My impression is that this is either:
1) a fabrication on Mr. Kerry’s part
2) essentially an act of treason.

Posted by: jeauxjeaux at September 17, 2004 09:12 PM

Alan,

You guys might as well create a whole new sub-area under the 2004 Election page called “Kerry Accuses Bush…”. It’s only going to get worse.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at September 17, 2004 09:32 PM

John Kerry breathlessly announced today that he has received word that his allies will contribute 150,000 NEW troops to the Iraq campaign and 50,000 to Afghanistan, but only IF he is installed as President in January.

He also said that his NEW allies cannot arrive before that time due to the many logistical difficulties encountered in their movement from their base on Pluto.

Posted by: leaddog2 at September 18, 2004 01:13 AM

Bush counters that announcement by saying troops will be called up, but only 10 from Special Forces. Cheney and Rumsfeld agree thats all it will take to overrun the DNC and still have two guys to take out fatmonster Michael Moore. I heard Michael got a physical the other day…yup, the doctor lowered him into the water tank for determining fat levels and Michael is 97% fat and 3% bullshit.

Posted by: dickmr at September 18, 2004 02:03 AM

I’m going with treason

Posted by: M. Simon at September 18, 2004 05:34 AM

Even if it were true, my reaction would be “great, how are we going to use them?” If there was a callup of reservists, it would indicate that we are getting serious.

Kerry’s problem: even a secret plan is better than no plan whatsoever, which is what he is offering.

Posted by: DWC at September 18, 2004 06:11 AM

First Kerry says we need more troops, now we can’t have more troops.

What is that called again?

Kerry has his own secret plan. Total surrender by July.

Posted by: jones at September 18, 2004 10:12 AM

Did you see the picture for this on Drudge’s front page? Kerry’ botox is wearing out. He must be in agony trying to figure out if people will notice if he went in for another treatment.

Posted by: samuelv at September 18, 2004 10:19 AM

He looks like he just stepped out of Madame Tussaud’s wax works.

Posted by: Jim at September 18, 2004 10:26 AM

If I recall, a year ago this time the Pentagon was proposing a force of 105K for OIF. We now have 140K+ following three separate deployments and the insurgency is very active considering there have been daily suicide bombing attacks, firefights, and roadside bombings as well as abductions.

Over a year ago, the question was raised over at Winds of Change of how we are going to have an adequate deployment to fulfill the heavy, labor intensive task of nation building in Iraq given our military’s overall commitment. Gen. Shinsheki was quoted then saying, “Beware of a 12-division strategy for a 10-division army.” The article posited the question of how we are ultimately prevail in Iraq without a draft. This, to me, is still a valid question.

It also seems to me that the nature of troop deployment should be intrinsically apolitical. If it takes conscription to finish the task, then it takes conscription. Although I oppose OIF (making me traitorous), I also oppose half-measures that increases risk to deployed troops. Kerry, as a Senator and presidential candidate, should be asking the question of where do we locate the forces necessary to prevail. I haven’t heard a satisfying answer to this question yet from the administration.

Rumsfeld said at the outset of the conflict that a “rolling deployment” would be used that increased force intensity throughout the first phase of the conflict. It now seems clear to me that the timetable of the conflict was sped up to possibly accommodate political concerns that precluded certain elements of the military to being re-trained for deployment. The insurgency was underestimated along with the inability of Iraqi forces to supress the insurgency. This is clearly bad planning and the only way out at this point seems to increase troop levels. Whether this will be done by rotating in heavy elements of the National Guard or conscription remains to be seen. But this question should not be decided by the President’s political viability. This should be decided by Centcom with the acquiecense of both Bush and Kerry. One of them will have to clean up this unholy mess.

Posted by: obelus at September 18, 2004 11:27 AM

I provided a bad link. The Winds of Change article “The American Ground Troop Shortage” by Trent Telenko can be found here.

Posted by: obelus at September 18, 2004 11:32 AM

Various committees of Congress have been asking relevant questions about troop strength, force deployment and what is needed to prevail. Funny, I missed Kerry’s participation in any of that. He’s been too busy running his idiotic mouth to toss whatever mud and gloom he thinks will improve his standing in the poles, consequences be damned. He seems to be a one-trick pony, and he learned that trick back in 1971. He put his personal advancement ahead of any concerns for the country or its soldiers then, and he’s doing the same now.

Posted by: TL at September 18, 2004 12:03 PM

The problem is,Bush assumed office with the US Army denuded of roughly 1/2 of it’s active duty divisions since 1991. Then,Rumsfeld pushes hard for the smaller but more effective due to technology viewpoint.

Rumsfeld is right,IF we weren’t having to occupy Iraq,but we are. Our Army should always stay around 15 divisions and we would not have all these reservists,NG and second tours we are doing in Iraq right now.

So,should Bush have opted not to do Iraq due to the size of the US Army in 2003? Hard call,the day was coming when we had to either declare Hussein wins and leave or knock him off his throne.

Posted by: FireballXL5 at September 18, 2004 12:32 PM

Long ago it became clear to me that the Democrats would rather win the election than the war.

Kerry’s disclosure of potential wartime plans for personal benefit it treason.

What does he care? If he wins the election he can revoke the plan. If he loses, it means his opponent is supported by the American public and its Bush’s duty to do what he sees fit.

Treason, no doubt about it.

Does Zsa Zsa Kerry want our troops to fight naked, too after her hubby has started telegraphing our punches?

Posted by: Limpet at September 18, 2004 07:49 PM