This reply may very well be pointless since David requested not to participate anymore, but I'm going ahead with it anyway since others might find it of interest, or at the very least to demonstrate publically that I disagree with David's viewpoints...
> *As for "evidence" for declining readiness, it pops > out all over if you pay attentions. Our senior > officer corps (which always liked Clinton's calm > administration) is incensed over the yee-haw kickass > good-ol boy unprofessionalism, but mostly it's > retired > guys who can speak. > > Today though, Lt. Gen James Helmly said that we are > using up the Reserves at frightening rates. Since > most are limited to 24 moths dragged away from their > families and lives and jobs, and since they provide > many of the skilled backup services, he predicts a > critical shortfall in specialists soon. > > That's TODAY! If you've been ignoring the practical > ways in which our readiness has plummetted, while > rooting for kickass in Iraq, then you are a yeehaw > guy > too. David didn't actually answer my question here. Specifically, his claim was that military readiness peaked under Clinton, something I disagree with (if for no other reason than I served entirely under his presidency). As some long-time readers may recall I often talked about how the idea that the Army of 1991 was not the same army of 1996. The Clinton budget cuts and general drawdown of the army impacted on several levels, and I believe there was a general decline not just in sheer numbers (som 300,000 soldiers were cut from the army after GW1, not counting the AF or Navy), but also in quality and frequency of training (because the money wasn't there), as well as quality of life for soldiers. Then look at the commitments the US had around the world: ongoing commitments to Korea and NATO, a brief foray into Somalia, ongoing commitments to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and then Kosovo, and probably other peace-keeping missions I'm missing. The point is, and some of you may remember me discussing this, is that the US military had a very high Operational Tempo (that is, a very high frequency of operations). This negatively impacted training and the like, and also when combined with the troops drawdown negatively impacted morale. I still don't believe the Army is at the same level it was at in the early '90s. Has there been a decline in readiness and deployability? Absolutely, and there's no denying this. The US military has been stretched very thin, to the point where the peacekeeping duties of the Active components are being taken over by Guard divisions, as well as some Guard combat elements being deployed in Iraq. But my point is that we had been feeling the crunch as far back as the Clinton administration, and its only gotten worse. I feel that David has an overly-rosy opinion of the military during the Clinton administration, and I think the bias hurts him here. Damon. ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
