AP: General says bigger U.S. US. Army will cost $70 billion (€53.6 billion)

Full article: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Army-Troop-Strength.php

And if yet another conflict were to develop before the force can be bolstered,
it would take longer to fight and cost more American casualties than otherwise
might be expected, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, a deputy chief of staff.

war machine. We have better things to spend our money on.

The military already has so much of the pie-chart slice of the U.S. government, but they need more? The people who lost their homes because of Katrina need more, too. So do the homeless. So do sick people. So do the many minimum wage workers who work multiple-part time jobs just to keep their bills paid.

in the Military Industrial Complex up to their corporate eyeballs. :wow:

Why won't us peasants understand, that our politico-corporate elites must have continuous war to test all their war toy bombs and jets and armaments, etc. etc?

If we had diplomacy and PEACE-MAKING, there would be not BIG PROFITS for the ruling politicos who run our country! :puke:

it's magnificent infrastructure, comprehensive safety net and universal health care, it would be the height of ingratitude to begrudge a few more billions to those who so successfully protected das Homeland on 9/11.

In the words of the old anthem America, "Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears."

When will our legislators stand up and say NO?!?

WOW its great here isn't it.

DOD's missing 2 trillion, when you find it.

The US Army has been an institution that the dictatorship of the super rich hasn't been able to break down to this point. God knows they've tried. The neo-cons, with Rumsfeld at the lead, have gone out of their way to disable it because as conservative as Army traditions are, the leadership and much of the officer and NCO corps believe in their oath to the Constitution. The public statements of the leadership, the grumbling in the ranks, and the outspoken criticism of retired officers have damaged Bush irretrievabley. Losing a war, of course, causes irretrievable political damage, this is the domestic basis for escalating and expanding war in the mideast.

Opposition to senseless war for war's sake, as a method to break down democratic institutions and enable the exploitation of government for the benefit of a small cadre of lying, corrupt, greedy fat cats, who give a shit less about the Constitution, can emerge from the Army as a large and powerful institution during wartime.

In his cynical war of political and financial opportunism, Bush has been running through the military leadership of the Army trying to find an obedient dog. Now in his desperation, he's going to try buying them off.

the leadership and much of the officer and NCO corps believe in their oath to the Constitution."

In these times (or any) there's not a thank-you big enough for that.

Lifers love this. Allocations for promotion galore.

...who got promoted too early because somebody had to be the platoon sergeant, first sergeant, or sergeant major in these new units. Real good.

This really shouldn't be news but apparently some Generals just figured it out.

Iraq leaves US army, marines unready for high intensity war: generals by Jim Mannion
Wed Jan 24, 7:06 PM ET


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly four years in Iraq have hammered US army and marines into a skilled counter-insurgency force but has left it unready for war against a conventionally armed foe, US generals warn.

Arguing for big budget increases and more troops, leaders of both military services have made the case in recent days that the US military faces greater risk today if it is called to respond to another major conflict.

"What we are developing right now is the best counterinsurgency force in the world, both army and marine," General James Conway, commandant of the marine corps, told lawmakers Tuesday.

But "that's essentially what they're focused on," Conway added, because troops have little time to train for anything else between tours to Iraq.

"So we need to be able to train toward other major contingency types of operations, and we're just not doing it right now," he said.

General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff, echoed Conway's concerns at hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.

"I have no concerns about how we are equipping, training and manning the forces that are going across the berm into harm's way. But I do have continued concerns about the strategic depth of our Army and its readiness," he said.

Lieutenant General Stephen Speakes, an army deputy chief of staff, told defense reporters this week none of the army's combat brigades are rated as ready for high intensity conflict.

"If you take a look at the forces not deployed to combat, whether they are active guard or reserve, they have substantial equipping shortfalls, and also some issues with training and manning," he said.

"What that means then is they are not optimized to be ready to fight a high-intensity conflict," he said.

<<more>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070125/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary_070125000637

Oh?

Namely, "if someone shoots at you, blast the f*ck out of the surrounding
buildings until they stop".

General James Conway, commandant of the marine corps, seems to believe
that this is "skilled".

In the civilised parts of the world, this is called "war-crimes".

Like War Criminal Yamashita who was stretched by the neck until dead

somebody that could "fight back".

... that an air force has planes to bomb civilians whereas
a terrorist has to deliver the bomb by hand.

But will their armaments include depleted uranium?

The biggest lie of all was when the Bushistas scared the heck out of everyone with visions of mushroom clouds... and never mentioned that we can hide that calling card and still drop devastating nuclear waste on the heads of any 'enemy' we choose. Talk about psychological projection.

Anyone who still buys the 'depleted' misnomer in depleted uranium either hasn't done the homework or is willfully ignoring reality. An armed force that uses such weapons as a matter of course without considering the health of future generations, much less its own troops, is so far beyond diplomacy, not to mention reality, it's horrifying.

Why won't us peasants understand, that our politico-corporate elites must have continuous war to test all their war toy bombs and jets and armaments, etc. etc?

If we had diplomacy and PEACE-MAKING, there would be not BIG PROFITS for the ruling politicos who run our country!
- ShortnFiery

Agreed! Thank you. I'm embarrassed I can't remember who said it, but: at the end of every war, representatives have to sit down at the table and write a peace treaty. Then they sign it. Skip the war, write the treaty and sign the damned thing. If it's a good treaty, it usually involves not letting anyone get screwed over.

Honor it. Done.

Oh, wait. There's no under the table money in that... :eyes:

they spend and waste like there's no tomorrow and then they want even more.

... such as education, health care, housing... dumb things like that.

:sarcasm: