[eastbay]

... something to think about...

During the height of the VN War the USA had around 550,000 troops on the ground in VN and another few hundred thousand on ships and bases nearby plus, another 300,000 or so troops in Germany. And a few etns of thousands stationed here and there around the world.

Today the USA has 158,000 troops in Iraq and a few tens of thousands here and there stationed around the world. That's it. Back in 1969 the USA with around 175 million people and had little logistical and fiscal difficulty fielding over 1 million troops overseas.

Now the US has 300 million people and can barely field a hundred fifty thousand troops in a dirt-poor dump like Iraq (without winning) while threatening the national budget by burning through a billion dollars every couple of days.

Why is it that 35 years ago the US could field such a huge military and today a far smaller number of troops has the US seemingly stretched to its limit?

Maybe we're all just lucky.

[Specop_007]

Technology costs money. Our troops today are better trained and better equipped then at any other point in history.

[eastbay]

Yeah, Spec, everyone realizes that... and in 1969 the same was true.

But listen, today the most sophisticated and advanced army in the world armed with the latest technologies and gizmo's is throwing practically everything it has (oh, of course if it was a real military emergency instead of a fake like this one another few hundred thousand troops could be mustered in a draft) at it and can't seem to get a handle on a third-world dump of 25 million people!

That's what seems so fascinating and interesting to me... and to many.

[UIUCstudent01]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'T')echnology costs money. Our troops today are better trained and better equipped then at any other point in history.

[Lokutus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '.').. something to think about...

During the height of the VN War the USA had around 550,000 troops on the ground in VN

[Leanan]

Exactly. Heck, the reason we no longer have a draft is Vietnam.

There would be a lot more opposition to the Iraq war now if there were a draft.

[eastbay]

Yeah, but even if there was a draft imagine the huge cost of fielding such a conscript army today. The military occupation of Iraq is costing a few billion per week... imaging quadrupling the size while doubling or tripling the scope of foreign military occupation's. And imagine such an operation in a country where the resistance is better organized.

No, I think the sun is slowly setting on the foreign projection of US military might. Thank goodness.

[Leanan]

I don't think we could have succeeded in Vietnam, no matter how many troops we sent over there.

And I don't think we can succeed in Iraq, either. No army has succeeded against a nationalist resistance in modern times. Our chances were slim to begin with, and none once we allowed that looting.

The thing that ticks me off is that they knew it was likely to go this way. At least, the State Dept. and the military did. The White House was in fantasyland.

While Wolfie was crowing in Vanity Fair about how lying to get us into war was okay since it worked out so well, generals and other students of military history were warning that Iraq's sudden collapse was a bad sign. The worse the war is, the more successful the occupation is likely to be. And vice-versa. You want your enemy to be well and truly beaten. Instead, the Iraqi army just melted away. They were not beaten; they just stopped fighting. That was a huge danger signal for the occupation. But completely ignored by the Pentagon.

[PrairieMule]

If I remember correctly the Clinton Administration's mandate was to shrink military spending troop strength. I can remember in college post 1992 several of my friends describing how tough it was getting a officer's commision after going through years of ROTC. The military, Like the Economy is inherited from the previous administration. It would be interesting to see what the Troop strenght was in 1990, 1993, and 2000.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f I remember correctly the Clinton Administration's mandate was to shrink military spending troop strength. I can remember in college post 1992 several of my friends describing how tough it was getting a officer's commision after going through years of ROTC.

[elroy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrairieMule', 'I')f I remember correctly the Clinton Administration's mandate was to shrink military spending troop strength. I can remember in college post 1992 several of my friends describing how tough it was getting a officer's commision after going through years of ROTC. The military, Like the Economy is inherited from the previous administration. It would be interesting to see what the Troop strenght was in 1990, 1993, and 2000.

[Schneider]

Well..the main reason why the US could have so much soldiers was they could afford it !?

Back in 1969,the US had a huge income from Oil and could provide for much of the fuel..

Take the USSR..very few years after they peaked,their economy collapsed !


Schneider
French-Canada