quote:

---

Winning With the Military Clinton Left Behind

Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the United States military. Picking up a traditional Republican refrain, they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was poor. But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him. Just as in NATO's 1999 war against Serbia, the United States military has led coalition forces to a decisive victory while suffering very few casualties in the process.

---

quote:

---

The Clinton administration misused military power during its first year in office in Somalia and then in Haiti; the results were needless American deaths in the first instance and a poorly planned, aborted mission in the second. Morale was low, and recruitment and retention posed problems.

---

quote:

---

Cuts in defense spending to help balance the federal budget went too far in some cases—until the Republican Congress stepped in and insisted on adding money for the Pentagon.

---

quote:

---

Despite these problems, which put a drag on military readiness,

---

quote:

---

And by the end of Mr. Clinton's second term, increases in pay and innovations in the force structure helped to resolve some of the morale, recruiting and retention problems that had been serious in the mid-90's.

---

Yes, but was that Billy's doing, or more of Those Damn Republicans' military spending increases, he doesn't say.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I notice you don't go yelling at Bush Sr. for sending troops to Somalia in the first place, you only yell at Clinton about "adventures abroad."

Interesting.

It's also interesting to note the picture the Republican Party painted of the military during the election campaign, and the reality of such.

Fascinating, truely.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I didn't "yell" at anybody. I just agreed with the guy who wrote the article.

Perhaps you need to check your blood pressure.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Sorry, 'I notice you didn't place any blame on Bush Sr. for sending troops to Somalia in the first place.' Better?

So are you saying the Republicans in Congress were responsible for the military that Bush & Co. said was in lousy shape and blamed on Clinton's presidency instead of Lott & Co.? Interesting.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
The current war hardly constitutes a challenge to the US military. A small girl and her pet hamster would have been almost as effective fighting, er, whoever you say you're fighting this week as the biggest and most advanced military in the world.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Wasn't Somalia one of those great humanitarian causes that the Libs push so much?

Will the same folks now say going in was bad?
The same folks that wanted us in Rwanda, too?

Yeah, I'll say it. The going in was good, or atleast well-intentioned... That handling of the situation once we got there, that was bad.

It might have been nasty of Bush Sr. to leave Clinton with Somalia hanging... but hell, Billy paid us back by leaving Bush Jr. the current economy.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Too bad the Republicans in Congress fucked up the really nice one we had going on for awhile there. Shucks.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
How do you figure?
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

quote:

---

Despite these problems, which put a drag on military readiness,

---

quote:

---

...the condition of equipment, training standards met by pilots and troops, aptitude scores and experience levels of personnel—compared relatively favorably with those in the Reagan years.

---

quote:

---

But it is still Bill Clinton's military that has actually been winning this war. The Bush administration had barely started to make its mark on defense policy before hostilities in Afghanistan began.

---

quote:

---

The Bush administration also announced the results of a new strategic review on Sept. 30. But such a review cannot affect military operations that begin within days of its release. Moreover, the review did not reverse any of Bill Clinton's military force cuts, despite the claims of the Bush campaign last year that those reductions had gone too far. In most respects, the review looked very much like what one might have expected a Clinton or Gore administration to produce.

---

quote:

---

The performance of American forces in the Balkans in the late 1990's and in Afghanistan in 2001 has been outstanding. And the military has wielded new weapons and new concepts in these recent campaigns that it did not possess during Desert Storm: several types of guided weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles, near-real-time communications systems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
The current war hardly constitutes a challenge to the US military. A small girl and her pet hamster would have been almost as effective fighting, er, whoever you say you're fighting this week as the biggest and most advanced military in the world.

---

quote:

---

How do you figure?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aethelwer:
"Kill the president...in a world without leaders, who would start all the wars?"

---

"A nation without histroy is a nation without wars."

Get rid of nations.

Anyways, this current conflict, like people already said, hardly challanges the US military at all. Now if NKorea and Iraq flared up simaltaniously, plus the Israel/Palestine and India/Pakastan situation get out of hand, that'd be a real challange.

Can't believe anyone would even suggest Afganistan being anything but a very realistic exercise.
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Quick question for any of you American hawks out there... why might North Korea, um, well, ever attack the US?
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Because they worship Baal and want to eat our delicious children!

But one has to assume that David is suggesting the U.S. would be required to fight North Korea because of aggressive actions against South Korea, or Japan. (Or, the way the 21st century seems to be going, China.)
 

---

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
Well, China's finally gotten herself into the WTO, so she's gonna play nice for the time being. She might get involved in an armed conflict between Pak/Ind, but probably not much beyond supplying arms.

As for NK, she's in no condition for war. I was just using her as an example of where the US has made commitements they would have to back up with *real* military strength if call upon. The US would almost certainly get involved in a NK invasion of the south, although maybe not to the same extent now as 20 years ago. SK has one of the best in Asia, thanks to the US and constant threat from the north.

Iraq still retains sizable ground force from the Gulf War, but her air defenses are more or less still in tatters. I don't thik Saddam would risk attack any of its neighbours at this point. In the event she does, however, the US would have to shift considerable resources to that theater.

Funny thing is, and I hate to admit it, the days of big military might be over. The US isn't likely to get involved in pitched mechanized battle with anyone other than the Iraqis.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Actually, David, I meant that, in the increasingly odd political climate of today, in which nations like the U.S. and Iran can share a common enemy, it would not be completely impossible for the U.S. to someday find itself supporting China against North Korea. Just, you know, a bit of hyperbole to illustrate the twisty waters that lie ahead and all that.
 

---

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
If the current femine in NK keeps up, the only thing US will be assisting China with is burying the dead.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

quote:

---

Can't believe anyone would even suggest Afganistan being anything but a very realistic exercise.

---

quote:

---

Um... because we stole their lunch money?

---