Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (251802)	5/27/2008 3:06:56 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793991

I believe it is not inconsequential that Iran is flanked on two sides and I really want your opinion. I believe that has been a significant part of the Bush strategy from the outset. If you want to really understand our global military strategy you must study the geography beyond the immediate battlefields and the positioning of forces there. Our position in Iraq neatly separates Iran and Syria. Israel in the SW helps close the loop on Syria. Our troops in Afghanistan, coupled with the ring of new American military bases being established in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan help close the western and northern loop by further encircling both Iran and Turkmenistan. Those bases also become a barrier to any reinforcing moves by Russian military moving south through or already stationed in Kazakhstan. Afghan and India neatly encircle Pakistan. Th strategy seems sound enough except for one critical shortage. The compelling question in my mind is who is and will be with us on these battlefields? Our Congress is still willing to throw $ billions at anything related to the military that makes congress look good (by making uninformed Americans feel good) except what we really need, and that is more troops. With our military already stretched to the max, I see our new AFRICOM venture as too much too soon, and a potential policy failure. At minimum it becomes a very expensive liability at a time when battlefield operational funds are squeezed. And I mean really squeezed. Everything in our military is based on slots. Slots = money, men and equipment. All growth is controlled by slot allocations. We could free up a lot of military slots, perhaps more than 25,000, by taking down USSOCOM and making US Special Forces a major Command (MACOM). We could free up a lot of money for more troops by cutting DOD civilian employees from 700,000 to 350,000. If Muslim militant extremists get nukes, everything changes and all bets are off the table.