Military Policy Questions for Kerry Experts

[Amerpie]

1. Will the 40,000 additional troops result in an increase in the number of active duty troops currently allowed by congress?

2. If the current active duty troop ceiling isn't raised, then will Kerry's 40K deployment mean a continued overuse of National Guard and Reserve troops?

3. How many US troops is Kerry planning to leave deployed in Iraq?

4. Does Kerry plan to maintain the current operational tempo (time deployed) for active duty military troops, understanding that it is triple what it was in 1992?

[kalian]

1. They can't answer....because they don't know....

The only thing that Kerry has stated is that shrub "fucked it all up"
and that we need to "strengthen our military". Rather vague IMHO...
and no policies stated.

[sangha]

24. The Bush* campaign agrees with you

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/politics/campaign/10KERR.html

The Bush campaign attacked Mr. Kerry for criticizing the president on the war and said he offered no real plan of his own.

"Instead of showing the world and the enemies of freedom that America stands firmly behind the effort in Iraq, and is committed to victory," said Nicolle Devenish, a Bush campaign spokeswoman, in a statement. "John Kerry has made the political calculation to rail against the war on terror at every stop on the campaign trail without offering any credible alternative."

[kalian]

26. It just makes it easier for the bushitas....

since Kerry isn't 1) attacking shrub as he should be and 2) hasn't
really laid out his policies...
Oh well...it doesn't matter.

[tkmorris]

2. For the nonce....

I'll be worrying about how to get Bush out of office and Kerry in. The primaries are over for all intents and purposes so the time to worry over such things is past. Kerry is the nomineee for better or worse. Arguments over policy can wait until he takes office.

What purpose is served by asking such questions now except to weaken his chances? Or is that the point?

[Amerpie]

4. Back off

Asking policy questions is seen as weakening the man's chances? That's pathetic. I live in a military community and have a son on active duty and a younger brother in the National Guard.

For some of us this stuff is personal and not some intellectual mind-fuck.

[tkmorris]

6. Fair enough

This is no more an intellectual exercise to me than you say it is for you. These questions have been asked before though, many times over. Repeating them ad nauseum doesn't make the answers any clearer. Search the forums, you have the capability. Kerry has a website with info, look there. I am certain he has a forum as well, ask there.

I know this beyond any doubt. Your son and brother will be far better off if Kerry wins than if he doesn't. You must know this yourself.

[Amerpie]

7. Sure I do

I'm voting for Kerry as are my wife and the two kids that can vote.

I've asked these questions several times here and haven't gotten any discussion other than "Good questions".

M y questions of Kerry aren't asked because I'm having a hard time making up my mind between he and Bush. I'm just getting ready for the day after inauguration day.

[tkmorris]

32. Misunderstanding

I hope so anyway. Put it down to me having a bad day and not being clear.

I have a large number of questions regarding Kerry myself. The trouble is that I see a lot of criticism of him here, which is troubling because I think we need to remember that we MUST vote for him in any case. I have seen the evolution of some members of this board, who become so enamored of the Leftist view that they refuse to give their vote to anyone who doesn't share it.

I sympathize with them, but I think they are dangerously misguided. Failing to vote for Kerry helps Bush, plain and simple. If Bush wins, the consequences are devastating. DEVASTATING. We cannot abide a Bush nominated USSC, nor will we be able to easily erase the damage he does to foreign relations. His impact on all portions of policy will take a generation to cure, and that is assuming they can be. The United States, as we know it, may well morph into something we no longer recognize. I am not trying to be melodramatic, I really do believe this. Bush must be stopped. At any cost.

I do apologize for treating your questions in what seems such a hostile manner. They are legitimate questions. I simply don't want them to influence people to the point that they assist Bush getting re-elected. We can't afford that and whether they know it or not, neither can they.

[kalian]

8. Please, DO explain to the other poster....

how voting for Kerry would be "better" for the military members of
his family.
Will they be brought home? Will Kerry stop invading countries?
Will Kerry start REVERSING shrub's actions? :shrug:

Please, DO explain.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. OK, you think we shouldn't for Kerry. What SHOULD we do?

What action are you proposing?

Please, DO explain.

[kalian]

13. Sigh....

I knew it would come to this... Counter a question with another
question. You have no answers yet you expect answers from the
undecided.

I'll try to put on the blindfold again and follow the crowd... :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Sigh ...

I'm asking you what you are in favor of. What you think people should do as American citizens and voters. In another subthread I am talking in detail about the issues -- to someone who is actually discussing those issues.




If you want to pretend I want you in a blindfold that's your choice, no matter how misguided.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. I think your command to the other poster to 'Back off' is presumptuous.

Calling them 'pathetic' - even more so.

For some of us this stuff is personal

This is not the place to get involved in personal discussions and insults.

[kalian]

14. We're just suppossed to COMPLY...is that it?

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. No, you are supposed to discuss on a discussion board

not tell people to 'Back off'

[kalian]

18. I don't think that the poster was not discussing....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. So if I say to you - 'Back off'

that's just my way of encouraging discussion?

[tkmorris]

31. More than willing to discuss

Kalian I have read many of your posts and I agree with much that you say. I have responded to them at times in support though I imagine you didn't notice since you are all over me here.

But really, what's to discuss here? If you believe that Kerry could possibly be as bad as Bush for the military members, please state that, right now. I don't. Do I LIKE Kerry? No, I don't. When the primary rolled around here, I voted for Kucinich. That ought to tell you where I am coming from. Nonetheless, the choice in November WILL be between Kerry and Bush. Put Kerry against Bob Dole and I might think about a third party vote. Put him against Bush and it's a no-brainer.

There are a number of reasons for this. If you want to speak of what Kerry would do in Iraq, fine. I am discouraged by Kerry's apparent desire to "go the distance" in Iraq, but I do think he would handle it better than Bush has. Our current aggresive stance vis a vis Fallujah and Sadr for example. I think that Kerry would be far less aggressive and more diplomatic.

In domestic matters there are clear differences that I certainly hope don't need to be explained. One thing I do think needs pointing out though is that whoever is president circa 2005-2009, they WILL be appointing new Supreme Court justices. The possible Bush nominees give me nightmares. Kerry would nominate far better people, and this is vitally important. It is interesting to note that a Leftist in this time frame could not possibly get like-minded appointees past Congress. If DK were to somehow be president there is NO WAY IN HELL he'd ever get people who shared his ideological boat onto the USSC. Kerry however, could get moderate leftists on the bench. The White House is ephemeral, the USSC is a more lasting and important critter. If for only this reason alone, Bush MUST be evicted from the White House.

I could go on but I won't. I don't need to, you are an intelligent person and easily see where I am coming from. I am not fond of Kerry, but Bush must go and being critical of Kerry at this point in time is not particularly helpful in that regard. Let's focus on the true enemy for now, and only after focus on our principle. Let not the good be the enemy of the perfect.

[Amerpie]

21. I don't mind explaining

His post insinuated that I was working against Kerry. That's not true. Asking the man to explain his postions is not working towards his defeat.

Also, I do think that it is pathetic when asking for an explanation of a candidate's policy positions is seen as wrong.

Finally, the election is real for me in that it involves the life and future of my only son. I can't pretend otherwise.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Well

1. I think that is the whole point isn't it? That's what Kerry is proposing.

2. see 1

3. Kerry will have to make the right choices based on the situation when he takes office. So without the ability to know the future, this question can't be answered.

4. That sounds like a military question, the tempo determined by the military in response to Bushs failed policies. Given Kerry's long support of military personnel in and out of uniform, this is just the kind of misuse of the military Kerry wants to stop.

[Amerpie]

5. Clarification

1. Can you post a source for that? I have seen nothing that says the newly deployed troops will be active duty types. Where in the US do we have an additional 40,000 active duty types left to deploy?

2. Ok, so how long will it take to train and deploy 5.5 new combat brigades?

3. He's already said that he sees the Iraq deployment lasting until the end of the decade.

4. Operational tempo is decided by the fact that we have troops in 120 countries. Sorry, Bush didn't invent that particular imperialistic mindset.

[kalian]

9. On point 4....

BOTH parties are at fault. Too bad nothing will change....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. OK

1. "And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade." http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000.

That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16969-2004Feb29.html

2. I have no idea how long it takes to train recruits. What is the point of this followup question?

3. Can you post a source for that?

4. I'm glad you agree with me that this is a military issue decided by the military in response to the policy decisions of the civilian leadership. And I would submit that anyone who doesn't see a world of difference between Bush and Kerry's policies is either ignorant or certifiably insane.

[Amerpie]

22. This is why I started this discussion

1. Ok, there will be an increase in teh number of active duty troops allowed by congress. I hope that the budget-meisters don't use the excuse of "added expenses" to continue the nickle and diming of our troops, denying them pay raises and benefits because of the new troop level.

2. I don't know how long it will take to staff these brigades, but i suspect that it will not be overnight.

3. My mistake. He said that he sees the 40,000 additional troops will be retained until the end of the decade. I suppose their is a small difference there. But, when Kerry decides to downsize the militray again, it will be just as painful for our soldiers as it is from workers laid off because of NAFTA.

4. Yes, US imperialism is a function of government and not the military. I've not said that Bush and Kerry are twins. I just hope that Kerry decreases our imperialistic tendencies.

[waldenx]

16. Kerry doesn't even know

he has to figure out which way the political wind is blowing before he decides which socks to wear.
Strategically, adding 40k troops is horseshit...will only anger IRaqis and kill more Americans.
Kerry learned NOTHING from Vietnam.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Aside from your rabid anti-Kerry smears, it is also simply false

to imply that Kerry is talking about sending an additional 40k troops to Iraq. As I show above.

[waldenx]

28. I never smear Kerry

I want him to be different than Bush, have a plan, and represent us.
It isn't going to happen if we all have a circle jerk and reward his pathetic failures like the GOP has done with their "anyone but gore" candidate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. it it against the rules for me to call you a liar but that doesn't

mean you are telling the truth.

[nonkultur]

23. Kerry on national service

Today, I propose not only to build on that tradition, but to go beyond it because today, our challenges are different and our commitment must be even greater. We need a new era of service not an effort for one time, one purpose, or one group but a permanent and national endeavor. For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship."

From:"A New Era of National Service." Manchester, New Hampshire. May 19, 2003. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0519.html

John Kerry Outlines Plan to Require Service for High School Students

Part of 100 days Plan to Enlist One Million Americans in National Service A Year

On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation.

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.
From:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

[kalian]

27. Sounds like the idiotic proposal made by shrub...

but I guess since Kerry has a similar idea, its "OK", right? :eyes:
The "Citizen Corps" by any other name is still the same shit.

[SpartacusSC]

25. I love these threads......

What's Kerry's plan? I would imagine that it involves actually building international support for the multilateral stabilization of Iraq and phased withdrawal of US troops. (Just a guess, but an educated one, since the current admin. is now co-opting the plan offered by Kerry (freeperlikelinks.com googled support available on request, but for now I'll stay with stream of consciousness)).

Here is the bigger question: who has a better plan?

Bush, Rice and Rummy? It was their "plan" that got us into the quagmire in the first place. And their "plans" for the future shift with the winds (like the date for transfer of governance). I hope that their new found love of the UN and multilateral approaches to international conflict works, in spite of their past efforts to undermine these approaches.

Nader and/or Dem. primary losers? Post the details if there are any, but the closest I've seen to concrete alternative proposals is unilateral withdrawal (details unspecified), which in practice would have to be phased lest we compound our mistake by allowing chaos full reign. In principle this sounds alot like Kerry to me - with less rhetorical drama. ;) If there are details there that I'm missing, I could be convinced that Kerry's approach is too slow and too accepting of the status quo on the ground.

In the meantime, I'll go with Kerry.

[nomatrix]

30. Read Chalmers Johnson book

Sorrows of the Empire.

The USA spends more on military and intelligence funding in 2004 than it has spent at any one time in history. Fourteen carrier groups to defeat the two remaining countries of the axis of evil, N. Korea and Iran? 750 and counting military bases outside the USA? However, the government tells us it is powerless to defend the country against an attack from a terrorist group with WMD?

Right now we don't have enough military (not guard units) in Iraq according to reliable commanders. The whole situation has changed this past week. Any plan that Kerry would come up with will have to be based on what Bush does in the next few weeks/months. It is way too volitile.

These are questions can't really be answered or speculated on, especially with so much unrest.