No, I was responding to his justification that our military is too large because a military is for protection of borders and our borders were mostly water so our only threat was by boat (his claim).


>I don't follow. Are you saying we need more troops due to the size of our borders? When is the last time there was a military attack of the U.S.? (1941, and that was on a state with very small borders). You must be making some other point.
>
>>Given the size of our borders, I'm surprised you wrote that.
>>
>>
>>>>Actually, that's not really true. The U.S. was downsizing at an alarming rate (started by Clinton who cut military personnel by 15 percent more than his predecessor - however, many analysts insist he maintained a strong defense in the process) when 9/11 ocurred. We sent troops to Afghanistan and it quickly became obvious when Iraq came about that we didn't have enough troops. Now the argument could be made that if all fighting and security was done under the NATO or UN umbrella, then a large military force would not be necessary, but I disagree. We do not have coompulsory service - it is entirely voluntary, but males are required to register. In order to have the highly trained personnel in some technical positions, a longer length of service is required and there need to be incentives for that. Should we have so many combat troops? I think so. I do not think the military is too large, anything but. We cannot rely on NATO or the UN - just look at Darfur, I'm sure they are
>>>>counting their blessings for the UN.
>>>
>>>He was downsizing at alarming rate for who exactly ?
>>>When you have relatively peacefull world 10 years after iron curtain fell down (year 2000) then downsizing was sound thing to do!
>>>What happened on 9/11 (which remains mystery to me) does not change anything in this respect. Despite size of that atrocity I did not see it as valid reason to start two wars before even investigating whole thing toroughly. Yet that is exactly what happened.
>>>
>>>Now should you had more combat troops, plane carriers etc. back then, what exactly would be the advantage ?? 9/11 would not have happened?
>>>Or US would attack 3rd country down that line ? Or even 4th ?
>>>
>>>If you strive for peacefull world, and size your army according to effective protection of your borders, then army you have is perfectly (more then) enough. Now if doctrine alows for assaulting at will, whenever some 'catalysing event' happens, then yes - you need more combat troops directly under US control.
>>>
>>>For this purpose NATO is not really *flexible* and with all it's fire power and potential catastrophic consequences for world - it should not be *flexible* (trigger easy) at all !
>>>Unless you consider bombing of Yugoslavia as an 'achievement'. (Last time they acted on US direct infulence, they knocked down all 3 bridges over Danube in my belowed city of Novi Sad!)
>>>So personally, I wish this kind of *flexibility* never existed, and NATO was to be used only to protect memeber states from imminent outside attack.
>>>
>>>In that was the case, then I would be happy to pay them my taxes for 'doing exactly nothing' !
>>>
>>>Peace