But THEY'RE the ones who support the troops
Republicans are pretty much in total control of our government at the moment, especially where The War Against Those Bad Guys is concerned.
So what's the deal?
Sept. 25, 2006 — The strain on the Army from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has become so great that top officials are now privately saying the only long-term solution may be to make the overall size of the Army bigger, adding as many as 60,000 troops, ABC News has learned.
There are currently 501,000 troops with the level expected to reach 512,000 by the end of next year. To add an additional 60,000 is a costly proposition that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has consistently opposed.
Aaaaaannnnd... where are they going to get those kind of numbers?
Increasing the size of the Army would take time and money, so to deal with the strain in the short-run, officials are also considering another costly and unpopular idea — using more National Guard troops in Iraq.
I.E. robbing Peter to pay Paul. Hurricane season lasts until November - let's hope it continues to stay quiet, this year at least, 'cause the National Guard troops will all be over in Iraq.
Not that the White House doesn't have options. Private enterprise to the rescue!
But it's not just people where they're falling short:
The strain has also spread to the equipment, with the Army now saying it will cost $17 billion a year to repair and replace equipment in Iraq. Right now, some soldiers in the U.S. don't have all the tanks, artillery and other equipment needed to train because when they return home, units deployed to Iraq leave their equipment behind in that country for their replacement units.
Hell, that doesn't matter. We'll just give 'em wooden guns and cardboard tanks and they'll be good to go! What more would you expect from the most powerful nation on god's grey earth?
These challenges are about to hit the taxpayers hard. The Army is pushing for a big increase in its next budget of, perhaps, more than $20 billion a year.
And here comes the military for ANOTHER handout from the taxpayers. Why not just have a new tax, like was done in Vietnam, if it's so important?
Oh, wait, TAXES BAD. Never mind.
Of course, $20 billion is peanuts compared to the $50 and $75 billion "supplimental spending" allocations Bush keeps going back to Congress for. (What the HELL have they been doing with THAT money, by the by?)
But I suppose it's all John Kerry's fault, or Hillary's, or something. Sure as hell can't blame the people in power, after all.