Re: [Fwd: commentary 117]

In a message dated 7/17/2003 1:03:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
bstremli@binghamton.edu writes:

> Although the Iraq situation is causing the US some discomfort, the army
> (1.5 million strong, I believe) is far from being tapped 
> out.

The US army has troops all over the world--and at a time of transnational 
terrorism, they can't reduce bases to skeleton crews.  They have over 100,000 
troops in Iraq.  That doesn't count the troops in Kuwait, doing support work.  
There are also troops in Afghanistan.  And large numbers of troops are needed 
to maintain the army in the US.  Not bringing troops home promptly is costly 
for Bush politically; if they could do it, they surely would.  I also wonder 
how their recruitment is doing, when the appeal is no longer 'join the army, 
learn some skills, get some money for college', but instead 'stand around in 
Iraq getting shot at.'  Barring another major terrorist attack (not an 
impossibility) I think it will be hard to sell the American public on another 
intervention in the short term.

As for Dean--he has been moving to the right as his star has risen.  I think he 
is at risk of losing much of his support from the anti-war movement.  
Meanwhile, the center-right establishment which has dominated the Democratic 
party for years is not going to go down without a fight.  It will be great if 
the Democrats can run someone with some momentum and unity, but I wouldn't bet 
on it.

Steven Sherman