THIS is how this clown SHOULD have left office...
Posted on 07/18/2006 5:44:44 AM PDT by Quilla
In the 1990s, we had an old roof in need of renovation, repair, and innovation.
Bill Clinton's solution was to get rid of the roof.
When one looks at the war in Iraq from afar, one gets the impression that the US Army can't put the enemy away. I am sure that professional observers from other countries may draw their own conclusions. An expression comes to mind - Guns instead of butter.
Sometime set you grandson or granddaughter on your knee and describe the kind of world that you are leaving to them.
THIS is how this clown SHOULD have left office...
Yep, and then he sold our neighbors rain making machines.
Hey, I'm all for this. However, social spending has probably increased 1000s-fold since then. Be nice to reverse that trend.
Don't get me wrong - everyone who stayed in wasn't "sick, lame or lazy", but I saw a lot of guys with great potential get out and take jobs with the airlines.
I've read a lot of editorials lately about how the military isn't planning for the "right war". The guys who write them don't understand that it takes 10-15 years to effectively fill gaps in the intermediate and senior ranks. The military can speed up promotions, but that only gives limited relief. You can't replace a 15 year veteran with someone with only a couple of years of supervisory experience without some impact to the organization. For one thing, the guy who replaces the new supervisor as a technician is going to be less experienced.
It takes a minimum of 10 years to field a new fighter plane, develop tactics, and train the pilots. The guys buying F-22s and F-35s aren't looking at the war on terror, or even the next war. They're looking 15-20 years down the road.
The manning engineers used to figure that it took about 7 years to feel the impact of drawdowns. If you reduce the number of people coming into the service you create a "wave" that ripples through the manning for the next 20 years.
Doesn't this author (and General Schoomaker) realize that there was a peace dividend paid in the 1990's and it was Bill Clinton's mission to both cashier it and squander it? How else to build a legacy during a period when there was no "history". Hey, the economy was great! Those $200 billion "deficits as far as the eye can see" vanished! Bill Clinton worked magic! All those reductions in Army personnel: they helped Clinton meet a campaign pledge to reduce the size of government (all coming from Defense) and in response to Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" -- and who can ever question Al's insights and creativity???
Now if George W and Rummy had just accepted the fact that they should have conducted this war using only bombs being dropped from 30,000 feet in both Afghanistan and Iraq, everything would be just peachy according to the Clinton playbook.
Finally, someone coming out and saying kkklinton is at fault for the Military being in the shape it was in on 9/11 and they are still feeling the effects 6 years later...
And some people want the kkklintons back in office?????
Far be it from me to defend Clinton for anything, but I was in the Air Force during Desert Storm. The military drawdowns and troop reductions began right after that war was finished under Bush 41's tenure.
The prevailing wisdom was that we had won the Cold War and were ready to cash in on the "peace dividend." The budget deficit was third-party spoiler Ross Perot's big issue to distract conservatives and pull support away from Bush. Military cuts in Bush's new world order of peace and safety were a done deal. Clinton just continued what Bush already started.
The wise and worldly will tell you today that massive armies are no longer needed because they never anticipate a global WWII-style conflict against national armies. They believe the future is low-intensity, assymetrical operations. The Russians and the Chinese are banking on us keeping this flawed paradigm and are intent on exploiting it in their own good time.
Heavens To Murtharoid!
Let's not forget who was Chairman, House Armed Services Committee when the cuts from the 1993 Bottoms Up review were engineered.
That's right... Broken Army Murtha!
I'm curious about Freeper opinions...should we have a draft in light of these remarks.
I believe that we should ramp up recruitment efforts and if we are not successful, we should consider a draft. We live in dangerouds times, and much of what may be needed, we must do alone.
Are we shorting ourselves in the hopes that the EU will assist us? It is a risk to great to bet on when the security of our western institutions is at stake.
If it takes this long for the US military, we should all consider the requirements for reuilding the Iraqi Army in that light as well, with far more handicaps.
Many are critical because the iraqi Army does nto take over for our military, but look how long it takes to even get trained up a decent non-com or a mid-level officer corps.
You are correct to a certain extent..... There was a logical drawdown after the demise of the Soviets. Clinton threw aside the Bush 41 recommended force structure and went with his own plan with much deeper cuts.
Google "Bottoms up review 1993"
Very good insight.
My understanding was that Bush 41 was aiming for a force restructuring.
My understanding of Clinton's policies was that they were aiming for a force reduction.
Clinton followed through with the reduction part of the restructuring, but didn't follow all the way with the rest of the restructuring envisioned by Bush 41's administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.