Wednesday, November 18, 2015


Under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, the U.S. Military was built into, possibly, the finest force, in history, to basically, prevent a Blitzkrieg like invasion from an overrunning our allies, to allow time for them to mobilize.  

The invasion of Iraq, under George W. Bush,  changed the purpose of that force.  Shock and awe, designed to stop an invading force, was, instead used to actually invade and occupy a country, and, in effect, took a finely honed sword and used it as a meat cleaver.

We may never know the full extent of  the damage that had been done to our armed forces, but, nevertheless, damage has been done. Obama inherited a wounded military that was unlike the military that  George W. Bush had inherited from his father and Clinton.

Obama's reluctance to putting boots on the ground in Syria may stem more from his judgement as to the need for time to regroup than any thing else. 

1 comment:

  1. The numbers of innocents killed and still being killed is the best measure of the Iraq incursion's failures. I believe that Bernie Sanders was correct in stating that regime change due to United States actions and incursions around the world has caused an immense number of deaths of innocents and has resulted in an immense number of refugees. Ironic that the GOP wants to bully Putin, leader of one of the largest nuclear powers in the world, yet is afraid of child refugees from Syria.

    Those same GOP Republicans preach of wanting to build our military fleet of ships, tanks, and other large items of weaponry. How, exactly, is that going to help us fight small terrorist cells forming in cities around the world? Are we going to bomb cities of innocents in order to kill a dozen terrorists? Our previous actions, such as those you've mentioned, have caused a problem that we have yet to solve.