As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.
he doesn't say why they are needed NOW with a mission undefined, although whenver that mission does come he certainly won't hesitate to use them (unilaterally if necessary). We deserve a lot more than that. Ironically unlike Clinton, Obama has received quite a bit of criticism on this - including from a European perspective:
The US needs a bigger, better army - to use itHis whole text is about the use of military tools. He criticizes Bush for focusing too much on military solutions, but that's all he discusses. How to make the US military bigger, stronger, more effective, and how to use it all around the world.
Jerome a Paris also points out that conservatives are doing a happy neo-con jig over all this. And its a good example of what all this looks like around the world.
And right on cue, in the same Foreign Affairs journal, Mitt Romney agrees wholeheartedly with Obama:
First, we need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense.
Eerie isn't it?
And where does John Edwards stand?
John Edwards was once where Clinton, Obama, Romney and Bush are now. But unlike them, he thinks that the Commander in Chief should be asking some tough questions about why we need almost 100,000 new troops. Edwards doesn't see the reasoning in increasing troops and wants to make getting out of Iraq a priority instead. Especially since as WaPo mentions leaving Iraq already serves as an increase:
A program of troop reductions and phased redeployment from Iraq would in effect increase the size of the Army by relieving the force of a burdensome, costly and unproductive mission. There will be opportunities to retrain and reequip to redress the shortcomings in armor and tactics so neglected by the Rumsfeld Pentagon.
John Edwards laid out his take on this in a foreign policy speech before the Council on Foreign Relations. Edwards gets it - proposals to increase the military without an understanding of the reasons why is a political numbers game:
The problem of our force structure is not best dealt with by a numbers game. It is tempting for politicians to try and "out-bid" each other on the number of troops they would add. Some politicians have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, with little rationale given for exactly why we need this many troops -- particularly with a likely withdrawal from Iraq.
and he understands that this idea is just more of the same bait and hook, and certainly won't help with Iraq:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
