Posted on 08/04/2006 12:15:06 PM PDT by ncountylee
Several Clinton-era administration officials have sent a letter to Democratic leaders in Congress expressing deep concern over the Army’s combat readiness.
William Perry, the former secretary of defense, and Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, plus others who served the 42nd president said that they learned that two-thirds of the Army’s operating force, both active-duty and reserve, is reporting as unready.
“The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve,” the former officials wrote. The officials are part of the National Security Advisory Group chaired by Perry.
“Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army’s readiness been so degraded,” they said in their letter to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Not having a strategic reserve is “particularly dangerous” at a time when the United States is engaged in a global effort to counter terrorism and is facing crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran and North Korea, the letter said.
“The lack of a ready strategic reserve in our Army weakens our ability to deter undesired actions by these nations, as well as our ability to respond effectively to such actions,” the former officials wrote.
The National Security Advisory Group blasted the Bush administration, saying it has underfunded the Army. “Remarkably, the Office of Management and Budget recently cut the Army’s request for FY06 supplemental appropriations by $4.9 billion, undermining the Army’s efforts to ‘get well’ after substantial equipment degradation and losses in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom,” they wrote. “We believe this constitutes a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hillnews.com ...
Ef'em.
Uh, did the "former officials" forget that it was they who decimated our military ranks?
Several Clinton-era administration officials have sent a letter to Democratic leaders in Congress expressing deep concern over the Army’s combat readiness.
This is rich!!!...this irks me no end....during the rapist's administration by hubby's unit had to cannibalize their own choppers just to keep some able to fly...then, there was no money for fuel...so the pilots couldn't even fly.....what BS this is!!
That's what they want you to forget.
The Clintonites and the budget surplus they never tire of boasting about, although achieved largely by a Republican Congress, was partly due to a 40% across-the-board cut in the armed services from `92 to 2000.
Them lecturing us on things military is like the Vatican preaching on things sexual.
Who do they think they're kidding?
At one time, an e-mail went around regarding the Clinton armed forces cuts but I can't locate it.
They should know about the army since the democrats have tried any way they can to undermine the army . Viet Nam, John kerry , Black Hawk Down, Kosovo,the Korean War and many mistakes made by FDRs decisions during WW2. They should be worried about how ready we are. Clinton hated and tried to destroy it.
While these jellyfish were in charge, our troops didn't even have sufficient live ammo to practice with.
The only things in ample supply among the Clintonoids are vanity and gall.
Albright is nothing but a political hack.
The Truth About Clinton’s Military
By Jonathan Clark on Mon Apr 14, 2003 3:50 pm
After three weeks of conflict, Baghdad fell to United States Marine forces. People in every corner of the world watched live as the Iraqi people aided by US Marines toppled the statue of Saddam and rode the head through the streets. Years of pent up frustration and fear were released for the whole world to see. It left the Arab Street in shock, it left ‘Old Europe’ looking very stupid, but as always the American left was out as soon as it happened attempting to spin the event.
It started on Wednesday with a column from Tribune Media Services writer, Matthew Miller. Miller, who it should be noted, served as Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1993 to 1995 – the Clinton years part I. In his April 9th column he attempts to credit Bill Clinton with the effectiveness of today’s military.
“The remarkable feats in Iraq are being performed by Bill Clinton's military.
This should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology or partisanship. We've been told repeatedly how much more lethal and accurate our forces are in 2003 than they were in 1991 - so much so that we needed only 250,000 troops to drive to Baghdad and change the regime, as opposed to the 500,000 we sent merely to oust Saddam from Kuwait in Gulf War I. Something like 90 percent of the bombs and missiles we use are "precision guided" today, versus roughly 10 percent back in 1991. The catalogue of how today's military is smarter, faster and better than it was back during Desert Storm is a credit to U.S. ingenuity and a source of national pride.”
Miller then had the audacity to attempt a re-write of history to paint Clinton as a supporter of the military and sustained defense budgets.
“But politics explains why Bill Clinton insisted the Pentagon maintain a Cold War budget even without a Cold War, to protect his party's right flank.”
I hate to confuse the situation with the facts Mr. Miller, but quite the opposite is true. The Clinton/Gore Administration stretched our military forces very thin from 1993 to 1999. In addition, they increased spending on social experiments while cutting defense spending.
* Between 1960 and 1991, the United States Army conducted 10 "operational events." From 1991 through 1999, the Army conducted 26 operational events --- 2 1/2 times that number in 1/3 the time span.
* As of 1999, there were 265,000 American troops in 135 countries.
* Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10. The Army has reduced its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians and closed over 700 installations at home and overseas.
* Since 1990, the Air Force has shrunk from 36 fighter wings (active and reserve) to 20. The Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent while simultaneously experiencing a fourfold increase in operational commitments.
* At the height of the Reagan Administration build-up, the Navy had 586 ships. As of 1999, it had only 324. The Clinton Administration’s blueprint called for that number to further drop to 305. If the rate of ship construction and retirement by this administration is continued, that number could fall to only 200 ships by 2020.
* Since 1987, active duty military personnel have been reduced by more than 800,000. To illustrate that problem:
1. In June 1998, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group deployed with 770 fewer personnel than it did on its previous deployment three years before.
2. At about the same time, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, another carrier, began a 6-month deployment 464 people short of its 2,963 authorized billets.
3. In late 1998, the USS Enterprise deployed for the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf short 400 personnel.
* In 1999, the Navy had a total of 22,000 empty slots in a 324-ship fleet.
* In addition, the armed services suffered a severe ammunition shortfall going into the Kosovo engagement. According to the Service Chiefs, the FY99 ammunition shortfall for the Marine Corps is $193 million. For the Army in FY00, it is a shocking $3.5 billion.
The equipment we have is aging:
* The average age of the B-52H bombers— put to use in the Balkans—is 40 years old.
* The average age of the Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) is 29 years old.
* The design of the CH-46 helicopter—a Marine mainstay—is approximately 43 years old.
* A-10 pilots flying over Kosovo were forced to spend their own money to buy inferior, off-the-shelf GPS receivers at local stores and attach them with Velcro to their planes to use in conjunction with their outdated survival radios should their planes crash.
* At a congressional hearing held in February 1999 at the Navy’s Strike and Air Warfare Center in Fallen, NV – the world-renowned "Top Gun" fighter pilot school – Members were told that mechanical problems had grounded 14 of the center’s 23 aircraft.
* In 1999, more than half of the B1-Bs at Ellsworth AFB were not mission capable because they lack critical parts.
And I can tell you that speaking with pilots first hand as of August 2001, they were complaining about the lack of flight time due to the age of the aircraft and the need for servicing and lack of replacement parts.
On Friday, the leading House Democrat, Nancy Pelosi chimed in with her two cents.
She said, "I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war. The cost in human lives, the cost to our budget - probably $100 billion - we could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we're toward the end of it is, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism?"
Pelosi talked of the toppling of Saddam’s regime as if were some sort of public works project. And as Mrs. Pelosi praised the troops, she also said their success was owed "in large measure" to former President Bill Clinton.
Pelosi continued with the left’s defense of Clinton saying "This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years," she said.
The problem with this line of reasoning besides it being factually incorrect is that if this is ‘Clinton’s Military’, then this is also ‘Clinton’s Economy’. As always they want to have it both ways.
Funny how just last week, the pundits were blaming Bush for basically what amounted to their own impatience with how they thought the war should have progressed. Now that the success is so overwhelmingly apparent, they attempt to re-write history. The one thing that folks like Pelosi and Miller overlook is the intangibles. The biggest is the military’s adoration of President Bush. From top to bottom, the U. S. military loathed his predecessor, Bill Clinton. They genuinely adore Bush. And it is a mutual adoration. This intangible piece provides motivation not seen during the Clinton years. From 1993 through 2000, our military had no clear focus. It was used primarily in diversionary tactics by Clinton when the heat of attention to his many scandals became more than he wanted to bear. Have we forgotten Clinton’s military escapades into Haiti, Kosovo, Mogadishu and Waco?
And don’t forget that the Franco-German wing of the Democratic Party put themselves in to a position in which America had to suffer a loss in this conflict in order for them to come out on top. They have done the same thing with domestic issues. They are continuing this failed strategy by attempting to ‘raise the bar’ on what defines success in Iraq. The problem is that it’s not ‘playing well in Peoria’ anymore. More and more people are getting their news from reliable sources like Fox News. And after finding out how CNN withheld the truth about Saddam’s brutality, more will follow.
The cold hard truth of the matter is that Rumsfeld and Franks put together a well motivated military force in short order that executed a well designed plan in which they overwhelmed the enemy and shocked the world.
Sermons over, pass the plate.
* Military Depletion Source: 1999 Congressional Fact Sheet
Great hard news! How come this never passes tose in the MSM?
bump
But who will call them on it? No Republican....not the White House....no cabinet member....certainly not one of the MSM. Maybe Rush or Shawn will.
Surely, Americans have not forgotten what the Clintons did to our military!! I have not!
Kind of like when Clinton refused to authorize armor to the men in Somalia he sent to take out Aideed. I've also read (and this was reported by AP), that sailors guarding the USS Cole when it was bombed did not have ammunition in their weapons and were instructed not to shoot unless fired upon.
And on a blog (Say Anything), I found the following comment by a 36 year military veteran: "I was in a US Post office, in uniform and started a conversation with one of the workers behind the counter. He said he wanted to stay in the Army, but during the Somalia fiasco (Clinton), they were stationed in a back-up area in Africa. They were not allowed to take on any ammo! He left the army after he got back to the states (after fulfilling his commitment) because he was not going to fight for a weak CINC like Clinton. Anyone who would put people in harms way and not give them bullets for the issued M-16s is toying with men's lives for his own political gain."
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3670&catcode=13
When I first read this cartoon, I wrote an e-mail to Jed Babbin, columnist at National Review Online and former undersecretary of defense for President George H. W. Bush. Here is in part how he responded:
… The most important retort is that the people--even the very best of them--were demoralized and resigned in droves during the Clinton years. One source told me we lost almost 50% of Navy SEAL officers in '96-'98 alone. Navy and Air Force pilots were resigning in such great numbers that we face--even now--a real pilot shortage, especially in the 0-3/O-4 ranks. The Army, Air force and Navy were all shorted because few wanted to enlist… and morale was shot to hell. The ONLY service to meet its recruiting goals in the Clinton days was the Marines, who refused to budge and kept their standards free of most of the social experimentation.
Training was most affected. Marines had to put their tents up on the lawns of their bases, and pretend to be in the field. There was no money for gasoline and field rations. Air Force flying hours were way down. At the end of the Clinton era… the Army and Air Force were unable to conduct small arms training because of an ammo shortage. At one point, there was too little 9mm to even put people on the range for annual qualifications.
In 2000… I was out signing my novel at a book store near Ft. Bragg. One senior master sergeant approached and poured his heart out. This gent ran the Marine helo squadron at Bragg, which supported the Marine element at the jump school. He told me that his guys were great, but the Clintonoids had starved them of money to a degree that he never had more than 50% of his helos on line. The rest were grounded because they didn't have the money to buy parts.
Whoever believes that Clinton helped build the strength of our military has never studied the issue or even talked to anyone who was on active duty during those days. Remember Mogadishu? When Les Aspin and his staff refused armor for the forces operating there, and left them under the command of the U.N. incompetents? That was Billy's military. What you see today is what our guys can do with real leadership, and even without the full arsenal they want and need.
...suffer from the cardinal sin of being, well, Clinton-era officials
Wish like hell they'd all swim to Cuba and take Jimmuh with 'em.
I remember the debates over ammo/parts shortages well, I was just in college, and several friends who joined the military came back telling of weird situations where they didn't actually have most of what they were supposed to have in their unit.
http://www.house.gov/hunter/stm-militaryshortage3.htm
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like for the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to discuss that assumption of risk, how serious is it, how is it measured and what we are going to do about it in the supplemental.
Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is exactly right. Because every time we have had one of these contingencies where the President wants to send troops, whether it is an operation that we consider justified or not, every time we have one of those operations, to fund the operations initially, they take money out of the ammunition accounts. They also take money out of the spare parts accounts. That is why our mission capability rates are dropping below 70 percent on average.
[TIME: 2215]
They have dropped more than 10 percent, meaning a plane, out of 100 aircraft that take off that are built to do a particular mission, only about 70 of them now can do that mission.
So the President takes that money, or the military looks around for money, Congress is not giving them any extra money to fund an operation where the President said, you steam over here and do this mission, so they take it out of ammunition. They were going to buy that ammunition, but they will buy it next year when they get the money back.
All of a sudden, they do the mission, they get a little money back, maybe in a supplemental funding bill, but they never get as much as was taken out, so the ammunition accounts get lower and lower.
They say, when they appear before us, and the gentleman always asks that great question, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence) asks that question, as well, our great chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, he says, what is going on here, Admiral? What is going on here, General? Can we win these two wars, according to the President's own two major regional conflict plan?
They say, well, we can win those wars, but we now are taking on a higher risk. When we ask them to translate what risks means, it means risk of casualties, heavy casualties. Because we cannot win a war now with overwhelming force, like Norman Schwartzkopf did in Desert Storm, where you just crush the enemy, bring all your body bags empty back to the United States. There are no dead Americans to put in them, and they all come home fairly quickly.
We no longer have that overwhelming force. What we have is the ability, like two fairly evenly-matched fighters, to slug it out, taking a blow for every blow that we give. That means taking dead Americans for every casualty we inflict on the enemy. And hopefully in the end, because we have a superior industrial base and because we have a democracy with a strong economy, we overwhelm the enemy at some point, maybe the allies come in and help, and we finally win. But when we win, it is like one of those boxing matches where the sportswriter said that after looking at the faces of both of the fighters, it was hard to determine who the winner was. Instead of looking at the faces of the fighters, we are looking at body bags stretched out in front of us of dead Americans who ran out of ammunition.
Right now the Marines are $193 million short of basic ammunition, and the Marines are our 911 force. The Army is $3.5 billion short of basic ammunition.
That is not a standard that I created, and that is not a standard that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) created or the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence) or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young), who is chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has done such a great job, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Jerry Lewis), chairman of defense appropriations, of putting this supplemental together.
We did not go out and set some standard and say, we have decided that instead of 100 million M-16 rounds, we want 200 million, that is the Republican standard. We took the President's standard. We wrote in to the services and said, how many M-16 bullets do you need to be able to fight that two-war contingency that we might have to fight? How much should we have in reserve?
They answered back. In fact, they answered back across the total line of ammunition. I have a summary of that here. In total ammunition across the board, and I have two pages here, but I will show Members just a summary page, we are $13.8 billion short, according to the President's standard. That is according to President Clinton's own standard of how much ammunition we need.
So when the President says, I do not want you adding extra things to this defense bill, he means that he does not want to give the full load of ammunition to his troops that his own clerks and auditors and generals and admirals have figured out they may need in an extended battle. Somehow, ammunition is no longer a prerequisite to having a strong military.
I would say if there is anything that is an emergency, it is ammunition. If I had my way, let me tell the Members, we would have a supplemental tomorrow of not $13 billion, but one that was $28.7 billion, because that is what the services told us they could use right now in ammunition and spare parts and equipment. Because we not only want to have enough ammunition for the soldiers' ammunition pouches, we also want to have planes that can take off and lift off the ground. Today, as Members know, our mission capability rates have been dropping like a rock.
[more at link]
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.