I should probably bow out on a high point, eh Bricker? 
But instead, I feel compelled to respond to the Chumpster and inquire how on earth he feels that the U.S.'s Bosnia and Kosovo peacekeeping activities–which did not begin until after Dayton (for Bosnia) and the 1999 U.S.-led asskicking of the Serbs (for Kosovo)–have been anything other than an unqualified success? Ya know, seeing as how Bosnia and Kosovo are, like, all peaceful and stuff?
I haven’t been able to get back onto the board all day. Damn hampsters must be on strike. My attempts to have some of my sister’s friends explain to me HOW Clinton weakened the military usually result in increased blood pressure and hypertension. I have heard some of the reasons given by some of the above posters, but I have always assumed that cut-backs were a natural result of having lost the primary enemy—the USSR. From what some people have said in this post, maybe Clinton did go too far. Still, I am learning from you guys, so keep on dispelling my ignorance.
Hmmm…It’s beyond me how ANYONE can say that Bosnia went “spectacularly well,” after not months, but YEARS of pathetic Clintonite waffling. Give me a break.
Also, I don’t know anyone who’s been in Bosnia who says it’s gone all that well at all. Rather, I’ve known a couple of troops who’ve been injured in mob riots because things haven’t gone “spectacularly well.”
As for Kosovo, well, if that went all that well, then how come the Army couldn’t even get their helos into the game, but managed to lose pilots anyway? (hint: it has to do with training and spare parts)
Good grief–Bill Clinton had some strengths to argue from. But his inept Balkan policy is decidedly NOT one of them.
Do try to keep up with the rest of the class. I said that the Bosnia peacekeeping went spectacularly well. The waffling of which you speak was diplomatic waffling, not military waffling. The question posed by the thread (as ably restated by SuaSponte) is whether Clinton’s military cuts left the military unprepared to perform the tasks it was assigned. Last time I checked, the military was not assigned to develop foreign policy.
Oh, well that settles it then. A couple guys got hurt. Damn Clinton! Is it too late to impeach him again?
I’m certain it had something to do with training and spare parts. Of course, you neglect to mention that the Apache attack helicopters to which you refer are pretty darned inadequate in that kind of mountainous terrain. And you also overlook the fact that the military mission was still accomplished without any use of the Apaches at all. The question is not whether more could have been done about spare parts and training–the question is whether more needed to be done about spare parts and training. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the wisdom of sending in the Apaches, however.
A policy of non-intervention that was started by Bush the Elder, of course. And I agree that Clinton’s continuation of that policy went on for far too long. It’s shameful, really. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the military under Clinton. It seems to me we could have kicked Serb ass whenever we felt like it. We chose not to.
Ahh, grasshopper … that isn’t the question. The question is, when Clinton stopped his waffling, were U.S. military forces sufficient to enforce and maintain peace in Bosnia?
minty’s point is that the military aspects went well.
Again, that’s an issue of political commitment and “nation-building” skills, not military prowess.
The Army couldn’t get its helos into the game because helos have an inherently higher likelihood of being shot down, so a political decision was made not to risk them. No knowledge of how they would have done had they gone in.
As above, Clinton’s bungling (I agree with you on that point) in the Balkans is a different issue than military capability.
Sua
Chumpsky, I’d like to express my thanks to you for pinch-hitting for Ace0Spades during his suspension.
It’s like he hasn’t even left.
Sua
The Marine Corps AH-1 Cobra gunships did quite well after the Apaches flopped.
One reason the morale went down in the military during the Clinton Administraation is stated in the last paragraph of the article cited.
I meant to give SuaSponte credit for recasting the question. His version is really more correct than mine and should result in more useful replies.
So, SuaSponte, thank you.
“During the Clinton Administration, was the strength of the United States military appropriate to the actual and reasonably foreseeable threats to America and its interests during that period?”
Then I would say yes, the strength and capabilities of the US military were up to the task of defending the United States from threats to this nation and to threats to our interests.
The US military happened to not be USED in that manner, but the capability was there.
The 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, aka Graham-Rudmann Act (including Base Closures, Military shrinkage) was signed and approved under the Reagan Administration. The RIF (Reduction In Force) was not a GHW Bush or Clinton invention.
UncleBill: U.S. forces have now been in Kosovo almost twice as long under Bush II as under Clinton. Just an observation, is all.
Hey Chumpsky, where did you get the 40% figure for the DOD?
Figures I have show entitlements at 48% of the budget, defense at 16%. I think you’re seriously in error.
Yes, the military weakened during the Clinton years, but was it his fault? Parts, but by no means all of it. Even if he did spend 8 years as the most powerful man in the world, it’s hard to see how he alone can be the cause for all the things he is blamed for. And I say that as someone who doesn’t particularly miss him.
In terms of force structure - sheer firepower - the military weakened, and for good reason. The post Cold War cuts made, and still make, perfect sense. There wasn’t the need for a force of that size anymore, and the money saved ensured that the remaining force could be maintained with the smaller budget. But parts of the drawdown were handled poorly. The Air Force, for example, realized it needed far fewer pilots as they cut the number of Wings drastically. (I want to say in half, but I just can’t remember the numbers.) So they cut the number of applicants to pilot training down to a trickle. A few years down the road, they discovered they had created the “bathtub,” a massive dip in the graph of number of pilots versus years of service. Meanwhile, the new international order is creating more deployments while a booming economy is convincing a lot of pilots to get out for greener pastures. Those left end up shouldering more of the deployment load, and become worn out an leave. Corrective measures are just now taking hold of the situation. This was simply bad planning, that Clinton had nothing to do with.
Congress had it’s fair share in the problem as well. Systems are always being purchased solely because the factory happens to be in a particular district. The Navy could man their ships properly in the mid-90’s, and was telling that to everyone who would listen. They really wanted to focus on retention and quality of life to stop the hemoraging. But they kept getting new ships they didn’t ask for. In the particular case I’m thinking of, it was a shipyard in Trent Lott’s district. But the practice is common on both sides of the aisle.
Clinton deserves some blame. He said things about troops being home by Christmas because it sounded good. An honest appraisal of the situation might have allowed the military to better prepare for the strain it would be facing. A clear set of marching orders about how the military would be employed might have spurred some of the changes to the force that have only happened in the last few years.
So who’s at fault? Clinton, Congress, military leadership? A bit of this, a bit of that. Bad decisions, unforeseen events, partisan politics…it all added up. In the end, placing blame, especially on one person, accomplishes little. Figuring out the flaws in reasoning and planning is a better idea.
That should be “couldn’t man their ships properly.” I love when I make typos that completely change the meaning of the sentence.
Without weighing in one way or the other because I don’t have firsthand experience, I will just note the above description sounds like every “downsizing” that occurs in corporate America. If Clinton were a CEO of a corporation and had downsized as successfully (i.e., while still having the military perform as well as it has in places like Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.) then he would be on the front page of Fortune Magazine!!
Of course they say that, because they are always trying to suck more money out of the U.S. taxpayer for their little imperialist adventures. Of course, their claims are absurd lies.
Beware of U.S. government propaganda.
The 40% of the federal budget figure is taken by calculating how much of the actual federal budget is spent on war, past and present. Not counted in the federal budget are trust funds like Social Security that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. Here is a site that explains how to make these calculations:
Just think about all that waste…
Classic American bravado. Anyway…
It depends on what you mean by “success.” If, by “success” you mean escalating atrocities and killing a couple thousand civilians in order to exert your influence in a region of the world that has previously remain closed to you, then, yes it was a great success. On the other hand, if, by “success,” you mean actually preventing deaths (peacekeeping) then these operations were a miserable failure.
Of course the bombing of Serbia occurred after Dayton. The whole point of the Dayton Accords was to ensure that there would be a war, by crafting the accords to make it impossible for Serbia to agree to the terms.
It takes a real effort to ignore the actual facts in order to believe that U.S. actions in Serbia had anything whatsoever to do with “peacekeeping.” Recall that while the U.S. went to war in Serbia to “peacekeep” in a country where 2,000 people had been killed on all sides in the previous year, and allegedly because of a massacre in which 44 people were killed, it’s client states had been committing much worse crimes, and had been doing so for years. For instance, Turkey had been carrying out monstrous crimes within its own borders, wiping literally hundreds of Kurdish villages off the map in the 1990’s, using U.S. supplied arms. Indonesian soldiers massacred almost 300 people at a funeral in 1993, caught on tape by American journalists, yet the military and diplomatic support for Indonesia continued. Indonesia’s atrocities continued throughout the 1990’s, with no threat of bombing or even withdrawal of support until 1999 when support was withdrawn for the occupation and burning of East Timor. Columbia had been killing a couple thousand people a year within its own borders, with U.S. arms. The list goes on…
Furthermore, the U.S. bombing in Serbia had the “entirely predictable” affect, according to General Wesley Clark, of escalating atrocities. The point is that the bombing of Serbia had nothing to do with the stated goals, which were cynical lies to cover for the actual goals, which were to spread U.S. imperialist hegemony into the Balkans.
Hey, I hear if you ignore all non-military expenditures, the military accounts for 100% of the federal budget! And more if you count the state funds spent on the national guard!
Apparently, I am going to have to spell this out, because Chumpsky is so blinded by his worldview that he can’t see past his own nose. The Navy didn’t have enough sailors to fully man their ships. They ask not to get ships they didn’t ask for so they wouldn’t find themselves even more short manned. Fewer new ships means less tax payer dollars spent, and has absolutely nothing to do with imperialist adventures. In fact, I would think you would be happy that the military was trying to turn down procurements authorized by Congress, but I guess everything can be twisted around to evil imperialism if you try hard enough.
Rossarian, any more talk like that and there may be an outbreak of common sense on this board.
Dec, 19, 1995, we had troops in Bosnia, the point of the quote I have above. This was the 12 month promise.
June 15, 1999, we had US Marines inside Kosovo as part of Operation Joint Guardian.
Jan 20, 2001, Bush took office. Kosovo occupied by US for 19 months under Clinton Administration.
Today is Nov 5, 2002. Kosovo occupied by US for 22 months under the Bush Administration.
If 22 is “almost twice as long” as 19, you should get your observations looked at.