What was that that Kerry said about increasing Special Ops Forces?

[Roland99]

Military Budget Grows, but Troops Shrink
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5598238,00.html

Overall, the special operations budget in 2007 will be $5.1 billion, which is $1 billion more than this year and double the amount in 2001, Tina Jonas, the Pentagon's budget chief, told a Pentagon news conference.

The special operations force would grow from about 50,000 today to about 64,000 by 2011.

Hmm....

[MH1]

1. Some references and discussion here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x65998

Kerry said:

12/8/05 Council on Foreign Relations speech

Now, of course, there will be times, like in Afghanistan, when direct military engagement will be necessary. And that requires reshaping our military for those missions ahead: a larger infantry and more special forces; more personnel trained and equipped to perform post-conflict reconstruction missions; a Guard and a Reserve force that meets the nation’s needs overseas and at home. But let me tell you, because this is a long-range war, we have to do now a better job, even, of destroying terrorist cells and preventing terrorist attacks here at home.

And at the Georgetwon speech on 10/26/05

We must make it clear now that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely. And as we withdraw our combat troops, we should be prepared to keep a substantially reduced level of American forces in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi government, for the purpose of training their security forces. Some combat ready American troops will still be needed to safeguard the Americans engaged in that training, but they should be there to do that and to provide a back stop to Iraqi efforts, not to do the fighting for Iraqis.

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more. This week, long standing suspicions of Syrian complicity in destabilizing Lebanon were laid bare by the community of nations. And we know Syria has failed to take the aggressive steps necessary to stop former Baathists and foreign fighters from using its territory as a transit route into Iraq. The Administration must prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq.

Finally, and without delay, we must fundamentally alter the deployment of American troops. While Special Operations must continue to pursue specific intelligence leads, the vast majority of our own troops should be in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face. Iraqis should police Iraqis. Iraqis should search Iraqi homes. Iraqis should stand up for Iraq.

Kerry was right. The Pentagon knows he's right, but they can't make this argument public because they would look 'weak.' But they are doing this, because they have to.


Oh, there was also this: Presidential debate 9/30/04 http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

Kerry: I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold.

Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today.

I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended.

Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing.

So this is the way the president has overextended the United States.

That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.

[Roland99]

2. Fixed a typo in my OP...and then there's this from July 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1510252

Kerry pledged to increase the number of active soldiers in the military by 40,000 and to double the number of US Special Forces.