Republicans Anonymous

What we're repeating:

WASHINGTON, July 4 - The Pentagon's most senior planners are challenging the longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at a time. Instead, they are weighing whether to shape the military to mount one conventional campaign while devoting more resources to defending American territory and antiterrorism efforts.
(Source: New York Times Pentagon Weighs Strategy Change to Deter Terror, July 5, 2005

In the years before World War 2, Britain decided to cut back on their Naval spending despite the growing threats from Germany and Japan:

Following the inter-war disarmament conferences, the Royal Navy had been reduced to a two-ocean force – it could certainly protect British interests in the western hemisphere, and could even extend its power into the Indian Ocean to erect a protective mantle over the array of British colonies and interests abutting its tropical shores.

The Pacific was more problematic. In theory, Britain could assemble a formidable fleet for despatch to the Pacific provided that the situation elsewhere was stable.
(Source: David Day Loosening the Bonds - Britain, Australia and the Second World War, History Today Volume: 38 Issue: 2, Page 11 - 17. February 1988)

Our military is currently bogged down in Iraq for the next 10 years. This isn't the time for further cuts in military strength just so "W" can deliver still more tax cuts for the Bush League.

Can you say "Taiwan?" How about "China?" Or "Iran?" Or "Afghanistan?"