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

To: eeman
I'll tell you what I know.

The sad fact is that our military is trying to recover from the first actual spending cuts(real cuts, not increase cuts) in it's history. This is what Bill Clinton did to our Military. In addition to spending cuts, Clinton changed the priority for how the remaining dollars get spent. In my 22 years, only under Clinton were flight hours cut back for pilots in both training and proficiency flying.

The military that Rumsfeld recieved was close to a shambles. This is the real secret. Bush could not let this be known, for national security reasons. Right now, this very day, the US armed services are in their worst shape ever, and the men and women in the services right now are busting their asses, doing the jobs of 2 or 3 men to keep up readiness.

Donald Rumsfeld is a national hero. He has taken a core group of believers across the services and jury-rigged a military that is both powerful and stable, although it holds on by a thread. The military has been betrayed by ticket-punching Generals and Admirals more concerned about their future private sector jobs then about the future of the men who would follow them. The military wasted huge sums of money on projects and programs that could never ever work, except to line the pockets of a contractor, who would remember the General later on with either a job or a consulting contract.

There are very serious problems with maintanence costs these days because weapon systems that should have been replaced decades ago are still relied upon. The very last Tomcat that I flew was built while I was in high school. I am 44 years old, and that bird is still out there pulling Gs on that airframe. For every hour a Tomcat flies, almost 20 man-hours of maintanance are required. That is a disgusting figure. It is much less with Hornets, but the Hornet is also much less airplane if you ask me.

To answer you, No. Rumsfeld is not running the military on the cheap, he is putting his way too small budget to best use. Were we not at war, there would be different priorities. Iraq is getting almost all availible dollars right now. There just are not a lot of dollars to go around. Bush and Rumsfeld have to tread a fine line. The more they spend, the deeper the deficit. If Bush loses the next election(he wont), Democrats will slash the budget even more. What Democrats hope to do, is reduce the Military to such levels that it cannot perform without the support of the UN. THey would take that extra money to pay for additional socialism on our shores, making people more dependent, and keeping them in office.

Were it not for Rumsfeld, we would be in much much worse shape. He has passed over much of the current military leadership, and is working only with those men who get it. The Army brass hates him for this, and the Air Force is not far behind in that regard. Rummy is putting the emphasis on fast, mobile independant attack units, which goes against everything we learned in War College. The fact is, this is all we can afford. Our military is being forced to fight wars almost like guerillas with good weapons.

Clinton caused thousands of capable officers and NCOs to leave in droves. Today's military is just not as competant and capable as it once was. To bring us back to those levels would cost too much while a war is underway. We have to fight a cheap war until we have cleaned house of the Clinton Generals, and the Defense contractors they love.

I hope thats a good answer to your question.

16 posted on 09/26/2003 2:43:44 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Pukin Dog
great post
18 posted on 09/26/2003 2:53:55 PM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Pukin Dog
Thanks P.D...especially for your service.

I really appreciate your perspective on this. It helps cut through all the crap we hear everywhere else.

Praying for Rummy's continued good health...

22 posted on 09/26/2003 3:19:34 PM PDT by AngryJawa (Just JDAM!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Pukin Dog
Bravo.....I couldn't agree more....one more example, for 6 years my hubby's unit canablized their own choppers for spare parts....he was going to retire in 2000 if Gore was elected...thank God he wasn't.
28 posted on 09/26/2003 4:22:40 PM PDT by mystery-ak (Happy Birthday, Mike...wish you were here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Pukin Dog
Carter was worse than Clinton.
Thankfully there were only four nightmare years of Carter.
But nightmarish and with long lasting damage they were.
I think an ammendment must be made to the Constitution to prevent degredation of the armed forces of the USA, under any, shudder, future Democrat POTUS.
I am not sure how it should be worded exactly, but something to the effect that any POTUS must have a separate vote of approval, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the House of Representatives, prior to attaining status of military CINC.
Or we could just ban socialists and criminals from the position of POTUS.
Either way would work.
37 posted on 09/26/2003 5:12:42 PM PDT by sarasmom (Pray for Terri Schiavo.Pray harder.Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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