Losing the Next War


Imagine a situation where American troops are sent to fight an enemy in insufficient numbers, with obsolescent equipment (and not enough of it) and are thrown into battle against a ruthless, well-equipped and utterly dedicated enemy. Now imagine that the United States, as a whole, has an army that has but one full-strength combat division on the other side of the world from where this battle is taking place, a navy with just 27 ships of all types in place to support the troops ashore, and a Marine Corps with just 12,000 men available for deployment.

This is historical fact. In June 1950, when the Korean War broke out, the United States faced precisely this situation. Of the 14 divisions of the U.S. Army, only the single division in Europe was up to full strength. The others, including the four divisions in Japan that were sent to Korea, had infantry regiments with two rather than the usual three battalions and artillery battalions with two rather than three batteries, for a total of 70 percent of authorized strength. The Japan-based divisions lacked 62 percent of their infantry firepower along with 14 percent of their tanks, and much of this equipment was outmoded. Indeed, just 45 days’ supply of ammunition was available to these forces. The Navy had the above number of ships in the Western Pacific, while five years before, it had deployed 1,300 in support of the Okinawa invasion. Only two Marine divisions remained from six at the end of World War II, both woefully understrength, with only the Air Force able to provide sufficient units. Worse, the Army had been “civilianized,” meaning that discipline had been greatly relaxed and combat training cut back heavily, in order to make military service more attractive.

The result, not surprisingly, was that the first Americans to see combat in Korea suffered heavy losses and were driven back, in some cases more than 50 miles. Many American soldiers, who had no preparation for combat, broke under fire, or surrendered, or drifted south or east trying to reach the safety of the coast. Only the establishment of a perimeter around the port of Pusan prevented the fall of South Korea in the summer of 1950, and it was a close call indeed.

So what do these events, more than 60 years ago, have to do with the situation faced by today’s U.S. military? More than we would like to think.

Of course, the quality of our personnel is excellent, and there are tens of thousands, particularly in the Army and Marine Corps, with recent experience of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of our weaponry remains first-rate, and a match for any foe.

The trouble is, will we be able to maintain sufficient military strength to confront a growing number of adversaries in an increasingly unstable world, where large-scale war is increasingly becoming a distinct possibility?

To begin with, there are the cuts that the Obama Administration has made to the defense budget–some $487 billion. Personnel strength will be reduced considerably. The Army’s active personnel level will bottom out at 490,000, down from its current 570,000. This number is well below the 520,000 level that Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno has publicly endorsed. The Marine Corps will be reduced from 202,000 to 182,000, meaning that there will be fewer Marines than in 1980, when an understrength Corps had to contend with an important new task of rapid deployment to defend the Persian Gulf. Worse still, while personnel reductions are just eight percent of Marine strength, accomplishing this will mean a 13 percent reduction in combat troops–11 percent in  infantry, 20 percent in armor and 20 percent in artillery, with the total number of infantry battalions–the backbone of the Marine ground combat forces–falling to 24 from 27. Moreover, whereas Marine sergeants had to be promoted before their 13th year of service, this has fallen to just 10 years, meaning that hundreds of experienced NCOs will be forced to retire in the next few years.

The Navy is also hard-hit. Its current strength is just 286 ships. Whereas in 2005 a 313-ship force was set as a goal, this has fallen to just 306. Naval shipbuilding will fall in Fiscal Year 2014 to just seven ships, down from 10 this fiscal year, and will not rise until FY 2018, with 11 ships planned. In some important categories, the fall has been dramatic. In 2005, there were 33 amphibious warfare ships in the fleet. By 2012, there were just 28. In September 2012, one of the three Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons (MPS)–which carry enough supplies for a full-strength U.S. Marine Expeditionary Brigade for a month–stationed in the Mediterranean, was deactivated. This will make it much more difficult for U.S. forces, in this case in the Middle East, to respond effectively to crises. The carrier force will fall to 10 ships, rather than the current 11, while just one carrier, rather than the usual two, will be deployed to the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf. Maintenance difficulties, especially with the carriers Harry S. Truman and Abraham Lincoln, will seriously affect the readiness of naval forces.

The Air Force is in even worse shape. At least $54 billion will be cut from its budget. According to the Heritage Foundation, the number of fighters has fallen by some 25 percent since 2001. Along with the withdrawal of 52 F-117 stealth fighters, some 263 F-15s and 372 F-16s have also been retired.

An even more serious problem affects all the services. Much of this equipment is aging, having come into service in the 1990s or even earlier. The Air Force’s F-15 fighters, for example, are, on average, 30 years old, while its B-1 and B-2 bombers entered service some 25 years ago. The same is true of the Army’s M-1 Abrams tanks and M-2/M-3 Bradley fighting vehicles. The design of the AAV-7 amphibious landing vehicle that is standard in the Marine Corps is now over 40 years old. Much of this equipment is now being worn out, thanks to arduous combat duty and exacting peacetime training.

This situation calls for an investment in procurement like that undertaken during the 1980s, when aging weaponry was replaced in large quantities by many of the above weapon systems. However, this is not the case. Thanks to the cuts in defense, delays in development and procurement of such items as the F-35 Lightning II and the KC-46A tanker will see this process pushed back–and carried out on a much more limited scale–to the 2020s. New attack submarine and cruiser programs have been shelved or cancelled, as has the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, meant to replace the Marines’ AAV-7s, while a new Amphibious Combat Vehicle, development of which was initiated in 2011, is unlikely to enter service until 2024.

So what is all this likely to mean for the future? Military forces must be tailored in relation to the situations they are likely to be used in, and the threats they will face. At present, the Syrian civil war, with the recent use of chemical weapons, is a flash point. More broadly, Iran’s continued nuclear weapons development, together with the fallout from the “Arab Spring” has made more probable a major regional war in the Middle East.

North Korea’s withdrawal from the 1953 armistice ending the Korean War, and its growing bellicosity, have exacerbated tensions in East Asia, while the continued presence of an anti-American, pro-Iranian regime in Venezuela means that instability in the Caribbean Basin is likely. The procurement by states like Iran, Syria and Venezuela of advanced missiles, submarines, combat aircraft and mines (both locally developed and from Russia and China), as well as by proxies like Hezbollah, means that their military potential has been significantly enhanced over the past several years. Such regional conflicts as described above would provide a much greater challenge for the United States and its allies, especially if they were to occur in concert or in a proximate time (wars in the Middle East and Korea, for example), thanks to the close ties between these states.

Given the situation described above, there appears to be a converging line between declining U.S. military capabilities and the growing capabilities of our adversaries, one which could lead to a danger point in the not-too-distant future. We also must keep in mind China’s geopolitical ambitions and growing military potential–especially its naval and ballistic missile forces–as well as, in the longer term, a rearming Russia, whose interests could conflict with those of the West.

All of which brings us back to where we began. Someday soon, we will face an enemy as ruthless and capable as North Korea in 1950–perhaps even North Korea again. Our troops–far superior in training and experience than those sent to Korea to be sure–will be thrust into battle unexpectedly. However, there may not be enough of them to ensure victory, and their weapons may not be available in the quantity and quality needed to overcome their foes. South Korea was successfully defended, but only at a heavy cost, and it was a near run thing. Unless we examine our national priorities and ensure that we maintain the necessary military strength to overcome all enemies, we may not be as lucky again.

David Walsh is a freelance journalist and contributor to Frontpage Magazine. He is the author of The Military Balance in the Cold War: US Perceptions and Policy, 1976-85 (Routledge, 2008).

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Anthony1223

    You forget to mention the computerized automation in saving manpower.You also forget to mention our enemy communist Chinese army have only out dated rifles with straw sandals , thin and ragged clothes . Even though we win the war if we cannot win the heart of the people,finally we still loss in the battle like Iraq and Afghanistan war.
    Kerry feels that politics is the art of possible. "So if you want to understand what can be done, you've got to not only understand what your own interests are, but to understand the interest of the other side,This is easier and cheaper than a war . Isn't it better to be different.

    • Rossina

      Anthony- "straw sandles and thin, ragged clothes"? Perhaps your name is Rip Van Winkle? You have certainly not been to Shanghai nor Beijing. To say you have sorely underestimated (not to mention grotesquely stereotyped) a strength to be reckoned with, due to most probably partisan groupthink, is the detriment that has befallen this country and precisely what I understand from Mr. Walsh's article.

  • Anthony1223

    No matter how advance our military hardware we will lost the war if we are not fighting for the just and right cause.Our soldiers will ask whom we are fighting for and for what.

  • Mary Sue

    The scary part is that either Obama truly feels that if America is shown to be weak militarily that suddenly then everybody will love USA, or he's in cahoots with America's enemies to bring it down.

    • EarlyBird

      No, he's recognizing, like so many Americans, that we can not afford – literally – to maintain our Cold War era global hegemony. It is the greatest threat to national fiscal solvency, to our security and our own democracy at home. It's called "empire," and empires don't end prettily.

      • Drakken

        Your hero and messiah Comrade Obummer is taking this country to closer to war than any president before him since Carter, the weakness portrayed by this wishful thinking administration only encourages our enemies to move aggressivley against us, and we will be caught unprepared once again to the detriment of thousands of our troops.

      • AnOrdinaryMan

        How is it that we could afford a 600 ship Navy under Bush, but not under Obama? The greatest threat to America's fiscal solvency is the criminal, runaway spending, and mindless printing of paper money; indulged in by Obama and the Dhimmicrats in congress. Sorry, defending ourselves isn't a threat to anyone; and if we can't defend ourselves, we don't have a country.

        • EarlyBird

          "How is it that we could afford a 600 ship Navy under Bush, but not under Obama?"

          We couldn't afford that 600 ship navy, or the empire that it serves.

          "The greatest threat to America's fiscal solvency is the criminal, runaway spending,…"

          Exactly. And that includes unnecessary Defense spending. Three main expenditures drive our debt: Defense, Social Security and Medicare. All three must be addressed to get our debt down.

          "and mindless printing of paper money…"

          That too!

          "Sorry, defending ourselves isn't a threat to anyone; and if we can't defend ourselves, we don't have a country."

          We do not need numerous carrier battle groups, armor and airplanes intended to fight a Cold War style conflict to defend ourselves or our interests, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff say it themselves. All that hardware is wasted money to keep politicians' constituents employed, not to defend ourselves. We. Can. Not. Afford. It. Part of national security is fiscal security.

          • Ghostwriter

            What "empire,"EarlyBirdbrain? We don't HAVE an empire! Your history is as bad as your Jew hatred.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The deconstruction fix is in, and the army is an INTENDED casualty, don't let alone tell you otherwise. To destroy America one has to do several things, and eviscerating its hyper-military machine is a necessity, as is disarming Americans. On the other hand, building up a "civilian force", to match the size of the military, is another matter. Think about its implications.

    But it is not as if American's shouldn't have seen this coming – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/09/barack-hussei

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EarlyBird

      Don't worry, Adina, the good ol' USA will keep sending Israel money and weapons to Israel.

      • Drakken

        Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go join those poor oppressed fakestinians that you love so much?

      • jerome

        israel is an ally the usa cannot do without . blaming israel is the easy out for all bigots and racists.
        all those sheep jumping on the anti israel bandwagon as the answer to all the usa's and the world's problems are ignorant of the real threats that the usa is facing, not only militarily but from a currency under serious threat , a convergence of travails the usa is going to be hard pressed to counter.

        • EarlyBird

          Jerome,

          Our concern should be about the US bankrupting itself at home, and depleting itself abroad by continuing this endless global policing and militarism, than any country or group hurting us. Adina wants us to get into another, unnecessary and counter-productive war, this time against Iran, on behalf of Israel.

          We are heading the way of late 18th Century Spain, where we only manfucture and export weapons, while freedom and infrastructure at home erodes and we become less innovative and competitive while chasing dragons everywhere abroad in the name of God and country.

          All China has to do is let us continue shooting ourselves in the foot while they build their economy.

          • Ghostwriter

            Maybe both you and Jerome should grow a brain or read a book instead of parroting anti-semitic swill.

  • Ray Burke

    America's destruction proceeds apace. We are fast approaching the end of an era.

  • pierce

    Let us all face up to the fact that Obama does not think it even necessary to have a military.
    What are we trying to protect, our shores, our way of life?
    If he is allowed to pursue his agenda, there will be nothing worth protecting.
    We are going from bad to worse, and then worser.

    • EarlyBird

      Pierce, try to put the would-be military budget cuts, which really haven't even started, in perspective: what do we want to do in the world, and what can we afford? Considering that we spend more money than the next 8 nations combined, and 6 of those can be considered close allies, is it the end of the republic to consider that we cut back on military spending to perhaps cut back on the debt?

      Why is everyone so terrified? We're like Rambo standing on a chair screaming "eek!" over a little mouse.

      • Drakken

        As usual, your understanding of the world speaks bloody volumes, but hey, you keep wishing for those rainbows and unicorns there Sparky.

        • EarlyBird

          Field Marshall,

          Being our resident military historian, you should be more worried about the US bankrupting itself at home, and depleting itself abroad by continuing this endless global policing and militarism, than any country or group hurting us.

          We are heading the way of late 18th Century Spain, where we only manfucture and export weapons, while freedom and infrastructure at home erodes and we become less innovative and competitive while chasing dragons everywhere abroad in the name of God and country.

          All China has to do is let us continue shooting ourselves in the foot while they build their economy.

          If you can name a genuine existential threat that requires our 130+ military bases around the world and constant military interventions, have at it.

          • Drakken

            It is not our so called military industrial complex that is putting us in the hole there Sparky, it is our govt program overeach and spending like there is no tomorrow. Our military is cutting itself like that idiot Carter did. We could wind up our military and bring everyone home and it sure as hell isn't going to make the US safer or more prosperous. The fact of the matter by making America weak like your hero Obummer is doing, it makes war that much more enevitable. Your denial of reality is the same line of thinking that got the US involved in WW 2.

          • EarlyBird

            Drakken, we need to scale down our spending everywhere, including Defense. Even your fellow four star generals in the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree with this.

            A nation must plan for the types of wars it expects to fight, and you generals agree we should not expect massive armies clashing on the steppes of Eastern Europe, which so much of the wildly expensive weapons systems we continue to build are designed for. We do that to keep communities who build those weapons systems employed, not to defend ourselves from real threats.

  • aposematic

    The Military is being incrementally replaced by Obuma's personal Army: DHS. As the Military budgets are being devastated by cuts, the DHS budget seems to have no limits on its dramatically increased spending.

    • EarlyBird

      There is a desire to withdraw from every conflict abroad, and start focusing on external threats that affect us at home. Given that there is a limit to our money, which therefore focues us on priorities, I don't know why this is necessarily a bad thing.

      Imagine not getting involved in every hot spot on earth, withdrawing from our job as global policeman, and ensuring we're strong at home? It worked for the US from 1776 to the end of WWII.

      • Looking4Sanity

        You relish the thought of a diminished U.S. presence on the world stage, don't you, comrade Stalin? Do you REALLY think you're going to blow your BS by us with no inspection at all?!? How stupid are you, really?

        • EarlyBird

          Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself?! We're so proud of you.

          Yes, absolutely, I relish the thought of a diminished US presence on the world stage. Exactly. Bingo. You get the blue ribbon.

          Not that I expect you to understand it, but one of the reasons we're currently in such enormous, nation-threatening debt, why we're hated by so much of the world, why we're losing our ability to compete economically abroad and losing out democracy at home, is EXACTLY because we've been addicted to being the world's policeman.

          That America-hating Stalinist, Alexander Hamilton, along with the rest of our Founding Fathers, were very concerned with empire and went to great pains to warn against it. Look him up.

          • Looking4Sanity

            While I appreciate that you get that I get it, I'm disheartened that you do not, in the larger sense, get it at all.

            Do not think to lecture me on the founding of this country. President Thomas Jefferson declared war on Muslims on the Barbary Coast as soon as it became obvious to him that they were nothing more than blood thirsty brigands with a homicidal theological agenda. We kicked their azzes in short order only because we stood united behind a virtuous leader of a singularly virtuous will.

            The current proliferation of little gimps such as yourself precludes that possibility in today's world. Thanks a lot for that, by the way!

          • EarlyBird

            Nothing I am stating precludes us from taking out threats as needed.

            If you can't see the difference between knocking off Barbary pirates (or gaggles of Alquies, assorted terrorists, crazed Islamist groups, warlords, etc.) and coming home, vs. the cost to the US of permanently occupying 130+ military bases around the world as we have for decades, you don't get it at all.

            Fiscal health is part of national security. Even money spent on wars and weapons counts as much as money spent on ….shudder…education, healthcare, streets, bridges, police, judges, firefighters, etc.

    • 4_Constitution

      Yes. He'll find a way to make sure we can't revolt. What scared me the most if him putting drones in every city. Whatever he does, he can't stop the 59 million of us who voted against him if we decide we've had enough!

      • Looking4Sanity

        Right you are. Also…it looks like the atheist crowd is nuking the 912wolverines site with a denial of service attack. I've only been able to get in once in the last 30 hours.

  • EarlyBird

    More counter-factual hysteria from Front Page.

    Fact: the biggest threat to US security right now is our debt, as per Admiral Mike Mullen's own national threat assessment, and the fact that the US spends more than the next 8 largest militaries combined. Nowhere is the cost of our massive military, one of the three prime drivers of national debt, mentioned in this piece.

    Fact: for 20+ years the US military's own analyses has been stating that low-intensity wars fought against insurgencies, such as those found in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be the rule, making the massive standing army and Cold War hardware Walsh prefers completely pointless.

    Walsh's comment: "… will we be able to … confront a growing number of adversaries in an increasingly unstable world, where large-scale war is increasingly becoming a distinct possibility?" is not only factually wrong, but merely an expression of his concern that the US is no longer able to maintain its global hegemony.

    • Flowerknife_us

      "Facts" from the clueless find no comfort.

      • EarlyBird

        Flowerknife, one of the requirments of growing up is accepting facts even when we don't like them. It's time you accept the facts that we can't be the world's policeman any more, and that Santa Claus isn't real.

        • Looking4Sanity

          Why don't you grow a pair and just come out and say what you really mean? You know you want to tell us all that Jesus is a work of fiction, don't you? It must really suck going through life being a gutless wonder.

          • EarlyBird

            No wonder you're looking for sanity. What are you on right now?

          • Looking4Sanity

            The biggest threat to U.S. security is subversives like you. Money grubbing humanists concerned with nothing more than who they're going to steal their next dollar from. Dosvadonya, comrade!

          • EarlyBird

            You're clearly insane. Shouldn't you be off handling snakes or something?

          • Looking4Sanity

            "Clearly" I wouldn't want to put your mother out of work. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration though!

        • Flowerknife_us

          The Navy has shrunk in Half as I grew up It is our principle source of conventional defense of the Country as well as securing the shipping lanes of a Country heavily dependent on Imports.

          Your "facts" leave a wanting of relevance.

          • EarlyBird

            Flowerknife, I'm not sure how old you are, but here are some questions for you:

            Why would we need or want to maintain a navy as big as that in WWII, which was designed to fight a massive global conflict?

            Why would we need or want to maintain a navy as big as that during the Cold War, where we were staring down communists in every part of the globe?

            Why is it a bad thing to adjust the size and cost of our military to the actual threats that exist in the world, like our very own generals suggest we do given the enormous cost of keeping such a massive military?

            Why can't we recognize too, that the amazing technology we bring to bear means we don't need as "big" a military in terms of the numbers of ships, tanks, planes, soldiers, etc.?

    • jerome

      and the move to not make the dollar the world reserve currency-thus preventing the usa from printing money endlessly to pay its debts. the devaluation of the usa currency is imminent and it will cause a crisis in that americans en masse will immediately become poorer.
      once this happens the decline is set in motion and hard to stop.

      • Looking4Sanity

        It is both inevitable and Biblical. Embrace the truth.

        • EarlyBird

          Oh great. You sure make Christians look good!

          • Looking4Sanity

            As if you are an authority on the subject. And who, exactly, said anything about Christianity to begin with? You sure seem eager to tilt that particular windmill, Don.

      • EarlyBird

        I think we're headed for major inflation.

        • Looking4Sanity

          Don't be modest. It doesn't suit you. You know your ambitions are far greater than mere inflation, comrade.

          • EarlyBird

            Honestly, you're not well. It's a Biblical truth that the currency of the US will be devalued.

            What color is your sky, I wonder?

          • Looking4Sanity

            Since you are eager to pass yourself off as a Biblical scholar, quote us the scripture that mentions U.S. currency. Don't worry…I'll wait.

          • EarlyBird

            Dude, you're just strange. You don't seem to make any sense.

          • Looking4Sanity

            I expect that kind of response from a tardling.

    • AnOrdinaryMan

      Well, there aren't any facts in Walsh's comment; its a question, and a very good one. But try this fact on for size: There are a number of trouble spots, scattered worldwide–Iran, syria, North korea; and the Chinese are a big threat also. In order to be effective, the US Navy has to be able to comfortably deploy in three oceans at once, and help defend the US coast as well. This can't be done with 286 ships. Now do you understand why people are scared?

      • EarlyBird

        But this question must be asked: "Why does the US need to take total responsibility for every hot spot in the world to begin with?" Once we determine our genuine interests vs. our desires, are, we might realize that we don't have to "do something" about say, Syria, anymore than any other country needs to. Force regional players to be responsible for once, and do what they need to do to contain the problems in their backyard.

        We spend the same amount as the next 8 biggest militaries combined. We can easily afford to scale back the big expensive hardware (ships, planes, tanks, submarines), while dealing with actual threats.

        There are limitless things to be "scared" of. We simply can not afford to be prepared to get into wars everywhere all the time. The issue is simply becoming moot, and this problem has been happening for decades, well before Obama came on the picture.

    • Snorbak

      "Fact: for 20+ years the US military's own analyses has been stating that low-intensity wars fought against insurgencies, such as those found in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be the rule, making the massive standing army and Cold War hardware Walsh prefers completely pointless."

      The only "fact" here is that some within the US military falsely believe the above thinking to be true. Don't be so naive as to believe that some analysts perception will turn out to be reality. Assuming that the only wars to be fought in the future will be "low intensity?" COIN operations & structuring your military for same shows a lack of insight & leaves your military vulnerable.

      • EarlyBird

        Nobody is guaranteeing anything. We could be in a massive armed conflict with China tomorrow for all anyone genuinely "knows."

        The Joint Chiefs are assessing the most likely future threats, and since they understand we live in a world where money is not limitless, are suggesting where to put those limited funds and structure our military to best address those most likely threats.

  • pierce

    You know what is really pathetic. We have a clown at Fort Hood, Texas awaiting a Court Martial for murdering our Soldiers, and wounding dozens more, and this clown in the White House and his Attorney
    General will not put him where he belongs, a place nicknamed Gitmo. The muslim s o b doesn't deserve anything but a military tribunal, and then hanged by the neck until dead. And both our President and the AG want to treat him special.
    The whole thing makes me want to throw up.

    • EarlyBird

      So if he was a Christian soldier who murdered our soldiers and wounded dozens more, should he be in Gitmo too, or another brig?

      Think this through first before answering, okay Piercey?

      • Drakken

        The problem with your line of thought is, a christian would not go shooting folks in the name of christianity, while muslims do.

        • EarlyBird

          Of course, Drakken. And this guy should be executed for his crimes, like yesterday. (Why does it always take so long to off these guys?)

          My point is that he should be executed for commiting an act of treason, not because he is a Muslim.

      • Looking4Sanity

        Yes, dillhole. A military felony demands a military courts martial. Period. Current convention demands that this particular crime remand the perpetrator to Gitmo with the rest of his brethren. The only thing preventing it is our Muslim CIC.

        Feel free to debate any of this. You have a habit of embracing indefensible positions. I live to deconstruct idiots like you.

        • pierce

          And EarlyBird, I don't think he is addressing me. You have to be a muslim sympathizer, and a Democrat to boot.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Hi, Pierce. I've watched your comments here for some time. From what I've seen so far, I'd call you one of the good guys. The sapsucker knows I'm talking to him. He just has nothing factual to back up his preposterous positions.It's good to be back and it's equally good to see you're still here fighting the good fight.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Hi, Pierce. I've watched your comments here for some time. From what I've seen so far, I'd call you one of the good guys. The sapsucker knows I'm talking to him. He just has nothing factual to back up his preposterous positions.It's good to be back and it's equally good to see you're still here fighting the good fight.

        • EarlyBird

          No, he should be executed by firing squad, not put in Gitmo. He committed an act of high treason while serving as an active member of the US military. He falls into a different category as an armed combatant (or as so many in Gitmo are, simply "suspected" combatants).

          • Looking4Sanity

            You obviously have no knowledge of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Ignorant people should have the good sense to keep their mouths shut until they've educated themselves instead of spouting emotional nonsense as you are.

          • EarlyBird

            Okay, I'll humor you: what exactly does the Uniform Code of Military Justice require and allow in regard to a American soldier in uniform who kills fellow soldiers? Huh smarty pants?

            I'll help: a court martial, after which if found guilty, execution.

            You're welcome.

          • Looking4Sanity

            You conveniently left out the trial part in your original comment. You're only backpedaling now to hide your Statist proclivities. FAIL.

          • EarlyBird

            A court martial IS a "trial," you drooling idiot.

            Now shoo, bug!

          • Looking4Sanity

            No kidding, tardling? Then why did you want to jump right past it to a firing squad? Insulting me is not going to distract from the fact that you wanted to execute the man without the benefit of a trial. Additionally, and also contrary to your asinine opinion, even if he were found guilty, death is NOT the only punishment available to the presiding officers of a courts martial.

  • Bob Marshall

    Those who read THE ROOTS of OBAMA'S RAGE know why he wanted to weaken our military capabilities and destroy capitalism. These same plans were mentioned in his book, Audacity of Hope.