http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspxAdjusting combat tour length doesn’t solve the problemSecretary of Defense of Gates announced Wednesday that he is extending the combat tour length for active duty U.S. Army soldiers from the standard 12 months to 15 months, with the commitment that theen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139228Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:34:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139228Eric H, austin, texasAll these so called problems go away when we get out of Iraq. Then you don't have to worry about Tours or imaginary enemies. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. Like cutting social programs to pay for Defense. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139279Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:41:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139279Tom Mulhern, Gilroy, Cal.Good piece, and we likely need to rethink our troop strength. However, nobody wants to talk about (1) how much this expansion of our forces would cost and (2) who's going to pay for it. So far, neither the President, Congress, or the Senate has had the forthrightness and guts to say to the American public, "Each of you currently owes about $1,500 apiece for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're going to put it into the budget, and you're going to have to pay for it." The other aspect is that we're relying too heavily on National Guard and Reservists, people who thought they might get called in as backups, but instead are part of the backbone of US troop strength.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139343Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:48:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139343David Bowles, Cincinnati, OH4% GDP? Maybe you better look at what that translates into in the Federal Budget. We spend an astronomical sum on defense every year. More than the next 3 nations put together. It's not the lack of money. It's the lack of boots on the ground. We spend our money not on our troops, but on high-tech gizmos to be used against other high-tech armies that we aren't in conflict with anymore. We are witnessing the failure of the high-priced techno-army in Iraq right now. The volunteer army works... sort of. What if the need arises to field 1.5 million troops? 2.5 million? 5 million? Are we going to get that many volunteers? The volunteer army was fine when it was two superpowers pointing huge arsenals of nuclear weapons at each other. The size of one's army didn't hardly even matter actually. Little does in nuclear conflagration. Now that the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, we are back to geographic hotspots, fighting against low tech forces that take manpower to subdue, not gadgets. Cut back the gadgets and you'll find plenty of money, albeit many upset contractors. As for the boots, we are probably stuck there. A draft will never fly, so it is up to the recruiters. A sobering limitation on American military power. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139367Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:51:29 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139367Jack MorrisSounds like a clear assessment of what will be needed to push through I mean protect our interests. 416 billion dollars is what tax payers have spent so far for the Iraq war. Up to 100,000 US soldiers have been wounded. 3300 are dead Up to 700,000 Iraquis have died. You're right, we need much more of this if we're going to get anything good accomplished around here. Let's win this thing!! http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139416Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:56:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139416Lwee DelaneySeems to me that we are hardly defendeng our nation of 300 million by atacking, and then losing to, nations of 25 and 30 million. But then what do I know? I lived during the 20th Century and studied the wars of the 19th Century, but I am not still living there as seems to be the case with our military thinkers and those who espouse wasting still more money on a needless military force. After all if a trained army of 200,000 can't subdue a people of 25 million with no army, what good is it? And larger numbers won't make it any better; just more expensive and thus providing even less return for the investment.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139425Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:57:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139425Brett HolstienI always get concerned when I see military personnel promoting a larger military using artifical statistics as justification. The fact is, we deploy more troops internationally than all other countries combined. Likewise, our government spends more on the military than on health care and education -combined - for the same 300 million citizens. I, for one, am tired of paying taxes to prop-up other governments, police the world and benefit people in other countries when those resources could better be used here, in the United States, and have a direct impact on our lives. The bottom line is, the United States would be safer and far-better served if we stopped interfering in the affairs of other countries. Our Constitution did not make us policemen to the world and the aggressive policies that have led to war far too often also foments the hatred of Americans around the world.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139486Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:05:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139486John, Dorchester, MA I would like to say that if we went into Afghanistan and took care of the problem there and not have invaded Iraq we would not have had such a down fall in our military. And I would like to know were in the Constitution of the United States that we go in and topple another Countries government. Our forefather's didn't spend their time in writing the Constitution of the United States to see this happen. America has lost a lot of good soldiers for a country that doesn't want us there anymore. So it's time for the Iraqi's to fend for their selves and bring back our troops. Than they will get the message that the US Military are not police officers protecting them. Once that happens then they will do something to protect themselves. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139499Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:06:36 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139499Mike, Lincoln, MTThe Colonel might rethink his positon, considering that if the US did not feel the need to meddle in the rest of the worlds private affairs, there would be no need to spend a paltry 4% of GDP on defenese. Spending less than 4% of GDP seems to work very well for the majority of the other 190+ countries on the planet that don't see the need to maintain about 750 military bases in 130+ plus countries around the world.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139503Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:07:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139503Mark CambridgeA well-thought out article. I have always agreed with that famous line, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." It is evident that during times of peace, the temptation to save money by trimming the armed forces to such unacceptably low levels as we have in place today, has proven to be a grave error. It is imperative that we spend the money to bring our military forces to acceptable levels. Asking troops and their families to endure three, four, or more tours of duty in a combat zone as fearfully hot as Iraq is simply asking too much. In the future, we will need to take a serious look at how we can make military service for today's young people a more attractive career alternative. The treatment that our fighting troops are receiving today will certainly have the opposite effect. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139512Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:08:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139512Jonathan Fribley, St. Cloud, MNWe spend more on our military than any society in history. We spend more on our military than the military spending of the entire rest of the planet combined. The problem is not that we don't spend enough on our military. The real problem is that in a world full of problems we can only think of military solutions. We cannot bomb the rest of the world into submission. Even Donald Rumsfeld thinks that with our actions we may be creating terrorists faster than we're killing them. If we are ever to "win" the broad global war we're in we're going to have to win some goodwill. Otherwise we're going to need to bomb much of the rest of the world back to the stone age. What was the most effective anti-terrorist activity of the past 4 years? Probably the tsunami aid in Indonesia. In a country of hundreds of millions of people, the perception of the US did a complete u-turn. That action denied radical Islam thousands of recruits. What we spend on the war in Iraq in one month could effectively solve the drinking water problems of the entire third world. If we did that, a crash program to guarantee that everyone in the world would have fresh water and not die of water-borne illnesses, might that win us a little goodwill? Isn't it likely that there would be literally thousands of people who would no longer describe the US as the Great Satan? Look, they're not afraid to die. We can't kill everyone that has learned to hate us unless we want to make the Holocaust look like child's play. Not saying a military isn't needed. Just saying we need some other tools. And if spending more than the rest of the world combined on our ways of killing people isn't enough, shouldn't we stop and take a look at what we're up to? http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139534Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:11:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139534ding garcia, baldwin park, caAre we the police force of the world? Or is our desire to give democracy to other countries, maintain peace outside the USA, or toppole dictatorships dictated by our economic interests.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139577Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:16:16 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139577rick rodriguez, corpus christi, TxCongressman Charlie Rangel has been clear on the problems we have with maintaining viable troop strength/numbers. He also proposed a solution....a military draft, across the board. He's right! I believe that every man in the U.S. should be required to serve....mandatory, no exceptions/deferrments. No able-bodied man should get a free ride. You don't pay-you don't play! There is, after all, an odious incongruency in having to stomach draft dodgers and cowards beating the drums of war. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139618Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:21:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139618Wayne, Los AngelesWe are either at war or we are not. You can’t have it both ways. If we are at war the tour of duty in Iraq should be “for the duration” as it was in WWII, which we won, not for 12 months (or 15) as it was in Vietnam, which we lost. Unpopular – you bet. War should be unpopular. It should be the last step you take. War has to be total commitment, or no commitment at all. Get in, or get out, but don’t try to do it without sacrifice. Anything less should be handled by the “Peacekeepers” in the blue hats. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139627Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:22:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139627Pete K., Hartford, CTLt Col Francona is exactly correct. The drawdown of the late 80's and 90's went too far. Then after 9-11 we went on a war path but did nothing to raise the troop levels. The DOD is now spending over a billion dollars on retention bonuses and I would venture to guess that they are having trouble with recruitment. We need more than an "Army of One", we need an Army of a couple million. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139684Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:28:59 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139684Lucas Sarkisian, Binghamton, New YorkThat the military is presently too small to sustain the current missions over time is obvious. The problem is that there are only so many who are both fit and willing to serve for reasons ranging from pay to patriotism. Unfortunately the low birth rate of the last 35 years compells a return to the draft. Since the average enlistee serves 6 to 7 years, you need to draft 3 people to replace one volunteer. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139736Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:33:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139736Terry NicholsExtending tour lengths, either formally or informally, have a tremendous negative effect on morale. Retention will suffer, and recruiting efforts will struggle just to keep up with the number of soldiers leaving the Army. This is a no-win situation. Telling a soldier that staying in Iraq for an additional three months will enable him to stay home for a year before his NEXT tour in Iraq is a small consolation. Too many of our troops are coming up on their thrid tour in Iraq, and many also have a tour in Afghanistan under their belts. We desperately need a bigger military, and shorter tours in combat zones, rather than longer ones.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139758Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:34:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139758Nick, Oshkosh, WIIsn't 4% of the US's GDP several times more than any other country spends on defense?http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139812Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:38:19 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139812D. Atchison, ColoradoSo, even though we spend as much money as the twenty next most spendy contries combined on our military, we can't maintain sufficient forces to control the violence in Iraq? Sounds like we've been wasting our money again. I don't it's a lack of military capacity that's the problem, the problem is that our dear leaders are clueless as to how to address the problems we face. If they keep making stupid choices the entire GNP won't be enough to support our military needs.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139817Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:38:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139817lamar ovrayYour budget math is bogus. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (i.e. are paid for through supplementary deficit spending bills). Black budget military spending is not listed as Federal spending and is also not included in published military spending figures. True US military spending is significantly higher than 4%.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139835Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:40:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139835Mark F., Seattle, WAOur military should not be asked to police a civil war in Iraq or settle a personal score for the president or secure a country's oil wealth for the vice president. Our soldiers signed up to defend our country. The administration has greatly abused that offer of service and greatly harmed our nation in the process. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139877Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:43:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139877Don Wolford, Plant City, FLAmen! Nothing can stop the US military when given mission, method -- and manpower. With authorized force levels that are reasonable, and funding enough to attract the still-surprising number of people willing to risk it all to save it all, we need not succumb to being the 21st-century's paper tiger.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139958Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:50:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139958LauraCompensation for active duty personnel needs to be more on par with that of the civilian workforce. College benefits are awesome, but active military families endure a lot of hardship living near the poverty level while risking loss of life just for the eventual benefit of a degree and mediocre medical care. Unless you're desperate or have an overwhelming sense of patriotism there is not much motivation to sign on or re-enlist.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#139962Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:50:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:139962UncleSammyThe military is broken, its time to bring them home. Or do these die-hard chickenhawks prefer to pull them out ala Saigon? Its coming, what happened in the Green Zone today is a perfect example. We military families are tired of paying the price for this repeated insanity. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140012Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:55:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140012Tom NelsonThe last thing we need is a longer tour of duty, more soldiers, guns, munitions, tanks, etc. What we need is someone in power with the insight and courage to recognize and admit that this Administration's policy of unilateralism and being the world's bully is extremely counterproductive and dangerous, not to mention corrosive to the values that once made this nation great. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140037Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:56:44 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140037Gregory Wieber, Los Angeles, CAWhile it is true that the armed forces are over-stretched, I do not believe that increasing the budget is the answer. In fact, I think it has been pointed out recently that every empire with a standing army has fallen (google: Rome). Many of us, our nation's youth, believe that the answer is not to pour more money into Iraq (although Afghanistan needs more funding), but to withdraw from the war entirely. Not everyone feels this way for the same reasons, but I for one feel that this war has if anything increased our vulnerability and stoked more flames, so to speak, with regards to increased hatred towards America around the world. More money is not the answer. Better leadership is what we need.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140063Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:59:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140063John H, Tucson AZOut of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that very few people want to join the "volunteer" military right now. There are a few people out there who are ready and willing to volunteer to fight a war, but for the most part, people with other options are going to take those other options. I don't see any way to substantially raise the number of soldiers without a dramatic improvement in military pay, which is something that is NEVER discussed.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140088Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:00:39 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140088Dan Schram, Las Vegas, NVAs a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division I totally agree and am glad to see that people are starting to see the light. I personally know members from the division who have done 3 tours and know they will be heading back soon. We can not keep up this operational pace and expect to have soldiers enter/stay in the Army. The continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have seriously endangered our other interests abroad and emboldened our normally quiet instigators (Korea and Iran). Increase the size of the Army (if we can find recruits willing to join) but we also need to increase spending for facilities and support. We need to fix this before some other country realizes that roughly 60% of our military is spread out half a world away. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140094Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:00:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140094John, California, USASince Pres. Bush and VP Cheney have decided that the U.S. will police the rest of the world, the Pentagon needs to accept this reality. Police typically get one month of vacation and work eleven months a year. The U.S. Army and USMC should get used to the idea of being deployed eleven months a year in Iraq, one month at home, then back to Iraq for another eleven months. No more one year incountry then two years resting in the states.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140104Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:01:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140104Robert Munds, Clinton IL"At the end of the Cold War, we drew our forces down to what are now unacceptable levels." This same pattern has occurred throughout the history of the United States. The citizenry isn't willing to pay for a large standing army during peace time. Congress goes along with this desire. The pressure comes in the form of reducing budget deficits. As a result, every time we get drawn into a conflict, be it the Civil War, WW I & II, etc. the same problem arises. There isn't sufficient man-power in the military for the crisis at hand. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140117Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:02:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140117Richard Simpson, Pittsburgh PAI served 6 years in the Air Force, and 2 tours in the middle east. I think our government (not us - we're not allowed to own such weapons of 'defense') spends 4% of our productivity defending the interests of oil companies and arms manufacturers. In today's world, centralizing power creates pockets for corruption to breed, and a target for our enemies. If power were decentralized, an enemy would have to simultaneously conquer, clear, and hold every square mile of property in America to defeat us. With it centralized, they just have to commandeer the command structure. Are those in control of our command structure defending American principles, or merely grasping for even more power? This is the question we need to continue to ask of our leaders. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140319Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:17:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140319Thresher, Houston, TXAh yes, nothing like a war for promotions and increased budgets. The Colonel seems to think that four percent of the GDP of the richest country in the world is not enough to defend it. The colonel makes the following assumptions: That if we were to expand the military it could be done over-night. Most of what I have read is that expect at least 24 to 36 months of lag time. The second assumes you could continue with the modern volunteer army approach without going to the draft. I suspect the next answer to the man-power shortage would be a draft. The problem is this train of thought assumes the American People want to continue with strategies that are aligned more with colonialism and imperialism rather than democracy. Our entrance was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present danger. Our current leaders have abused that lie to the American People for way to long. The hard fact is Iraq is in a Civil War between the Sunnis and Shiites. This means that Iraq is no longer a clear and present danger to the United States. It is time to withdraw. If you do not believe me look at our own civil war. The issues between the North and the South simmered for 80 years. No outside power got involved because Europe had already resolved the issues brought about by the use of slave labor. Now it is up to the Iraqis too resolve their deep religious, tribal and power issues. So Colonel, it is time for the Hardbloggers to look at how to withdraw with a minimum of casualties to the US and what is left of the “Coalition Forces”. Using your words Colonel, why are the interests of the 24 million people in Iraq being defended by an Army whose job it is to defend the 300 million of America? In the 21st century, the world is shrinking. News reach and opinions are expanding as information cost drop. In our current environment the stick is a very ineffective approach win people over. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140352Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:20:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140352A.H., Iowa City, IAThank you for this analysis. I hope that us 300 million can continue to support our troops in the field.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140362Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:20:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140362Chris, Rockville, MDLt. Col. -- This is the reason why we need to have a mandatory 2-year service agreement for men after high school -- women can serve in the Peace Corp. If every 18-19 year old had to serve a tour, I bet you anything the public support for this war would erode to the point where congress could easily cut off funding. And get a parade!http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140414Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:23:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140414Dan T. Duluth, MNOur interests seem to conflict with our reality. Most americans I speak with are looking to protect our homeland and leting others support their own intersts. Lets provide healthcare and protect our borders. Lets protect American jobs and infrastructures before putting multinational corporations and the pro-Israel lobby before our own. Signed The Peoplehttp://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140443Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:25:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140443Tom Cunningham, Janesville, WiCol. Francona: The all volunteer Army as the "best equipped and best trained" military in our history is a fiction. An Army that is reduced to recruiting felons, 42 year olds, drug abusers etc. is a hurting Army. I am a veteran of the Army that included draftees and while they were not as "tractable" as volunteers, they for the most part were an intelligent, leveling force in the service. The cohort being recruited now for service is neither our fittest or finest. WWII's soldiers were far superior. It helped that they had a mission that was worthy of their sacrifice also.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140505Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:31:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140505Jason Rhoades"Let’s be clear about our armed forces. Plain and simple, the all-volunteer force works. We have fielded the best-trained and best-equipped military in our history. At the end of the Cold War, we drew our forces down to what are now unacceptable levels. The problem is that there are not enough of them. " Having a well trained force deficient in numbers does not show our all-volunteer system is working. Lowering the standards and increasing waivers to let in previously unqualified individuals speaks exactly the opposite. Sure, we can keep jacking up recruitment and reenlistment bonuses. However, I'd imagine any country could have a well-trained undermanned force by just throwing money at potential soidiers. The fact that we have long prided ourselves on the ability to maintain an all volunteer force does not mean it always works. When you have massive needs for manpower and a less-than-popular war, sometimes you need more than volunteers. I agree that our endstrength is too small. However, I do not believe we have been hamstrung simply by caps on troops being brought into the services. That may have been the problem before, but it isn't now. People aren't knocking down the doors to come in or stay without masive cash thrown at them. That tells me force size caps aren't the real issue now.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140531Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:34:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140531Shelley, DenverWhy don't you just come out and admit what it's going to take to get the necessary numbers of Americans in uniforms to fight Bush's war? Draft may be spelled with five letters, but it's a four-letter word to the neocon warmongers who have put our very security at risk to carry out their geo-political experiment in Iraq. If they truly believe in the mission of this folly, they should have the you-know-what to own this whole mess - and that includes repairing the military they have decimated. Unfortunately, accountability isn't one of this administration's strong suits.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#140959Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:07:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:140959DataDocI disagree that we only spend 4% of our GDP on defense. It's clearly our highest spending right now, with $250-300 billion already spent or requested on this war. Does the war bring in any money? You could call it an investment in peace, but we haven't really reaped a peace dividend from this war. Seems like more folks just dislike or fear the USA.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141011Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:12:39 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141011Nick, Homewood, IllinoisWhy is it you guys keep saying that the all-volunteer military works and then, in the next breath, say that we don't have enough people to protect us? Bring back the draft. It's time every American, both male and female, demonstrated a commitment to the defence of their country. No deferrments, no exceptions. Rich or poor. Everybody gets a turn.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141019Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:13:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141019Lou Robinson, Big Cabin, OKAmen! Troop drawdowns in the 70s resulted in severe hardships for military families as well as extended overseas and sea tours for the Navy. Then, President Reagon arrived on the scene and we had a president and congress that understood the simple equation of many more people in the world demanded more military to help protect our fellow Americans at home. Now we once again refuse to admit reality demands a larger military. We just can't seem to remember that those who do not pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141054Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:16:42 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141054SF, Wayne, NJAs an Army Reservist who has not (yet) deployed there are a few (a very small number) of us who haven't. I agree with this comment completely "In effect, this formalizes the longer tour length that has been imposed on many of the soldiers who have served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan". Many of my friends have not only been involuntarily deployed (being pulled out of the IRR etc.) and then not being allowed to ETS only to then be told once in country that their tour is extended. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141176Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:28:36 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141176Nick, Homewood, IllinoisWhy is it you guys keep saying that the all-volunteer military works and then, in the next breath, say that we don't have enough people to protect us? Bring back the draft. It's time every American, both male and female, demonstrated a commitment to the defence of their country. No deferrments, no exceptions. Rich or poor. Everybody gets a turn.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141360Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:45:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141360Jessica Smith, Boise, IDI agree that our military needs to be increased, but I have two questions - 1) Where are these thousands of young people coming from, when they can get better pay, better benefits, and more time with their loved ones in civilian jobs? and 2) While we may be increasing the number of troops, what is being done to increase the training requirements? It is common knowledge, in the Army at least, that the requirements to pass Basic Training have been dropped significantly. It has been necessary to keep everyone who enters training in service merely to keep up the present number of troops. I sincerely hope we are not sacrificing quality for quantity; that will only increase the quantity of dead soldiers. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141522Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:00:35 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141522Darrel In PA Aright! Someone who recognizes that this country has been lax in its' military preparedness. I've read statistics that show we've depleted our military manpower by approximately 33% since 2001. Is this true? Can someone verify or or debunk this statistic for me? I worry every day for the safety and sanity of our soldiers overseas, especially those in combat zones. Like the old adage goes, "There's safety in numbers". I guess Mr. Rumsfield's theories about required troop numbers have been pretty much discounted, eh? I also hear stories from my neighborhood about locals who are serving in Iraq, who are not allowed to "eliminate" bomb-planting insurgents, even with them clearly in their sights, with no one else around them to be "collateral damage". Is this true, too? If so, why? I've always been of the idea that, in war, if you see an enemy doing what enemies do, you kill the sob, and be done with it. Has this changed? Just thinking out loud....... http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141589Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:06:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141589ROG, Alb, NYi worry about the next war...http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141614Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:08:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141614fredAs one of those being deployed soon for the now 15 months, I agree that this is the primary reason for the military being in the hole on troop strength. Without the numbers how are we going to defend the us? Of course I don't see a threat from iraq. With strict border control how could they get into the us? The bad thing about troop levels is like myself I am getting out. What will the numbers be when more get out because of Bush's wargames? All I see here at my duty station is new soldiers who lack the experience needed. Can't do alot without the experience to train them.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141618Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:08:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141618Copper Girl, Colorado Thank you! Finally someone who talks some sense. It's not enough troops. What exactly would Bush do if war broke out tomorrow with North Korea? We'd be up crapola creek without a prayer and a paddle! I wish this admin would wake up and smell the very stale coffee-you can't do war on the cheap and there is no such thing as a winnable war!http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141651Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:12:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141651Max, Columbus Ohio.Very nice!!! well done!!! We spend more money on the military than any other nation in the world. Yes, we need more weapons for Bush and the company to bomb other nations. Would it be better to spend some of that for our health care, education and many other thing that we need here.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141657Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:12:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141657Jim DTour length isn't the problem, you are right. The problem is sending our military on a mission that has no bearing on our national security. A mission so poorly planned and executed, no amount of money could have whitewashed the incompetence of its promoters. The original rationales for invading Iraq are exposed as the fabrications they were, and simply spending more money to cover the backsides of invasion cheerleaders won't do our nation's interests any good. The key to managing our interests is picking fights that make sense, not more fully funding debacles. We pulled out of Viet Nam and didn't see the "domino effect" all the Chicken Littles had brayed about. We can do the same thing in Iraq: declare victory and go home. Our current Chicken Littles need to step aside, and let clearer heads take over. Our problems "in today's world" are largely of our own making. Until we've begun addressing the core mistake of going into Iraq in the first place, all talk about "properly" funding the sham is mere hand-waving.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141672Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:14:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141672Dave Dougan, Spring, TexasRick, you are right on! But, need more military/ trigger pullers, not more Aircraft Carriers and F22's although we need all of that too. The volunteer Army is heads and sholders above the troops I comanded in RVN. I am amazed at their professionalism. Whatever it takes. Do it. Elect Republicans and it will happen. If the Dems win, forget it. They will spend the money on bridges to nowhere.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141694Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:15:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141694James O. H. Niermann Jr., former enlisted, Conroe TxCapable leaders offer solutions when they point out problems. How did you make it to Lt. Colonel????http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141727Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:18:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141727born_7-4Gee, wasn't it one of John Kerry's plans to increase the number of troops by 100k? I take it you supported him on that one? Bush mismanagment has put a deadline on the war, its coming sooner than that proposed by the Dems, it comes when we run out of troops. If a foreign power had done as much damage to our defences as Bush we would nuke them. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141732Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:18:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141732Greg K, Dallas TXWith an estimate by the Rand institute that put the forces required to pacify a country the size of Iraq at half a million troops, another 100,000 on over all troop strength is not going to make a significant difference. Low intensity conflicts can go on for decades, simply because the cost to equip and maintian low grade forces is nominal compared to that required by our military. The Bradley IFV which our infantry rides in costs upwards of $3,000,000. That same 3 million can equip hundreds of not thousands of low intensity fighters with rifles, RPGs and mortars., and give them mobility in pickup trucks. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141809Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:24:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141809charles holland, Sarasota, Fl.It should be more than enough, when compared to what others spend. It's how it is spent and the mission objectives that are killing us and the world.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141861Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:30:33 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141861Stephen PazianI think you're correct in saying we are in need of a larger military. As the need to increase the overall size of our forces becomes clear, it is also worth noting that John Kerry debated the Bush/Rumsfeld doctorine on exactly that point during the 2004 Presidential Campaign. The Bush doctorine, to my knowledge, has been to focus on technology in order to insure a lean high-tech Military. Kerry, by contrast, spoke that our greatest need was to increase the number armed forces recruits. While I still support Bush as the only leader with the courage to stand up to emerging threats, it pains me to say Kerry was most likely right on this point. The simple fact, as you have pointed out, is we do not have the numbers we need to respond to situations all over the world. All of the technology in the world won't save you when you don't have the people to use it. As for our overall defense spending, I agree that we need to increase it. My question is this... would the Democrats break with their traditional anti-defense stance to approve increased funding for the Military? This would be nessessary to increase our numbers and they have a long history of voting against any and all defense measures. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141922Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:36:43 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141922Tom Hurt, Miami, Fl"We spend about four percent of GDP on defense. In today’s world, that’s not enough." If we weren't fighting a war based on lies (WMD) 4% would be too much.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141929Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:37:06 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141929Albert K. Lawler Furlong PAWe would have enough soldiers if the President withdrew them from Iraq. Even if he was right and withdrawing troops there means we would have to fight terrorists here, we've got lots of police and NRA supporters who could do the job. Fewer Americans would die, and they all wouldn't be army. It would spread the risk. But the odds are that the President is wrong about them following us, as he was wrong about every other thing he said or did about Iraq, (I know, I know, he has to be right sometime) then we will all be safer.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141948Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:39:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141948Eric Novak, Mountain View, CAThe obvious alternative is to re-think our arrogant interventionist approach to foreign relations, which is clearly not working. More troops is like putting gasoline on the fire: we'd just generate more ill will, more resistance and eventually more terrorism. I'm not questioning our country's desire to "do good" on the world stage, but rather every detail of how we approach it. Ultimately, what's not working is that we think that our lifestyle and values are the best and should be shared by others who don't want them. As a side effect of that, working to maintain our lifestyle and values here at home generates repercussions as we try to make the rest of the world into our guaranteed resource suppliers and cheap manufacturing havens. Instead, if we formed our foreign relations about doing what's best for the local population by their own standards - and staying out if that isn't easily determined - we'd be far better off. We could start by working to assure the necessities of water, food, and housing as well as living wages and human rights for people by working to support them on a grass-roots basis. Imagine how far the good will we'd generate from this approach would take us, as opposed to generating armed resistance wherever we go? Force simply isn't the answer anymore, except in cases where it comes from the moral authority of agreement from a true majority of world goverments, backed by in-kind committments of each participant, instead of a fake "coalition" that is a front for our own interests.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#141949Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:39:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:141949Peggy Greensboro NCIt would not be necessary to have all these people if this country hadn't decided to engage in a war that was based on deceptions. Unless you reinstate the draft, no way are you going to get any meaningful number of new people. Who the hell in their right mind would sign up for the lunacy we have going on now? I can imagine myself thinking as a young person, "OK, first of all, the war wasn't necessary. Secondly, it was handled so incompentently that there is no salvaging it, and thirdly, when I come back they won't give me proper medical or psychological treatment. GOOD DEAL! Where do I sign?" You'd have to be pretty damn dimhttp://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142023Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:46:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142023david,baltimre,mdWhile I rarely agree with anything Francona says ,he is absolutely correct that out armed forces are way too low`.I think they should be susbstantially in excess of what even he says is the minmimum. Where I disagree witht him is that the voluntary army works.It may work in terms of the quality of the fighting force that we turn out but the intangible consequences on the american public of not having a draft have seriously harmed this country.Bush would not have been able to continue this war if the publics sons and daughters were being asked to fight it.No sane person would argue that we are not woefully understaffed militarily or that the generals in IRAQ really belive thet they can do the job with the troops we have there.The reason there is not a draft is that Bush knows he never had gotten it through and to request more troops because they are needed and then failed to obtain would have meant the necessity of with drawing. We have taken the easy way out by disbanding the draft because unfortunately most of us just dont give a damn if it doesnt have the possibility of affecting our children.That is why the politicians and generals are aginst the draft.They want the ability to fatten the defense budget and escape accountablity for the miserable way in which they have monuted this campaign in IRAQ.The troops in Iraq have not let us down but the professional military machine certainly has. Now you know why a professional military man like Francona,who has been an apologist for this war and the military's performance for a long time,asserts that the number of our armed forces is too low but doesnt advocate the obvious...a draft.He wants his toy troops without the accountability that would result when parents send their sons off to war and demand that their genrals produce or be replaced.That makes Francona uncomfortable.He should be.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142037Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:47:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142037Peter ErnstPlease tell me how you are going to get more men when you cant make the quotas now. They have lower the standards again and again.A nation of over three hundred million and we expect a force of few hundred thousand to do are fighting is pretty sad. The president says we are at war so if we are at war were are the men to fight it. I was in Vietnam and I tell you had almost a year in country when are outfit got extended. I saw one good soldier sit down on the ground and start to cry. The day after Pearl Harbor thousands of men joined up to fight. This is a joke what is happening nowhttp://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142044Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:48:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142044David Temsike, Jackson Heights, NYInstead of increasing the size of the US military, why not admit that the US adventure in Iraq is a lost cause and withdraw? Regarding your idea of increasing the size of the US military, why not withdraw American soldiers from the 170+ countries where they are stationed and cut the defense budget to the bone?http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142049Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:48:41 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142049Sam ShumateWell, Colonel, Just where are we supposed to get the men for these larger forces? Recruiting quotas don't seem to be getting filled. And we're not about to institute a draft abscent a direct threat to U.S. And for some reason, we don't accept older folks into the Guard who could do the non-combatant work, particularly at home. Some of them would surely be fit enough and willing to serve.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142098Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:53:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142098Wendy KingThe quality, not just the quantity, of potential soldiers is a huge problem. Recruiters, to meet their quotas, have signed up recruits with criminal records, less-than-stellar high school records, or who are high school dropouts. The result has been scandals like Abu Gharaib, the rape and murder of the young Iraqi girl and her family, and the staged murder of the Iraqi civilian, because the soldiers killed him when they failed to find their "target." Recruiters have often promised potential soldiers money for their college educations, enlistment bonuses, job training, and anything else to get more people to sign up. It's hard to consider the military as a potential career, and to be willing to go anywhere you're needed, when scandals, poor pay to soldiers and their families, extended tours of duty, and inadequate health care in local VA hospitals for soldiers and veterans are part of the package.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142101Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:53:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142101Daniel, San Diego, CAWhat the colonel says here is correct! And before anyone starts rambling on about President Bush and the war and spewing all their political gas…they need to take a deep breath and look at things objectively. This is NOT about politics or just about Iraq…this is about National Security. As an officer of 21 years and a Masters student of National Security Affairs, this is no easy problem. We need a bigger military (remember, we are not even engaged in several places that could go hot tomorrow) and yet ‘growing one’ is not something that happens overnight. It costs money and takes time…and it takes a spirit of service that is lacking today. As an officer, I dread the idea of taking care of belligerents forced into service by a draft…unfortunately, most of the younger generation does not have a sense of service…they are too busy with Reality TV and partying and worrying about their OWN rights, instead of the rights of others. Those of the younger generation that do put ‘service before self’ are too few and far between (God Bless everyone of them). Keep in mind, this country not only needs military personnel, but also people who are doctors and engineers and civil service types that are willing to work for next to nothing to make the lives of others better…nation building is not for the uniformed only! In fact, there are those that could argue well that nation building SHOULD not be the job of the unformed military at all. So before you are ready to knock what the Colonel says…before you are ready to start rambling on about the President and Iraq, look in the mirror!! If you see someone that has not served others and does little more than to flame the world from behind the safety of your little computer, then I might suggest your opinion does not count for much. Close your mouth and open your ears and eyes. Serve someone else (military or otherwise)…earn your right to debate. It might startle you how good it feels to be part of the solution…instead part of the problem. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142118Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:55:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142118Rusty C., Alpharetta, GAThe U.S. now has roughly half the entire world's military expenditures, even though it has only around 25% of world GDP and about 6% of world population. How sustainable is that? Look what happened to Britain and their empire; the world became too big and Britain too small to hold it together. The U.S. needs to re-examine roles and priorities. We've long stayed out of places in Africa, Central Asia, Burma and elsewhere with brutal regimes but with no oil or ability to threaten U.S. security. Trying to claim humanitarian motives (after WMD and the al-Qaeda link fell apart) in Iraq against a track record elsewhere like that rings hollow with many people. And the Bush record on diplomacy is so abysmal as to cast doubt over whether they even believe in the concept. The U.S. will need a more consistent policy that matches resources to where they're needed, as well as better relations that can build real coalitions and get other countries and multi-national forces involved.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142131Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:57:05 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142131Rob Barnes, Patterson, NYI agree with what you've said. The 15 month deployment has actually been the standard since the beginning of the war. In 2004, the 1st Armored Division thought it was heading home when it was turned around at the Kuwait border at the 12 month mark to finish out a 15 month rotation.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142208Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:04:08 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142208Victor Heacker, Canova Beach, FloridaThis is what we get when we have a bunch of Vietnam era draft dodgers with no international experience running our country. I hope like heck we get someone with real in-the- field military experience (a war/campaign or two) and some international experience (lived overseas, not went to the major cities in Europe for vacation once and can only speak English) to throw their hat in the ring to run for President in 2008 AND people have enough sense to vote for them or we as a nation are going to be up a creek even more that we are now. I will have to give Gates some credit though, he is the first one in this administration to understand that we have a seriuos problem here, but he cannot fix it all by himself. Posted by: A Vietnam Veteran, 2 combat tours, and lived in Brazil and Costa Rica for several months.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142278Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:10:38 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142278hartleyinstead of adding more people why dont we lift the rules of engagment , clear out the " bearded ones " intent on death and finish this thing up , decidley and quickly , and not worry about sending our own troops to prison for hurting an iraquis feelings my god man , lets kick butt and get home . http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142428Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:23:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142428Jeff Myhre, New York, NYIt isn't that our military spending is insufficient; the US outspends all the other major military powers combined. What we aren't doing is investing in the personnel and the tools they actually need. We buy weapons systems that would have done a great job during the Cold War, but not in this one. And above all, we need to ensure that there is a strategic reserve to respond when and where necessary -- something the Colonel rightly says we can't do.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142621Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:37:39 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142621Ed Chicago ILColonel, I agree with your premise. We do not have enough troops in uniform. I totally disagree with your statement "Plain and simple, the all-volunteer force works." Colonel, with all due respect, if it was working, we wouldn't be needing to change it. In 1940 US population was 131 million not counting the 16 million of the Philipine Territory. By 1943 the US had 5.2 million in uniform and by the end of the war in 1945 we had over 8 million. Colonel, respectfully, we now do have 300 million in this country. Fielding an amry of 8 million should not be a problem. Deploy 5 million to Iraq to disarm that country and bring stability. That would give you a force ratio of 1 to 5. Better than in Japan and Germany at the end of the war. Deploy 1 million to Afghanistan to cover the eastern border of Iran and keep the pressure on Al Queda. Let Iran know there are six million American troops on its borders and ask them to play nice. Keep 1 million troops at home in training and border security and use as a force multiplier anywhere in the world if necessary. Still keep your current 1 million troop force stationed through out the world doing whatever it is they do. When our troops are finished in Iraq, ask if the Iranians really want to play. If not then finish our job in Afghanistan and come home. Teddy Roosevelt didn't say speak softly and carry a stick just big enough to make you think you can do the job. No Colonel he didn't. It's time the politicians and the military leaders stand up and do what is right not politically convenient. Sadly it doesn’t take much intelligence to see that they are not. Does anyone actually believe you can control a population of 25 to 27 million people with 150,000 troops? That is like saying two parents with ten thousand kids in a house of 500 rooms can keep the kids from burning down the house. Are you nuts? It would be easy if all of the kids were “good kids”, but from my understanding of the situation there are quite a few delinquents in the house. We need more parents. Colonel, the house is burning, the neighbors house is smoking and you want one more parent. Colonel it is well past time we had a draft, deployed the proper amount of troops to the region and ended this conflict.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142771Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:48:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142771james brown kentucky when was the united states voted to be a police force for the world. i see no major countries with a large amounts of troops. and the death toll seems to be in the majority with american, are we along with our policy while giving large amounts of money to foriegn countries and other aids. where is all the support from the rest of the world. kinda makes you think who is in support of our country and its policies.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142777Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:49:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142777Ryan Campbell, Biddeford, MaineI am a soldier in the Army Reserve, more than likely going to be deployed in the coming months. I completely agree with your comments. My question is, why can't the marines stay for 15 months?http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142797Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:51:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142797TSgt Bob Bella Vista ARSir, Why not look even further, and Like George Catlett Marshall decide we need to get 5-7 million in the various uniforms again, to fight a World War like it is a World War. We are there. Turkey may dive in before we raise another 100,000.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142879Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:58:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142879Larry BabinMan, have you served in Iraq? Twelve months, particularly it ain't your first time, is bad enough. Fifteen? Unreal. Also, I'm a reservist who served each time in an active unit, having been "cross-levelled" into the unit. Will I go home after twelve months? Would I ever consider leaving my comrades behind three months early? You know the answer to that question. H*ll no! The problem is the tour lengths. Twelve months at a shot, twice now and possibly a third, IS the problem.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#142961Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:04:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:142961Ruth Jameson Eureka CA 95501I think that the entire issue of the privatization of Iraqi oil should be a predominate discussion. I have not heard word one about this. We have our multinational oil companies as the primary beneficiary, and why would Iraq want this? Their fields have always been under the control of the Iraqi state, and now it looks to the World that America is an aggressor Nation looking to take over the resources of another Country.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#169778Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:15:50 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:169778D MacI apologize for my ignorance, But , Really, has anyone listened to G bush lately? The man is falling to pieces because of his non-withering attitude that all he has said, and done, is righteous. To be so blind to the truth, to keep on a path of such self-destruction, not only to him, but to the USA. His total ignorance of the world about him is just so... Astounding. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#178889Wed, 02 May 2007 16:16:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:178889John Brasher, Knoxville, TNIt is amazing the still going on whether we should be there, troop build up, cost, etc. The fact of the matter is we have commited to the cause and victory must occur. People state we don't need to be policing the world and that we need to spend time at home; when issues arrive on the world's door like Darfur, everyone has a different feeling. When things get tough or cost or take a little longer to complete, people find everyway to bicker. We cannot leave this part of the world in "no man's hands". We have to finish what we have started.http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#178932Wed, 02 May 2007 16:33:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:178932Stephanie, ventura caWe have amazing potential technology in the military, our air force is one of the most advanced on the planet. But we still have soldiers calling their families from the front lines to supply them with adequate body armor. Soldiers are spending their down time in a war zone spot welding metal sheets over their wimpy little Hum-vees. The M-16 is a freaking joke compared to the AK-47, jamming every time a speck of sand gets in the slide. The com equipment is criminally outdated, with only the best of the best (special forces and such) getting the really high tech gear. I'm so glad our gov't is spending BILLIONS of $$$ on missle defense when we are fighting an enemy who makes up bombs with manure from the family donkey and waste water from the gutter. By the way, when you go to war people have to die, that is by defintion war. We have fooled ourselves into thinking we can unman the front lines. Unless you are willing to fire the missles from 100's of miles away and not care who gets hit, there will always have to be armed men willing to KILL. Here's a few ideas to get out of Iraq. 1. REALLY invade and take over the country. Put Americans in charge and KILL any one who opposes us. 2. Drop bombs until nothing is left. 3. GET OUT NOW!!!!! Since 1 and 2 are way out of the question, sounds like three is the best way to do this. I'm not some lefty liberal, I was totally supportive of the war before it became a total fiasco. Let the terrorists come over here and we can teach them all about the 2nd amendment. Semper Fihttp://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/12/138564.aspx#179244Wed, 02 May 2007 18:28:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:179244Missing my soldier , Fort Riley, KansasAs a military wife, and a school teacher I wish that the media, and the government would look at what this is doing to our families. Sure there are those of you that will read this and say "well you are in the military what do you expect??" however, the time that the government is saying that my husband will be at home is untrue. My husband has been in the states since Christmas Eve 05. That is 17 months. During that time, we have been moved, and he has gone to 3 different schools and the field -totaling 11 months gone from our family. With another deployment coming in Aug (for 15 months) we are not able to spend any quality time together as a family. This will be his 3rd tour and it is so hard to tell my children (2 and 5) that Daddy is doing good in another country or that he is helping people, due to the negative pictures displayed through the media daily. I believe there is good taking place in Iraq, and that our soldiers are helping people over there. But at what cost? And, why should we be so hell bent on helping people that won't help themselves?