In what ways does "the cancer of McGovernism" still infect the Democratic Party?

[RTFirefly]

In this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8293995&postcount=140) in the "Opposition to the war could cost the Democratic Party" thread, Mr. Moto says:
I don't for one second want a Democratic party that is like the Republicans. I would like one that is like the Democrats used to be, before the cancer of McGovernism infected the party.Rather than hijack that thread, I thought it was worth a new thread to ask whether the Dems are still infected with "the cancer of McGovernism," or whether they have pretty much moved beyond that?

While it's up to those who speak of such a cancer to define it, I'd do so in two ways, pending Mr. Moto's joining the discussion and doing so himself. Domestically, the fallout of the McGovern campaign was a place at the table for far too many interest groups - the 'Save the Left-Handed Gay Whales' contingent - who would often put their parochial interests ahead of the party's. I would contend that this era in Democratic history effectively ended with Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment in 1992. (Though this hasn't stopped the DLC crowd for looking for such moments in the absence of any Sister Souljahs of any consequence.)

If either party has the need for a Sister Souljah moment anymore, it would of course be the GOP, the party of creationists, global warming deniers, Japanese-American internment justifiers, and similar cranks.

The other way would be a leftist isolationism, but I don't see that that ever affected the party's mainstream. Carter and Clinton both actively engaged the larger world in their presidencies. The main difference internationally between the two parties nowadays is the GOP's much greater willingness to use our military to pick fights just for the sheer hell of it - not even as a first resort rather than a last resort, but in the plain absence of necessity.

Whether or not that's the residue of McGovern, it hardly matters: it's a Good Thing, and it sucks that our Executive Branch is still run by The Party That's Had A Few Too Many And Wants To Punch Somebody Out.

Anyway, Mr. Moto (and other conservatives, and others of the "I didn't leave the Dems, they left me" school), feel free to paint an alternative picture of the effects of McGovernism on the Dems, and how that 'infects' us still. Ball's in your court.

[Frank]

In the context of the thread, I believe Mr. Moto was referring to McGovern's strong stance against the VietNam war, and his desire to cut military spending. These, by some, were (and are) viewed as anti-military and soft on defense.

McGovern was, of course, a bomber pilot in WWII who won the Distinguished Flying Cross while Nixon played poker in the supply corps. Funny how history repeats itself.

[DanBlather]

In the context of the thread, I believe Mr. Moto was referring to McGovern's strong stance against the VietNam war, and his desire to cut military spending. These, by some, were (and are) viewed as anti-military and soft on defense.

McGovern was, of course, a bomber pilot in WWII who won the Distinguished Flying Cross while Nixon played poker in the supply corps. Funny how history repeats itself.And of course we know that Nixon and the other conservative were right. The collapse of South Vietnam led to the invasion of the US by Vietnamese eager to spread their evil Pho and salad rolls.

[Mr. Moto]

Well, this is easy. We just need to look at history.

In 1972, the McGovern campaign and many congressional Democrats called for an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam, and also called for reduced military spending. The results of this were many.

Even though McGovern lost, this view quickly became Democratic party orthodoxy. It manifested in many forms, from the complete withdrawal of all military aid from the South Vietnamese government by a Democratic congress to the cancellation, delay, or scaling back of many military weapons and other systems. By the end of the 1970s, the military was quite hollowed out, and Democratic policy was a prime culprit.

Another problem was a withdrawal of Democrats, especially liberal minded ones, from the active duty ranks of the military. Even more worrisome than this was their disappearance from military policy studies of both the civilian and military variants. This led to a shortage of genuine Democratic military policy experts to serve Democratic administrations and legislators.

Now, I'm not sure the degree McGovern was a cause of this, or merely himself a symptom of a party that had gone off the tracks and had started to be run by a generation radicalized by Vietnam, rather than steadier hands whose experiences had been formed by other eras. Regardless, as his party's nominee in 1972, he was clearly a different figure than Humphrey, Johnson, Kennedy, Stevenson, or Truman. And for defense policy, Democrats who came after McGovern were closer to him on defense matters than, say, Kennedy, who had gotten elected in 1960 in part by promising to address a "missile gap".

Thus, McGovern can be used as shorthand here, for Democratic weakness on defense policy. And that is the cancer I referred to.

[DanBlather]

Well, this is easy. We just need to look at history.

In 1972, the McGovern campaign and many congressional Democrats called for an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam, and also called for reduced military spending. The results of this were many.

Even though McGovern lost, this view quickly became Democratic party orthodoxy. It manifested in many forms, from the complete withdrawal of all military aid from the South Vietnamese government by a Democratic congress to the cancellation, delay, or scaling back of many military weapons and other systems. By the end of the 1970s, the military was quite hollowed out, and Democratic policy was a prime culprit.

Another problem was a withdrawal of Democrats, especially liberal minded ones, from the active duty ranks of the military. Even more worrisome than this was their disappearance from military policy studies of both the civilian and military variants. This led to a shortage of genuine Democratic military policy experts to serve Democratic administrations and legislators.

Now, I'm not sure the degree McGovern was a cause of this, or merely himself a symptom of a party that had gone off the tracks and had started to be run by a generation radicalized by Vietnam, rather than steadier hands whose experiences had been formed by other eras. Regardless, as his party's nominee in 1972, he was clearly a different figure than Humphrey, Johnson, Kennedy, Stevenson, or Truman. And for defense policy, Democrats who came after McGovern were closer to him on defense matters than, say, Kennedy, who had gotten elected in 1960 in part by promising to address a "missile gap".

Thus, McGovern can be used as shorthand here, for Democratic weakness on defense policy. And that is the cancer I referred to.What bizzare reasoning. The Vietnam war was a waste of money, lives, and prestige for the US. The Democratic party was right to vote to end it. The reason that the Republicans won so many elections was their embrace of the "southern strategy" where they exploited the uneasy marriage of northern labor unions and liberals and the southern hatred of the Republicans dating back to the civil war and reconstructon. There was no cancer of the Democratic Party, but there was a cynical malignancy that comes from the Republican deal with the devil that persists to today, You can enact as much anti-working class, pro-military industrial complex legislation as you want as long as you make people believe you will keep n*ggers and fags in their place.

Eisenhower must be rolling over in his grave watching the chicken-hawks in charge of the Republican party cosying up to military contactors.

[RTFirefly]

Thus, McGovern can be used as shorthand here, for Democratic weakness on defense policy. And that is the cancer I referred to. Ah, shorthand. No actual, well, linkage.

Seems to me I could just as easily argue that Nixon's corruption still infects the GOP.

[Mr. Moto]

I refer you to my answer above.

If we refer to McGovern only, he really wasn't that important. He was a three term senator who himself lost reelection in 1980. And of course, in the 1972 presidential election, he carried only one state.

The movement that made such a marginal figure a presidential candidate, though, is significant. It has been called the McGovernite wing of the Democratic party by others, and I find this to be a useful nomenclature. And again, like I said before, it has to be distinguished from liberalism, especially that more robust and pro-defense liberalism such as that which dominated the Democratic party prior to 1970.

And it is quite clear that that new approach to military policy by Democrats had results. Do you deny that the military was in awful shape by the late 1970s? And do you deny that decisions made by Democratic congresses and the Carter Administration had much to do with this?

[BobLibDem]

At times it is appropriate to make cuts in defense. Did you quibble with George HW Bush (http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=1992) in 1992?

The Secretary of Defense recommended these cuts after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me. The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next 5 years. By 1997, we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

I agreed with Bush I that the cuts in defense were a good idea. But why do Republicans get a pass on cutting defense?

[Mr. Moto]

Because 1992 was an appropriate time to cut defense. 1972 probably wasn't. Context matters quite a lot here.

And as it turns out, the 1992 cuts likely went far too deep, especially given the state of defense expenditures since 1992. I believe it is now well past time again for another period of serious investment in the military.

[BobLibDem]

Why wasn't 1972 a good time to cut defense? We were winding down the war. As Kissinger said, "Peace is at hand".

[jayjay]

Eisenhower must be rolling over in his grave watching the chicken-hawks in charge of the Republican party cosying up to military contactors.

In some cases, being so cozy that they're the same person!

[Mr. Moto]

Why wasn't 1972 a good time to cut defense? We were winding down the war. As Kissinger said, "Peace is at hand".

While the Vietnam War might have been winding down, the Cold War certainly wasn't.

Again, I ask a question most of you haven't chosen to answer - was the state of military readiness in the late 1970s justifiable? If that state was too low, to whom does that blame belong?

[Frank]

While the Vietnam War might have been winding down, the Cold War certainly wasn't.
So what was wrong with cutting the costs related to the war?

Again, I ask a question most of you haven't chosen to answer - was the state of military readiness in the late 1970s justifiable? If that state was too low, to whom does that blame belong?
You haven't demonstrated that the state of military readiness was bad, except by assertion. I certainly don't remember the Soviets conquering us, at any rate.

Supporting the military does not equal kowtowing to every military request for money that comes down the pike. You seem to believe that anyone who seeks to reasonably limit the expense of our military-industrial complex is by definition anti-military and soft on defense. That's simplistic.

[crowmanyclouds]

...If that state was too low, to whom does that blame belong?How 'bout the guys in the pentagon who decided the military needs football teams and marching bands more than spare parts and bullets?

CMC fnord!

[According to Pliny]

I think there's needs to be a lot more of George McGovern in the campaign.
Populism is popular. All those red states are full of common men to be championed.

[BobLibDem]

Again, I ask a question most of you haven't chosen to answer - was the state of military readiness in the late 1970s justifiable? If that state was too low, to whom does that blame belong?

If the performance measure is stopping invading armies then I'd have to conclude by the lack of successful invasions that the military readiness was adequate. Precisely what military threat did the US fail to meet in the 1970s?

[Mr. Moto]

Obviously, military readiness can't be measured by the lack of an invasion. However, it can be measured.

Trends in Selected Indicators of Military Readiness, 1980 through 1993 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4888/doc13.pdf) from the Congressional Budget Office.

In 1980, General Edward C. Meyer, then Army Chief of Staff; used the term hollow army in Congressional testimony to describe the imbalance that existed at that time between the number of Army divisions and the number of combat personnel available to fill those divisions. Soon after his testimony, the term hollow force was being widely used to characterize not only the shortages of
experienced personnel but also the shortages of training, weapons, and
equipment that undermined military readiness during the mid- and late 1970s.
Today, much of what is known about the hollow force of that period is based
on anecdotal evidence. Press reports written in 1980, after the military's
failed effort to rescue U.S. citizens held hostage in Iran, sometimes
sensationalized the impact of readiness problems on U.S. military capabilities.
Nonetheless, there is persuasive evidence that many units were not well
prepared to fight.

In 1980, according to reports published at the time, less than 40
percent of all divisions, air squadrons, and ships were rated by their own commanders as fully or substantially combat ready. (The remainder were
rated as marginally combat ready or not combat ready.) The problem was
even more severe in some of the reserve components: in 1977,43 percent of
Army National Guard and 54 percent of Army Reserve units were rated as
not combat ready.

Personnel problems played a major role. DoD instituted the All-
Volunteer Force in 1973 on the premise that military pay would be
competitive with pay in the private sector. Yet by the late 1970s, military
compensation was not adequate to attract and retain high-quality personnel.
As the quality of new recruits declined, discipline, morale, and training
suffered. In addition, low retention rates among noncommissioned officers
(NCOs) led to shortages of experienced personnel, particularly among NCOs
with technical skills that could be used in the private sector. The Navy
suffered from a reported shortage of 20,000 petty officers. The impact of such
shortages on readiness was publicly, and perhaps intentionally, highlighted in
1980 when the commander of the U.S.S. Canisteo, a Navy supply ship,
reported that he was unable to deploy because of a lack of experienced
personnel in the engine room.

These personnel problems were aggravated by shortages of fuel, spare
parts, and ammunition that restricted training opportunities. Without
sufficient skilled maintenance personnel and spare parts, the ability of even
the most modern ships and aircraft to perform their missions was reduced.
In 1980, the Air Force's First Tactical Fighter Wing, with 66 F-15 fighters,
failed a mobilization test; because of a shortage of parts, only 23 of the
aircraft were capable of performing their mission.

How did these problems develop? Between 1969 and 1975, public
disillusionment with the nation's role in Vietnam encouraged rapid reductions
in defense spending. Expenditures on national defense, adjusted for inflation,
fell by 31 percent. Limited budgets, together with rising oil prices and
increased personnel costs resulting from the elimination of the draft, meant
that the acquisition of modern weapons by the military, which had been delayed by the Vietnam War, was delayed still further. Thus, when the
defense budget did start to rise slowly between 1976 and 1981, DoD
emphasized the procurement of new weapon systems. According to General
John Chain, Director of Air Force Operations and Readiness in 1980, "Our
aircraft at the end of the Vietnam War were tired and were facing a new
generation of Soviet equipment We had a choice: We could have either
bought a new airplane or we could have bought spare parts for our old ones.
We couldn't buy both."

In the eyes of some critics, the decision to emphasize modernization
over readiness was an error in judgment that left existing units unable to
operate. Yet the underlying problem, as General Chain's comment suggests,
may have been an imbalance between defense resources and national security
commitments that made it impossible for DoD to buy both readiness and
modernization.

Bolding is mine.

[Sevastopol]

Obviously, military readiness can't be measured by the lack of an invasion. ... That is not obvious at all.

How better to measure the effectiveness of a defence force?

[BobLibDem]

So if I understand this right:

1) Military spending from 1969-1975 under presidents Nixon and Ford decreased by 30%.

2) The GAO report cited stated that defense spending rose slowly from 1976 to 1981 under President Carter.

3) George HW Bush proposed 30% reduction in defense spending in 1992.

My conclusion is that Republican presidents are weak on defense, except for the madcap spending of Ronald Reagan

[Mr. Moto]

By the metrics mentioned in my link, obviously, keeping in mind that our military isn't a strictly local defensive force, as it is needed for treaty commitments and the projection of power and protection of our interests on a global scale.

[RTFirefly]

How did these problems develop? Between 1969 and 1975, public disillusionment with the nation's role in Vietnam encouraged rapid reductions
in defense spending. Expenditures on national defense, adjusted for inflation,
fell by 31 percent. What did this have to do with McGovern? (1) The American people were disillusioned with our role in Vietnam. McGovern, who lost the 1972 election in a landslide, wasn't the cause of this. (2) Going from the height of a conventional war to the end of that war should have substantially reduced our defense expenditures, all else being equal. We had 545,000 men in Vietnam in 1969; you don't pay for that out of petty cash. (3) Despite the absence of Vietnam expenditures in the mid-1970s, we had two extraordinary (by the standards of the time) deficits in the Ford years. There was pressure to cut the budget across the board, on top of the absence of Vietnam expenditures.

[Mr. Moto]

Di you think Ford and Nixon could propose military budgets all on their own, BobLibDem?

What party was in control of Congress during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter presidencies? What party controlled the budget processes during that period, the Armed Services Committees and the Appropriations Committees?

And after the McGovernite takeover of the party in the late 60s and early 70s, defense spending suffered, an military readiness with it. This is the period when Democratic hawks like Scoop Jackson began to be marginalized within their own party.

[Mr. Moto]

What did this have to do with McGovern?

Don't play dumb. Prior to Reagan's election there was plenty of talk about the "Goldwater" wing of the Republican party, even though Goldwater similarly lost in a landslide.

The movements these men spawned within their parties were far greater than the success they had seeking the presidency.

[BobLibDem]

I was being somewhat facetious, Mr. Moto. Nixon and Ford had Democratic Congresses. But the Vietnam War was winding down. Draftees were leaving. Of course spending goes down after a war. The end of Vietnam was far more significant in the drop in defense spending than the influence of McGovern.

[RTFirefly]

The movement that made such a marginal figure a presidential candidate, though, is significant. It has been called the McGovernite wing of the Democratic party by others, and I find this to be a useful nomenclature. And again, like I said before, it has to be distinguished from liberalism, especially that more robust and pro-defense liberalism such as that which dominated the Democratic party prior to 1970. OK, explain what about that movement is still present in Dem policy stances today.

And it is quite clear that that new approach to military policy by Democrats had results. Do you deny that the military was in awful shape by the late 1970s? I'd agree that it was in bad shape by the mid-70s; you had a generation of noncoms who smoked a lot of dope in Vietnam. Maybe getting involved in that war was a mistake in terms of its effect on military morale, as well as in a zillion other ways.

My understanding had been that the military was already getting better by the end of the Carter years. The only thing in your long CBO quote that I see contradicting that more than anecdotally is the bit about spare parts. In the late 1980s, I was attending a church in Hampton, VA with a significant military population. From the stories they told, it sounds like the cannibalization of planes for spare parts was a pretty normal activity at the time, which was late in the Reagan years.

And do you deny that decisions made by Democratic congresses and the Carter Administration had much to do with this?Carter, as your CBO cite says, increased defense budgets. Cartainly the decisions made by Dem congresses to get us into Vietnam and keep us there had a lot to do with our defense problems. But that's the sort of Democratic Party you'd like to return to.

Anyhow, so far it's all 'the McGovernites ruined our military back in the 1970s' (although I disagree), with no explanation of how that cancer continues in the Democratic Party of the here and now. Even if we could establish that McGovern (or the movement that bears his name) closed down the military in 1975 and sold the equipment off at a big yard sale, you still haven't begun to address the question posed in the thread title.

[Mr. Moto]

No. It is obvious that by the early 1970s the military had to be rebuilt after the strain of the Vietnam War. This did not mean that it had to be quite so big with that "hot war" ending. But materiel used up during that conflict needed to be replaced, a new generation of weapons, ships and aircraft had to be procured, and the welfare and pay of soldiers remaining in the military, especially in an all-volunteer force, had to be provided for.

All of this was neglected throughout the 1970s. Even Carter's increased military budgets were not enough, and the situation was not fixed until the Reagan-era defense buildup.

And while a certain level of parts cannibalization is acceptable and routine, it should not be practiced to such an extent that only 1/3 of a squadron's planes are mission capable.

[RTFirefly]

No. It is obvious that by the early 1970s the military had to be rebuilt after the strain of the Vietnam War. This did not mean that it had to be quite so big with that "hot war" ending. But materiel used up during that conflict needed to be replaced, a new generation of weapons, ships and aircraft had to be procured, and the welfare and pay of soldiers remaining in the military, especially in an all-volunteer force, had to be provided for.
You still haven't begun to address the question posed in the thread title. But let me help you (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_strains):
WASHINGTON - Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.

The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace's review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its warfighting abilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."
Looks like those McGovernite Dems are gutting today's military, just the way they did with the Vietnam-era military.

What? Oh, right. These are the Republicans that are doing this.

My bad.

[Mr. Moto]

That is all true. A large part of that is due to the strains of the current war, but some other parts of this problem are a continuation of issues that began to crop up in the late 1990s, when military readiness issues of the kind I described in my cite (though not quite so severe) again began to appear.

And again, as I said before, I think the defense cits of the early 1990s were too deep, and have led us now to another situation where intense investment in the military is required.

I'm happy to see that you agree in this.

The question is whether your party in Congress will pony up the necessary money to make it happen, and whether the administration will press hard enough for it. To say I'm not optimistic on either point would be an understatment.

[RTFirefly]

That is all true. A large part of that is due to the strains of the current war, but some other parts of this problem are a continuation of issues that began to crop up in the late 1990s, when military readiness issues of the kind I described in my cite (though not quite so severe) again began to appear.

And again, as I said before, I think the defense cits of the early 1990s were too deep, and have led us now to another situation where intense investment in the military is required. Cites?

I'm happy to see that you agree in this. Shorter Mr. Moto:
1) You're right, the military is in bad shape now.
2) It's all Clinton's fault.
3) I'm glad you agree with me on point #2.

Completely aside from your ludicrous attempt to put words in my mouth, the whole thing is a bunch of bull. You have presented no cites to back up your claims. The military seemed to have few readiness problems with respect to toppling Saddam and the Taliban. What's broken the military is its having been given a mission that is far too big for its troop strength.

Now, of course, we know that Cheney (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html) knew (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2891895) all along that Iraq would probably be a quagmire, but he neither built up the military (which would have been easy to do after 9/11) to be better able to handle the stresses of an Iraq occupation, nor (somewhat off topic, but worth noting) did he warn Congress or the American people, before the vote to authorize the use of force, that Iraq would likely be a long, hard slog.

Maybe you take the POV that Clinton should have ensured that we'd have an army that was up to the mission of occupying a country of 25 million people. I doubt you could have found many politicians in the 1990s who were willing to advocate that we be prepared for such an outlandish mission.

[Merijeek]

Wait...

I thought that Clinton gutted the military. I seem to see that posted all the time. Clinton was universally hated by the military because they were underfunded because of him.

However, Clinton had a Republican congress for the majority of his term.

According to Moto's posts here, it was actually the Republican Congress's fault, right?

-Joe

[Mr. Moto]

I'm certainly not letting Republicans off the hook for their own contributions to this problem. However, the difference is that the Democratic Party has a built in, institutional bias against military spending that the Republicans do not share.

Maybe you take the POV that Clinton should have ensured that we'd have an army that was up to the mission of occupying a country of 25 million people. I doubt you could have found many politicians in the 1990s who were willing to advocate that we be prepared for such an outlandish mission.

Strawman. Maybe it would have been a nice start in the Clinton administration for the USS John F. Kennedy to not have been routinely and chronically shortchanged on its maintenance, to the point that the costs to fix her are now prohibitive, and she probably will have to be decommissioned.

Link. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-67.htm)

[RTFirefly]

I'm certainly not letting Republicans off the hook for their own contributions to this problem. However, the difference is that the Democratic Party has a built in, institutional bias against military spending that the Republicans do not share. Depends on how you mean that, I suppose. Given a fixed pool of money, the Dems are always more likely to want to spend more of it on domestic needs than the GOP will. I'd simply say that the Dems balance the relative needs of America in different ways than the GOP does, and is more skeptical than the GOP of claims of vast dangers that can only be met by equally vast military expenditures.

Like I said earlier, if that's McGovernism, sign me up.

Strawman.How so? ISTM that the Clinton defense budgets have to be viewed in terms of the threats and potential missions that were in view at the time. Occupying Iraq wasn't one of them. Occupying Iraq is what has broken our army.

Maybe it would have been a nice start in the Clinton administration for the USS John F. Kennedy to not have been routinely and chronically shortchanged on its maintenance, to the point that the costs to fix her are now prohibitive, and she probably will have to be decommissioned.

Link. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-67.htm)
The singular of 'anecdote' is 'anecdote.'

[Merijeek]

I'm certainly not letting Republicans off the hook for their own contributions to this problem. However, the difference is that the Democratic Party has a built in, institutional bias against military spending that the Republicans do not share.


I'd love to see a cite for your "institutional bias" and the GOP's lack of said "institutional bias".

-Joe

[BobLibDem]

I sure am glad that we've got these Republicans with strong defense policies in charge. 88% of Army National Guard units are "not combat ready". (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17390852/) Doubtlessly Mr. Moto will be along to demonstrate that under Clinton, there were less than 12% combat ready units.

This is what happens when you try to fight a war without sacrifice. Can't have a draft, so the NG troops and reservists have to stay far above and beyond what they thought they signed up for. Gotta keep those tax cuts going to Paris Hilton, so the deficit spins out of control. Can't provide enough body army armor and ammo to the troops, because hey they're just going to be greeted as liberators anyway. Can't keep the army hospital in acceptable condition, but the first order of business is to prohibit the patients from talking to the media. (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSreedinspect070227/)

Bush has done more to damage the national defense than McGovern could ever dream of. Not that combat veteran McGovern was going to let the military go down the tubes anyway. After Bush's pitiful stewardship of the armed forces, how dare anyone accuse Democrats of being soft on defense?

[Merijeek]

I sure am glad that we've got these Republicans with strong defense policies in charge. 88% of Army National Guard units are "not combat ready". (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17390852/) Doubtlessly Mr. Moto will be along to demonstrate that under Clinton, there were less than 12% combat ready units.

I'm sure all that was because of Clinton. You can't rearm and re-equip the entire National Guard in only six years!

You invade with the army you have, not the army you want!

-Joe

[RTFirefly]

I sure am glad that we've got these Republicans with strong defense policies in charge. 88% of Army National Guard units are "not combat ready". (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17390852/) Doubtlessly Mr. Moto will be along to demonstrate that under Clinton, there were less than 12% combat ready units.

This is what happens when you try to fight a war without sacrifice. Can't have a draft, so the NG troops and reservists have to stay far above and beyond what they thought they signed up for. Gotta keep those tax cuts going to Paris Hilton, so the deficit spins out of control. Can't provide enough body army armor and ammo to the troops, because hey they're just going to be greeted as liberators anyway. Can't keep the army hospital in acceptable condition, but the first order of business is to prohibit the patients from talking to the media. (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSreedinspect070227/)

Bush has done more to damage the national defense than McGovern could ever dream of. Not that combat veteran McGovern was going to let the military go down the tubes anyway. After Bush's pitiful stewardship of the armed forces, how dare anyone accuse Democrats of being soft on defense?
And of course, the Army itself (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-27-pace-military_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA) is in piss-poor shape to fight off a genuine threat, should one arise:
Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.

The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace's review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its warfighting abilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."
And of course, we broke the Agreed Framework with North Korea because of their possible uranium enrichment program (which, if it existed, probably would have taken them 10 years or so to produce a bomb). That allowed them to re-start their plutonium bomb program, which was a real winner to begin with because they were less than a year away from being able to make a plutonium bomb. And of course, now we're finding that there may or may not have been anything to the uranium enrichment program.

Oh yeah, terrorism has increased sevenfold worldwide during the Iraq war (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html). And although the increases are much smaller if we exclude Iraq and Afghanistan, they're still increases:
And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.

And that, folks, is what we've learned just in the past week about how the GOP isn't making us safer.

Explain to me again, conservatives, why we're trusting Bush and Cheney with so much as a dull knife, let alone the military power and diplomatic influence of the world's sole superpower?

[tagos]

And of course, the Army itself (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-27-pace-military_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA) is in piss-poor shape to fight off a genuine threat, should one arise:

And of course, we broke the Agreed Framework with North Korea because of their possible uranium enrichment program (which, if it existed, probably would have taken them 10 years or so to produce a bomb). That allowed them to re-start their plutonium bomb program, which was a real winner to begin with because they were less than a year away from being able to make a plutonium bomb. And of course, now we're finding that there may or may not have been anything to the uranium enrichment program.

Oh yeah, terrorism has increased sevenfold worldwide during the Iraq war (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html). And although the increases are much smaller if we exclude Iraq and Afghanistan, they're still increases:


And that, folks, is what we've learned just in the past week about how the GOP isn't making us safer.

Explain to me again, conservatives, why we're trusting Bush and Cheney with so much as a dull knife, let alone the military power and diplomatic influence of the world's sole superpower?

Yes, that's all very well but you have to weigh that against his undoubted triumphs in the Wars On The Environment, Science, Common Sense and Human Decency, The War on the Constitution, and the never ending struggle to ensure the country is safe from the menace of stem cells and gays having equal rights. And who can argue with the success of the No Billionaire Left Behind program?

Fair's fair old chap. Credit where credit is due.

[marshmallow]

Depends on how you mean that, I suppose. Given a fixed pool of money, the Dems are always more likely to want to spend more of it on domestic needs than the GOP will. I'd simply say that the Dems balance the relative needs of America in different ways than the GOP does, and is more skeptical than the GOP of claims of vast dangers that can only be met by equally vast military expenditures.
Really? Who are these mysterious Dems? Do they currently run candidates in the United States?

Sarcasm aside, the idea that the Dems aren't as in bed with the military as the GOP strikes me as ludicrous. Sure, the Dems have a lot of supporters who are anti-military...but it doesn't seem to affect actual policy. Just look at the Cold War or the post 9/11 response.

I would definitely say the Dems are less insanely militant than the GOP...but Shaquille O'Neal isn't a midget because he's shorter than Yao Ming.

EDIT: Tagos, don't forget they repelled the evil secularists in the War on Christmas. A mighty victory indeed! :p

[tagos]

Really? Who are these mysterious Dems? Do they currently run candidates in the United States?

Sarcasm aside, the idea that the Dems aren't as in bed with the military as the GOP strikes me as ludicrous. Sure, the Dems have a lot of supporters who are anti-military...but it doesn't seem to affect actual policy. Just look at the Cold War or the post 9/11 response.

I would definitely say the Dems are less insanely militant than the GOP...but Shaquille O'Neal isn't a midget because he's shorter than Yao Ming.

EDIT: Tagos, don't forget they repelled the evil secularists in the War on Christmas. A mighty victory indeed! :p

I just wasn't sure that was over yet. I fear, the Athiests, Liberals and Satanists, (if indeed they are in any way seperate :dubious: ) merely fell back as a ruse. I expect they'll be back before Chocolate Eating Day.

[RTFirefly]

Really? Who are these mysterious Dems? Do they currently run candidates in the United States? Consider the 'peace dividend' of the 1990s.

Sarcasm aside, the idea that the Dems aren't as in bed with the military as the GOP strikes me as ludicrous. Sure, the Dems have a lot of supporters who are anti-military...but it doesn't seem to affect actual policy. Like when Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber. Any Republican would have done that too.

Just look at the Cold War or the post 9/11 response. Well, look at it. Half the Dems in Congress opposed the Iraq AUMF. And that AUMF would never have been proposed if Gore had been inaugurated.

The Dems really aren't all that good about opposing a war that the President wants to fight; you're right about that. But if there's a Dem in the White House, s/he's going to initiate a lot less military craziness than a GOP President would.

[BrainGlutton]

Maybe it would have been a nice start in the Clinton administration for the USS John F. Kennedy to not have been routinely and chronically shortchanged on its maintenance, to the point that the costs to fix her are now prohibitive, and she probably will have to be decommissioned.

Link. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-67.htm)

So what?

[BrainGlutton]

The Dems really aren't all that good about opposing a war that the President wants to fight; you're right about that. But if there's a Dem in the White House, s/he's going to initiate a lot less military craziness than a GOP President would.

OTOH, remember who got us into 'Nam . . . back in them carefree pre-McGovernism days . . .

[RTFirefly]

OTOH, remember who got us into 'Nam . . . back in them carefree pre-McGovernism days . . .Good point! McGovern at least got us past that extreme of craziness. Or maybe it was just that the southern Dems of that era, always more hawkish than the party as a whole, died off or became Republicans.