http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0726/p09s02-coop.html
Enhance force levels? Look to immigrants.
The US should grant preference for visas to those willing to serve in the military.
By Kevin Ryan
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. – While in Moscow as US Defense attaché from 2001 to 2003, I received several calls from Russians with a remarkable and unexpected request. They wanted to join the United States Army.
I often think of those phone calls now as I consider the efforts our nation makes to find and recruit quality men and women into the service. Is there an opportunity out there beyond our borders that we ought to explore while recruiting the best and brightest to our nation's defense?
I would like to make the case that there is, and it could benefit our nation in a number of ways.
As our country debates a multitude of immigration issues, otherwise opposing sides seem to agree on at least one thing: There is value in recruiting immigrants into our military forces.
The president and Congress have been working with the Department of Defense since 2002 to encourage legal immigrants to join the military by promising to speed up the process for citizenship for any member of the service who completes one year of duty. In the four years since the program began, more than 25,000 immigrants in uniform have become American citizens. That's the equivalent of one of the active Army's 10 divisions being manned entirely by immigrants.
The average American may not know it, but non-US citizens have for years been accepted into our military as volunteers. The only prerequisite has been a green card demonstrating permission to reside in the US. Most of these immigrants became American citizens, having served in our nation's defense even before they received all of its benefits and rights. Instead of thinking outside the box when recruiting, let's make the box bigger and seek out these great soldiers in the numbers we need.
The US Army, which in 2005 fell 7,000 soldiers short of its recruiting goal, already has recruiters in American territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico. Why can't we expand our presence overseas to recruit foreign citizens who also possess higher educations and speak English? The idea is not as far-fetched as one might think. In an analogous effort, the Army Materiel Command stations teams around the globe to obtain new technologies to fulfill our materiel needs. The same principle can apply to satisfying our personnel requirements. We only accept the highest-grade technologies, and we would only recruit the highest-caliber people.
According to its annual Visa Office Report, the State Department issued over 5 million temporary (nonimmigrant) visas in 2005 to foreigners to come to America as businessmen, students, tourists, etc. Another 2 million requests, however, were refused.
Of those 2 million, 1.5 million applicants were refused entry not because of any crimes, illness, or undesirable behavior, but solely because they could not establish that they intended to return to their country of origin. In other words, they met our standards for being in America but couldn't prove they would only stay temporarily. Do you think we could have convinced half of 1 percent (7,000) among that 1.5 million people to come to our country and serve in our armed forces in exchange for the privilege to stay longer than temporarily? I wager we could have.
If the US Army placed one recruiting station in the capital of India, an English-speaking democracy of more than a billion people, we would have available a pool of enlistment-age adults equivalent to the entire population of the United States - more than 300 million men and women. Or, if we don't want to pay for a recruiting station in New Delhi, we could mail recruiting brochures to some of the 1 million foreign students who actually make it to America's colleges and institutes on temporary visas each year. Perhaps they would like to have their school debts paid along with guaranteed work.
Our nation historically grants preference for visas to people who bring valuable skills and talents to America. Skills that are in short supply. We should add a new category to the 27-plus preferences on the books - military recruit. The DOD could set the standards (educational, physical, linguistic, etc.) for the recruits, and Congress could authorize State and Defense officials to offer enlistment in our armed forces to up to 10,000 qualified visa applicants each year. The Army could seek out soldiers with valuable cultural and language capabilities. America could put recruiting shortages in its past, and the country would gain educated, legal, patriotic, new immigrants who, like immigrants before them, would do the work that many Americans won't - serve their country in its defense.
• Retired Brig. Gen. Kevin Ryan is a senior fellow with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He served in Air Defense and Eurasian Foreign Area assignments for over 29 years. His most recent assignment was deputy director for Army Strategy, Plans, and Policy.
Full Version: Enhance force levels? Look to immigrants
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
Dumb, really really dumb! If goin' with this idea 'caused any degree of short circuitin' background checks for immigration methinks it'd be one of the stupidest ideas ever. "Tis also not needed as 'twould seem overall manpower requirements're now bein' met, eh?
Also, if I read this right, the author apparently doesn't realize citizens of U. S. territories are American citizens. Additionally we've had military recruiters in them areas for as long as I can remember.
Bottom line? Retired Army Brigadier moves to Cambride MA and gets dumbed down! I'm a little surprised he submitted anything so dumb for print, eh? 'Tis a puzzlement!
Also, if I read this right, the author apparently doesn't realize citizens of U. S. territories are American citizens. Additionally we've had military recruiters in them areas for as long as I can remember.
Bottom line? Retired Army Brigadier moves to Cambride MA and gets dumbed down! I'm a little surprised he submitted anything so dumb for print, eh? 'Tis a puzzlement!
I served with a Marine who had been a member of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Scots Regiment or most commonly known as the Black Watch.
He had no taste for being a peacekeeper in Northern Ireland so he joined the United States Marines. I wish I'd asked him how long it took him to complete the process, that was about 25-30 years ago.
He had no taste for being a peacekeeper in Northern Ireland so he joined the United States Marines. I wish I'd asked him how long it took him to complete the process, that was about 25-30 years ago.
I posted this article because of a whispering campaign that I have been hearing around Washington D.C. to the effect that this Administration will never propose reinstitution of the draft for political reasons, and the reason why this Administration has been so gung ho on the immigration bill - including lifting the quotas and increasing new immigrants (not the provisions dealing with illegal aliens) is to encourage volunteering into the military services as a way to short cut the process, thereby obviating the need for a draft.
By the way, this isn't a novel idea. My first employer was a Nices Japanese who had been interned in a concentration camp in California during WWII. He got out of the camp by joining the Army.
By the way, this isn't a novel idea. My first employer was a Nices Japanese who had been interned in a concentration camp in California during WWII. He got out of the camp by joining the Army.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Aug 1 2006, 12:01 PM)
I posted this article because of a whispering campaign that I have been hearing around Washington D.C. to the effect that this Administration will never propose reinstitution of the draft for political reasons, and the reason why this Administration has been so gung ho on the immigration bill - including lifting the quotas and increasing new immigrants (not the provisions dealing with illegal aliens) is to encourage volunteering into the military services as a way to short cut the process, thereby obviating the need for a draft.
By the way, this isn't a novel idea. My first employer was a Nices Japanese who had been interned in a concentration camp in California during WWII. He got out of the camp by joining the Army.
By the way, this isn't a novel idea. My first employer was a Nices Japanese who had been interned in a concentration camp in California during WWII. He got out of the camp by joining the Army.
We don't need a draft Snuffy.
All these rumors about needing a draft is purely political and just to scare people.
Do the math, we have about 140,000 US troops in Iraq including reservist and the National Guard; in all the active duty Armed Forces not counting reservists and the National Guard we have a little better than one and a half million individuals.
Less than 10% of the millitary is engaged in Iraq, eh? And on top of that the the professionals in the military don't want to go back to the bad old days when there was a draft.
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 1 2006, 07:27 PM)
We don't need a draft Snuffy.
All these rumors about needing a draft is purely political and just to scare people.
Do the math, we have about 140,000 US troops in Iraq including reservist and the National Guard; in all the active duty Armed Forces not counting reservists and the National Guard we have a little better than one and a half million individuals.
Less than 10% of the millitary is engaged in Iraq, eh? And on top of that the the professionals in the military don't want to go back to the bad old days when there was a draft.
All these rumors about needing a draft is purely political and just to scare people.
Do the math, we have about 140,000 US troops in Iraq including reservist and the National Guard; in all the active duty Armed Forces not counting reservists and the National Guard we have a little better than one and a half million individuals.
Less than 10% of the millitary is engaged in Iraq, eh? And on top of that the the professionals in the military don't want to go back to the bad old days when there was a draft.
Marine - I thought we did need a draft because there is purportedly a shortage of man power in the Army which is why DOD has relied so heavily on the National Guard, the Marines, the reservists, and the policy of constantly extending their tours of duty.
Now my thought is separate and distinct on whether there should be a national draft. And actually, I have come around to believe there should be a requirement for national service by all.
I get the feeling there is a need from articles like the following:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Experts_..._team_0801.html
Experts: Not a single Army Combat team left ready to deploy
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday August 1, 2006
A group of national security experts formed by Democratic leadership has reported to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) that, "there is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy," RAW STORY has learned.
"The bottom line," the group concludes in a letter to Democratic leadership, "is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve."
The letter, as acquired by RAW STORY, follows:
#
August 1, 2006
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Democratic Leader United States House of Representatives The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid Democratic Leader United States Senate The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Leader Pelosi and Leader Reid:
We are writing to express our deep concern about the U.S. Army's current state of readiness and to urge you to take immediate action to address this urgent problem. We have recently learned that:
Two thirds of the Army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready.
There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.
The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded.
This is particularly dangerous at a time when the United States is engaged in a global effort to counter terrorism and is facing numerous crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran and North Korea. The lack of a ready strategic reserve in our Army weakens our ability to deter undesired actions by these nations, as well as our ability to respond effectively to such actions.
This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals. We called attention to this looming problem in an earlier report, "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk," January 2006, but that report was met with indifference and denial by the administration. This problem can no longer be denied.
Restoring the Army's readiness requires additional funding, but, inexplicably, the administration is underfunding the Army. It has not requested funding adequate to support the roles and missions envisioned for the Army by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, nor has it provided adequate funding to support the operational demands being placed on the Army today. Remarkably, the Office of Management and Budget recently cut the Army's request for FY06 supplemental appropriations by $4.9 Billion, undermining the Army's efforts to "get well" after substantial equipment degradation and losses in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We believe this constitutes a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.
The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable. The readiness degradation that has already occurred could lead to a downward spiral that will take years to correct unless promptly addressed. Under these conditions, it is important for the Congress to step forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities for equipping and training the Armed Services.
Therefore, we call on you to take all necessary steps to address this situation on an urgent basis, including increasing funding to restore the Army's readiness to the levels needed to safeguard this nation's interests at home and abroad. The most immediate opportunity is the FY07 defense appropriations bill that will soon come to the floor of the Senate. We urge you to offer an amendment to increase funding to address the Army's readiness shortfalls. We also suggest that the Armed Services Committees hold hearings to determine the full depth of the readiness problems already manifested in the Army and possibly looming for the Marines.
Sincerely,
William J. Perry Chair, National Security Advisory Group
Madeleine K. Albright Graham T. Allison Samuel R. Berger Ashton B. Carter Wesley K. Clark Thomas E. Donilon Michele A. Flournoy John D. Podesta Susan E. Rice John M. Shalikashvili Wendy R. Sherman Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall James B. Steinberg
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Aug 1 2006, 02:28 PM)
Marine - I thought we did need a draft because there is purportedly a shortage of man power in the Army which is why DOD has relied so heavily on the National Guard, the Marines, the reservists, and the policy of constantly extending their tours of duty.
Now my thought is separate and distinct on whether there should be a national draft. And actually, I have come around to believe there should be a requirement for national service by all.
I get the feeling there is a need from articles like the following:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Experts_..._team_0801.html
Experts: Not a single Army Combat team left ready to deploy
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday August 1, 2006
A group of national security experts formed by Democratic leadership has reported to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) that, "there is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy," RAW STORY has learned.
"The bottom line," the group concludes in a letter to Democratic leadership, "is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve."
The letter, as acquired by RAW STORY, follows:
#
August 1, 2006
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Democratic Leader United States House of Representatives The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid Democratic Leader United States Senate The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Leader Pelosi and Leader Reid:
We are writing to express our deep concern about the U.S. Army's current state of readiness and to urge you to take immediate action to address this urgent problem. We have recently learned that:
Two thirds of the Army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready.
There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.
The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded.
This is particularly dangerous at a time when the United States is engaged in a global effort to counter terrorism and is facing numerous crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran and North Korea. The lack of a ready strategic reserve in our Army weakens our ability to deter undesired actions by these nations, as well as our ability to respond effectively to such actions.
This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals. We called attention to this looming problem in an earlier report, "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk," January 2006, but that report was met with indifference and denial by the administration. This problem can no longer be denied.
Restoring the Army's readiness requires additional funding, but, inexplicably, the administration is underfunding the Army. It has not requested funding adequate to support the roles and missions envisioned for the Army by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, nor has it provided adequate funding to support the operational demands being placed on the Army today. Remarkably, the Office of Management and Budget recently cut the Army's request for FY06 supplemental appropriations by $4.9 Billion, undermining the Army's efforts to "get well" after substantial equipment degradation and losses in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We believe this constitutes a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.
The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable. The readiness degradation that has already occurred could lead to a downward spiral that will take years to correct unless promptly addressed. Under these conditions, it is important for the Congress to step forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities for equipping and training the Armed Services.
Therefore, we call on you to take all necessary steps to address this situation on an urgent basis, including increasing funding to restore the Army's readiness to the levels needed to safeguard this nation's interests at home and abroad. The most immediate opportunity is the FY07 defense appropriations bill that will soon come to the floor of the Senate. We urge you to offer an amendment to increase funding to address the Army's readiness shortfalls. We also suggest that the Armed Services Committees hold hearings to determine the full depth of the readiness problems already manifested in the Army and possibly looming for the Marines.
Sincerely,
William J. Perry Chair, National Security Advisory Group
Madeleine K. Albright Graham T. Allison Samuel R. Berger Ashton B. Carter Wesley K. Clark Thomas E. Donilon Michele A. Flournoy John D. Podesta Susan E. Rice John M. Shalikashvili Wendy R. Sherman Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall James B. Steinberg
Now my thought is separate and distinct on whether there should be a national draft. And actually, I have come around to believe there should be a requirement for national service by all.
I get the feeling there is a need from articles like the following:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Experts_..._team_0801.html
Experts: Not a single Army Combat team left ready to deploy
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday August 1, 2006
A group of national security experts formed by Democratic leadership has reported to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) that, "there is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy," RAW STORY has learned.
"The bottom line," the group concludes in a letter to Democratic leadership, "is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve."
The letter, as acquired by RAW STORY, follows:
#
August 1, 2006
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Democratic Leader United States House of Representatives The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid Democratic Leader United States Senate The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Leader Pelosi and Leader Reid:
We are writing to express our deep concern about the U.S. Army's current state of readiness and to urge you to take immediate action to address this urgent problem. We have recently learned that:
Two thirds of the Army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready.
There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.
The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded.
This is particularly dangerous at a time when the United States is engaged in a global effort to counter terrorism and is facing numerous crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran and North Korea. The lack of a ready strategic reserve in our Army weakens our ability to deter undesired actions by these nations, as well as our ability to respond effectively to such actions.
This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals. We called attention to this looming problem in an earlier report, "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk," January 2006, but that report was met with indifference and denial by the administration. This problem can no longer be denied.
Restoring the Army's readiness requires additional funding, but, inexplicably, the administration is underfunding the Army. It has not requested funding adequate to support the roles and missions envisioned for the Army by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, nor has it provided adequate funding to support the operational demands being placed on the Army today. Remarkably, the Office of Management and Budget recently cut the Army's request for FY06 supplemental appropriations by $4.9 Billion, undermining the Army's efforts to "get well" after substantial equipment degradation and losses in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We believe this constitutes a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.
The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable. The readiness degradation that has already occurred could lead to a downward spiral that will take years to correct unless promptly addressed. Under these conditions, it is important for the Congress to step forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities for equipping and training the Armed Services.
Therefore, we call on you to take all necessary steps to address this situation on an urgent basis, including increasing funding to restore the Army's readiness to the levels needed to safeguard this nation's interests at home and abroad. The most immediate opportunity is the FY07 defense appropriations bill that will soon come to the floor of the Senate. We urge you to offer an amendment to increase funding to address the Army's readiness shortfalls. We also suggest that the Armed Services Committees hold hearings to determine the full depth of the readiness problems already manifested in the Army and possibly looming for the Marines.
Sincerely,
William J. Perry Chair, National Security Advisory Group
Madeleine K. Albright Graham T. Allison Samuel R. Berger Ashton B. Carter Wesley K. Clark Thomas E. Donilon Michele A. Flournoy John D. Podesta Susan E. Rice John M. Shalikashvili Wendy R. Sherman Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall James B. Steinberg
I think we used the National Guard and the Reserves because they needed the experience only deployment would give them.
I remember every summer we'd get a load of reservist in for training and all I'll say is it's a good thing we didn't have a shooting war suddenly sprung upon us where we would have to heavily rely upon reserve units.
My opinion was with Marine Reserve units was that training was inadequate, sometimes lakadaisical, and the Marines in those units were sometimes too soft. The two weeks we worked with them was hard on the reservist.
Ill trained Marines become dead Marines.
And money doesn't have a lot to do with how hard a unit trains it's self to be ready for combat. I did a lot of my work attached to the Army and some of the Army units trained just about as hard as the Marines. Some of them took it easy.
Overall though, I believe the United States Army could take on both North Korea and Iran if it had to and kick some serious booty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060801/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary
US army 'degraded' by Iraq deployments: defense experts Tue Aug 1, 1:27 PM ET
A group of prominent US defense and national security experts sounded an alarm about the strain on US combat forces of lengthy deployments to Iraq, saying the problem has reached crisis levels.
The National Security Advisory Group, chaired by former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, alleged in a letter to top congressional Democrats that the US administration's underfunding of the army represents "a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military."
"Two-thirds of the army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready," the group wrote in their letter to lawmakers.
"There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.
The letter continued: "The bottom line is that our army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded."
Members of the group comprise a Who's Who of moderate-to-liberal political thought in the United States, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, retired Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, and retired four-star general and fomer presidential contender Wesley Clark.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
US army 'degraded' by Iraq deployments: defense experts Tue Aug 1, 1:27 PM ET
A group of prominent US defense and national security experts sounded an alarm about the strain on US combat forces of lengthy deployments to Iraq, saying the problem has reached crisis levels.
The National Security Advisory Group, chaired by former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, alleged in a letter to top congressional Democrats that the US administration's underfunding of the army represents "a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military."
"Two-thirds of the army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready," the group wrote in their letter to lawmakers.
"There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.
The letter continued: "The bottom line is that our army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded."
Members of the group comprise a Who's Who of moderate-to-liberal political thought in the United States, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, retired Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, and retired four-star general and fomer presidential contender Wesley Clark.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Aug 1 2006, 02:01 PM)
this isn't a novel idea. My first employer was a Nices Japanese who had been interned in a concentration camp in California during WWII. He got out of the camp by joining the Army.
That ain't the same! The Japanese interred durin' WWII were, for the most part, already American citizens or legal residents, eh? Methinks you're comparin' cantelopes to egg plants in your comparison.QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Aug 1 2006, 04:28 PM)
I thought we did need a draft because there is purportedly a shortage of man power in the Army which is why DOD has relied so heavily on the National Guard, the Marines, the reservists, and the policy of constantly extending their tours of duty.
Methinks the main reason for dependin' on reservists and National Guard personnel stems from the actions of the Clinton administration back 'bout 10 years ago. That's when the reorganization of the military services was taken to an extreme, cuttin' personnel strength to 'bout half of what 'twas and movin' many needed combat support functions (e.g. military police, medical and transportation units) into the reserves and/or National Guard units. Some combatant units were also moved into these reserve forces.Methinks we've addressed this overly aggressive downsizin' of the military in numerous notes in the past. Please look here for an example, eh?
Now 'twould seem 'tis a big surprise when we go into combat these forces are activated, eh? 'Tis a puzzlement!
Hmm after reading the replies here - it prompts me to direct readers to this previous post.
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...70&#entry589770
lenal
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...70&#entry589770
lenal
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.