It is important to note that I am not rallying against any administration, whether it be the Continental Congress or the former Bush governments. Rather, I find it fascinating that my class is starting to acknowledge American military trends that are often at the core of higher level academic debates. While my class somewhat agreed that weapons were a critical component of the war, the treatment of the soldiers was still unacceptable. What is more important, purchasing guns or grain? Should government focus be looking after the soldiers diet, or providing them with the tools to accomplish their battlefield tasks? Or, are the two one in the same. It is my opinion that they are ultimately the same issue.

I put forth the question as to what was more important, food or muskets? Considering at the time of the Revolution, America was referred to as a land overflowing with food-stuffs. In fact, Hessian mercenaries remarked how bountiful the American colonies appeared to be. Weapons on the other hand were harder to procure, and often necessitated the need of European sources like the French. Apparently Congress believed the Continentals could forage and make due with the limited deliveries of perishables, while saving money to augment the growing debt owed to the armament suppliers.

Moving on to how all of this relates to America’s current military efforts abroad, it is striking how the issue of supply remains a problem. Granted, we have an abundance of arms, many of our soldiers in Iraq were under equipped and at times forced to make due with captured/procured weapons. While serving in Iraq, my friend’s company had to use a badly maintained deuce and a half – outfitting it with left over Soviet made armor plates. While times may have changed, the fact remains the US continually encounters situations where it cannot supply all the items deemed necessary by those doing the actual fighting.