Bush, military forces, and a strategic vision

The American Thinker ^ | Feb. 1, 2005 | Douglas Hanson

[Kitten Festival]

Most of the punditry got it right about GW’s second inaugural address: it was a monumental speech that prescribed a major shift in our foreign policy and national security posture. Not only was it a true description of the dangerous world we live in, it also established the framework for our military operations in the years to come.

Some analysts have examined the implications of the speech for our armed forces and their roles and responsibilities in ensuring freedom and promotion of democracy around the world. But they lose sight of the historical context of how this changes our strategic outlook. GW’s speech portends not so much changes in the organization and equipping of our forces, but rather changes in the mindset of our military leadership, especially regarding our decade-long rest and “years of repose” from our responsibilities in safeguarding liberty, the period of time otherwise known as the Clinton Administration. If you read between the lines, he was blunt: former military and national security leaders, who are the most vocal in the criticism of our War on Terror, are also the same people who let our military capabilities lapse to a dangerously low level. In a nutshell, get with the program, and let’s win this thing.

[Kitten Festival]

A good essay on Bush's military modernization from an expert in the field.

[maine-iac7]

It amazes me that Bush/Rummy etc have been able to overcome the destruction of our military by the clintoon era - when they not only all but dismantled it but put in charge officers/commanders that hated the military (and the US?) as much as clintoon did/does.

These traitor/officer/commanders are now many of the 'armchair generals' who, no longer in the loop and privy to what's really happening on the ground, spew their traitorous/liberal venom on TV