Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Txsleuth
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.

307 posted on 05/13/2007 12:58:34 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]


To: MNJohnnie

Also, re the reduction of our armed forces, Clinton/Gore bragged about “reducing the size of the government by x %.” The reductions in manpower were virtually all military. I guess National Guard units became state funded entities, instead of federally funded.


361 posted on 05/13/2007 6:42:18 PM PDT by maica (America will be a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- if we do not prevail in Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson