Did Clinton's troop reductions and miltary reductions cause the "limits" we now face and a question of /draft?

Question

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.

Answer 1

I think those reduction and cuts have caused us tremendous problems especially when you consider the rotations our troops must now suffer through. From what I have reviewed from military experts and facts out of security experts around the world the US military must be increased in side to fight not only the war on terror but possible future wars and actions that WILL take place in the future. I really have a problem with the draft not because it would impact me, I am too old to serve even though if the age was increased I would join, but because military personnel I have talked to or have seen their views on seem to believe the draft would create a new problem for the military because you would have troops receiving training who have no intention of serving past their draft commitment thus you waste training and equipment on, and if they do get shipped to war zones the volunteer troops would not trust them as much as they do their fellow volunteers.

Answer 2

If the military was really in such bad shape after Clinton, then Bush should have used better judgment before invading Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us and that was not an immediate concern. Bush could have built up the military, if necessary, before rushing into this stupid and unnecessary war.

The Department of Defense has the single largest budget of any government agency. If we accurately analyze federal spending, it is clear that we spend more on military spending than any other area.

Nevertheless, the war in Iraq is being funded by “emergency, supplemental” funding. We are getting deeper into debt, for no good reason, because Bush is not competent to accurately judge the costs of military commitments and actual needs.

Bush has been in charge for 6 and a half years and the situation has only gotten worse.

Answer 3

Remember the end of the Cold War? The reductions were a reaction to a time of relative peace in the world. Its not a question of manpower, its a question of willpower. And it was Georges will to go into Iraq for no good reason at all that anyone has been able to figure out. Unless you think the Prez wasn't given the whole story, in which case the guy who withheld things like, No AlQaida meeting with Saddam, no WMD, no chemical weapon trucks, no nukes, should be fired loudly and with charges.
There was no reason to keep such a huge standing army with no enemy. so for the last seven years, Bush has had a chance to increase the army and they have met their needs through volunteerism, at any time they want to they can get more, but they would have to initiate a draft which is political suicide.
We also have bigger and better bombs and we don't need so many men to win a war. One man can do more damage than the many more they used to need to accomplish the same level of damage.

But its been seven years, If Bush wants more all he has to do is order it up. Want to wait?

Answer 4

For the record, defense is practically the only thing the federal government is supposed to be spending money on. Of course you are correct. Don't forget how he launched every available non-nuclear Tomahawk Cruise missile we had in our arsenal. They even had to retrofit several nuclear equipped Tomahawk with non-nuclear warheads just to keep up. Those babies cost over a million dollars each and they take years to replace.

When Clinton was in office, the military did not have enough ammunition to train with. He go 18 Army Rangers killed for lack of support in Somalia. Many of the best and brightest officers and NCO's left rather than serve under his administration.

He gave key top secret technology to the Red Chinese so now they threaten us with ICBM's as well as high powered computers and GPS systems. I often wondered who's side he was on.

.

Answer 5

I think you'll find reagan inadvertately caused this. Following the collapse of the USSR there was no need to maintain such a large military. This was followed by all successive Presidents. Then along came Rumsfeld with his vision for the US military in the 21st Century which relied on technology and thus further cut backs were made in the Military budget to pay for technological warfare. This ultimately led to a smaller army and less desired equipment for that army to use.

Answer 6

That's how the Horny Hillbilly created his famous balanced budget. Of course it resulted in a lot of problems including the fact (which the Democrats can't slink away from) that we had more military casualties when Billybob was in office and we weren't at war in two countries, than we have had since 9/11/01.

Answer 7

I'm more concerned with his Intel cuts and ineptitude and inaction against Saddam in 98 and Al Quade since the first WTC bombing in 93.

Answer 8

With out a doubt. You can cut your force ignore the fact that their is a lot of people out there who want nothing more than to kill us. And not expect that some day we will pay for it.

Answer 9

Yes it did.

This shows what madam hillary will do to the Military next if she was to get in.

I remember a quote from when clinton first got into office, Military jets were flying over and he said what the hell are they doing here. The person he said that to responded, Their OUR jets now bill.

We see how they used them. A bunch of losers these democraps are.

Answer 10

I think we face the question of a draft because people are not falling for "the push is working - give it a chance!" over & over again.

Most Americans are willing to put their life on the line for a just cause, but unwilling to be fooled again.