We're paying for Clinton's mismanagement

[Riprorin]

FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s.

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.

Link

Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s.

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.

Link

Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Wow, can't wait for the spin to 2008. At this rate the RRR FLL's will still be blaming Clinton in 3004.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s.

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.

Link

Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Wow. How long you guys gonna ride that? Seriously. That's just pathetic.




KeyserSoze

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s.

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.

Link

Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Wow, can't wait for the spin to 2008. At this rate the RRR FLL's will still be blaming Clinton in 3004.

And we're not supposed to blame Clinton for 8 years of decimating the military because...?

 

[Pandaren]

That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze

Originally posted by: Riprorin
FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s.

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.

Link

Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Wow. How long you guys gonna ride that? Seriously. That's just pathetic.

KeyserSoze

How long are you guys going going to blame Rumsfeld for having to work with the understaffed military that he inherited from Clinton?

Wow. Seriously. That's just pathetic.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

And you think you can rebuild the military overnight, especially during war time?

Hahaha.

 

[Pandaren]

You need to stop making excuses for incompetence.

I was very unhappy with the Clinton administration's military cuts, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cheerlead for people who have failed to undo the damage in the past four years.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
And you think you can rebuild the military overnight, especially during war time?

Hahaha.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

And you think you can rebuild the military overnight, especially during war time?

Hahaha.

They had 4 years to rebuild the military. Clinton didn't reduce the training or technical expertise (as far as I can tell), he just reduced manpower. In fact, I've seen numerous sources suggest that our military was intentionally moving towards a smaller, more mobile and better trained force instead of the traditional cold war approach.

Either way, that leaves two open questions...well, actually three:

1) Why wasn't the Bush administration able to increase numbers in the military over the 4 years they were in charge in order to undo the decreases of Clinton's administration? I know Clinton had 8 years to cut the military, but can we still place all the blame on him when Bush has had 4 years to fix it?

2) Has anyone actually shown this wasn't part of a plan and that our CAPABILITY has really been reduced? Are we "paying" for anything, or would we have problems even without Clinton's cuts. I know the answer seems obvious here, but there's more to a military than numbers....just think about it a little bit.

3) Isn't this just a 20/20 hindsight criticism? Given the situation during Clinton's terms, was there a reason we NEEDED a more powerful military? In other words, assuming reduction in troop levels has been a problem, would it even have been possible to plan for that during Clinton's terms, or was he making a decision everyone agreed with AT THE TIME? You use the word mismanagement in the title, but would anyone have identified it as mismanagement at the time?

Edit: I have also heard that our military is intended more as a quick reaction force, NOT an occupying force. Just something to keep in mind, maybe Bush is trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, eh?

 

[SuperTool]

"The buck stops in Chappaqua" signs are very populiar with the Bush administration. The Clinton military did a fine job in Afganistan. Iraq was an elective procedure, and Bush deemed the military adequate for performing the mission. If he underestimated the task or overestimated the capability it's not Clinton's fault. Clinton left a good enough military to perform all the neccessary missions. Blaming him for not building up military for unnecessary wars is pretty weak, but consistent with a Republican intelligence level.

 

[1EZduzit]

Rip would moan and whine if he were hung with a new rope. You just can't please some people, no matter what you do, so why try?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

And you think you can rebuild the military overnight, especially during war time?

Hahaha.

They had 4 years to rebuild the military. Clinton didn't reduce the training or technical expertise (as far as I can tell), he just reduced manpower. In fact, I've seen numerous sources suggest that our military was intentionally moving towards a smaller, more mobile and better trained force instead of the traditional cold war approach.

Either way, that leaves two open questions...well, actually three:

1) Why wasn't the Bush administration able to increase numbers in the military over the 4 years they were in charge in order to undo the decreases of Clinton's administration? I know Clinton had 8 years to cut the military, but can we still place all the blame on him when Bush has had 4 years to fix it?

It is ultimately up to congress to set the size of military. Recently they raised the size that the army by 30,000. It will take time to fill those slots.



2) Has anyone actually shown this wasn't part of a plan and that our CAPABILITY has really been reduced? Are we "paying" for anything, or would we have problems even without Clinton's cuts. I know the answer seems obvious here, but there's more to a military than numbers....just think about it a little bit.


Capability has without a doubt been cut. We no doubt needed to trim the forces after the end of the cold wat, but it appears the cuts went to deep.


3) Isn't this just a 20/20 hindsight criticism? Given the situation during Clinton's terms, was there a reason we NEEDED a more powerful military? In other words, assuming reduction in troop levels has been a problem, would it even have been possible to plan for that during Clinton's terms, or was he making a decision everyone agreed with AT THE TIME? You use the word mismanagement in the title, but would anyone have identified it as mismanagement at the time?


I would have to say that the cuts went deeper than republicans wanted at the time and not deep enough for others.




Edit: I have also heard that our military is intended more as a quick reaction force, NOT an occupying force. Just something to keep in mind, maybe Bush is trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, eh?

That would be a bad description. The military is trying to make our force be able to get on scene quicker, but there are still must maintain presense once they are there.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
"The buck stops in Chappaqua" signs are very populiar with the Bush administration. The Clinton military did a fine job in Afganistan. Iraq was an elective procedure, and Bush deemed the military adequate for performing the mission. If he underestimated the task or overestimated the capability it's not Clinton's fault. Clinton left a good enough military to perform all the neccessary missions. Blaming him for not building up military for unnecessary wars is pretty weak, but consistent with a Republican intelligence level.

There we go. Good post.




KeyserSoze

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze

Originally posted by: SuperTool
"The buck stops in Chappaqua" signs are very populiar with the Bush administration. The Clinton military did a fine job in Afganistan. Iraq was an elective procedure, and Bush deemed the military adequate for performing the mission. If he underestimated the task or overestimated the capability it's not Clinton's fault. Clinton left a good enough military to perform all the neccessary missions. Blaming him for not building up military for unnecessary wars is pretty weak, but consistent with a Republican intelligence level.

There we go. Good post.




KeyserSoze

yeah that just about puts an end to this thread.



:thumbsup:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze

Originally posted by: SuperTool
"The buck stops in Chappaqua" signs are very populiar with the Bush administration. The Clinton military did a fine job in Afganistan. Iraq was an elective procedure, and Bush deemed the military adequate for performing the mission. If he underestimated the task or overestimated the capability it's not Clinton's fault. Clinton left a good enough military to perform all the neccessary missions. Blaming him for not building up military for unnecessary wars is pretty weak, but consistent with a Republican intelligence level.

There we go. Good post.




KeyserSoze

yeah that just about puts an end to this thread.



:thumbsup:

So what he actually said then, is the US has the ability to spare 15,000 troops(not even a full division) for operations in a new theater.

 

[Kibbo]

Even with the Clinton-era cutbacks, your nation spent more on their military than the next 10 (IIRC) nations combined.

That's hardly decimated.

Maybe Clinton didn't plan for unnecssary imperialistic invasions.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Even with the Clinton-era cutbacks, your nation spent more on their military than the next 10 (IIRC) nations combined.

Yes, but we have more than 1 running tank.

 

[judasmachine]

Bush is paying for Clinton's mismanagement who was paying for Bush's mismanagement who was paying for Reagen's mismanagement who was paying for Carter's mismanagement, ad infintum....

 

[Engineer]

And 10 years from now, we ALL can pay for Bush and crew running the deficit into the ground.

 

[Ozoned]

What we need is someone who served in the military under Clinton and the prior two administrations to comment on this. I sometimes find first hand information very helpful.

 

[Genx87]

Oh and I thought you were going to bring up the following

1. N. Korea debacle
2. Failure to deal with terrorist organizations after WTC1, Khobar Towers, African Embassy Bombings, USS Cole.
3. Increase spending right along with an unrealistic revenue stream thanks to the dotcom bubble.
4. Never ending scandals that turned the White House into a three ring circus.


But this is another thing we can slap onto the many mistakes by Billy.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

:thumbsup:

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Pandaren
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld haven't done enough to bring the military back up to speed.

You need to stop trolling. You sound like people asking for handouts because "the white man kept me down" all those years ago.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Can't blame Rumsfeld for Clinton's bungling.

Rumsfeld came into the Defense Sec. position with the notion that wars are now fought with lighter and faster (and FEWER) troops. This may work for the invasion part but the actual occupation is proving that you need the heavy machinary and the troops on the ground. Ultimately, his doctrine has failed.
Dec 2003 Time magazine article. BIGGER ARMY," DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS TIME

Rumsfeld has been under pressure from Congress to expand the military by at least two divisions, or 20,000 troops, TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Duffy and Pentagon Correspondent Mark Thompson report. The Secretary resisted that pressure over the summer and fall, but in his conversation with TIME, he said he was studying it more closely now, opening the door to a deal.

So it is Clinton's fault that Rumsfeld didn't think more troops was necessary during and after ceasation of major combat operations in Iraq during the Summer of 2003?

All the But it's Clinton's fault people need to cry a river, build a bridge and get over it. GWB has been president for 4 years. He has a Republican Congress who has passed everything he wanted and he has never vetoed a single bill.

Riprorin:
who got us into Iraq again?

Congress............

As b0mberman has mentioned so many times...

Bush lied, then invaded Iraq, but see, it doesn't matter anymore, does it? I say have their goddamn elections and get the fvck out. Iraq has been and continues to be (Heartbreak Ridge) a ClusterFVCK!!! Quit spending (borrowing) goddamn tax money for that crap!