war on China, nor Russia, nor did we declare war on the Soviet Union. The facts aren't on you side so you get LOUD. Stated by you as if they never fought proxy wars against us. Additionally a formal war having never been declared refutes exactly what about my views? Least you forget after WW2 we fought Chinese troops in Korea. I could also bring up the nuke deterrent that kept all parties somewhat at bay but why point out that when Obama cries for us to destroy al our nukes ? Another part of weakening our military capabilities. I await your offering to prove Japan attacked us simply for our stopping trade with them then I can go ahead and cite overwhelming evidence they planned to attack us long , long before we ever made that move. -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Can you imagine the sheer stupidity of claiming to know that we will need more smaller special forces and not a larger force capable of handling a large enemy force both of which China and Russia represent? One does not get to choose!! The given excuse is coupled with the other claim that budget constraints force this decision. Well that to what extent it is true was engineered just to be used all along as I started pointing out years ago! Obama has five years to engineer this excuse and then go on ahead with his plan. I love being right about what the bastard will do but not the reality that he puts this nation in grave danger by succeeding with his treason! Remember this our nation downsized our military just prior to WW2 and now repeats a mistake that cost us ever so dearly in treasure and it many, many thousands more American lives lost! I predicted this was where the bambastard was heading all along and did so first months of his first term. I am not at that forum and have no great desire to say I told you so to them. Although still a member there I could easily do so but it serves no purpose. I say f-them just as I say f-Obama. They were fools just as he is a lying fool that serves as a puppet to do his masters biddings. So far when it comes to history , military and likely future actions I am lightyears ahead of most people. I was right about China too. -Tyr

Hm, I could kind of see it, if he was thinking to focus more on Air/Sea, but also put focus on our Rangers, Green Berets, and Seals. You can make a lot of difference in a fight with more elite ground units, as opposed to large numbers of less-skilled troops.

However, it seems like he's just going for air and sea, but those are both easy to develop countermeasures for.

[aboutime]

The fact is Japan attacked us because we refused to trade with them, not because our forces were too weak. We'll not see a full scale war with tanks and artillery the likes of the 20th century's great wars, because the battlefield has changed.



Log. I DARE YOU TO TELL ANY OF THE NEAR 50 THOUSAND AMERICAN TROOPS NOW FIGHTING IN AFGHANISTAN...exactly HOW...that battlefield has changed.

And, while you're at it. Tell the loved-one's, family, friends, and Fellow Americans who either LOST their son, friend, brother, father, mother, sister...in that CHANGED Battlefield.

Let us know how that works out. If you have the BALLS to ask...just one of them. YOU WUSS!

[aboutime]

And, for a little more of my distrust of people like Obama, and even Log here.

If Obama, and the Democrats succeed in downsizing our military. Making us a much weaker nation while pretending we are catching up with the Technology....which is only half true.

I see Obama's plan at downsizing to be another step toward forcing FORMER members of the military...who will be downsized....into becoming OBAMA SOLDIERS....PAID soldiers that "WILL" take orders, and use their weapons against FELLOW AMERICANS who fight the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION...just prior to a possible MARTIAL LAW being implemented when AMERICANS of all stripes...take to the streets to GET RID OF THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF.

Anyone who thinks that is just another Conspiracy Theory...only needs to go back and read about WHY the Govt. has been purchasing vast amounts of AMMUNITION across the board. EVEN THE IRS.

If that sounds funny to you. It shouldn't. Your TWO VOTES FOR OBAMA are about to pay off.

[logroller]

I never stated you said that. I stated you said just the opposite. That surely the japs thought they could win, could defeat us and then I cited why they thought that. Anybody attempting a diversion it is you now doing so.


^^^ This is your quote. I disagreed and showed why they thought our forces to weak. And that was they had been so drastically downsized. Twas' no strawman presented. -Tyr
People don't seek victory over others just because they see them as weak. Did we nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese were weak? Did we fight the nazis because we thought them weak?
Nay. They were formidable opponents with strengths in some respects which exceeded our own, except the economic resources to sustain a protracted campaign of expansion / war. Japan knew this and that's why they attacked us in a sneaky way - which therefore implies that we were, indeed strong.
Perhaps fortuitously, our carrier group was out of port and the mission was unsuccessful in weakening us in an appreciable way; serving instead to spur Our resolve. Yamamoto knew this; 'twas why he spent the day depressed-- combined with a failure of the defense ministry to declare hostilities, he realized he had taken the wrong route to victory. While it maybe tempting to entertain what-ifs, the fact is that despite whatever weaknesses that we had, real or perceived, we won the war.
No doubt this was accomplished through a massive mobilization of men and resources, but such is war and we are at peace. I believe we would do well to ask ourselves whether we seek deterrence or provocation.

[DragonStryk72]

And, for a little more of my distrust of people like Obama, and even Log here.

If Obama, and the Democrats succeed in downsizing our military. Making us a much weaker nation while pretending we are catching up with the Technology....which is only half true.

I see Obama's plan at downsizing to be another step toward forcing FORMER members of the military...who will be downsized....into becoming OBAMA SOLDIERS....PAID soldiers that "WILL" take orders, and use their weapons against FELLOW AMERICANS who fight the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION...just prior to a possible MARTIAL LAW being implemented when AMERICANS of all stripes...take to the streets to GET RID OF THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF.

Anyone who thinks that is just another Conspiracy Theory...only needs to go back and read about WHY the Govt. has been purchasing vast amounts of AMMUNITION across the board. EVEN THE IRS.

If that sounds funny to you. It shouldn't. Your TWO VOTES FOR OBAMA are about to pay off.

Do not assign to malevolence, what can be written off by incompetence.

Obama has not, at any stage of his time in office, shown the slightest bit of sense of what the military is all about, and he's screwed us all too hard for anyone to pick him over the country as a whole. I refuse to believe he has spontaneously gained 100 IQ points on the subject, and is trying to make a grab for unilateral power. Even if he were, the simple point is that it would be, what, 500,000 troops versus 250,000,000? Yeah, just not thinking that's really a plan at all.

No, the reason for the downsize is more cynical than that: The ACA is more costly, and more hated than anticipated, so he's gotta cut budget, while at the same time distracting from the cluster fuck that is the ACA. He's seeing those ads roll out, of cancer patients losing their insurance and then being forced to change doctors and hospitals, and he knows his part is in big trouble in upcoming elections. He also knows he isn't getting as much traction with those 'minimum wage increases via Executive Order' decrees.

I mean, anywhere else and he pretty much has to take a shot at a Democrat spending bill, so what do you really expect is going to happen?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

People don't seek victory over others just because they see them as weak. Did we nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese were weak? Did we fight the nazis because we thought them weak?
Nay. They were formidable opponents with strengths in some respects which exceeded our own, except the economic resources to sustain a protracted campaign of expansion / war. Japan knew this and that's why they attacked us in a sneaky way - which therefore implies that we were, indeed strong.
Perhaps fortuitously, our carrier group was out of port and the mission was unsuccessful in weakening us in an appreciable way; serving instead to spur Our resolve. Yamamoto knew this; 'twas why he spent the day depressed-- combined with a failure of the defense ministry to declare hostilities, he realized he had taken the wrong route to victory. While it maybe tempting to entertain what-ifs, the fact is that despite whatever weaknesses that we had, real or perceived, we won the war.
No doubt this was accomplished through a massive mobilization of men and resources, but such is war and we are at peace. I believe we would do well to ask ourselves whether we seek deterrence or provocation.

Nobody has disputed either our winning the war or that other factors were involved in Japan's decision to attack us. I pointed out that decision was made because they determined we were weak enough to be defeated and it was! And they determined that by how badly we were weakened by the previous downsizing. Had we been much stronger they may have curtailed enough of their aggression to have not had to take us on . And that would have enabled us to defeat Germany with les lives loss in addition to not having lost lives fighting Japan. It is a simple concept . I don't get how you can not see it. Our being weak was the icing on the cake so they decided to cut it! Just that simple. -Tyr

[logroller]

USSR went up against America WHICH was stronger ....LESS FORCES EASIER DEPLETION. JUST THAT SIMPLE.
Stronger how?
The ussr had more troops than America did, and America won the Cold War. So billets don't equate to victory.
Yet the OP clearly equates strength to number. So clearly there's another component to strength than sheer numbers.


Are we going to use nukes every time? -Tyr
dunno -- I hope not...but the last time war was declared by the USA, it was settled by nuclear attack.

[logroller]

Nobody has disputed either our winning the war or that other factors were involved in Japan's decision to attack us. I pointed out that decision was made because they determined we were weak enough to be defeated and it was!
It was? I call bullshit. Show evidence that Japanese imperial leadership thought our forces were weak. I've done a fair amount of investigation and all evidence supports Japanese desperation in their imperialist endeavor. I'll grant you that in late 1941 it may have been the most opportune time to attack us, but hardly should one infer the Japanese saw us weak militarily. Nor is there an indication that they thought they could defeat us militarily.
Read the following. Its a lengthy document, but flush with evidence that disputes your simple conclusions.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB905.pdf

An excerpt:

“The Essentials for Carrying Out the Empire’s Policies,” presented a series of questions and answers, one of which was: What is the outlook in a war with Great Britain and the United States; particularly, how shall we end the war? The answer:
A war with the United States and Great Britain will be long, and will become a war of endurance. It is very difficult to predict the termination of war, and it would be well- nigh impossible to expect the surrender of the United States.

the documents date: September 6, 1941

[Jeff]

Seems others don't think down sizing is a good idea either.



As Luke Skywalker said when he got his first look at the Death Star, “I’ve got a very bad feeling about this.” AFP reports (http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-proposes-shrink-us-army-pre-wwii-level-183915098.html;_ylt=AwrTWf1X8gtTyCsAGVTQtDMD) on plans to take the U.S. Army back to pre-World War II levels – which, as you may recall, turned out to be a problem when World War II rolled around.

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/25/army-cuts-will-take-it-back-to-pre-world-war-ii-levels/

[aboutime]

People don't seek victory over others just because they see them as weak. Did we nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese were weak? Did we fight the nazis because we thought them weak?
Nay. They were formidable opponents with strengths in some respects which exceeded our own, except the economic resources to sustain a protracted campaign of expansion / war. Japan knew this and that's why they attacked us in a sneaky way - which therefore implies that we were, indeed strong.
Perhaps fortuitously, our carrier group was out of port and the mission was unsuccessful in weakening us in an appreciable way; serving instead to spur Our resolve. Yamamoto knew this; 'twas why he spent the day depressed-- combined with a failure of the defense ministry to declare hostilities, he realized he had taken the wrong route to victory. While it maybe tempting to entertain what-ifs, the fact is that despite whatever weaknesses that we had, real or perceived, we won the war.
No doubt this was accomplished through a massive mobilization of men and resources, but such is war and we are at peace. I believe we would do well to ask ourselves whether we seek deterrence or provocation.



Therein lies YOUR problem, and Obama's Log. WE ARE NOT AT PEACE.
Seems someone declared WAR on us prior to 911, and even if he's no longer with us. His efforts to destroy everything we know as American...have continued.
And...OBL depended on, and predicted that people like you would be just like you are. Pacifists, and Appeasers like Obama.

This downsizing of our military is all part of OBL's plan.

WE NEED A BIGGER BOAT.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Stronger how?
The ussr had more troops than America did, and America won the Cold War. So billets don't equate to victory.
Yet the OP clearly equates strength to number. So clearly there's another component to strength than sheer numbers.


dunno -- I hope not...but the last time war was declared by the USA, it was settled by nuclear attack. Sir, may I point out that a "cold war" does not equate to an all out war. Sheer numbers alone do not insure victory every time. However since war is about the depletion of enemy forces and capabilities having LARGER NUMBERS is a huge bonus. Even more so if those numbers are properly trained and equipped. Our military has been. Our military training/equipment and organization has been superior to either China's or Russia's for many decades !Obama is not just cutting troops but also advanced weapons programs . So we do not need to get lost on just the troop reduction aspect of his damn folly.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Seems others don't think down sizing is a good idea either.




http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/25/army-cuts-will-take-it-back-to-pre-world-war-ii-levels/
Remember we had naysayers prior to ww2. And reality proved their folly too. Dumbasses keep making the same mistake. Obama wants to scale back the prime reason our government exists-- National security. We should be looking close at the why. When he could easily cut far, far deeper into the vote buying dem give away programs. So we see party placed ahead of country as usual by dems. the bastards.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

One name keeps coming to mind. Probably not a very familiar one for those who haven't bothered to study History, and are now seemingly...Doomed to repeat it...ala Obama, and the Anti-American Democrats.

And, that one name is "Neville Chamberlain".

For those who have no idea who that is.

This is the America you asked for, voted for, and must now wonder...what happened?

[namvet]

http://i60.tinypic.com/wi4qqc.jpg