The report, which was released last Thursday, states the U.S. “does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available” to properly deal with a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons attack.

More than 88 percent of current Army National Guard units are deemed unprepared, and units in more than half of the states have less than 50 percent of the equipment they require.

The commission has offered many policy changes to help reduce costs and improve the situation. However, some of the recommendations, such as giving state governors authority over active-duty troops responding to state crises or the creation of a trained response team of citizen soldiers, seem a little too extreme.

Considering the state of the U.S. military, a lack of preparation isn’t a surprise.

The U.S. is fighting terrorism on a tight budget. With the demand placed on the military for troops and supplies in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places, there’s little left for our national defense needs.

We have soldiers outside and inside our borders who don’t have the support needed to do their job and the consequences of this are obvious. From the well-publicized troubles soldiers have had both on and off the battlefield with inefficient equipment and rising attempted-suicide rates — five U.S. soldiers per day in 2007, according to U.S. Army statistics — the needs of soldiers aren’t being met.

This seems to underscore a failure of the military and executive leadership to serve its basic purpose — serve and protect the United States.

But to be fair, our country will always be unprepared in some way. To have every contingency planned would take far too much time and too many resources, and human error — from airport security screeners failing, to detecting faux bombs in planned tests — is always present.

There are steps, however, that can be taken to be as prepared as possible. That means training soldiers and reserve soldiers and giving them the equipment they need.

And if fighting in foreign conflicts gets in the way of that, then perhaps we should call it quits.

Everyone has an opinion about the war in Iraq, and how and when to withdraw if it comes to that. It’s hard to say which way is the best way.

But one thing has become clear, and it’s becoming a major campaigning tool during the 2008 presidential primaries – we don’t have what it takes to sustain conflicts abroad. In fact, it looks even more dangerous to do so.