Whether you
support or oppose the Bush administration's policy in
open-ended, blank check, no timetable Bush policy cannot be sustained. The
pressures on our troops, equipment, and national budget are showing signs of
cracking. The war rhetoric is like the boy with his finger in the dike. He
believes that everything is under control. Sooner or later a real threat may
emerge that stretch our military to the breaking point. The real solution is eliminating
extremist hatred of the
through diplomatic, peaceful action.
President
Bush refuses to consider any timetables for withdrawal of troops from
made that painfully clear during the past six years. However, the military will
eventually limit the Bush and next president’s ability to sustain current
levels in
The administration war planners were wrong about the “weapons of mass
destruction” premise justifying invasion of
and they are wrong about a military solution in
“The Atlantic” magazine article by James Fallows,
Unanticipated
noted late last year, “have stressed the U.S. Army to the breaking
point,” with more than a third of the Army's total “end
strength” committed in and around
and its aftermath argue strongly,” the report said, “for an
across-the-board reassessment”—that is, for an increase of
force levels.
The limitations of the military will ultimately set a
timetable that Bush refuses to consider. We find our country in an
finger in the dike and hawkish rhetoric will not change this. The sad truth is
that the Bush administration likely has enough fingers in the dike to keep it
standing until they leaves office. Then it becomes the next president’s
problem.
The next real
problem that may be faced is a threat a nuclear
attacking
So, how could the
hope to respond? I see two options: 1) reinstate the draft—not a swift response
option—or 2) respond with nuclear weapons—swift but catastrophic. Neither option solves the root problem—a
violent hatred of the
by third world extremists.
Diplomatic
and economic pressure along with expanding our world alliances has the
potential for increasing bang for the
spending is drawing resources away form domestic needs such as social security
and bridge replacement, just to name two areas. There is a real possibility
that a disaster such as the
bridge collapse will be repeated and that social security will cease to be.
Over committed
militarily throughout the world, the
where and how to use limited military force. A strong military is necessary. So
is prudent use of this strength. President Bush has been anything but prudent
in his
blunder
Copyright © 2007 Mark Holmberg. All rights reserved.