You are herecontent / When we desperately need more troops in Iraq, they won't send enough. When we desperately need troops in New Orleans, they won't
When we desperately need more troops in Iraq, they won't send enough. When we desperately need troops in New Orleans, they won't
THE TROOPS: James Taranto is doing his usual best to defend anything the Bush administration does and points out that the deployment in Iraq is not a reason for the lack of troops to restore order in new Orleans. He cites a NRO article that makes this point:
Take the Army for example. There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard. Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries. Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army.
That’s all? Yes, 10.2 percent. That datum is significant in itself, a good one to keep handy the next time someone talks about how our forces are stretched too thin, our troops are at the breaking point, and so forth. If you add in Afghanistan (15,000) and the support troops in Kuwait (10,000) you still only have 12.6 percent.
So where are the rest?
751,000 (74.2 percent) are in the U.S. About half are active duty, and half Guard and Reserve. The Guard is the real issue of course — the Left wants you to believe that the country has been denuded of its citizen soldiers, and that Louisiana has suffered inordinately because Guardsmen and women who would have been available to be mobilized by the state to stop looting and aid in reconstruction are instead risking their lives in Iraq.
But doesn't this indict the administration more profoundly? When we desperately need more troops in Iraq, they won't send enough. When we desperately need troops in New Orleans, they won't send enough. Do we really have to wait three years for a president Giuliani to actually run the country?