Rhino
03-09-2001, 04:51 AM
WarLady1
Owner/ezOP/Moderator
posts: 1892
(2/18/01 4:42:29 pm)
| Del All
A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.nationalreview.com/da...1401.shtml (http://www.nationalreview.com/da...1401.shtml)
Help may still be on the way — just not yet. The Bush administration has rankled conservatives on Capitol Hill
deferring any significant increase in the defense budget until it completes a "top-to-bottom review" of military strategy. For Republicans who took seriously the Bush campaign's catch-the-falling-flag rhetoric about morale and readiness, and who know the dubious place that top-to-bottom reviews occupy in the Beltway cosmos (somewhere between a blue-ribbon panel and a bipartisan commission), this smells like a broken promise.
It's not — at least not yet. In his September 1999 speech on military policy at The Citadel, Bush promised an immediate $1 billion for increased pay, a review of America's commitments abroad (with an eye to ending U.S. civics work in the Balkans), deployment of a missile-defense system, and a comprehensive rethinking of American military policy in an effort to rationalize Pentagon practices and to invest in "skipping a generation of technology."
Bush has so far followed his script. He has delivered on the pay raise (the easy part). He is tapping on the brakes of our Balkans commitment. His evident seriousness about missile defense has already softened the opposition of our allies to the idea. And, of course, the reviewing and rethinking is in full swing. But there was an implicit promise in Bush's talk of a readiness crisis that he would, if elected, provide some immediate relief (why campaign against a crisis you are only going to perpetuate?). Analysts who agree with Bush's wheels-coming-off assessment of the military say a $5-10 billion spending boost is necessary just to keep the Army stocked in ammunition and the Navy from having to cancel deployments. But this hasn't been forthcoming, as the White House halted a scramble at Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department to prepare a supplemental spending bill that would have addressed the readiness gap.
There are two tactical considerations at play. While working to pass its tax bill, the administration doesn't want the distraction of a supplemental spending bill that could grow larger and highlight Capitol Hill's fiscal incontinence. Understandable. But it hasn't been so shy about pushing additional educational spending (and without the benefit of a top-to-bottom review, which might have established the worthlessness of such spending — but never mind). The other goal is to whack a rolled-up newspaper across the noses of the Joint Chiefs, establishing that the Bushies mean business in reforming the Pentagon. Conservatives may instinctively recoil at anyone saying no to the chiefs, but this might be a worthwhile drill, so long as it advances the long-term goal of changing the way the Pentagon works, and so long as — message successfully sent — the supplemental spending comes this year.
It is important to remember that the Defense Department is a bureaucracy, too, beset by all the usual turf battles and shortsightedness. The services currently clamor for weapons systems that are based on fighting the last war (or the one before that), and that are often flatly nonsensical. Everyone agrees that the Army needs to be lighter and more mobile, for instance, but it persists in pursuing its "Crusader" artillery gun, which is as lithe as a rhino and can fit on a cargo plane only one at a time. Imposing order on this process and carefully planning a future force — rather than lumbering along, just at a slightly accelerated clip — is a basic civilian responsibility, neglected by the Clinton administration. But no one should assume it will be cheap. Some estimate that the military is underfunded, long term, by $100 billion a year. Procurement of a missile-defense system alone will cost several billion a year more. As Bush said at The Citadel, "This will require spending more — and spending more wisely." The administration is now attending to "more wisely," but soon — very soon — it will have to attend simply to "more."
**Don't forget to check out our other great forums!!
Jack Rail
Gold Star Member
posts: 202
(2/18/01 5:00:16 pm)
| Del
Bush Prudence Defense Promise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows what-all is wrong with the military after eight years of Clintonian neglect and feminization? To make major defense changes without knowing the situation would be stupid. I would holler had there NOT been such a review.
"All that's necessary for liberals to triumph is that good men do nothing."
TheOriginalJester
Gold Star Member
posts: 45
(2/18/01 5:03:02 pm)
| Del
Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not been a bit satisfied at Bush how Bush has reacted to getting fast help to our military. For some reason, he is dragging his feet on that one. Oh, we need to pray that Strom Thurman gets better and is able to serve, the democrats are hoping he dies because the person who will appoint his replacement is going to pick a democrat to run out his term, we will lose our edge if he dies now.
WarLady1
Owner/ezOP/Moderator
posts: 1898
(2/18/01 5:29:30 pm)
| Del
Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jester, Bush has been in office less than 4 weeks. How do you call that dragging his feet? Jack is right and so is Rumsfeld. You need to know what you need before you throw money at it. Bush has promised and is delivering their raise and new housing. You must assess a situation before you decide how best to deal with fixing it. You've been through 8 years of hell and I understand your impatience but give the guy a break.
**Don't forget to check out our other great forums!!
Don Riley
New Member
posts: 8
(2/19/01 1:33:57 am)
| Del Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right ya'll are. Find out where you stand before you jump. Bush probably heard John Stossel say that in their inquirys
they discovered the Pentagon can't account for 1 Trillion dollars allocated to them in budgets over that 8 yrs. Some time 60 minutes took a tour through a military warehouse that must have been 40-60 acres that was all the way to the roof[high ceiling]in boxes of goodies that was nothing but storage. Never opened. Probably over a trillion in there.
Bush DID tell the Nat Guard group that he spoke before that their pay and allottments WOULD be increased.
PRES GEORGE W BUSH
New Member
posts: 5
(2/19/01 1:40:51 am)
| Del
Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, give me some time. We just finished bombing Iraq and the Egyptians are crying with saddam. Got to be prudent.
magnum mom
Forum Host
posts: 49
(2/19/01 5:52:52 am)
| Del Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey warlady i agree one has to assess the situation before spending.One question is this really the President posting here?
Owner/ezOP/Moderator
posts: 1892
(2/18/01 4:42:29 pm)
| Del All
A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.nationalreview.com/da...1401.shtml (http://www.nationalreview.com/da...1401.shtml)
Help may still be on the way — just not yet. The Bush administration has rankled conservatives on Capitol Hill
deferring any significant increase in the defense budget until it completes a "top-to-bottom review" of military strategy. For Republicans who took seriously the Bush campaign's catch-the-falling-flag rhetoric about morale and readiness, and who know the dubious place that top-to-bottom reviews occupy in the Beltway cosmos (somewhere between a blue-ribbon panel and a bipartisan commission), this smells like a broken promise.
It's not — at least not yet. In his September 1999 speech on military policy at The Citadel, Bush promised an immediate $1 billion for increased pay, a review of America's commitments abroad (with an eye to ending U.S. civics work in the Balkans), deployment of a missile-defense system, and a comprehensive rethinking of American military policy in an effort to rationalize Pentagon practices and to invest in "skipping a generation of technology."
Bush has so far followed his script. He has delivered on the pay raise (the easy part). He is tapping on the brakes of our Balkans commitment. His evident seriousness about missile defense has already softened the opposition of our allies to the idea. And, of course, the reviewing and rethinking is in full swing. But there was an implicit promise in Bush's talk of a readiness crisis that he would, if elected, provide some immediate relief (why campaign against a crisis you are only going to perpetuate?). Analysts who agree with Bush's wheels-coming-off assessment of the military say a $5-10 billion spending boost is necessary just to keep the Army stocked in ammunition and the Navy from having to cancel deployments. But this hasn't been forthcoming, as the White House halted a scramble at Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department to prepare a supplemental spending bill that would have addressed the readiness gap.
There are two tactical considerations at play. While working to pass its tax bill, the administration doesn't want the distraction of a supplemental spending bill that could grow larger and highlight Capitol Hill's fiscal incontinence. Understandable. But it hasn't been so shy about pushing additional educational spending (and without the benefit of a top-to-bottom review, which might have established the worthlessness of such spending — but never mind). The other goal is to whack a rolled-up newspaper across the noses of the Joint Chiefs, establishing that the Bushies mean business in reforming the Pentagon. Conservatives may instinctively recoil at anyone saying no to the chiefs, but this might be a worthwhile drill, so long as it advances the long-term goal of changing the way the Pentagon works, and so long as — message successfully sent — the supplemental spending comes this year.
It is important to remember that the Defense Department is a bureaucracy, too, beset by all the usual turf battles and shortsightedness. The services currently clamor for weapons systems that are based on fighting the last war (or the one before that), and that are often flatly nonsensical. Everyone agrees that the Army needs to be lighter and more mobile, for instance, but it persists in pursuing its "Crusader" artillery gun, which is as lithe as a rhino and can fit on a cargo plane only one at a time. Imposing order on this process and carefully planning a future force — rather than lumbering along, just at a slightly accelerated clip — is a basic civilian responsibility, neglected by the Clinton administration. But no one should assume it will be cheap. Some estimate that the military is underfunded, long term, by $100 billion a year. Procurement of a missile-defense system alone will cost several billion a year more. As Bush said at The Citadel, "This will require spending more — and spending more wisely." The administration is now attending to "more wisely," but soon — very soon — it will have to attend simply to "more."
**Don't forget to check out our other great forums!!
Jack Rail
Gold Star Member
posts: 202
(2/18/01 5:00:16 pm)
| Del
Bush Prudence Defense Promise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows what-all is wrong with the military after eight years of Clintonian neglect and feminization? To make major defense changes without knowing the situation would be stupid. I would holler had there NOT been such a review.
"All that's necessary for liberals to triumph is that good men do nothing."
TheOriginalJester
Gold Star Member
posts: 45
(2/18/01 5:03:02 pm)
| Del
Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not been a bit satisfied at Bush how Bush has reacted to getting fast help to our military. For some reason, he is dragging his feet on that one. Oh, we need to pray that Strom Thurman gets better and is able to serve, the democrats are hoping he dies because the person who will appoint his replacement is going to pick a democrat to run out his term, we will lose our edge if he dies now.
WarLady1
Owner/ezOP/Moderator
posts: 1898
(2/18/01 5:29:30 pm)
| Del
Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jester, Bush has been in office less than 4 weeks. How do you call that dragging his feet? Jack is right and so is Rumsfeld. You need to know what you need before you throw money at it. Bush has promised and is delivering their raise and new housing. You must assess a situation before you decide how best to deal with fixing it. You've been through 8 years of hell and I understand your impatience but give the guy a break.
**Don't forget to check out our other great forums!!
Don Riley
New Member
posts: 8
(2/19/01 1:33:57 am)
| Del Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right ya'll are. Find out where you stand before you jump. Bush probably heard John Stossel say that in their inquirys
they discovered the Pentagon can't account for 1 Trillion dollars allocated to them in budgets over that 8 yrs. Some time 60 minutes took a tour through a military warehouse that must have been 40-60 acres that was all the way to the roof[high ceiling]in boxes of goodies that was nothing but storage. Never opened. Probably over a trillion in there.
Bush DID tell the Nat Guard group that he spoke before that their pay and allottments WOULD be increased.
PRES GEORGE W BUSH
New Member
posts: 5
(2/19/01 1:40:51 am)
| Del
Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, give me some time. We just finished bombing Iraq and the Egyptians are crying with saddam. Got to be prudent.
magnum mom
Forum Host
posts: 49
(2/19/01 5:52:52 am)
| Del Re: A Bush Broken Promise on Defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey warlady i agree one has to assess the situation before spending.One question is this really the President posting here?