AN ARMY OF ONE - LITERALLY

Back to the font today and the lead editorial in the New York Times is complaining (“No!!”) that “…the Bush administration is pushing America's peacetime armed forces toward their limits.”

It seems our friends at the Old Gray Lady have discovered that our Armed Forces are understaffed. Of course, they don’t come right out and blame the Bush Administration for it, but they do hint at it:

“Washington will not be able to sustain the mismatch between unrealistic White House ambitions and finite Pentagon means much longer without long-term damage to our military strength.”

The Times, being a reasonable paper with the good of America foremost in it’s mind has called on the Administration to increase defense spending and create incentives to recruit more personnel.

Oh, and Howard Dean has come out calling for a ban on elective abortions, too.

The Times solution is exactly what you would expect it to be:

“The only solution is for the Bush administration to return to foreign policy sanity, starting with a more cooperative, less vindictive approach to European allies who could help share America's military burdens. “

Whatever. But, lets look at the underlying problem – not enough troops. The Times itself says the United States will need another 100,000 troops. And why is that? Could it be eight years of gutting America’s armed forces under the eye of draft-dodger Clinton? A study by the Heritage Foundation found:

“Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton administration cut national defense by more than 500,000 personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars, notes defense policy analyst Jack Spencer. A just-released Congressional Budget Office report finds that military funding would need to increase by $50 billion a year simply to maintain the size of today’s forces.

Since 1992, Spencer notes, the Army has lost four active divisions and two reserve divisions—30 percent of its staff. The Air Force is down by five tactical squadrons, 178 bombers and 30 percent of its active personnel. The naval fleet has gone from 393 ships in 1992 to 316, and the Navy has decreased its active duty personnel by 30 percent. Even the Marines have lost personnel—22,000 since 1992.”

What’s that I read? The army is down six divisions? That’s 60,000 to 90,000 troops, just the number we need. And it’s all George Bush’s fault? So, instead of putting the blame where it belongs, the Times wants us to beg the French to save us. I hate the Times.