Why Grow the Army? Posted by Gordon Adams

What do Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, Bill Richardson, and Gen. Pete Schoomaker, among others, have in common?  They all think the U.S. military is on the verge of breaking and the solution is to make it bigger.  Yet, none of them have told us why it should grow.  Every one of them has put the expansion cart ahead of the strategic horse.

There is no compelling reason to expand the land forces of the United States; in fact, there may be reasons to make them smaller.  Our national security is not facing and existential risk today, and making sure it does not tomorrow will require a different mix of capabilities, one that relies as much on our statecraft, policing, assistance, and intelligence as it does on our land forces.

To be sure, our current land forces are vastly overstretched in Iraq, occupying the country and struggling in the middle of a civil war the administration failed to anticipate and for which they were unprepared.  Rotating active and guard land forces in and out, cutting at home time, extending the stay of deployed units, cycling the equipment, all causes serious wear and tear, and stresses the force.

Expanding the ground forces will not solve this problem.  Since it takes 3-5 years to train, equip, and make new forces ready, the 92,000 the administration wants or the extra 100,000 Mitt Romney has called for will not be ready until well after Iraq is done.  The solution to the Iraq problem was laid out by Rep. John Murtha 18 months ago – bring them home and let the Iraqis solve their civil war.

Once they are home, the big question the President, the Army Chief, and the candidates have not answered is “what would you grow the Army and Marines to do?”  What is the mission?

Is the mission to fight a major land war with another regional power that threatens our national security?  If so, none of the politicians has identified the adversary they expect to invade.

Iran?  Doubtful these folks all support such an invasion; the country is bigger and the terrain a lot more difficult than Iraq; and the adversary is better armed and trained than Saddam Hussein’s greatest.  If we were going to do anything military with Iran, it would be from the air and sea; few are seriously contemplating an invasion. 

Pakistan?  Unlikely – well-armed, highly difficult terrain, huge population, none of whom would welcome such and invasion; most of whom would resist it with their lives.  Keep those plans on the shelf; they are a road to total disaster.  Military option for those Sunni nuclear weapons: a special forces mission, with air support, in and out.

North Korea?  That was the other contingency, in the old two Major Regional Contingency operations contemplated in the national strategy (and still alive today).  But that is also the location of one of the best armed and most capable allies we have – the South Koreans.  No quick invasion there, but, if needed, a lot of air power in support of a South Korean rollback of Kim Jong Il’s finest.

The Washington Post last December proposed China as the potential adversary.  Those serving officers ready to contemplate a land invasion of China, please stand up.  Not going to happen; the U.S. Army and the Marines would be overwhelmed.

Expansion is not about the next big land war.  Is it about occupation, stabilization and reconstruction?  There is a very big push underway at DOD to beef up this mission, implementing a directive approved in November of 2005.  But this is partly the same problem – who will the U.S. occupy, stabilize and reconstruct?  Another 24 million person country, a bigger one, a smaller one?  And has the U.S. military demonstrated the capacity to stabilize and reconstruct another country?

If Iraq and Afghanistan are any example, we are struggling both with stability and reconstruction.  And do the American people want the military to accept as its global mission fighting insurgents wherever they appear? Is this an appropriate mission for the U. S. military?  We’re not asking that question, let alone answering it.  Once again, the goal of forced expansion is out ahead of the strategic discussion.

Or are we talking about a counter-terrorist mission?  If the Arm is chasing Al Qaeda (and not every terrorist organization around the globe) – and that may be a very good thing to do – do we need more ground forces, or do we need different ground forces.  Ones that look like the Special Forces – small, agile, covert, and lethal?  That’s not a requirement that leads to adding to the existing force.

The mission is unclear; the cost is clear.  It will not be cheap to grow the force.  Perhaps $120 b. over the next six years to add the 92,000; then $20-25 b. a year in higher defense budgets to keep them.  The crunch will come after Iraq, when emergency supplemental budget requests no longer protect the Pentagon from the fiscal consequences of its failure to set priorities.  When budgets go down after Iraq, the bite will come out of the Navy, the Air Force, and buying the next generation of technology.  The Pentagon will be stuck with more troops it is not sure how to use, but has to support.

The case for force expansion has not been made.  For some supporters, growing the ground forces smacks of seizing the moment because the Congress looks willing to spend the money, regardless of the rationale.  For others, it looks like political safety – rather than tell the American public how we should engage the world and what the role of the military should be in that engagement, let’s just grow the military and we’ll look “tough on defense.” 

Perhaps it is time to stop, take a deep breath, and ask ourselves how we want to engage the world once the forces are safely back from Iraq, and whether expanding the ground forces is truly the best vehicle to ensure our long term

Comments

[Cal]

Wow. Is this the same Mr. Adams who once casually talked about occupying Indonesia? I don't know who you really are, sir, but I like the new you.

America's foreign policy elite often seems incapable of re-examining their starting assumptions. Thank you for asking these fundamental questions.

I do wonder, however, about your faith in our Special Forces. Could they really be helicoptered into Pakistan to secure 50- 100 nuclear weapons? Based on public sources, we're not even sure how many nuclear weapons Pakistan has, and it seems reasonable to assume that we don't know where all of them are. This sounds like another Operation Market Garden, only with mushroom clouds.

[Saira]

excuse me what do you americans enjoy destroying pakistan...do you knwo how many innocent children you awould endanger...but its typical american MALE behavior, they speak only through war and violence...leave us alone...and stop threatening our innocent women and children...this article is disgusting...americans dont value human life at all..this article proves it...i want to personally than gordan adams for only confirming the stereotypes that we have of american men in pakistan---they are clearly nothing but warmongers

[Saira]

excuse me what do you americans enjoy destroying pakistan...do you knwo how many innocent children you awould endanger...but its typical american MALE behavior, they speak only through war and violence...leave us alone...and stop threatening our innocent women and children...this article is disgusting...americans dont value human life at all..this article proves it...i want to personally than gordan adams for only confirming the stereotypes that we have of american men in pakistan---they are clearly nothing but warmongers

[Khan]

America wants to rape and enslave Pakistan, you have turned us into your slaves...if youre incompetent and Afghanistan is a country full of dumbasses its not our fault....We pakistanis are focusing on the economic future not WARS...peace..ps i dont hate americans but its article like these that makes me want if evil is in the nature of the american male... you cant bomb everything...learn some humanity..

[Lane Brody]

The notion that the US Army is not too small is absurd. That the US military has any problem deploying around 150,000 troops for an extended period of time in support of national policy is a disgrace.

One can desire a full pullout of all US forces from Iraq but this does not change the reality that someday somewhere the US will also need the option of using military force. Either there are enough arrows in the quiver or not.

One can also point out the Pentagon wastes billions every year on basic structural problems and that fixing these would more than pay for an expansion of the US Army. Take half the US Air Force and give it to the USN and US Army and get rid of the other half. Add 50 to 100% more transports, bombers, A-10's, and F-22's, and get rid of the F-16's and all US Air Force F-35 replacements. Now you can get the US army up to 14 divisions and still fully fund the VA.

Real structural change not nickel and dime stuff. Cut one of the services. If not the Air Force then make a case for another. The Air Force does not provide enough transport missions to the other services forcing them to expand their own transport fleets, does not provide enough recon forcing them to deploy more UAV's, demands control of all UAV's by all services so Air Force officers can fly them instead of warrants and NCO's, will not provide enough FAC's, will not provide enough CAS nor replace the A-10 with a new plane, wished to retire the A-10 and only stopped when the Army said they would take them over, etc., etc., etc.

Congress might also have stopped the insanity in the US Army in it's extremely wasteful new brigade structure. Ticket punchers wet dream.

Of course if one is actually against the US being able to do anything then having an army too small to do anything serves that purpose well but not the nation.

[J.]

You know, this site used to have some fairly substantial defense think-pieces - now it's degenerating into a common attack blog. As Lane points out, if your goal is to limit the size of the military in order to prevent a long-term deployment of troops in future combat, well, sure, then you've made your statement. But say so up front.

There are countless articles by serious defense think-tanks, on the right and left, not to mention defense analysts in the government who will be glad to show you why the current force of less than 1.5 million active-duty military is inadequate for today's security posture. There are numerous potential examples of future conflict - Cuba or N. Korea regime collapse, minor conflicts in South America or the Pacific islands, the ever-brewing Middle East conflicts, not to mention the responsibility for homeland defense and potential emerging superpowers like China or India or (re-emerging) Russia. The case studies and analyses are out there.

In any given time-period, you can count on one-third of the active duty military being deployed overseas, one-third being in training or schools, and one-third returning from deployments and resting up. This isn't a case of saying, well, what are all those people doing? Surely we have enough. Yes, if we deployed a significant amount of Reservists and National Guard units, as we are doing now. But that's only supposed to be required for long-term sustained combat. We still have lots of responsibilities all over the world.

If your real issue is the defense budget, hey, we all agree. Acquisition programs are out of control. The budgeting and accounting process within DOD is broke. Congressional special interests impact our ability to make logical and defendable decisions on closing bases, medical care, and acquisition programs. The Air Force is agressively pushing to expand its personnel against any and all rational cases to the contrary. Sure, there's a need for serious defense policy and recommendations, and that's why no candidate or government official today will even look at any suggestion on not growing the ground troops strength. We know it's broke.

Yes, it's going to take time. Yes, starting the increase in authorized billets won't help Iraq. But your rationale for not growing the force is flawed. You can do better than this puff-piece.

[Gordon Adams]

I appreciate the comments, so far. Neither "j," who chooses to conceal his or her identity, nor Lane, bothered to do more than assert a need, without providing a strategic or mission justification; they have not escaped the box we are in today. All the think tanks in Washington could be mistaken on this, or simply have decided to crowd around the "received wisdom" current in DC. And this is only secondarily a budget issue; if a larger force had a true strategic justification, it would be affordable. Having said that, anyone who has ever had anything to do with the defense business knows, that in reality, defense options and the risks one is prepared to bear are, and always will be, resource constrained. The price for not thinking this issue through could be even more damaging, once we are out of Iraq.

I regret the readings from Pakistan; I was not supporting any intrusion into Pakistan, but rather sayind, in military terms that if a military were planning to intervene in a Pakistani crisis, they, not I, would choose to do so in a much more limited way than a full ground invasion. The wisdom or folly of any such intervention is a separate issue and I get what they are saying.

To the best of my knowledge, I never once in my entire life called for an occupation of Indonesia - talk about a hopeless mission...

[Greg Sanders]

Mr. Adams,

Glad to see you post. I happily observed to Guy the other day that I saw you on the contributor list and he mentioned you'd been there for some time. Since this is the first of your posts I've noticed since I put two and two together, I thought I'd say hi.

I tend to buy your arguments on both the question of land wars and special forces. I disagree a bit on occupation, stabilization and reconstruction. The issue has come up fairly regularly for America - the Phillipines; Japan and Germany after WWII; Vietnam; humanitarian interventions such as Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo; and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other operations such as Panama there wasn't a stabalization component and as a result there were serious problems with rioting that may well have been avoidable. I also think some of those cases were serious mistakes, notably the Phillipines, Vietnam, and Iraq.

However, regardless of our strategic planning, we seem to find ourselves regularly in occupation, stability, and reconstruction operations. The globalized post-cold war environment seems to regularly present opportunities for such interventions, regardless of the wisdoom of taking those opportunities. This isn't to say I see any credible invasion scenarios coming up, I don't, not on the security side (e.g. Iran or Pakistan) or the humanitarian side (e.g. Darfur). Nor do I think that global counter-insurgency is a managable idea, let alone a good one.

However, the process of actually building a force that can do a good job of handling such scenarios, be they security or humanitarian side, will take a long time. I actually don't tend to think the Army and the Marines should take the lead on that question, so I do agree that this isn't really a question of military land forces as such. The Europeans are often better suited for this sort of work, however I think our troubles in Afghanistan show that we can't rely exclusively on them.

Of course, this gets to the issue of the strategic questions following behind the force implementation questions. I believe that's your main point and I think you're absolutely right there. However, I think it's worth pairing this argument to the need to build up our civilian-side capacity to do this work.

In essence, I think the OS&R question isn't "who will the U.S. occupy, stabilize and reconstruct?" but "why are we focusing on military numbers when the main build up we need is on the civilian side." It of course would be best if sound strategic thinking did come first, but I think right now most of the strategic planning of candidates is reasonably focused on how to handle Iraq. If we're lucky they're also thinking of Afghanistan. I'm afraid that thoughtful consideration of our larger strategic doctrine probably won't happen until there's more agreement on how to handle our massive immediate problems.

Also, for the record, these are strictly my personal opinions. I'm in no way speaking for my think tank.

[Lane Brody]

The US military can not exist to deal with a specific perceived threat for two reasons: Firstly, threats change as do who is a potential enemy and ally; More importantly of course is the historical truism that we often do not know the future threat and prepare for the wrong one.

After WWII we assumed less need for military force due to the new strategic nuclear reality. Sounded excellent and some of your current think tanks began life at this time. The reality is we were not prepared for a conventional conflict in Korea. Preparing to fight the USSR on the plains of Germany did not serve us well in Vietnam. Going back to a conventional posture and turning our back on much of the special forces lessons from Vietnam gave us Desert One.

The job of the military is provide a force that meets the nations needs over a period of decades. The B-52 is 55 years old and will fly for another 35+ years. It turned out to be a good investment for the nation because Boeing built one hell of a sturdy plane even though it's never performed it's main intended role- delivery of nuclear weapons against an enemy.

One structures a military in part to perform certain missions and functions whoever and wherever the enemy might be. One does not buy F-22's because country X might require them if we had a conflict with them but rather because the first, secound, and third essential aspect of warfare for the US is air superiority and we can not afford as a nation to take risks in this area.

We do not need more Army divisions because one can hunt down a specific threat report to satisfy the skeptic but simply because providing 125-150,000 or so troops over a period of years is such a strain on the US military it can not be endured and it's difficult to not imagine the US needing to put 125,000+ troops somewhere else between tomorrow and the decades to come.

In any case if one is against more forces then one will always be able to lower a threat analysis. That is exactly what Sec Def did vis a vis planning for Iraq. You rarely get to fight who you plan to fight nor do get to know what the enemy is going to do.

Korea, Lebanon, Haiti, Panama, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. All of these were failures of planning and strategic intell. The US as a nation does not do fortune telling very well. However, based on history it's an excellent bet that somewhere the next generation will have to deploy somewhere.

[Andrew Fong]

There are any number of ethnic conflicts and weak states that could benefit from more peacekeepers / stabilization forces (Darfur and Somalia come to mind). These scenarios have little immediate impact on our national interests, but we may wish to get involved anyway, e.g. because of humanitarian reasons or because we have concerns about a weak state becoming a haven for terrorists, drug traders, etc.

I think it's a valid question to ask if these are actually valid scenarios for the US military. EU or regional peacekeepers may be better at this, and there's much more of a need for police forces, development experts, and "field diplomats" than military force per se. I definitely agree with Greg that there's a need to build up the civilian side of this. You could attribute our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan to overemphasizing the military component (the Dutch are a nice counter-example to this).

Even if this isn't strictly a military mission though, we need to expand our capacity to deal with these scenarios. The debate should be how and organizationally where we do this.

[Cal]

"To the best of my knowledge, I never once in my entire life called for an occupation of Indonesia - talk about a hopeless mission..." -- Gordon Adams

Hello Gordon Adams version 2.0. Meet Gordon Adams 1.0:

"Given the Iraq experience and the recent strategy review (QDR), DOD has made it clear that it will want a lot more interagency cooperation the next time we decide to occupy, stabilize, and reconstruct another country. It is not clear who the candidate countries are, though Iran, Nigeria, Indonesia, Syria come to mind."

Now I suppose you could say that you were merely reporting on DOD plans, but if you thought those plans were a "hopeless mission," I wish you would have pointed that out in your post, instead of talking about how we could better attempt the impossible.

Nevertheless I am glad you are now asking these questions. Unlike Mr. Brody, I don't see it as self-evident that we need a bigger army. That's a huge investment, and occupations in modern times have a low success rate.

[J Thomas]

Before WWI and WWII we didn't have large armies ready, and we were caught somewhat unprepared. In every war since we've had large expensive standing forces that turned out not to be the forces we needed and we've been caught somewhat unprepared.

Maybe our preparations succeeded in preventing the kind of war we were prepared for, leaving us to actually fight only when our enemies thought they had a chance against us.

Since it's very hard to prepare for everything, we should look at what missions we're ready to prepare for -- hoping to prevent the situations from arising by preparing. Look at what it costs to do that and decide whether that prevention is worth it.

And for the things we aren't prepared for, we should look at how to prepare quickly.

How can we train warriors quicker? This has multiple advantages. The soldiers we keep on standby when there's no clear threat get ready quicker and stay ready longer before they leave or re-enlist. And if we need a bigger force we can get it quicker. I read a story in TIME magazine that when al qaeda trained soldiers they started with US Marine manuals and cut out the parts they didn't need, basicly all the BS, and they wound up with a training program 1/3 as long as ours. They were pretty good when we fought them, but they didn't have any air support or armor. It would be a good thing if we could train Marines in 1/3 the time, or even 1/2 the time.

Perhaps we could train civilians to do a lot of the vital logistics work, and have lots of private companies ready to do JIT supplies, so we could quickly ramp up war production while we ramped up forces. We might learn more uses for UAVs and PGMs, maybe we could rely less on massive supplies so a lighter force could accomplish more.

It took us close to a year to gather supplies for the Gulf war, and many months to prepare to invade iraq -- if we only fight in places where we have the leisure to build up supplies for 6 months or more, it calls things into question. Like, what's it all about, Alfie? Places we're prepared for, the enemy will avoid fighting us. Places we aren't prepared for but we can build up a massive force, we attack and maybe get bogged down. And the other places we just punt? If we can get by without attacking the places we can't get there in time for, maybe we can get by without trillion dollar wars where we have the leisure to build up slowly.

Until we persuaded the chinese to ramp up their military spending (by threatening them) we were spending something like half the world military budget. The reason we need such a bigger military than anybody else is ... because we only play away games? We have to be ready to defeat anybody else on their home ground? And that just begs for the question -- why do we need to defeat every other army on its home ground?

We need to look for ways to do more with the military we can afford. It doesn't do us any good to budget a military we can't afford. Spend beyond our means and we can lose big without firing a shot.

[buy angels gold]

I am so happy to earn some angels gold. In fact at first sight I have fallen in love with angels online gold. So no matter how much I have spent to buy angels gold, I never regret. My life changes because of cheap angels online gold.

[Breguet replica watches]

we don't think it is reasonable to spend hundreds thousands dollars to buy a decorating watch. you can use those money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit.
here you just need to spend 100-200 dollars to buy a replica rolex watches.
Breguet replica watches are made by the rating 1:1 according to the original watches, and you can't distinguish the original and the fake watches when you look at the surface of the watches.

[cheap Perfect World Gold]

Therefore, I should Buy Perfect World Gold with the spare money.

[FFXI Gil]

Once I played FF11, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have FFXI Gil.He gave me some cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold.

[twelvesky Gold]

she like quiet and twelvesky Gold. she always read books in the library 12Sky Silver Coins.

[World of Warcraft Gold]

Do you like playing the game where you need to use wow gold, when you do not have World of Warcraft Gold,

[Discounts Hermes Handbags]

she like quiet and twelvesky Gold

[fake Bvlgari Necklaces]

Do you like playing the game where you need to use wow gold, when you do not have World of Warcraft Gold

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[molded rubber products]

Plastic parts made by injection molding
printing in China
construction scaffolding

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[ghd]

GHD IV mini styler has a safety feature that gives you peace of mind, by turning itself off if it is left unattended for 30 minutes. The unique digital technology of GHD hair straightener means that the temperature is automatically controlled even quicker for even better styling.

Creating tight curls, flicks and waves as well as the perfect straight. The ideal styling tool for urban angels with short hair, men's hair and fringes.

price includes: ghd IV salon styler,ghd purple roll bag.

product features:
Auto sleep mode(A built in safety feature that gives you peace of mind by turning off if the ghd IV styler is left unallended for 30 minutes.)
Universal voltage(So that you can use your styler in any country without an adaptor.)
Advanced ceramic heaters(The ultimate heating technology for the ultimate shine and style creation.)
All our products are cheap,if you want to find cheap ghd,come here and that is right.

If you want to find GHD hair products,you can write GHD straightener,GHD hair straighteners,GHD straightners,GHD hair,straighteners GHD in google browse.

[chanel handbags]

Chanel Handbags are woman’s dream come true.

Chanel, a fashion name that has become synonymous with femininity since 100 years, is on the must-have list of every fashion-conscious woman.? And we bring these must-have Chanel Handbags at never before discounts, just for you.

It is only when you come across an Chanel New Arrivals, do you realize the power of her words.? Chanel handbags are crafted not just to be trendy, but trend-setting.? Hardly has lived a celebrity who has not been seen carrying a Chanel handbag under her arm; such has the influence of Chanel handbags as a fashion statement.

Chanel handbags have been so popular in the elite classes of the society, that their pricing is usually prohibitive for everyone else.? Discount Chanel handbags are really difficult to come across, but today should be your lucky day.? We bring you a superb unbeatable range of Chanel Flap bags, all at fantastic discounts.? With us, you have an incredible chance to buy your favorite Chanel handbags at rock bottom prices!

Chanel Handbags have always been at the forefront of luxury and style.? The Chanel classic quilted leather handbags and its reinventions have ruled fashion since forever.? Chanel handbags have remained extremely popular as they continue to merge evolving modern trends with the class and simplicity of its original avatar.

An Chanel 2008 Collection and Chanel 2009 Collection single handedly enhances the look you are carrying.? The reason you would buy a Chanel handbag is own a bag that mingles with your charm and intensifies it with its inherent simplicity.? If you have owned an authentic Chanel handbag before, you know what we are talking about.? If you are one of the unlucky people who haven’t yet gotten a chance to own an Chanel Cambon, now is your chance to shop for an authentic Chanel handbag and discover its ability to transform your look completely.

Buy Chanel handbags with us, and get fabulous discounts which you will never get at your favorite store.? We offer cheap authentic Chanel handbags and they are all up for grabs!

[jordan shoes]

Both red and expert does not make progress.

[movado watch]

Thanks for your sharing,and you will enjoy the sunshine service. Let's abandon all the worry, omega watch and enjoy the happy shopping travel.All the are most in fashion boutique this year. show your chaming temperament. In addtin, the and the other make you mold your unique glamour this winter. The swiss have the high quality but low price. nd have all the style and cheapest price Chanel Watch Enjoying the fun of net purchase! We will supply you the perfect service and after sale support system. Our honest will bring you absolute satisfaction. Aslo and are so good for you.

[gucci sneakers]

Produced pioneering spirit is very difficult.

[Timberland boots uk]

it looks nice and I want to give my opinion

timberland boots uk is the classic American success story of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps - literally. In 1918, Nathan Swartz began a boot-making career as an apprentice stitcher at The Abington Shoe Company in Massachusetts. He started on the lowest rung on the ladder, learned his trade, and through hard work and determination eventually became the owner of the company.timberland sale Swartz and his sons continued to make shoes and boots for many manufacturers, and in the 1960s they produced the first truly waterproof boots. The innovation came by fusing soles to leather uppers without stitching.Comfortable enough to wear all day and rugged enough for all year round.waterproof bootstimberland boots sale are equipped to help people make a difference in their world, whatever your definition of that may be. Whether a true hiker or just hiking to work, from boots to chukkas to boat shoes to dress casual oxfords, ShoeMall has men's Timberland shoes of all styles. Our women's timberland boots sale range from rugged boots to delicate ballet flats, for however you want to walk through your day. We also have a brand new selection of kids' Timberland shoes. They're the perfect way to start your little adventurer's day off right! And, as always, we offer free shipping on all cheap timberland boots

[save fuel]

To be sure, our current land forces are vastly overstretched in Iraq, occupying the country and struggling in the middle of a civil war the administration failed to anticipate and for which they were unprepared. Rotating active and guard land forces in and out, cutting at home time, extending the stay of deployed units, cycling the equipment, all causes serious wear and tear, and stresses the force.
reverse phone detective jump higher Electronic Cigarette earth4energy grow taller

[China Tent]

Once again great post. You seem to have a good understanding of these themes.When I entering your blog,I felt this . Come on and keep writting your blog will be more attractive. To Your Success!

[Tiffany bracelet]

Great site. This could probably have the refactoring tag added t it.

[clothes online cheap]

The article is worth reading, I like it very much. I will keep your new articles.
http://www.belowbulk.com

[sun]

My 2 year old son has been in the hospital for bilateral pleural chylous effusions since Jan 29, p/o Fontan in November of 2009. He has tried diet, diuretics, thoracic duct ligation and now pleurodesis on the right side. rn bsn

[sun]

My 2 year old son has been in the hospital for bilateral pleural chylous effusions since Jan 29, p/o Fontan in November of 2009. He has tried diet, diuretics, thoracic duct ligation and now pleurodesis on the right side. masters of public administration

[sun]

My 2 year old son has been in the hospital for bilateral pleural chylous effusions since Jan 29, p/o Fontan in November of 2009. He has tried diet, diuretics, thoracic duct ligation and now pleurodesis on the right side. Vernita Daller

[sun]

I want to be a part of this mags. I have idea to make a good design and to make a good layout for this mags. We need to make other people to feel interesting by see our mags cover, then they will buy it bachelors in criminal justice

[sun]

I can’t seem to get this to work – it only imports the first account (the first line) regardless of how many I have listed – tried both manually entering the data and uploading a text file. Any help would be appreciated emergency management degree

[sun]

I fallow all the steps about your great plugin for multi-column list. I am using Wordpress 3.1 and install the plugin but it is not showing me any list of alphabetic order window. I’m very new to this so really need your help in this. online green mba

[sun]

Option to display as tabbed dialog Easy drag & drop setup ms in engineering management

[backpack]

It's a good thing they've thought about it. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.

[China Inflatable]

Well worth to read, we can get great useful info from this post, thanks.

[gclub]

Gclub คาสิโนออนไลน์ ฟุตบอลออนไลน์ หวยออนไลน์ บริการตลอด 24 ชั่วโมง Call Center Tel Ais : 089-398-9294 ถึง 97 Dtac : 090-005-4245 ถึง 46