[Txsleuth]

WOW...what a great post, Johnnie.

I had read an article a few weeks ago (sorry, can’t remember where)...about the way the military had been structured in the last 15 years or so....saying that it was on purpose to make the military more “national guard”...

for use “when necessary”.

AH...but not if you are Pres. Bush, you can’t “use them when necessary”....

SO...glad to read your post, much better than I could have explained it.

You add the lack of humint under the Clintonistas and Carter...and you have the whole other problem of not enough spooks in the areas of the world that are necessary for the kind of enemy we have now.

[MNJohnnie]

Oh yeah, the whole idea was sold as a “military on a budget” plan. They sold this as a way the politicians could have their “fiscal conservative” cake and and eat their pork too. I may be being overly paranoid but I do think there were those in the Democrat party who saw it also as a way to make it MUCH harder to use the US Military for anything serious ever.

Deploying a Guard unit has a much larger emotional impact on a community then deploying a regular military unit. I think there was a cold political calculation made that that would suit the Boomers ideological outlook just fine. Plus it is a marvelous engine for pork barrel spending since you can hide building a new armory or refurbishing the Guards HQ as “Defense” spending.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Wasn’t that part of the Clinton Administration cutting our military in 1/2, even with the constant threats of terrorism they were trying hard to ignore? Get rid of active duty and go to a NG-based military to save $?