Withdraw from Iraq?

Thanks
Thanks for proving my point, with these set of questionable, graphs that clearly show that during the nineties, military expenditure flat-lined in. If one would tke in the rate of inflation, I could still argue that the military "wilted" during the Clinton administration.
Again, thanks for proving my point.

By the way, best to keep your responses to one particular item. The discussion stays on a more centered apporach and there is little chance of us evading or ignoring points of contention.

Re: Thanks


"Wilted"? Expenditure didnt drastically fall. It decreased by a max of six percent, then went up again midway through Clintons term. At a level that was almost three times as high as it had ever been before. How could that have landed the US military in acute problems? Note that it stabilised at a level that had gotten that suddenly, mindbogglingly high in an intense spending race with the Soviets in the 80s. Clinton had no equivalent reason to keep it at that high a level. Russian military spending had caved in, Chinese spending was at something like a quarter of that of the US. And before you mention other emerging powers and new dangers, let me repeat that world military spending overall (and that's including the US share in it) fell by 40% in the course of the same period of eight years that the US reduced its budget by 6%.

So let me summarise it: under Clinton,

- military spending was almost three times as high as at any time before Reagan;
- it stabilised at roughly the same level while world military spending dropped by 40%;
- this was, unlike in Reagan's time, over three times as high as that of any other power;
- and that at a time when the US wasn't undertaking any of the kind of super-costly military effort like Bush Sr's Gulf War.

"Wilted".

Ho Hum
For every so called "fact" you can present, I can offer another with an entirely different slant. Who are you going to believe?

Wednesday, April 21, 1999
Military Decline Puts U.S. In A Bind

The war in Yugoslavia is already shaping up as one of the most poorly planned conflicts in American history. As a consequence, defense officials are scrambling to pull together the resources needed to sustain our operations there. Unfortunately, they are bumping up against severe limits resulting from the drastic deterioration of U.S. military capability during the Clinton Administration. In just fiscal year 1998 alone the Defense Department lost the following assets.

... Aircraft. The number of combat aircraft fell by 434 or 4.8 percent. Sixty-two airlift planes were also retired, and 857 other aircraft. In total, 1,353 planes were taken from service, reducing the number of aircraft available by 6.6 percent.

... Ships. More than 10 percent of all submarines were decommissioned, reducing the total to 123 from 137 the year before. Ten support ships were lost and 684 small boats. Overall, U.S. ship strength was reduced by 16 percent.

... Combat vehicles. The number of tanks were reduced by 827 or 7.6 percent. Other combat vehicles fell by 6,360 or 14.5 percent. Overall, available combat vehicles declined by 13.1 percent.

In real terms, adjusted for inflation, defense spending has fallen every year of the Clinton Administration thus far, from $298.4 billion in 1992 to $236.6 billion last year (in 1992 dollars). While some of this was due to cutbacks in strategic arms resulting from the end of the Cold War, much also came out of conventional forces--guns, bombs, bullets, personnel.
Moreover, increasing amounts of defense spending have been diverted into non-military operations, such as environmental cleanup. As a consequence, we are now finding the shelves are nearly empty, with many items needed to sustain combat operations in short supply

[simple matter]. The production lines for many weapons have been shut down. It is not possible, for example, to quickly replace the F-117 Stealth fighter that was lost because they are no longer being manufactured. The same is true of air-launched cruise missiles, which have been heavily used so far in Yugoslavia.

Of course, production lines can be re-opened. But the engineers and other skilled workers needed to operate those lines are no longer available, neither are the specialized suppliers. Nor would it necessarily make sense to restart production on many weapons systems because although they are still in use, they are obsolete. New generations of weapons will have to be designed and built before it makes sense to resume their production.

The Pentagon has already asked for an additional $4 billion this year to pay for the Yugoslavia operation. But any escalation will increase this cost quickly. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the air campaign at current levels costs $1 billion per month to sustain. If ground troops are introduced, it will cost $300 million month per division to keep them supplied. Even a negotiated settlement will be costly. A force of 4,000 peacekeeping troops, consistent with the Rambouillet agreement, would cost $50 million per month.

However, even if the Yugoslavia conflict ends soon, it has exposed serious weaknesses in U.S. military strength that will have to be rectified. And rectifying them may cost far more than it would to have maintained our strength all along. That means that the next president is going to face the same problem Ronald Reagan faced in 1981, when confronted by the defense cuts of the Carter years. Big defense spending increases will be necessary, necessitating politically unpopular cuts in domestic programs or a return to deficit spending.

In short, Bill Clinton's emasculation of the Defense Department is going to sandbag his successor, regardless of who it is. We can only hope that that person has the political will to do what is necessary in the face of inevitable opposition.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, April 21, 1999.

Funny how I used the word "wilted" instead of decimated...

I would ask at this point if anyone remembers the question originally posed and care to address it.

steissd
This sounds really big. Is it funded by the World Jewish Banking Conspiracy?

sorry au....didn't see your attempt to steer things back there. Had I seen it, I surely wouldn't have remarked on the idiocy above.

The decimation of the military budget is a Limbaugh etc. canard, ever unproven. What can easily be shown on this date is Bush's attack on vets' benefits in the new budget.

blatham
If we took all the idiocy, mine included, out of these discussions they would be much less interesting and contreversial. I am all for a little sarcastic humor.