Military won't be overextended, says Bush, but some troops beg to differ

[lebkuchen]

http://estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=16523


The U.S. commander in chief raised eyebrows among many in uniform last week when he promised not to stretch the military too thin, even as some 500,000 troops find themselves deployed or assigned overseas.

President Bush, when asked in South Africa about the possibility of inserting peacekeeping troops into war-torn Liberia, made a simple pledge: “We won’t overextend our troops, period.”

“Too late,” says Sgt. Robert Page matter-of-factly. The Heidelberg, Germany-based medic has seen nine major deployments in his 10-year career, much of it “back and forth to Bosnia and Kosovo.”

“We’re already being asked to do a lot with very little,” he said. “Right now we’re only 50 percent staffed where I work because of all the deployments.”

...snip...


Could Army units take on more missions and be successful?

“Not to sound flip, but that depends on what the missions were. We can and are performing our missions through the tireless efforts of our active duty and reserve component soldiers,” he said.

...snip...

In the Army alone, officials say, there are currently 370,000 troops deployed to more than 120 countries.



...........................................

"Tireless." That's easy to say for our WH "leaders," who, if they had any military experience at all, spent their time in a canteena south of the border.