Would we have so many problems with the troops if Clinton hadn't cut 750,000 active duty on his watch???

Question

Troops wouldn't have to stay away from their families as long, or having to go back to Iraq 3 times or more!

1. Granted after Reagan policy defeated the evil empire, some troop reductions may have seem warrented. I clearly remember Dems demanding a 'peace dividend' and pushed for giveaways to the dependancy class.

2. The Republicans didn't take over congress until the Newt Gingrich revolution in 1994.

Answer 1

To put this in perspective, the drawdown started late in the Regan administration, and was accelerated in the Bush administration, but the Clinton administration budgets were less then any time since WWII (%GNP). The military brass generally feels that being prepared to fight an army that, if it defeated the US military, would result in occupation of the US, more important then occasional acts of terrorism that can cause short-term economic loss and far less loss of life then a minor battle. When the money became totally inadequate, decisions were made to decommission most of the light divisions, not to buy a lot of body armor, not to stockpile needed parts, etc. It goes further then multiple tours for active duty troops. It also means that even a sideshow like Iraq requires mobilizing the Guard and Reserves. These folks are as dedicated as they come but they are living two lives, workable if called up in true emergencies, but a huge strain on family, with employers, and on their careers when called up routinely. Troop strength was cut drastically but there was no scaling back of responsibilities. A lot of this was made up by use of high technology weapons and contracting out a lot of support functions, but for policing a rebuilding country, this doesn't do a whole heck of a lot of good. Now there's even talk of returning to the draft with the inefficiencies, lower moral, lack of professionalism, and a general lack of training that results in high losses like in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. America can't even stand losses that are a fraction of highway deaths in the US like those are in Iraq.

There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton's "war on the military" is the primary factor in the current difficulties in Iraq. There was a real window of opportunity early on but the US military was/is too small and not equipped for this type of war. In addition, restarting weapons production that stopped due to the lack of funding made this war a budget killer.

But, Clinton was mainly a populist. Trading the future for his benefit in the polls was a normal, daily activity (not at all uncommon in both parties, mind you).

Answer 2

Yea, blame the quagmire that we're in on Clinton!
Fact: Clinton's policies in the area were effective. The no-fly zones worked effectively as it kept the different factions in Iraq at bay.
Fact: Clinton's cutting the military personnel at the time was appropriate. We were at peace, the Cold War was now over and the military was making a transition, technologically as well as strategically; and any foreseeable foreign problem could be dealt with diplomatically. There could have been no possible way that Clinton could have known that his successor was going to be a War Monger.
Fact; If you are going to blame any past Presidents for the problems we have now, Saddam was Reagan's thug in the region. The US backed him financially. Reagan's rationale was that Saddam added stability to the area.
Fact: Bush 1 or 41, his decision not to pursue Saddam in Baghdad during Desert Storm, when all the machinery , personnel (650,000 troops) was in place, and we had significantly broader world support. Bush 1's rationale for not pursuing Saddam at this time was, Saddam lent stability to the area.
If you are so upset about the numbers of troops that are available for deployments, I'm sure that there are recruiting offices all over the place where you can sign up. Requirements have been lowered as they are accepting individuals with extensive criminal records as well as those who score lower on entrance tests.
Somehow, I am sure you can rationalize that Clinton is somehow responsible for the lower standards for enlistment.

Answer 3

I can't understand why the USA are trying to unit these tribes, these people have been fighting themselves for longer than the United States has been around. I don't think this is a war, it's a waste of lives.
Yes Saddam was a bad person and killed many of his own country men, hell Bush is up to 3000 so far and still counting.

Even if the Iraq controls its own security the internal fighting amongst tribes will happen.

Answer 4

That was mandated by the republican led congress. A half truth is as bad as a lie. And the initial cutback were made on Bush I 's watch so know your facts.

The army's manpower was cut in half following the Gulf War , look it up and Bush I was president. Any cuts under Clinton were directed in an attempt to balance the budget under the auspices of Newt and his boys.

Answer 5

As somebody who was in the Army back in the days of the draft and the Vietnam War (I spent a year tour of duty there) I have little empathy for this so called volunteer (in truth a mercenary one). Conscription meant they didn't have to pay you but served as your duty to being in the USA. The military didn't give a diddly squat about how long you spent wherever doing whatever because you didn't have the freedom to quit. Iraq and Afganistan aren't wars -- they are jokes. The guys who stormed ashore at Normanday, existed in foxholes in freezing cold, and fought/walked into Germany...a tour in Iraq is R&R incomparison.

Answer 6

true, we had a more troops when Bush Sr was in power but as soon as Clinton took over we started dropping troop strength,