Positive Note

I've decided to start a new trend of making my first article reviewed each week be a positive review, in contrast to my normal snarkiness. I expect this trend to last till about noon so enjoy it while you can.

In keeping with that strategy I'd like to point you to Robert Novak's article at Townhall.com. Novak argues persuasively that there is danger in pursuing a strategy of continually expanding the scope of American Military operations without pursuing a strategy of increasing the capability of the Army.

Novak writes, "At the heart of both men's unhappiness, the Army has been stretched thin to execute the nation's foreign policy. Shinseki and Rumsfeld were in continuous tension over how many troops were needed to pacify Afghanistan, to subdue Iraq and then occupy Iraq.

With over 370,000 soldiers or 70 percent of the Army now deployed in 120 countries, President Bush's capability to pursue his doctrine of pre-emption is constrained."

Novak makes several correct points, but I think you have to look at the logic of the Bush reliance on smaller size forces as a reflection of his desire to keep taxes down. While President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld do want the power to exercise American military might at will, they also want to cut taxes dramatically. They are apparently willing to compromise our military strength in order to keep taxes low. Speaking just for myself I might suggest a different set of priorities.