Now we find that the training of Iraq forces has been botched. I have a hard time thinking of anything that the neocons have done right. Good thing Iraq was invaded early in the Bush term. The training they received under the Clinton administration probably made the difference.
2007-01-31 01:31:42 · 19 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Be very careful-- we did not go to war with Iraq until three years after Bush had been elected, and according to many reports, Iraq was on his agenda from day one...he had three years to "up" recruitment before prematurely invading Iraq. So it was, in essence, Bush's military that invaded Iraq. And honestly--do you believe they would have the Iraqi army trained to our military's capabilities?...Ummm no- too much of a security risk.
2007-01-31 01:39:14 · answer #1 · answered by Katie 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't think its fair to blame Clinton or any other American, the problem lies with the Iraqi people, they need to stand up and fight for freedom, we can't force it on them. Either they are for it or against it. I just hope they don't bring it home to us, when we finally do leave Iraq. I am not quite sure what you mean by "the Clinton Military." I can tell you that under the Clinton administration the military funding was cut, and hurt the military families the most. And if the democrats have there way in congress right now, I think we will see even more benefit cuts. I am a military wife, and would like to remind people that any cuts in funding will first effect the families (housing, medical, DOD school, etc) not the war on terror. I just dont understand why cutting funding will help anything, it only hurts those who are serving. We already have men and women who have deployed up to 3 times in Iraq. If people really do care about the military, cutting funding WILL NOT help end the war! It will only hurt the families and soldiers.
2007-01-31 01:43:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No matter who is the President of this country, military personnel recieve the same training. The difference between Presidents is the funding for the military. Clinton cut funding for our military and reduced its ranks during his term in office. Bush has increased the funding and personnel. What has been botched is more a result of congress denying funding or prolonging debates instead of acting quickly to correct the numerous errors that are uncovered each month. Do not forget that Congress is the power in Washington. The President can only do so much and even less when the opposing party is in control of Congress. Military advisors are unfortunately being ignored in this campaign in Iraq and it is to our detriment.
2007-01-31 01:42:27 · answer #3 · answered by chemical_kenny 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Did you say the Clinton military? News flash, moron - Clinton did just as his democratic predecessor Jimmy Carter did. Let our military go to hell. Bush put more money in the military since anyone since Reagan. You had your head up your a s s all that time, bright boy? Get real. The training they received under the Clinton administration shined brightest in the response to the attack on the USS Cole.
2007-01-31 01:45:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I was in during the Clinton Admin and the training was very bad under him. They sent people to my ship from boot camp who would hold up stress cards if they got yelled at. The softer gentler military of Clinton was the reason I got out. Under Clinton they stopped making people in boot camp run in their boots and gave stress cards to the new recruits so that if they felt stressed they could hold it up and a training time out was given. I don't think that stress cards work on insurgents. My guess is that you have not been in the military and that is why you would believe Clinton's military was better trained.
By the way all of you libs who think that the asker is blaming Clinton need to read the question again. It appears to me that he is saying that it is good that Clinton's military invaded although I could be misinterpreting his meaning.
Chemical have you been in the military? The way things are done changes from president to president. Clinton brought in rules that prevented the mental stress of boot camp from being applied (by stressing them there you can eliminate people who can't handle it in a real situation). He also got rid of long standing traditions (or at least by law he did) that build respect and brotherhood both of which are needed during war. In my earily military career disipline was often maintained by peer pressure ie. if you did not do as you were supposed to you would recieve a blanket party or a pink belly. You may think that doing away with this is good but when you know that inproper behavior will not be accepted by the average guy it helps you stay focused.
2007-01-31 01:41:40 · answer #5 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
If Clinton wouldn't have cut the military budget so much we would have had the armor for troops and vehicles that they needed when this war began. There might have been more troops that would have been willing to go and this whole mess wouldn't be so bad.
If you have a hard time thinking about what the president has done right, just look to the taxcuts and how they have helped this economy.
2007-01-31 01:44:42 · answer #6 · answered by larspruitt 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The shrinking military policy was put into place by the elder Bush.
Military training though hasn't been influenced by any particular president.
I would suggest that since 9/11 that training has actually got better in the military as the US moves away from Cold War tactics to Counter-Terrorism tactics.
2007-01-31 01:40:11 · answer #7 · answered by Blitzhund 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton has been made very wealthy by the hate directed at him by Republicans. I hope they keep it up. Bill now gets $250,000 for each 30 mins. he speaks. Thanks to Republicans. Read his book, I did. It's called "MY Life". In that book Clinton talks about the Iraqi training he wanted to provide and how Republicans stopped it. They also stopped his 100,000 news cops on the streets, which may have prevented Sept. 11th. Bush ignored the PDB and Sept. 11th. is Bush's failure not Clintons.
2007-01-31 01:52:19 · answer #8 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton's policy was regime change in Iraq, so why didn't he take that well trained military and do it?
2007-01-31 01:49:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What in Heaven's name has Clinton got to do with Iraq? Boys you're really diging deep and passing the buck to avoid responsibility where it belongs. I've heard everything now.
2007-01-31 01:41:38 · answer #10 · answered by robert m 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋