"no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time"
Now, let's say they were like a few people I knew well. In the service 6 months and dead. How did he expect them to contribute for longer than 6 months?
And what sort of "contribution" do soldiers who die make? Is that a contribution over any sustained period of time. Apparently Rumsfeld doesn't think so - cannon fodder doesn't count.
"because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."
For chrissakes, as Vietnam wound down they were RIFFing folks right and left, didn't want their contribution, had no use for them. Draftees, and volunteers.
Rumsfeld is a sack of something, period. And so are people who defend these statements.
Arf
Off Topic » in reply to Selective reading on your part
Stark, raving mad!!!