Damnit I'll do it Clinton/ US military

[ThaSaltCracka]

WakeupCall:

[ QUOTE ]
I figured that I owed you some examples of how poorly the Clinton administration fared in increasing one aspect of our worldwide military superiority. I am using an example of our unparalled Air Superiority.


NO AMERICAN SOLDIER HAS BEEN KILLED by enemy aircraft since the Korean War. No American military plane has been shot down by enemy aircraft since the Vietnam War. And throughout the American Century a period of history essentially coterminous with the age of air power the American homeland has never been subject to a bombing campaign by foreign adversaries. These achievements have been made possible in large measure by what air power theorist Guilio Douhet at the beginning of the century called "command of the air."

Americans have enjoyed air superiority for so long that they have come to take it for granted. Few citizens fully grasp what an accomplishment it was to pound Serbia into submission without losing a single allied pilot or having to commit ground forces. But precisely because U.S. air superiority has come to seem so inevitable, there is a real danger that it could be lost sometime early in the next century. The Air Force plans for a stealthy heavy bomber not dependent on forward bases were scaled back to a mere 21 planes, the only survivable long-range strike aircraft it now plans to operate for decades to come. The Clinton administration reduced scheduled production of the only new air-superiority fighter the Air Force has developed in the last quarter century, the stealthy F-22, from 750 planes to 648, then to 438, then to 339 and finally, congressional appropriators in fiscal 2000 budget deliberations threatened the plane with extinction altogether. And because it had expected to have large numbers of stealthy next-generation bombers and fighters, the service abandoned its fleet of electronic-warfare aircraft, leaving the joint tactical jamming mission to the Navy.

Planners also cut the production goal for the service next-generation strategic airlifter, the versatile C-17, by 40 percent and threatened the program with termination in the early 1990s. That program eventually got back on track, and the Air Force will probably buy close to the 210 planes originally planned. But in virtually every other category of aircraft fighters, bombers, tankers, surveillance planes, tactical airlifters the service operates an increasingly aged and decrepit fleet. High rates of utilization and low rates of production during the Clinton years accelerated the decay. If U.S. air superiority is to be assured during the early decades of the next century, three efforts in particular must receive increased funding:

Plans to upgrade the Air Force 21 B-2 bombers should be organized to facilitate further production of long-range strike aircraft in the near future. Careful sequencing and management of programmed improvements would allow the service to develop a "virtual prototype" of a cheaper, more capable B-2 variant that could be produced in the next decade.
Production of the F-22 must be kept on schedule to avoid huge costs and delays in fielding a next-generation air-superiority fighter. The F-15 fighter that the F-22 will replace is a Vietnam-era airframe that cannot assure air superiority against more modern foreign fighters, and the other tactical aircraft the U.S. is developing are not suitable for the air superiority role.
The Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), a radar plane that does for ground surveillance what the awacs does for air surveillance, must be upgraded and procured in sufficient numbers. The Clinton administration wrongly assumed allies would buy six for coalition operations, but since they haven the U.S. production goal should be restored to at least the original 19 aircraft (some senior Air Force officers think twice that number would be optimal).
The Air Force also needs to revitalize its electronic-warfare community and determine how it will replace hundreds of aging KC-135 tankers and C-130 tactical transports. These missions are not as well understood in Congress as the more visible combat missions, but they are critical to the Air Force success in future conflicts. With access to foreign bases increasingly doubtful, the importance of range-extending aerial refueling tankers and rugged intratheater airlifters that can land almost anywhere will become increasingly apparent in the years ahead. But the average KC-135 tanker is 38 years old, and many C-130s are operating well beyond their intended design lives. They need to be replaced soon.

Although the above is but one aspect of how the Clinton administration attempted to gut our military superiority I feel it is the most important example. Without the air superiority we have enjoyed for many decades the total number of troops we have lost in the last few decades would pale in comparison to the likely number of dead. It is therefore logical to assume that if the Clinton administration had not done it's best to hamper our growth and technilogical advances we would have had even less troops die in the most recent military conflicts.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ThaSaltCracka]

Wake Up Call you might dislike this:

for the record I think this may be a left sided group
Clintons Military (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecID=159&contentID=2 51793)


The United States has had two big demonstrations of American military power on George W. Bush's watch that have been spectacularly successful. The irony here is that Bush fought these wars with the military Bill Clinton bequeathed to him.

"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign. "There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow."

On this point he was certainly correct. Despite frequent Republican criticism during the 2000 presidential campaign of Clinton-era military deterioration, the force that was so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq -- while continuing to perform a myriad of tasks around the world on a daily basis -- was clearly quite capable. Republican assertions that the military was underfunded and overstretched and that readiness was poor were contradicted by those performances in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, by Vice President Cheney's own standard, this force did not result from anything done by the current administration. The first Bush defense budget went into effect on Oct. 1, 2002, and none of the funds in that budget has yet had an impact on the quality of the men and women in the armed services, their readiness for combat, or the weapons they used to destroy Taliban or Iraqi forces.

As a presidential candidate, then-Gov. George W. Bush routinely declared that he wanted a new military shaped for a new world. In his frequently cited speech at the Citadel military academy in September 1999, he said:

As president, I will begin an immediate, comprehensive review of our military -- the structure of its forces, the state of its strategy, the priorities of its procurement -- conducted by a leadership team under the secretary of Defense. I will give the secretary a broad mandate -- to challenge the status quo and envision a new architecture of American defense for decades to come. We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment, necessary for current tasks. But our relative peace allows us to do this selectively. The real goal is to move beyond marginal improvements -- to replace existing programs with new technologies and strategies. To use this window of opportunity to skip a generation of technology. This will require spending more -- and spending more wisely.

This was a bold vision of the military that accurately expressed the need for major, ongoing change. Unfortunately, it has not been matched with sufficient vision and programmatic commitment by the Bush administration. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, the comprehensive review promised by candidate Bush, fell substantially short of its stated objective. It did not articulate a sweeping new strategy, it did not call for any change in existing force structure, and it did not suggest any major redirection of investment in future systems. Moreover, until the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration had not suggested any major increase in defense spending. In most respects, the review looked very much like what one might have expected from the Clinton administration. Essentially, the only major change was the increased emphasis on missile defense.

The Bush administration had barely started to make its mark on defense policy before hostilities in Afghanistan began. In the spring of 2001, it requested and received a $5 billion supplemental appropriation for the 2001 defense budget, but that constituted less than 2 percent of defense spending for the year -- mostly for pay raises -- and went largely unnoticed before the war began. The most recent defense budget submitted to Congress by the Bush administration would increase defense spending significantly, but it fails once again to make tough choices and provide a necessary vision of leadership. While U.S. forces in Iraq were a model of what a transformed U.S. military should be, the Pentagon continues to invest in Cold War military hardware -- fighter aircraft, destroyers, and other weapons designed to fight advanced Soviet military capabilities.

In fact, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications, training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The combination of Joint Defense Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and unmanned aerial drones -- both products of that shift -- made it possible to find and destroy targets, including mobile targets, more precisely and quickly during Operation Enduring Freedom, the response to the Sept. 11 attacks, and in Operation Iraqi Freedom than in any previous war. As many as 70 percent of all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the

first President Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years.
The Clinton administration also tried to maintain the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees. During his presidential campaign Bush charged that the Clinton administration had overburdened the U.S. military with too many deployments overseas, and he promised to pare those military obligations. "Resources are overstretched," he said. "Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life."

Yet in the name of fighting terrorism, Bush is expanding the U.S. military presence overseas faster than Clinton ever dreamed of doing. U.S. forces are not only deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Bush administration has sent advisers and support to the Philippines, Indonesia, Kuwait, Djibouti, Qatar, Yemen, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. The extra $70 billion a year that the administration has pumped into the Pentagon has bought more smart bombs and bigger paychecks, but it has not brought about a significantly larger force. Despite our expanded global war on terrorism, only about 27,000 troops have been added to our 1.4 million active-duty force.

Even with these troop additions, the military is more overstretched now than it was when Bush took office. During the first three months of 2003, the United States had more than twice as many troops on overseas missions at any given time as it did in 2000. This has made it harder to recruit and keep the soldiers, sailors, and airmen we already have. Bush did not create military overstretch, but he did campaign on fixing it. Instead, it has gotten worse.

Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deserve enormous credit for the military victory over Iraq. Clinton deserves to share in that credit. Despite Republican cries of a "hollow military," the Clinton administration left behind a highly capable force that served the nation well when an unpredicted threat emerged. How do we know? Cheney said so.

[MMMMMM]

Wouldn't those military tech advances would probably have taken place no matter who was President during the Clinton years?

Also, if memory serves...doesn't Clinton deserve some "credit" for significantly reducing the number of military personnel, which in turn has caused our forces to be less capable of sustaining an occupation as in Iraq...and which would also make fighting and winning a war on two fronts (say North Korea) far less feasible? Yes we could "win" it, but we need more ground forces to keep the peace while the country(ies) are being rebuilt and transformed from totalitarianism to democracy. In other words, had Clinton not gutted the number of military personnel, we would be more capable of doing what is now required in Iraq and with far less strain. Also we would be positioned to do the same in Syria and Iran, or in North Korea, if necessary...even while Iraq is still in the process of becoming stabilized.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
and which would also make fighting and winning a war on two fronts (say North Korea) far less feasible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that be three fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan, NK)? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~elwood
Stupid fuzzy math...

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't those military tech advances would probably have taken place no matter who was President during the Clinton years?


[/ QUOTE ]
I am going to say no, but not because I don't think thats possible, but because a president is responsible for what happens during his presidency. Reagan wasted huge amounts of money preparing for the Cold War, choosing to stockpile weapons and equipment instead of innovate and develop techonology, except of course his famous Star Wars weapons program. Although I will give him credit for the stealth program(rightfully so right?). His predecessor Bush on the other hand did little if anything to contribute to the military we have. If you want to give credit to anyone for our military, the credit goes to Reagan, simply for the shear size of it, and to Clinton, for many of the techonological advances and effeciency.
But thats just my humble opinion.

[MMMMMM]

M: "Wouldn't those military tech advances would probably have taken place no matter who was President during the Clinton years?"

TheSaltCracka: "I am going to say no, but not because I don't think thats possible, but because a president is responsible for what happens during his presidency."

OK then, so what political figure was "responsible" for the invention of the Internet;-)? In other words I think you may be carrying the idea of a President's "responsibility for what happens" a bit too far. That's not to say that Clinton didn't have anything to do with it; just that I doubt he was the primary driving force behind those military tech advances. Also if Clinton was responsible for it then you would have to argue that those military tech advances very well might not have occurred had he not been President and I think that is probably stretching. In other words if they probably would have occurred no matter who was President then it doesn't make sense to give Clinton much credit for their development.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words if they probably would have occurred no matter who was President then it doesn't make sense to give Clinton much credit for their development.


[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with this statement, however essentially what you are saying though is, any sort of military advance in technology or procedure should not be credited to any president, because essentially it was going to happen regardless of who was there.

fine, but I will give credit to Clinton for streamlining the military, you may call it gutting, however the sheer effeciency of the military was evident in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you have to admit that it did very very well, with some excellent planning by the joint chief of staff.

Cheney himself said that the current military is where its at as a result of the past admins. work. IMHO the milatry has done a fantastic job. I am thinking Cheney said that, because he was expecting the Military to not be as good as it is. You'll notice he hasn't said any of this after the war started. I think Clintons military shut his stupid ass up.

[MMMMMM]

Well I don't know much about the specifics but it seems the question rather boils down to whether the military did well in Afghhanistan and Iraq because of Clinton or in spite of Clinton. I'm inclined to generally favor the latter view but I do agree it's not completely cut-and-dried.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
did well in Afghhanistan and Iraq because of Clinton or in spite of Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]
Clinton could easily be substitued for Bush Admin.
come one, why does Clinton get absolutely no credit, this man did a [censored] load of stuff for this country and all of it is eraised by the voyueristic republican head hunters who have no sex life and wanted to know his entire sex life.
IMO, credit should be given to Clinton because credit is due. Now if Clinton gets no credit for the Military we have now, then who does? Bush? he hasn't had time to effect the military positively or negatively? Bush Sr.? He wasn't in office long enough to do anything.
Nevermind, I know who, it has to be Reagan. Why not republicans basically give him credit for everything. So there it is, a man who wasn't in office for 16 years, gets credit for the military in 2004. right?

[MMMMMM]

Yes Reagan deserves some credit for significant past military directions, but I think you may be looking to assign more credit than is due to latter Presidents when lesser officials may have actually played more of a role in the tech advances of our military. For instance there is no question but that Rumsfeld has had more of an influence on the shaping of our military than has had Bush.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance there is no question but that Rumsfeld has had more of an influence on the shaping of our military than has had Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would agree completely, but remember Rummy is the guy who wants the missle defense shield as well, so you tell me where you think the military is headed, for better or worse?
Whoever Clintons Sec of Defense then deserves the credit then, I can't recall his name right now.

[MMMMMM]

The missile shield is a great idea; if it saves just one city it pays for itself many many times over.

It doesn't have to be capable of stopping thousands of Russian warheads to be able to stop a few North Korean warheads. All it has to do is be able to deal with a limited threat which if got through would be immensely damaging and horrifically expensive.

As some rogue states or even terrorists gradually acquire nukes and ICBM's, a multilayered missile shield will be a great thing to have. 9/11 cost us hundreds of billions $$$ and set our economy way back; a nuke hitting a major city would cost us many times that. The cost of a missile shield, while significant, is still paltry by comparison to the cost of a nuke hitting just one of our major cities.

Say 10 years from now a rogue state launches 10 nuclear ICBM's at us and we manage to stop 8,9,or 10 of them. No matter how you slice it that's a hell of a lot better than losing all 10 cities.

Also, the existence of a missile shield will help dissuade rogue regimes from attempting nuclear blackmail (just how "unreasonable" do you think Kim Jong-il might be right now if he had, say, one hundred nukes and ICBM's instead of just a few?)

And yes I do think our military is headed for better not worse.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I got to be honest with you I am far more worried about a dirty bomb than I am of a convential nuke, but I agree with you though

[ QUOTE ]
And yes I do think our military is headed for better not worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
please elaborate. My brother is in the army, as is a couple of my cousins and other friends, so I am fairly interested. Also, if our troops are going to be sent off to countries all over the world for the Admins wants and desires, I don't consider that better. But thats just me

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
did well in Afghhanistan and Iraq because of Clinton or in spite of Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]
Clinton could easily be substitued for Bush Admin.
come one, why does Clinton get absolutely no credit, this man did a [censored] load of stuff for this country and all of it is eraised by the voyueristic republican head hunters who have no sex life and wanted to know his entire sex life.
IMO, credit should be given to Clinton because credit is due. Now if Clinton gets no credit for the Military we have now, then who does? Bush? he hasn't had time to effect the military positively or negatively? Bush Sr.? He wasn't in office long enough to do anything.
Nevermind, I know who, it has to be Reagan. Why not republicans basically give him credit for everything. So there it is, a man who wasn't in office for 16 years, gets credit for the military in 2004. right?

[/ QUOTE ]
The US military survived in spite of Clinton. My Dad told me how good it was before he turned it over to Clinton (remember his smashing Panama victory?).

It was Clinton who brought us Mogadishu, over in Africa somewhere - remember?

[MMMMMM]

By headed for better, I mean the military will continue to develop better weapons and ways to engage the enemy with less loss of US life; the military will continue to become more effective. The risks associated with being in the military have recently increased though and it looks likely that will be the case for some time yet to come. I also have relatives in the military but they are nearing military retirement age.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you are just as good a pres as your dad, which means 7 more months of you, thank god.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
you are just as good a pres as your dad, which means 7 more months of you, thank god.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had better purchase a new calender if you think there are only 7 months left till George W. Bush will be sworn in for his 2nd term. Don't forget we have his brother for the next 8 years, hopefully by then Hillary will have a nice juicy scandel of her own and the race will be wide open again. Certainly in 12 more years the Republicans will have set the ship on such a true course a little democratic detour wouldn't hurt too much. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

sure why not elect his brother. The Bush family has become the new American Monarchy. And much like a Monarchy the offspring get dumber and dumber.
On second thought, the Bush II reign will end much like Bush I. Most Americans wanted only 4 years of that idiot, and I think Most want only 4 of this idiot.

Now as for his Brother, I think Americans will look back at the fantastic job his Dad and older brother did and wisely say, " fool me twice shame on you, fool me three times shame on me."

enough said.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly in 12 more years the Republicans will have set the ship on such a true course a little democratic detour wouldn't hurt too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
I highlighted Democratic because most people in America hope we live in a Democratic country, you seem to imply under the republican leadership we are not getting that.
I would love a democratic detour in this country, instead of being led by special interests groups and big business.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I highlighted Democratic because most people in America hope we live in a Democratic country, you seem to imply under the republican leadership we are not getting that.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have a typical ostrich in the sand perspective. I am sure most people who are aware of the differences understand quite well why we do not and should not live in a democracy.

[ThaSaltCracka]

its a democratic republic, call it what you want though