They have received large contracts and have been very active in Iraq. Why would our government fund a private military force that does not fall under the control of our elected officials at twice the cost of our own military?

The solution is easier than your desire to be ignorant of all that you have or should have learned. I will try to explain this so even an Army colonel can understand.

On September 11 2001 the SecDef had a breakfast meeting with congressional leaders on both sides of the isle. Your hated Secretary of Defense was begging them for more troops and enough money to revamp the military, because he saw the danger of terrorism and the current force structure is not designed to deal with terrorist. He was told no, because all the money was going to be used to fix and repair social security and nothing else mattered. A few hours later we lost almost three thousand people, most of them American citizens all on U. S. soil. Most were non-combatants and unaware that the nation was at war for seven years because the government did not want to upset them. Any talk of war makes people sad and depressed.
At the time of the second attack on U. S. soil we had enough troops to fight one and a half wars of the Vietnam type. Called bush wars because they are regional and can’t reach the level of World War. The problem is that the war on terror is a world war, fought on several fronts in multiple ways. This is different than the traditional war against a country it is a gorilla war of hit and run. Our congress had held back the troops needed to win the war when asked because it was a long sighted request of short sighted thinkers. Then after the attack social security did not seem all that important at the time to you or anyone else on your side of the world. While Mr. Bush was trying to fight a war on several fronts as well as work out long term fixes for domestic problems forty years in the making.

If the Congress can not or will not increase the number of troops then the next best thing is to hire an army made up of former military so they are already disciplined in the ways of war. It cost money to risk your life, and the government pays for it one way or another. Either we increase the troops or we hire private troops. The choice was made on September 11 2001 because of the shortsightedness of our Congress since 1992 when Congress reduced the level of troops in our military. What the military needed was an upgrade when the Congress wanted to down grade. The tools we need will go on line somewhere around 2012 because we failed to see the problem years ago. Keep up the good work of opposing our nation because you don’t like the temporary occupant of the White House. Because you don’t want to do what is needed to keep our nation safe and secure for the long term in favor of short term political goals. Good work you political hack.

Good work you political hack.

Wrong. "Political Jerk" would be a much better term! And I wouldn't believe spit that had "anything" to do with Murtha. My wife went to school with his son and knows the father by association with the son. He was an a**hole then and he hasn't changed.

Paladin77

Please explain how paying twice as much per person with private military contractors solves the problem you claim of not having the money to increase the size of our military? WHO is paying the private contractors? For the SAME money we are paying the private military contractors we could have fielded twice the manpower.

In 6 years Bush did not include in his budget the funds to increase the military of our country despite the fact that in 2000 he said the Army and Marines were TOO small and that was before he added to the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq!
Then we get to the issue of it is the responsibility of the federal Government to raise the military not private contractors that are not controlled by the UCMJ. This is WRONG and Congress needs to get the FACTS. If the Bush Administration has been funding these private military forces it needs to come to an END!

drmiler

You do not deserve to be in the same room with Congressman and U.S. Marine Murtha!

Please explain how paying twice as much per person with private military contractors solves the problem you claim of not having the money to increase the size of our military? WHO is paying the private contractors? For the SAME money we are paying the private military contractors we could have fielded twice the manpower.

Hey your are pretty smart for someone with just two feet. Congress turned down the request for more troops in 2001, 2002. The money that would be spent to recruit and train more people is highter than paying double the salaries of the private army. Talk to your Democrats in Congress that put up every roadblock they could to make the President look bad and make his policies seem to fail, then they take political advantage to put more Democrats in Congress. Like what they did during the Vietnam war to make President Nixon look bad. How well did this work for the Democrats? Great! How did it work out for our troops? Not so good. What was the end result? We lost the war in Vietnam and James Earl Carter Jr. became President of the United States. Same old play book and the Republicans still have not learned how to deal with it so it will work each and every time. So what if it weakens our nations for decades as long as the Democrats are in power.

In 6 years Bush did not include in his budget the funds to increase the military of our country despite the fact that in 2000 he said the Army and Marines were TOO small and that was before he added to the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq!

For 14 years the Democrats have said they would not increase troop levels for the military and every bill that tried to raise the levels was shot down by the use of poision pills. This way they could kill the bill but not use the troop increases as a political point for the Republicans.

Then we get to the issue of it is the responsibility of the federal Government to raise the military not private contractors that are not controlled by the UCMJ. This is WRONG and Congress needs to get the FACTS. If the Bush Administration has been funding these private military forces it needs to come to an END!

You sir are being your usual political hack. Congress approves all budgets, the Congress sets the troop levels not the President. BTW Congress spends the money and they approved the hiring of the private armies rather than hiring more troops.

As a Marine I am ashamed of two Marines. John Glen and Murtha. Both have dishonored this country and their Corps for political gain.

Paladin77

Bush did not include the added funding in ANY of his budgets for more troops. Bush did make a formal request to Congress to increase the End Strength of the Army or Marines. If he had Congress would never have said NO especially after 9/11. You still have not explained how we have money to pay private contractors two times as much as it would cost to add our military.

This is just another example of how Bush and his administration is wasting our money and violating the Constitution which gives Congress the power to raise an Army and Navy! This has got to stop by Congress ending ALL funding for these private military groups!
As an Officer that served my country for 30 years, I am ashamed of anyone that supports GWB. HE IS DESTROYING OUR MILITARY AND HAS SENT THEM INTO A WAR THAT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THAT HAS MADE AMERICA LESS SAFE!

Bush did not include the added funding in ANY of his budgets for more troops. Bush did make a formal request to Congress to increase the End Strength of the Army or Marines.

You are so ignorant. He can only request, Congress does the approval. If they don't like anything they take it out.

You still have not explained how we have money to pay private contractors two times as much as it would cost to add our military.

Because Congress approves the budget, they have made it clear they did not have enough votes to increase the troop levels. The Department of Defense has money to spend in emergencies as I have written you before but you failed to notice these little thigs. Stay away from hate sites, take a civics class, learn how the governemtnt works.

As an Officer that served my country for 30 years, I am ashamed of anyone that supports GWB. HE IS DESTROYING OUR MILITARY AND HAS SENT THEM INTO A WAR THAT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THAT HAS MADE AMERICA LESS SAFE!

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Can you agree with the above statement?

drmiler You do not deserve to be in the same room with Congressman and U.S. Marine Murtha!

And "you" do not deserve to draw the free air that all "true" US servicemen/women have provided. You political jerk!

Bush did not include the added funding in ANY of his budgets for more troops. Bush did make a formal request to Congress to increase the End Strength of the Army or Marines. If he had Congress would never have said NO especially after 9/11. You still have not explained how we have money to pay private contractors two times as much as it would cost to add our military.

More lies!

Bush State of the Union: Work with me POSTED: 12:39 a.m. EST, January 25, 2007 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Faced with a widely unpopular war in Iraq and a Democratic Congress, President Bush in his State of the Union address urged lawmakers to work with him to "achieve big things for the American people." "Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done," Bush said Tuesday night. The president called on Congress to "work together" on a variety of fronts -- including the budget, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. In his 50-minute address, the president appealed for patience with his recently announced plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, despite opposition from many Democrats and some members of his own party. Bush also put forth a wish list to extend health insurance coverage, reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 10 years and limit greenhouse gas emissions. (Speech transcript) It was his sixth State of the Union speech and the first time a president has been introduced by a woman speaker of the House. (Bush pays tribute to 'Madam Speaker') More than three-fourths of those who watched the speech reacted positively, according to a CNN poll, though the reaction was more muted than in previous years. (Poll story) Polls taken before the speech indicate he faces a political headwind as voters 2-to-1 are dissatisfied with his leadership. Bush said he will submit a budget that will eliminate the nation's deficit in five years. Cutting dependence on oil The president also cited America's dependence on oil and the need to reduce it. Over the next decade, Bush said, the U.S. should reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent by tightening fuel economy standards and producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel such as ethanol by 2017. (Watch Bush trot out planet-friendly fuel ideas including grass and wood chips ) "This dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy," Bush said. (Bush domestic policies face battle in Congress) Bush repeated his call for Congress to give him the power to set average fuel-economy standards for passenger cars. The standard of 27.5 miles per gallon was last raised in 1990. A 'broader struggle' on terrorism The president addressed Iraq largely in the framework of a "broader struggle" against terrorism, evoking the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks several times. Less than two weeks ago, Bush told the nation he plans to send more than 21,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The president conceded that the battle to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad "is not the fight we entered ... but it is the fight we are in." He said U.S. troops can still win the nearly 4-year-old war, however, and he urged lawmakers to support "our troops in the field -- and those on their way." "Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure," he said. "This country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work." Bush warned that the consequences of failure there "would be grievous and far-reaching." (More on the Iraq debate) Bush also reiterated his plan to add 92,000 troops to the Army and Marine Corps over five years.

This was turned down by congress!

I've said this before. It's a darn good thing you were not an officer in any outfit I served in. You would have never made it out.

Paladin77

"You are so ignorant. He can only request, Congress does the approval"-- Bush NEVER asked for the added military until two weeks ago. For 6 years Bush did not seek Congressional approval for the added troops we needed and that he said we needed. WHY????????? You are the ignorant one! It is the same thing with the 10,000 border guards Bush says we need. He has not asked Congress for the guards he said we need. Bush is the worst excuse for a president in our history and anyone that supports him is just as bad!

Drmiler

Just what good will 92,000 added military due in 5 years. We needed the added troops years ago. You are another on the idiots that defend Bush who is useless.

drmiler

Your list of the issues Bush had in his State of the Union is BS just like, “we will do what it takes" after Katrina. It took Bush 6 years to even include some needed changes and a Congress that is controlled by the democrats. WE will see if Bush wants to solve problems. His first test is HOW does he plan to pay for the $180 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan? We can not balance the budget and borrow that money. He did not seem to mention this little problem.

Today the Comptroller General in Iraq has documented the continued mismanagement and Fraud with the Billions we are spending to rebuild Iraq. This administration is totally inept!

You are so ignorant. He can only request, Congress does the approval"-- Bush NEVER asked for the added military until two weeks ago. For 6 years Bush did not seek Congressional approval for the added troops we needed and that he said we needed. WHY?????????

Because you are blind, deaf and dumb. How many times do I have to reply with September 11 2001 the secretary of Defense held a breakfast meeting with the leadership of Congress that means people on both sides of the isle and asked for more troops and more funding to revamp the military? The answer has not changed. Do you think that SecDef asked this without getting permission from his boss? For the president to make a public request of congress and get turned down is bad politics unless you are playing gotcha politics something this president does not do. It is usually done through the secretaries to the congress people that oversee their department. The President gets involved only when the secretaries hit the wall or it is a pet project. You would know this if you had a civics class in the last 20 years. I am surprised that a colonel in the U. S. Army never went through the budgeting process. I was a Staff Sergeant and I wrote budgets for my units. The Army does not allow commanding officers to write budgets? Never having been in the Army I don’t know what you do and don’t do or how you do things in the Army. I went to some Army schools one of them taught me how the budget process works so we could write good budgets. There were Army officers in the class so I would think they understood what I understood since we all graduated together. Did you not take that class?

Paladin77

I'm sure you know this already but I will say it anyways. You are wasting your time, Col is the kind of person that will read an article that has the words Bush and bad in it and think that Bush is bad when the article actually said Bush had a bad headache. He's smart to a certain point, usually right up to the point when he starts WRITING IN CAPS or when he somehow blames Bush for problems that were here before the Bush name was even known. The only good thing that comes out of his articles is that it brings out a lot of interesting history and proves how idiotic people can be when they only take in one point of view.

I'm sure you know this already but I will say it anyways. You are wasting your time,

Yeah I know. I don't write it to him but anyone that reads it so there is a little balance.

“Because you are blind, deaf and dumb. How many times do I have to reply with September 11 2001 the secretary of Defense held a breakfast meeting with the leadership of Congress that means people on both sides of the isle and asked for more troops and more funding to revamp the military?” That is just an excuse!

After the attacks on 9/11 and the decision to attack Afghanistan, Bush could have gotten his rubber stamp GOP controlled Congress to approve more troops. He did not ask and that is the truth. When Congress allowed Bush to invade Iraq he could have asked for the added troops. He was told he needed 500,000 troops to secure Iraq and guess what the generals that prepared the Iraq Invasion Plan and the Army CoS was right and Bush was wrong. We would no have suffered nearly the number of dead and injured if from day one we had the forces needed to prevent the sectarian violence to develop.