Clinton left the military in disarray by cutting just about any form of military spending. Bush can certainly tow the line too, he wasn't prepared to handle foreign affairs, TEXAS has no Army to command. They are both to blame AS WELL as all the congressmen and Representatives. WHO we elected, you get where I'm going with this? We tend to just SLAP the blame on the Pres.,when in fact we have a bunch of legislators that can't agree when to take a break much less what to spend on the military. We need leaders that aren't afraid to make a decision right or wrong. That way we can be positive what he/she stands for. They coddle special interest groups to appear sympathetic to all causes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. These days our elected officials are scared to stand up and say what they are for .... for fear of being politically black balled and cut -off. Largely due to the media, that has this idea it is the judicial system. Thomas Paine once warned a Philadelphia newspaper editor about the distinction between editorial power and the freedom of the press. "If the freedom of the press is to be determined by the judgment of the printer of a Newspaper in preference to that of the people, who when they read will judge for themselves, then freedom is on a very sandy foundation." We tend to look to "one" man to lead us out of this mess, it's human nature, but the way our Gov. is set up there will never be a Pres. that can bullywhip the legislators into agreeing whole heartedly with his efforts. Our nations founders set it up this way on purpose, so no one man would rule. It's a good thing. But they did not forsee a nation of selfish selfrighteous dollar addicted politically career minded public officials. I think it was meant to be a "service" lately it has become a "help yourself" AND I am NOT talking about the President. Most of the problems we have are just plain simple cooperation. There is none and there should be. After 9-11 you'd think it would be enough to "galvanize" more than just the people. You'd think the back biting would be put on hold for a year maybe. No way, no can do. The party that isn't in power will sell it's grandmother's soul to the devil to sit in the driver's seat. Power and the almighty dollar have taken a front seat, get in the back democracy.
Dumbocrats let their hatred of Bush rule their lives. Forget about the good of the country, and defending it. :911:
Several administrations, along with several Congresses, share responsibility for the continuing downsizing of the military. This is very true. The military had to be downsized after the defeat of the Soviet Union. World War III was an economic war and the United States won it. We outspent and bankrupted the Soviets. Reagan shrewdly began the "Star Wars" missile defense program, which the Sovites could not match, and their economy and government collasped. Having won, the US could no longer afford to keep spending defense money at that rate, lest we bankrupt ourselves. The downsizing started with the first Bush administration and has continued ever since, including the Clinton and Bush2 administrations. Even now, the government is trying to close still more unneeded Cold-war bases. We still have the most powerful military on the planet, by far. No other country is even remotely in our class. Getting rid of the wasteful overkill and retiring relicts of the cold war is smart use of our money. The smaller size of our military is less problematic than the pace at which the military is evolving to fight 21st century wars. Rumsfeld may be rash, but he is certainly intelligent. He has correctly seen the need for less heavy armored divisions and nuclear submarines and more special forces units. The nature of the enemy has changed. We need lots more Green Berets, SEALs, Delta Force, and other Special Ops but it takes time to find these kind of men and train them properly, including foreign languages. The heavy units that efficiently smashed Saddam's army are poorly designed for the kind of guerrilla war now being conducted in Iraq. On the other hand, the light and highly skilled Special Operations Forces and elite light infantry units fighting in Afghanistan are doing very effective work fighting guerrillas there. There is a limit on how small we can make the military and still meet global responsibilities. Rumsfeld may have underestimated the total troop numbers required. We may already be below the minimum requirements, with a high potential for war with Korea facing us. Such a war right now would likely catch us with too few combat units to do the job. And Korea will be a war where we will still need armored divisions. Several of them. Crucial decisions need to be made, in a bipartisan way, by Congress and the next several administrations: 1. Closing unneeded bases and retiring obsolete systems -- YES, these are wastes of defense money. 2. Increase number of Special Operations Force units -- YES, they will be vital in future guerrilla wars and covert counter-terrorism operations. 3. Continued decrease in heavy combat units and air wings -- NO, potential conventional and/or nuclear war with Korea requires enough traditional combat power to do the job. 4. Continued development of high-tech weaponry for guerrilla war, as well as heavy war -- YES, America has always exploited its technological advantage. 5. Occupation and "nation building" in countries where they hate us and are trying to kill our soldiers -- NO, a clear waste of US lives and money. We should have learned this lesson in Vietnam. Let the ragheads have the place, the problems, and the responsibility. It's past time that they start shouldering some of it.
Careful there Red, you're in real danger of making sense here!! As you know,that doesn't sit too well with some on this board! :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
9-11 happened because Clinton dismantled the CIA. Has absolutely nothing to do with the military, although Clinton did a damn good job at trying to destroy that too.
