Comments on: RESERVE CRISIS http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/reserve_crisis/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:13:57 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: oceanguy http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/reserve_crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-6414 oceanguy Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3452#comment-6414 As a Pentagon Warrior in the early 90's I can tell you that the issue, the logic, certainly was addressed. But the attitude that was most dominant was one of overly optimistic idealism which was fed by those in search of a big peace dividend from the end of the cold war and the denial of threats in the world. Too often, we warfighters were beat down as being Neanderthal-like in our thinking and flat out told that we couldn’t afford the force-levels that were necessary. President Bush the first started the cuts, and instead of taking advice on reducing further cuts and even increasing military manpower, the cuts were accelerated. Shifting capability to the reserves was a reaction largely intended to maintain capability which would have otherwise been cut altogether. Clinton Administration Defense budgets were dictated from the top down, in that the Pentagon received the spending ceiling number and then went through painful exercises in trying to maintain readiness with drastically reduced budgets. In some cases shell games were played. From my point of view the damage done to the Armed Forces during the Clinton Administration was irresponsible. [By the Way, Reagan’s actions were equally irresponsible and damaging in a different way] The current Administration’s record on the matter is still incomplete, but it’s not doing as well as I’d hoped. The Idiot’s Guide answer is that the Clinton Administration found military technology more attractive than military people. Their intelligence operations, military responses AND their budgets are evidence to their blind faith in technology solutions. As a Pentagon Warrior in the early 90's I can tell you that the issue, the logic, certainly was addressed. But the attitude that was most dominant was one of overly optimistic idealism which was fed by those in search of a big peace dividend from the end of the cold war and the denial of threats in the world.

Too often, we warfighters were beat down as being Neanderthal-like in our thinking and flat out told that we couldn’t afford the force-levels that were necessary. President Bush the first started the cuts, and instead of taking advice on reducing further cuts and even increasing military manpower, the cuts were accelerated.

Shifting capability to the reserves was a reaction largely intended to maintain capability which would have otherwise been cut altogether. Clinton Administration Defense budgets were dictated from the top down, in that the Pentagon received the spending ceiling number and then went through painful exercises in trying to maintain readiness with drastically reduced budgets. In some cases shell games were played.

From my point of view the damage done to the Armed Forces during the Clinton Administration was irresponsible. [By the Way, Reagan’s actions were equally irresponsible and damaging in a different way] The current Administration’s record on the matter is still incomplete, but it’s not doing as well as I’d hoped.

The Idiot’s Guide answer is that the Clinton Administration found military technology more attractive than military people. Their intelligence operations, military responses AND their budgets are evidence to their blind faith in technology solutions.

]]> By: rkb http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/reserve_crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-6415 rkb Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=3452#comment-6415 I have to disagree with Oceanguy a bit. The original rationale for shifting roles to the reserves goes back to the post-Vietnam era. It was a deliberate attempt by Congress to make it difficult for an administration to wage war unless there was strong public support. In other words, to avoid the mistakes of a past war (as that Congress saw them), our active duty military structure was deliberately handicapped. It was knee-jerk reaction without a thoughtful consideration of the side effects. The budget games of the 1990s did happen, but that was Clinton's frosting on the cake. --- I have to disagree with Oceanguy a bit. The original rationale for shifting roles to the reserves goes back to the post-Vietnam era. It was a deliberate attempt by Congress to make it difficult for an administration to wage war unless there was strong public support.

In other words, to avoid the mistakes of a past war (as that Congress saw them), our active duty military structure was deliberately handicapped. It was knee-jerk reaction without a thoughtful consideration of the side effects.

The budget games of the 1990s did happen, but that was Clinton's frosting on the cake.

---

]]>