The Clinton Military Myth

[corplinx]

The talking heads on tv/radio have been busy talking about Bush's speech from the flight carrier. Of course, there are the inescapable comparisons to Bill Clinton. What I don't get is that in hindsight, George Bush and Bill Clinton are basically the same. I hear about the military loathed Clinton and how they love Bush and yadda yadda yadda.

Firstly:
Clinton said he loathed the military and avoided the draft.
Bush joined the domestic military and went awol.

So, neither of these guys is a General Patton to begin with.

Clinton believed the military should be fast, light, and highly specialized. Bush believes the military should be fast, light, and highly specialized.

Clinton made the hard choice of closing bases which were unnecessary after the soviet/eastern block threat was gone. Clinton pioneered the fast/light/specialized fighting force during his leadership of Somalia. The only thing he did wrong was pull out after a few dramatic casualties. You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. One of the bitter truths of leading the military is you learn from your mistakes and when the military makes makes mistakes they come with headstones.

Still, when you look at Rumfelds attempts to restructure the military, you can't help but think that Bill Clinton is responsible for starting the process by the base closings.

So why does Clinton get such a bad rap? I think its two-fold. A. you have a certain segments of diehard anti-clinton people and B. everyone likes a winner. As much brave work as Clinton did in restructuring the military, he did not have a resounding success under his belt as CIC. Kosovo didnt deliver the wallop that the fall of Kabul or Baghdad did. So is it case of people playing champ chaser and rooting for a winner?

[DavidJames]

corplinx - Great analysis. I think your answer is that some people have allegiances to people and/or political parties and not to ideas. Some people are unwilling to agree with someone of the other party regardless of the situation.

[Richard G]

Clinton wanted to gut the military, and use it to feed the world. I know, I was in at the time, and moral was at an all time low. That grease ball wanted photo ops running on the beach in Coronado with the SEAL teams. Trouble was, none of the SEALS would run with him, and they had to be given direct orders to do so.

Clinton made only token efforts to erradicate terrorism. He never had a resounding success because he never would have had the guts to go after our enemies. To keep the peace, he would be paying tribute money to Al Queda right now if he were President at the time of 9-11.

He would understand the terroists, because he would "feel their pain".

Bush on the otherhand has let the military loose to destroy our enemies, and keep our nation safe, and free.

Clinton...Coward in Chief.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Richard G
Clinton wanted to gut the military, and use it to feed the world. I know, I was in at the time, and moral was at an all time low. That grease ball wanted photo ops running on the beach in Coronado with the SEAL teams. Trouble was, none of the SEALS would run with him, and they had to be given direct orders to do so.

Clinton made only token efforts to erradicate terrorism.

Bush on the otherhand has let the military loose to destroy our enemies, and keep our nation safe, and free.

Richard, I think the problem is one of mindset. Clinton stepped on a lot of feet with the base closing program. He stepped on a lot feet when he looked at cutting the defense budget. In retrospect, a lot of the choices he made turned out to be beneficial. He made hard choices.

On terrorism, I am not sure Bush would have toppled two state sponsors of terrorism had Sept. 11 not happened. If you remember, Oklahoma city overshadowed all foreign terrorism. I don't fault Clinton for not seeing the big picture with foreign terrorism when at the time domestic terrorism seemd to be a larger threat.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx

On terrorism, I am not sure Bush would have toppled two state sponsors of terrorism had Sept. 11 not happened. If you remember, Oklahoma city overshadowed all foreign terrorism. I don't fault Clinton for not seeing the big picture with foreign terrorism when at the time domestic terrorism seemd to be a larger threat.

Especially considering that the time he did address foreign terrorism by trying to take out Bin Laden, he immediately was accused of a "Wag the Dog" type attempt to divert attention from the scandal at home.

[Crossbow]

Clinton was the first president since Eisenhower who did not serve in WWII, and he protested the Vietnma War, so when he came into office he still had a great deal of distrust for the military.

However, he soon learned (as all presidents do) that the great thing about the military is that they actually do what they are told to do! You do not have to make deals with them, you do not have to massage their egos, you do not have to put on fancy parties for them. Just tell them what the job is and provide the needed authorizations.

As a result, Clinton went out of office a much bigger supporter of the military than when he went in. Also note, that the first term Clinton military budget was just as large, if not larger, than that desired by the elder President Bush.

Go figure.

[Richard G]

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/2/71343

This says alot. (in case you didn't know).

[DavidJames]

"Imagine the indigestion that Rush Limbaugh's listeners experienced when they learned that former president Bill Clinton had pronounced the words "Rumsfeld's right." Many in Republican circles would rather be accused of membership in a Satanic cult than win praise from the 42nd president of the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3113-2003May1.html

Of course, as I'm sure we'll hear later in this thread, but that's different, but what about this or that, but what about Monica. All politically biased BS. It's not the idea, it's who has the idea :rolleyes:

[subgenius]

"He would understand the terroists (sic), because he would "feel their pain".
Republicans, at the time stymied efforts to fund anti-terrorist measures (already discussed in another link).

[corplinx]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Especially considering that the time he did address foreign terrorism by trying to take out Bin Laden, he immediately was accused of a "Wag the Dog" type attempt to divert attention from the scandal at home.

That will always be debatable. While we always hold the threat of dropping a daisycutter on a terror camp, we loathe the idea of actually doing it. Its just psyops. If we incinerate an entire camp we lose information on terror cells and terror plans.

On the other side, he couldn't have just sent in the army to retaliate against bin laden.

His motivations will always be suspect because of the precarious timing. However, no conclusive evidence of his motivations is available so I don't think a skeptic could conclude it was "wag the dog".

I think occam's razor keeps me from concluding that diversion was his sole motivation.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Richard G
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/2/71343

This says alot. (in case you didn't know).
And from a totally reputable, credible, unbiased, anti-"Clintonista" source.
Those "Clintonista" b*st*rds. Makes me want to puke.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Especially considering that the time he did address foreign terrorism by trying to take out Bin Laden, he immediately was accused of a "Wag the Dog" type attempt to divert attention from the scandal at home.
And the "scandal at home" was an attempt to divert attention from........

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx
The talking heads on tv/radio have been busy talking about Bush's speech from the flight carrier. Of course, there are the inescapable comparisons to Bill Clinton. What I don't get is that in hindsight, George Bush and Bill Clinton are basically the same. I hear about the military loathed Clinton and how they love Bush and yadda yadda yadda.

...

So why does Clinton get such a bad rap? I think its two-fold. A. you have a certain segments of diehard anti-clinton people and B. everyone likes a winner. As much brave work as Clinton did in restructuring the military, he did not have a resounding success under his belt as CIC. Kosovo didnt deliver the wallop that the fall of Kabul or Baghdad did. So is it case of people playing champ chaser and rooting for a winner?

Corp, you are scaring me, dude. What you are saying is starting to make sense! Can you fill my wine glass again?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Corp, you are scaring me, dude. What you are saying is starting to make sense! Can you fill my wine glass again?
The mark of a reasonable person: to surprise you by not repeating the same predictable line.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Corp, you are scaring me, dude. What you are saying is starting to make sense! Can you fill my wine glass again?

I like to look at the underdogs and talk about what they did _right_. Political discourse in America is too hung up on concentrating on what people do wrong. Clinton still has a problem with his image regarding the military.

On one hand he was too hawkish for your diehard liberals, on the other hand he was a democrat so he will never get his just due from the right wingers.

[Tmy]

It amazes me how poepl still blame Clinton for 911. 911 happened on GW's WATCH!!!!! I dont even blame GW for 911, but i certainally dont blame CLinton. Its not like Bill ran off with all the ALQueda files when he left office.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx


That will always be debatable. While we always hold the threat of dropping a daisycutter on a terror camp, we loathe the idea of actually doing it. Its just psyops. If we incinerate an entire camp we lose information on terror cells and terror plans.

On the other side, he couldn't have just sent in the army to retaliate against bin laden.

His motivations will always be suspect because of the precarious timing. However, no conclusive evidence of his motivations is available so I don't think a skeptic could conclude it was "wag the dog".

I think occam's razor keeps me from concluding that diversion was his sole motivation.

I never said it was. I said he was _accused_ of doing it as an diversion. Thus, it was another of those "damned if you do, damed if you don't." He decided to back off, which ended up being a mistake. But part of the reason he backed off had a lot to do with the criticism (justified or not) leveled on him for doing it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by corplinx
Clinton made the hard choice of closing bases which were unnecessary after the soviet/eastern block threat was gone. Clinton pioneered the fast/light/specialized fighting force during his leadership of Somalia. The only thing he did wrong was pull out after a few dramatic casualties. You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. One of the bitter truths of leading the military is you learn from your mistakes and when the military makes makes mistakes they come with headstones.

Still, when you look at Rumfelds attempts to restructure the military, you can't help but think that Bill Clinton is responsible for starting the process by the base closings. Thanx corplinx, I have myself come to the defense of Clinton on a number of ocassions. Perhaps some day some one from the left will come to the defense of Bush........................................

Naaaaahhhh --Theoric of York.

Though it should be noted that the base closings started under G H. W. Bush and it was Dick Armey who created the base closing commission that would serve Bill Clinton in his decisions.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thanx corplinx, I have myself come to the defense of Clinton on a number of ocassions. Perhaps some day some one from the left will come to the defense of Bush........................................

Naaaaahhhh --Theoric of York.

Though it should be noted that the base closings started under G H. W. Bush and it was Dick Armey who created the base closing commission that would serve Bill Clinton in his decisions.
Since you did such an admirable job here, I will volunteer to defend Dubya.
What's the charge?

P.S. I'm getting misty from how beautiful this is.
Why can't we all just get along?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

When Clinton attacked Iraq on a single occasion in 1998, he used three times the total number of cruise missiles our forces used during the entire Gulf War, and produced no result.

Clinton did not reduce military bases. An independent commission composed of former members of congress held hearings and made recommendations on base closings to keep the decisions non-political. This was the second round of closings, begun under President Reagan.

Clinton was a military incompetent.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Clinton was a military incompetent.

Clinton espoused a lighter, leaner military with more emphasis on SOF. At the time he was emoting this vision we still had a lot of people with "big army" cold war thinking.

Nowadays, light and lean and SOF is the standard mode of thinking.

I am not sure your arguement with the cruise missiles holds up. In Gulf I we used cruise missiles as a proof of concept. Its only natural to use more of them after their worth is shown. My guess is we dropped less non-precision bombs in 1998 also.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
When Clinton attacked Iraq on a single occasion in 1998, he used three times the total number of cruise missiles our forces used during the entire Gulf War, and produced no result.


Even assuming you're talking about the First Gulf War, that doesn't sound right. Got a link? I'm looking.
These figures seem to differ:
http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000105.html

In the Second they're already talking 800.

In any event, you seem to think Bill was the guy doing the actual targeting and firing of the missiles. That seems improbable, but I could be wrong.
So you're saying he's a bad shot, or our military was?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by corplinx


Clinton espoused a lighter, leaner military with more emphasis on SOF. At the time he was emoting this vision we still had a lot of people with "big army" cold war thinking.

Nowadays, light and lean and SOF is the standard mode of thinking.

I am not sure your arguement with the cruise missiles holds up. In Gulf I we used cruise missiles as a proof of concept. Its only natural to use more of them after their worth is shown. My guess is we dropped less non-precision bombs in 1998 also.

In 1998 we dropped NO non-precision bombs, as I recall. I believe we just launched a huge number of missiles at not much and said something like "Let that be a warning." Sort of the goat killing expedition in Afghanistan and the aspirin factory debacle in Sudan.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by subgenius

Since you did such an admirable job here, I will volunteer to defend Dubya.
What's the charge?

The charge is that he's stupid. But Tony Blair says otherwise: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/blair.bush.reut/index.html

Or does this belong in a different thread?

[jj]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Especially considering that the time he did address foreign terrorism by trying to take out Bin Laden, he immediately was accused of a "Wag the Dog" type attempt to divert attention from the scandal at home.

Well, yes, and then the same people who made that obscenely unpatriotic accusation went on to complain that he didn't try hard enough after they made it politically impossible for him to continue.

Just think, if he hadn't had to spend so much time defending himself against his inability to keep his belt fastened (after 5 years of trying to find some other kind of wrongdoing that never showed a single, solitary bit of evidence, demonstrating that it was a deliberate attempt to commit coup under false color of law in the first place), he might have taken out Bin Laden, and we'd still be floating high with a positively growing economy.

There you have it.

P.S. Mr. Bill was a jerk. Don't get me wrong there.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by subgenius

Even assuming you're talking about the First Gulf War, that doesn't sound right. Got a link? I'm looking.
These figures seem to differ:
http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000105.html

In the Second they're already talking 800.

In any event, you seem to think Bill was the guy doing the actual targeting and firing of the missiles. That seems improbable, but I could be wrong.
So you're saying he's a bad shot, or our military was?

I'm relying on memory. Sorry. Hey, we might actually have killed Saddam Hussein then.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

The charge is that he's stupid. But Tony Blair says otherwise: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/blair.bush.reut/index.html

Or does this belong in a different thread?
Hey wait, it was RandFan's call, plus you already provided the defence. No fair.
Let me have a go at it.
Rand make the charge, I'll vigorously defend OUR president.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


I'm relying on memory. Sorry. Hey, we might actually have killed Saddam Hussein then.
That's cheating. Go to the back of the class, and slap your hand.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Rand make the charge, I'll vigorously defend OUR president. And let you deprive me of feel good self serving rhetoric? Not a chance? ;)

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by subgenius

That's cheating. Go to the back of the class, and slap your hand.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

I can't help it. The devil made me do it.

You sound like a nun.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

I can't help it. The devil made me do it.

You sound like a nun.

By the way your boy missed, so he's no better shot than Bill.
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D7QPFEE81_story

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by subgenius


By the way your boy missed, so he's no better shot than Bill.
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D7QPFEE81_story

We're not sure yet. The target hasn't reported in yet.

[rdtjr]

Hey wasn't it GW I that enacted the largest military budget cut since the end of the Vietnam war, since, you know, we like won the Cold War and all? Remember the old "peace dividend"? Clinton, in fact, reversed those budget cuts and enacted all kinds of neat stuff like livable pay for military members.

Yep, I still remember all the talent the military lost to forced early seperations and retirements as we drew-down to pay that good ole "peace dividend". I'm not a big Clinton supporter, but the military he spent the 1990s building, derided for being "womanized", "liberalized", and PC-ified (by just about every conservative talking head), just won one heck of a victory and was classified by just about every conservative talking head as the best trained, most professional, most intelligent force ever fielded... Funny how the tune changes when your name is on the dance card huh?

[Mauler]

Originally posted by rdtjr
Hey wasn't it GW I that enacted the largest military budget cut since the end of the Vietnam war, since, you know, we like won the Cold War and all? Remember the old "peace dividend"? Clinton, in fact, reversed those budget cuts and enacted all kinds of neat stuff like livable pay for military members.

Yep, I still remember all the talent the military lost to forced early seperations and retirements as we drew-down to pay that good ole "peace dividend". I'm not a big Clinton supporter, but the military he spent the 1990s building, derided for being "womanized", "liberalized", and PC-ified (by just about every conservative talking head), just won one heck of a victory and was classified by just about every conservative talking head as the best trained, most professional, most intelligent force ever fielded... Funny how the tune changes when your name is on the dance card huh?

Defense budgets from the CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table7

Regan 88 (for a point of referance
1988 290.9

Bush 89-92

1989 304.0
1990 300.1
1991 319.7
1992 302.6

Clinton 93-2000

1993 292.4
1994 282.3
1995 273.6
1996 266.0
1997 271.7
1998 270.2
1999 275.5
2000 295.0

Bush 01-04

2001 306.1
2002 348.9


So in short, you are mistaken.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Clinton was the first president since Eisenhower who did not serve in WWII, and he protested the Vietnma War, so when he came into office he still had a great deal of distrust for the military.

However, he soon learned (as all presidents do) that the great thing about the military is that they actually do what they are told to do! You do not have to make deals with them, you do not have to massage their egos, you do not have to put on fancy parties for them. Just tell them what the job is and provide the needed authorizations.

As a result, Clinton went out of office a much bigger supporter of the military than when he went in. Also note, that the first term Clinton military budget was just as large, if not larger, than that desired by the elder President Bush.

Go figure.

As he went out, yes. But he cut the hell out of it as he came in and it's generally something that increases every year. He did in fact hinder that yearly increase quite a bit.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mauler


Defense budgets from the CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table7

Regan 88 (for a point of referance
1988 290.9

Bush 89-92

1989 304.0
1990 300.1
1991 319.7
1992 302.6

Clinton 93-2000

1993 292.4
1994 282.3
1995 273.6
1996 266.0
1997 271.7
1998 270.2
1999 275.5
2000 295.0

Bush 01-04

2001 306.1
2002 348.9


So in short, you are mistaken. Did you adjust for inflation?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


We're not sure yet. The target hasn't reported in yet.
Did you read the link or are you cheating again son? Don't make me get my ruler.

[Mauler]

Did you adjust for inflation?

I lifted them from the CBO historical table directly which didn't adjust for inflation.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mauler
I lifted them from the CBO historical table directly which didn't adjust for inflation. Base closings started under Bush and it was admitted by the commission at that time that it would take a year or two to realize any savings. You don't close a base and instantly start saving money. There are contracts and other obligations that must expire. Additionally it takes money just to close a base.

Bush should get credit for starting the process.

[Rose]

Dereliction of Duty, by Robert Patterson. It provides an illuminating viewpoint of Clinton and his actions or lack thereof.

[Mauler]

Originally posted by RandFan
Base closings started under Bush and it was admitted by the commission at that time that it would take a year or two to realize any savings. You don't close a base and instantly start saving money. There are contracts and other obligations that must expire. Additionally it takes money just to close a base.

Bush should get credit for starting the process.

Wasn't my point. rdtjr claimed that Bush cut military spending and Clinton increased it. Neither is true.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mauler
Wasn't my point. rdtjr claimed that Bush cut military spending and Clinton increased it. Neither is true. I didn't say it was. I asked a question and then suggested that Bush get credit for cutting spending. He cut bases that eventualy led to decreased spending. Would you agree with that?

[Mauler]

Originally posted by RandFan
I didn't say it was. I asked a question and then suggested that Bush get credit for cutting spending. He cut bases that eventualy led to decreased spending. Would you agree with that?

No. The reduction in military had less to do with the actual cost of running the armed forces than it had to do with the political will of Clinton not wanting to spend as much on the military.

As you pointed out, base closing cost short term money. Since the budget went down every year during and after the closings, before any savings could be realized, the base closing must be unrelated to the reduction in the military budget.

I'm looking for a catagorical breakdown of military spending as well because I doubt that the closed bases represented roughly 10% of the military budget between 1992 and 1996 in non inflation adjusted dollars. The bulk of the costs to run those bases were the people in uniform and their equipment which in most cases was moved to other bases for no real savings.