interesting thing I noticed

[Cbass]

I was watching the CBC(Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) news not too long ago, and they had a brief little bit about Rumsfeld wishing for a slimmer, more efficient military. It then followed up with the reporter saying "but many in congress are grudgingly admitting that what the US needs is a much larger military".

Anybody notice any little blurbs like this in the US media yet? I didn't think much of it, but it occurs to me that this is how the US propaganda machine starts the snowball rolling, little blurbs like that.

[KustmAce]

Well of course our military needs to be bigger. After Iraq, it will certainly be smaller.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Well right now, the US Navy is downsizing while at the same time the US Amy is looking for more people. In many cases, when the Navy relieves its personnal the Army takes them in and trains them as soldiers.

Rumsfield is also looking to decrease US bases world wide. He wants the military back in the US, instead of overseas. There are a few bases already, throughout the world, getting ready to move back to CONUS (US).

As far as your propaganda machine therory, I don't think so. Rumsfield has his own vison for the US military and of course there are others who don't see it his way. Thats politics for you.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox

Rumsfield is also looking to decrease US bases world wide. He wants the military back in the US, instead of overseas. There are a few bases already, throughout the world, getting ready to move back to CONUS (US).

There are many analysts, and indeed a kind of movement within various think tank organisations suggesting otherwise.

Rather than a reduction in overseas US military bases, they predict (analysts) or advocate (think tanks) moving the US miltary footprint to the South and East. In other words, out of western Europe and into the Middle East

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by T4 Primera

There are many analysts, and indeed a kind of movement within various think tank organisations suggesting otherwise.

Rather than a reduction in overseas US military bases, they predict (analysts) or advocate (think tanks) moving the US miltary footprint to the South and East. In other words, out of western Europe and into the Middle East

Analysts or not, I'm telling you what I know first hand. In fact, my command is one the many that is up and leaving EUR and moving back to the US. Trust me, US bases overseas are uprooting themselves and heading back to CONUS.

[lazysmurff]

this cant be...rummy and i agree on something

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox

Analysts or not, I'm telling you what I know first hand. In fact, my command is one the many that is up and leaving EUR and moving back to the US. Trust me, US bases overseas are uprooting themselves and heading back to CONUS.

I don't doubt you. What I'm saying is that as bases are shut down in Western Europe, others are more likely in the South Caspian region, North Africa, and yes, even Iraq.

Discussions Continue On U.S. Military 'Footprint' in Europe
U.S. Military "Footprint" Extends to Africa
America's Empire of Bases

I cannot complete this post without making mention of the PNAC think tank. This is probably the most well connected think tank project and I believe is largely responsible for the direction things are headed.

Here is a link to the part of their website concerning their "Statement of Principles". Somewhere in the depths of the site (I'm too lazy hunt it out again at the moment) is the part about moving the military footprint south and east. Take particular note of the names at the bottom of the page.

Project for the New American Century - Statement of Principles

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

this cant be...rummy and i agree on something

Only if you consider what he is saying about removing bases and not what he isn't saying about creating new ones.

[lazysmurff]

i didnt mean anything about bases, but the simple wish for a slimmer, more effecient military.

im a quality, not quantity kinda guy

[TRD2000]

interesting.

taking over a country requires bigger guns.
holding an invaded country requires more guns. well more people anyway.

if the US is going to go on to "campaigns" in Iran, or numerous other countries that are potentially on the hit list they will be needing more troops on the ground to hold them. or they will have to kill even larger sections of the existing populations.