Another media myth. Even “in shambles” our military is still orders of magnitude more conventionally potent than any of the next top three militaries in the world.

One can only imagine the utter outrage from liberals if the military budget was greatly increased and another 500,000 soldiers were added to the payroll…

And yet here I am, one of those liberals advocating just that. Of course the fact that I was a soldier might influence my views.

The military is in terrible shape and it’s not just shortage of weapons.

Troops are seeing that the men in charge have no clue still and should they be unfortunate enough to be wounded the penny pinchers are more interested in reducing the cost of their care than improving it.

In standup fight no military on earth can stand up to us. But, we won’t be getting in to too many stand up foghts in the future. It will be hit and run fighters dispersed among women and children whose dead bodies will flash the evening news everytime we drop a 500 pound bomb into their midst.

It’s dirty insurgent battle that money on next generation $1 billion dollar stealth planes will do nothing to stop.

It’s already clear the Humvee needs to go the way of the carrier pidgeon and that MP’s are more important than Osprey crash-bait aircraft. But that’s not where our defense dollars are tilted, are they?

Another media myth. Even “in shambles” our military is still orders of magnitude more conventionally potent than any of the next top three militaries in the world. There is absolutely no evidence this is true with regard to America’s ability to protect itself from conventional attacks other than the sour grapes of retired generals who were passed over for promotion might spew to get some face time or what the Pentagon might say in order to pad its budget for a larger military than necessary.

And when did liberals really care about the military anyway? With each passing day their “I Support the Troops” CYA mantra wears ever thinner. How do you “support the troops” when you voted for liberals who cut and slash the military budget every chance they get, like they did seven of eight years under Bill Clinton? Where’s the “support” in that?

The capabilities of the military was severely degraded under the Clinton Administration with a string of defense budget cuts, shortages of spare parts were commonplace, military hardware upgrades were either cancelled or delayed, the uptempo deployment under Clinton was way out of proportion to the threats posed to American interests from abroad, military pay was stagnant with many soldiers’ families on food stamps, and the military was cut by 500,000 soldiers to reflect the fiscal realities the Clinton Administration imposed upon the U.S. Armed Forces.

Yes, America military assets have been strained in fighting a multi-front global war on terror. Fortunately, though leaner, the U.S. military is meaner and has the advantage of force multipliers by way of better C3 and weapons systems. I wish it wasn’t the case that some soldiers are on their second or third deployments, but clearly this is both a political and systemic problem which began in the 1990s and no amount of spin will whitewash liberals own complicity in underfunding and undersupporting the American military establishment those eight years under Bill Clinton. One can only imagine the utter outrage from liberals if the military budget was greatly increased and another 500,000 soldiers were added to the payroll: “Why are we spending all this money on warmongering when it could be spent on saving the minnow, creating another entitlement for illegal aliens or keeping polar bears from drowning!”

The aim of the Anbar Salvation Council’s militia is the defence of their local communities from invaders. The aim of the Sadr army is to sow death and destruction anywhere possible in order to overthrow the elected government.

The Mahdi army would not be dismantled if they were a true militia defending their communities from the foreign fighters. They are not the same thing and have not behaved in the same manner.

In the end, they’re too cowardly to fight for anything….

“but if Bush was smart”

Yes, indeed.

Funny, the military is in shambles, the next menace over the horizon can only be confronted by calling men up in a draft, we’re more dependent on middle east oil than ever, and it’s the Democrats who “want” to leave us at the mercy of Al Queda.

We are flat going to kick Republican a** next November, then Democrats will get to work rebuilding our military and getting us seriously in the fight against Islamic extremism.

What you ignore is the original mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom to depose Saddam’s regime was a stunning success, unless you want to argue that elements of Saddam’s old regime is still fighting the war like the eighty year old Japanese warrior still “fighting American dogs” on some backwater Pacific island. In fact the left was utterly stunned (admit it), when Saddam and what was left of his regime skeddadled out of Baghdad and went into hiding.

What hasn’t been done well is transitioning into a counter-insurgency with an eye to Iraq and Afghanistan being not only fronts on the general war on Islamic terror but also bridgeheads into both Iraq and Syria. In fact, the wrong generals President Bush has been listening to the last three years, e.g. Abizaid and Casey, are the ones who were the least pro-active by adopting a “small footprint” strategy which has proven inadequate in dealing with foreign and indigenous jihadists (i.e. “insurgents”). I can only construe your apparent glee in earlier reverses in Iraq as an indication that you don’t appreciate the seriousness of abandoning Iraq to militant Islamic fundamentalists who are actively pursuing the resubjugation of the Iraqi people. Clearly you’ve become yet another victim of the left-wing media narrative since you apparently don’t appreciate the historic gravity of what the Democratic Party is doing in undermining the war effort in Iraq with its political agenda.

The only thing the “insurgency” (i.e. the Viet Cong) in South Vietnam had going for it was the support of the regular North Vietnamese army. Other than a few thousand (ten thousand, whatever) al Qaeda terrorist, whose presence in Iraq is seriously being degraded as we write, what regular army is working in support of the “insurgency” in Iraq? Little question the Iraqi Shias were receiving technical support from Iran and the Sunnis were getting the same from Syria, but there is no Iranian or Syrian army fighting in country.

Donald Stoker makes some very valid points in his Insurgencies Rarely Win. Apparently far too many people have drawn too many wrong lessons from Vietnam, and in my view Iraq has never been a Vietnam despite the rather simplistic temptation to claim such was the case.

The closest Iraq will come to Vietnam is if America simply quits, then the Vietnam metaphor will most certainly play out. And given the 7th Century sectarian tensions in Iraq and the reputation America has garnered for being a paper tiger that betrays fledgling governments it initially supports, it would be surprising if torrents of blood aren’t spilled if we “redeploy” out of the region without American troops losing one battle in Iraq!

Hopefully systematically quelling sectarian violence both militarily and politically hasn’t come too late. In the final analysis, give America’s might and industrial bias, like any previous war we’ve fought its a question of whether the American people have the will and resolve to see its way through to the light at the end of the tunnel. But given the political divisiveness of the radical left in this country and the political cowardice of fair-weather Republicans and some conservatives, America may no longer have the corporate will to continue this battle on the frontiers of freedom in Iraq. And when the history books are written our posterity has every right to curse the cowardice of the Baby Boomer generation particularly if jihadist violence erupts on our streets and in our schools and malls because we’ve emboldened what appears to be a very ruthless and motivated enemy that has publicly expressed its clear hatred for America the last two decades.

You know, if you made that into a movie, it would rival the box office sales of “The Exorcist” and “The Omen” series combined! : )

But seriously, if you are correct in this prediction Privacy, it would be a four year stint that more than likely would finally put the nails into the coffin of the Democratic Party. This country, and you have to realize how horrifying this is for me to say, might just need a new lesson in a country run by Liberals. An excruciating lesson. You made your prediction. I’ll make mine based on yours.

If the Dems win the White House and a big majority in both the House and Senate in 2008….by the end of that four year White House term, you will see a viable 3 party system in America. The GOP, A new center/left party and the Democrats - and the Democrats will not be in the White House come 2012, they will have less than 100 seats in the House and will have maybe 15 seats in the Senate.

Of course, my prediction does all hinge on whether or not the Country can survive until 2012.

“And it would be nice to think that the White House and Congress could actually “work together” on anything with regards to the war except that too, is a game – this time played by both sides as each seeks to saddle the other with the “blame” for the delay in funding.”

I agree - it is time for both sides to be adults and work together. There are people dying and being maimed every day in Iraq and Afghanstan. It is time to stop playing these silly, childish games. It would have been nice if the Republican leadership would have been grown-ups while they were in charge for six years - to include the minority party to participate in the decision making. That didn’t happen. And that does not excuse the Democratic leadership for taking the same approach to the now minority Republicans in working together. It is also time to stop calling each other names. We are so divided as a nation - we so badly need a competent leader that will unit us once again. I don’t care if it is Republican or Democratic or Indedendent - please - just a mature, intelligent, adult person as president who can work with others. Not some frat boy who has never grown up!