Posted on 01/20/2002 9:49:47 AM PST by cody32127
While noting that U.S. armed forces remain the most powerful in the world, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld blasted the Clinton administration Sunday for defense cutbacks he said left the military in such a "run down" condition that rebuilding could take up to a decade.
"The infrastructure had decayed and it is still decayed and it will take now probably six, eight, ten years to get it back to the place that it ought to be," Rumsfeld told NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.
The Bush Defense Secretary then added, "It takes time to run down a great military and it takes time to build one back up."
He suggested that the full dimension of the Clinton cutbacks were only now being felt. "During a president's term of office, what he does with the military has very little effect during that period of time. Each president inherits what was done in preceding periods."
Rumsfeld was responding to Democratic Party and media arguments that the U.S.'s success in the Afghanistan war shows that criticism of Clinton's military cutbacks is unjustified.
Separately, the New York Post reported Sunday that a full 89 percent of Clinton budget cuts under the president's "Reinventing Government" initiative came at the expense of the armed forces.
In his recent book "In the Arena," former Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger contends that President Clinton had reduced U.S. military forces by approximately 50 percent during his eight years in office.
The sad fact is that our Armed Forces are pitifully small, its weapons systems are aging, and the constant tempo of deployment is taking a terrible toll on training, procurement, infrastructure, families and morale. Virtually NOTHING of any size or duration can be undertaken today without heavy and sustained involvement of activated reservists. Desert Storm could not be repeated today, because we have eliminated between 30-50% of the ground force structure, sea power, sealift, air power and airlift which existed in 1990.
God help us if Iraq and North Korea ever decide to move simultaneously -- not to mention our new "friends" in China...
Reagan: Hate to admit it, because it ain't manly, but when Reagan departed, and I heard his final "God Bless America," my eyes got misty. No one built us up like he did. I remember him at the hangar at Ft Campbell after the Gander Newfoundland air crash when we lost 260+ troops returning from the Sinai mission. He walked down that row of bereaved families and was a Leader to them, and a FATHER to them.
Bush1: I worried about GHWBush at first, mostly because of his voodoo economics attacks on Pres. Reagan. But he was committed to a strong military. I didn't handle the decision to downsize after the fall of the Iron Curtain too well. I thought it was a bit to quick. But when the Desert Storm deal happened, Bush1 earned my respect for ONE OVERRIDING reason....He let his war experts fight his war. He gave guidance and then let the military execute. It was a great show. I was totally surprised by the fickle public's rejection of him just shortly after that great victory. He deserved better.
Clinton: Didn't inhale. Despised the military. Campaigned for Ho Chi Mihn from Moscow. Gays in the military. Social engineering in the military so that "inclusive feelings" became more important than training rounds downrange. The cuts became so bad that we didn't have enough people to do the job, and those we did have were gone all the time to Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. He tucked tail and ran from Somalia effectively telling the families of the dead that those loved ones' lives were lost on a merely whimsical policy, that nothing important was really happening in Somalia worth of the death of anyone. Sold out to China the secrets that will mean a new nuclear race. He let terrorists kill, kill, and kill again and sicced the FBI on them, as if nation-states would allow a policeman to arrest someone in a country not their own. He burned out the force and caused innumerable GREAT YOUNG SOLDIERS to leave because they were overworked, underpaid, and unappreciated. The worst military president in the history of the republic.
Bush2: Largest pay raise two years running. Rebuilding the force, but he needs to add more people, not just more pay. He's trusting his military experts. He's honorable and loyal, so trust is being restored. Let's pray for him. He might well be a GREAT president.
Don't forget about the BUMP for the Democratic Controlled House and Senate from 1993 to 2001 that voted to cut back the military. They are all traitors.
It wasn't bad and I wasn't CVN that's actually a nuke powered carrier. But I was in Jimmy's Peanuts Navy my entire enlistment. We never got to the point the condition of the AMERICA under Bush sr nor the KENNEDY from Clinton-Bush jr. We never had to miss a deployment. Actually speaking from being in during that time the military was turning around toward the end of Carters term. Morale was being addressed seriously as well as retention.
The Navy in the early 70's made some changes that did it harm. One was doing away with the traditional uniform the cracker jack. When I left it was again Uniform of the Day. The traditional Bosuns whistle could be heard from each ship as well. Retention bonunes of $15K were common along with next rank and shore duty for re-ups.
When I went in the Navy in 76 people were going AWOL for 30 days and taking General Discharges. That had about stopped in late 1980. Reagan did a fine job restoring the military.
With that being said what happened to it in less than 4 years? What happened to the Navy the Gipper built? Yes we had a war but we had a crisis under Carter as well. Two carriers one from each coast were pulled from rotations three were already on station in the Iran area when the hostage crisis broke out. In less than a month 5 were on station manned and ready. That was Carters Navy BTW.
A conventional carrier goes on a six month deployment and needs 3 months yard work. I would say that is true for nukes as well. The idea a nuke can deploy for extended periods minus yards is a myth. The reactor may take it but the Auxillary equipment will not hold up to it. So at the end of each 6 month deployment a ship see's a three month yard down time for maintenance. That allows you to do repairs and replace equipment in a safe enviroment to do so. In many cases holes have to be cut several decks down to replace equipment. You do not do that sitting at a pier at an NOB or at sea. Every 5 years a conventional sees a 1 year down time including drydock for hull maintenance.
What happened? AMERICA sits in Philly with the Navy calling it unfit for even a museum due to detiorated hull condition. Did you see the KENNEDY threads? These are our two newest conventionals anybody besides me think it odd that two other carriers nearly 10 years older than them are in realitivly good shape these being the same class ships?
IMO KENNEDY was going to be a fleet reduction it wasn't meant to be kept up as it is promised to Boston. The war came along and General Frank want's a carrier there in March of this year. The Rosie was due to be rotated and the Navy was caught unready. Looking at the schedule the others I take it were either in the yards or commited elsewhere. So they call a ship out that nobody has tried to keep battle ready and seriously underfunded then tried to make the Captain a ScapeGoat for that as well. The crew didn't care because the Pentagon didn't care about them or the ship. It's now a reserve ship and the Pentagon isn't saying as much. That means it is manned mostly by reserves and not an active duty crew there's a huge difference. If you live there 4 years you keep it up. If you live there 2 weeks a year let the other crew fix it. Bush had nearly a year to address the KENNEDY issue.
Overdeployment is overdeployment and if we are to take the Pentagon and Bush at their word this is going to be an extended war. Would it not be wise then to get some ships recomissioned to active service and a troop build up? The nukes aren't gonna hold up to this any better than conventional are. Yet we hear nothing being said to address this problem. If we continue at our present deployment rates our nuke fleet will suffer if it hasn't already.
True Story:
We were stationed at an Air Force Base when x42 was Pres. He was scheduled to "visit" our base (on the way to a fundraiser...) one afternoon. The various commanders were asking their troops how many planned to be at the hangar to "greet" the Pres. So few said they'd be there that the base commander ended up having to make it "mandatory" for everyone to be there (unless they were on leave or in hospital). My husband (and quite a few other guys in the neighborhood) took a day of leave in order to get out of this "duty" -- that's how much we despised this guy.
BTW--Clintoon kept those troops and their families waiting for over 5 hours -- once they were cleared into the hangar they were not allowed to leave -- and the dork was late (as usual)
You are totally right about this, corruption/scandal/negligence/apathy is everywhere and we need people to put their money where their mouth is regarding actually doing something about these problems.
My suggestion to Mr. Rumsfeld is to purge all the politically correct ticket-punchers out of the military before pumping the military back up. I don't want my tax dollars supporting people for whom 'The Mission' is secondary.
Another 'that says it all' bump.
I know that the cut backs STARTED under G.H.W.Bush, but some of the cutbacks were FORCED by the Democrats in Congress. The SAME EXPLETIVE DELETED CONGRESS that Broke G.Bush's arm to force a tax raise (they refused to discuss the budget until he backed down on the "No New Taxes" promise, and they were holding the FY 1990 budget as hostage. We had started the Desert Shield build-up, and the same Congress that had a LARGE number of traitorous Democrats that voted against supporting the troops and authorizing Bush to use force to evict Saddam from Kuwait .. the same Congress was going to not have a budget in place, and this would have cut the legs out of the military buildup in the Gulf. So Bush had to renege (he shouldn't have, and should have taken his case to the American people ... but he didn't want to risk the troops already present in the Gulf...) The Same Congress pushed onto G.H.W.Bush the bigger cuts than what Bush wanted.
Go ahead and Blame Bush if you want. You will find very few military, active, reserve or retired - who will agree with you. Most of us know that Bush (41) made mistakes .. . but we know he loved and respected the military, and wouldn't deliberately do anything that would hurt readiness or morale.
You, on the other hand, remind me of a Chief who refused to vote for Bush (41) and voted for Clinton. "Bush lied to me" said the Chief. But in '96, the Chief still voted for Clinton ("What about all the lies Clinton told", I asked. "Lies, what lies" he replied???) This guy, while serving in the military honorably, did not understand the difference between honor and dishonor, did not understand the difference between mistakes that Bush made vs. those that Clinton did DELIBERATELY. Even Reagan made some goofs (Beirut, 1983) ... but you could tell that he bled inwardly for his mistakes, and he resolved to try to avoid them in the future, and he never had a callous disregard for the military ... unlike Clinton.
So my question is... Why are you so upset about Bush?? Do you think he deliberately set about cutbacks that he forced on Congress, or are you just unhappy that he didn't fight Congress more to keep cutbacks from happening.
I have been "active" in the Reserve these past years, plus work as a Civil Servant at a Naval Shipyard ... so I have "my finger on the pulse" and I can tell you - the military have lots of love and respect for Reagan, Bush(41) and Bush(43) - and nothing but contempt for Clinton.
Mike
I will admit that Clinton did see to the maintenance of the military skills necessary for walking the dog, serving the meals on Air Force One and other demeaning tasks for the military he loathes. He didn't see anything wrong with using half the C-5 fleet for his world jaunts.
I wish we could continually remind these liberal eggs what the Dad of one of the "Blackhawk Down" heros said to X42s when he wouldn't shake that slackers hand!
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.