Gee, wasn't it supposed to be the Democrats who were bad for the military? Well, it turns out that the Republicans during the Bush Administration have harmed the military so badly that, according to today's Washington Post:
...it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a 'death spiral,' in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.
In other words, God help us if there's another crisis in the world: "unlike before the Iraq war, the Army does not currently have a brigade ready to deploy within hours to an overseas hot spot, officials say."
Right, so can someone please explain to me how it is that the Republican are better on national security than the Democrats? I could have sworn the military was in pretty good shape under Bill Clinton. Then again, so was the budget, which was in surplus back in the Clinton era. Unfortunately, the military, the budget, the environment, and everything else have now had 6+ years under the tender mercies of Bush and Company. And none of them are doing too well. Heckuva job, guys!
Frankly and that is a BIG FRANKLY...the press has done a poor job over the years. I can't believe it has taken this long to get all of Heir Bush's dirty laundry out. There is plenty out there to get Bush and Cheney Impeached. The time of Hier Bush/Goebbels Cheney is a sad part of American history. That being said, it's time for the dems to stop trying to walk a fine line on supporting the war--Everyone knows it's Heir Bush's mess, so it's okay to bring some troops home. We didn't win in Vietnam, and it's not because our troops weren't good--you can't win a war on the continent of Asia--and were still here!!! All this crap coming from people like Mitch McConnell like, "America doesn't like to loose", is crap. We sure as hell don't like to fight useless wars either. Lowell,hopefully our military will be able to rebuild itself before we really need it. The "Decider" has screwed America.
"Secondly, those who favour this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."
June 14 2003, Amb. Joe Wilson -
"The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90's which was called, "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm." And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem."
19:46: http://next.epic-usa...
"On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years."
13:33: http://next.epic-usa...
Gen. Anthony Zinni
http://undergroundcl...
http://crooksandliar...
http://washingtonpos...
Gen. Wesley Clark
http://www.youtube.c...
http://www.youtube.c...
The War Party - BBC
http://video.google....
The World According to Bush (1 of 4)
http://www.youtube.c...
[NY Times' Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
Israel would have been far more secure with a stable Middle East, a secular government in Iraq, which dreadful a tyrant as Saddam was, he was also secular, and an actual peace process that addressed Palestinian rights and Israeli security, much as President Clinton was attempting to achieve.
The truth is Bush has been curiously disengaged from any real peace effort in Israel.
It's been all about getting revenge on Saddam Hussein for his plot against Bush's father and about getting the oil. Please leave Israel out of this one. It's a straw dog.
I don't know how much the safety of Israel was an issue for the invasion, although I do agree with the quote where they talk about a number of competing and complementing agendas making the invasion possible.
My impression is that the invasion would get several things done, such as getting rid of Saddam Hussein, putting a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, controlling the flow of oil in the region, and having another military base from which the U.S. could operate. One single military operation would achieve all of this. And if everything had gone the way the planned it, this would be the reality today. But of course, it isn't.
Tail Hook = A OK!
A Gay or Lesbian serving their country = GO AWAY!
I have no real evidence of enlisted people in the military actually hating Clinton however, senior management (Officers), despised him mostly for this reason. Senior command is a very dangerous crowd if you're not liked. They will use every opportunity to make sure that what is believed by them is also believed by their troops.
If a democrat makes it to the White House in 08, if they want to survive, then they need to clean out Pentagon senior management.
Also it is perceived, due to FOX News and newspapers such as the WaPO and WSJ who took their talking points directly from the wingers and blasted Clinton every chance, that Clinton decimated Uncle Ronnie's "600 Ship Navy". If the stenographers were actually paying attention, instead of being too busy undermining a presidency, they would have learned from the Department of the Navy that they (the Navy) didn't WANT 600 ships.
The GOP (all of them) aided by the MSM convinced, or tried to convince, the American public that Kosovo and Somalia were (was) nation building and that our country had no place there especially since Kosovo was a civil war. Somalia, then and now, was more of a haven for Al Quida than Iraq ever (never) was. The republicans made sure that we failed in Somalia, regardless of what is believed in popular culture. Anyway, it's now safe to go back to Somalia and start over.
I'm not sure what Clinton did to get on the wrong side of the press but whatever it was, it was a well planed, systematic deconstructing of a presidency. Just as well planned and systematic as the build up of the Bush presidency. Thank's MSM, you're doing a heckova job!!!
(slight rant)
McPeak: This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.
@mohawk: We have the run of grunt to West Point birds at our family holiday tables, and last year's conversation was decidedly more humble and practical minded than prior years on any number of issues. Many despised Clinton based on advance PR more than any thing that happened, and he helped cement the bias. DA/DT was poor planning based on enthusiasm to prove resolve and purity of purpose. I have pointed out that that pretty much sums up the hurry into Iraq also.
These guys hated DA/DT then, and now wonder how smart it is in light of their own stoplosses and IRR shenanigans. They are not stupid people, just very human and resistant to having their preferred world-view shown as an impractical artifact. The reality of complexity is a helluva sell to the milspec (see John Boyd or Tom Barnett.) But, once the puffery's out of the way, they know change is afoot, and they probably don't really mind what it offers--but breaking in new boots is a bitch and these guys are nothing if not vain about how they'll look with their outfit.
I think the large numbers of experienced NCOs leaving the service is the most grave threat. The military is run by those guys--no offense to the officers, but you can build an Army with reluctant draftees and brown bar Lts if you have good NCOs, and it takes money to train and keep these guys and years to gain the real experience they need to shepherd their troops.
I believe by the time this war is over, we will have reduced the quality of our military to the post-Vietnam standard, and this is no time to have a weak military.
I think the large numbers of experienced NCOs leaving the service is the most grave threat. The military is run by those guys--no offense to the officers, but you can build an Army with reluctant draftees and brown bar Lts if you have good NCOs, and it takes money to train and keep these guys and years to gain the real experience they need to shepherd their troops.
I believe by the time this war is over, we will have reduced the quality of our military to the post-Vietnam standard, and this is no time to have a weak military.