Romney: 100,000 new troops?
 

Unless he's going to import them via the guest worker program, I don't see 100,000 young Americans getting off their collective hindquarters, putting down their PlayStations, and giving up their freedoms in defense of people they'll never know. Not the "me" generation.*

I guess this means we're going to have a clone army :D



*I'm part of the me generation

I do not think that he has a serious hope of being POTUS, so IMHO, the point is moot.

TR

People didn't think Bubba from Arkansas would get elected either.

He's got a strong support net in Utah...will have to see if that net can stretch from CA to FL to ME to WA...

Unfunded mandate was the first thing to come to mind. It's wishful thinking in a naive way...like John Kerry's pledge to "double SOF"...

We need it...I hope he's got a legit plan to follow through...talk is cheap.

The way I see it, if he says 100k, budgets for 75k, and actually gets 50k then we're still 50k better off.

Same thing with Kerry's "double SOF" promise. Anyone who understands SOF realizes thats a ridiculous idea (there was a great article on how absurd the recruiting numbers to do that would be), but even if it only ended up actually adding one more SF group and one more SEAL team, the country is still that much metter off.

Numbers are meaningless without definition of the mix involved, the proper definition of national interests and a complete overhaul in the understanding of and exercise of national power in support of those correctly defined national interests. Since when has the military been the lead element in the resolution of counter-insurgency, or in keeping with the "new military doctrinal jargon of the day" irregular warfare?

Vietnam, build up, Mac's 100K, liberals and cowards demand pull out...

Iraq, build up or call up, call for 100K new troops, liberals and cowards demand pull out....

It seems, in simple terms, that our nation doesn't learn from history......

Jim

That more troops is not a substitute for strategic good sense and interagency cooperation I would think (hope) is a given...but I'm not sure I get your overall point. Are you saying that we don't need more ground forces or that talking force structure before grand strategy is putting the cart before the horse? Or both?

Another Presidential candidate promising he will make the Army stronger. Spend more money on the troops, not Fighter Jets. He forgot about increasing SF BY 210%. This is as common as news covering Anna Nichol Smith. But less likely to amount to anything:rolleyes:

Has anyone ever considered some type of Course. About six months long. That is mandatory to pass before running for president. Covering subjects like, U.S Military Capabilities and Task Organization, unclass version of course. U.S Military History , U.S Constitution. After all, they want to be in charge. Dick Morris said the Military Briefing for a new President is less then two hours. "Well Sir we have the Navy, they use Boats" "Over here we have the Air Force, they fly and have really fast....etc

Good idea, and held by the QP's at PS.com. Mandatory test at the end as well. :D

[QUOTE=x-factor]but I'm not sure I get your overall point./QUOTE]

That's okay, as I am not really up to spending the time discussing the development of national strategy and the elements of national power and just where the military in general and SF in particular fit into the complete picture you probably should not give it another thought. Chalk it up to the musings of an old man sitting around the camp fire muttering to some of his contemporaries.

[QUOTE=Jack Moroney]Vehrstehen Sie Sich, Herr Colonel. Was hat man gesagt, wenn er nicht erlebt?

Practically, the 100,000 troops can be enlisted, if the compensation is viewed as adequate, or the standards lowered enough.

By my calculations, we would not have had to raise the tour lengths in Iraq had we another 100,000 soldiers. Bear in mind that when Bush I took office, the active Army end strength stood at roughly 768,000. By the time Clinton left, it had dropped to 478,000.

More troops are expensive, as they all need housing, medical care, weapons, vehicles, retirement, etc.

TR

That forces me to recall the ridiculous Ron Silver quote from hillary's first inaugural. The Air Force did a flyover, which set him off. Then he caught himself, remarking "Hey, those are OUR planes now". :rolleyes:

"More troops are expensive, as they all need housing, medical care, weapons, vehicles, retirement, etc."

Which is why those on the left will not vote to increase the military.. they need the funds for their ever popular bigger government and redistribute the wealth programs.

Jim