Would Obama Disarm the Military?

[Eghad]

I could cut the military budget by 20% without even trying and without hurting readiness

lol.. Didn't you hear the military just cut out the light at the end of the tunnel because they couldn't afford it anymore.

We were just cut out of a big military training excercise because of guess what ...$$$. To be ready you have to be trained and training isnt cheap when you have to build a training area up from nothing on the ground to a livable and operational area. They said they couldnt afford the training for the kinds of things we have to do in wartime.

Remember Dubyah when he was campaining for the 200 election...

Didn't he say we needed to stop being the police man for the world and was committed and that he would bring the troops home? We all know how that turned out.

If you make a checklist of what the winners promised in 2000 and 2004 you would see some of the goals were not very realistic. I suspect that Mr. Obama might say he wants to cut the military as a candidate but when he learns the facts if elected you will probably hear a different tune. The president isnt a dictator, He may want a reduced military but Congress and events can always tell him no.

 

[Eghad]

Yup. He'll have too many social programs to pay for. It'll be like Clinton again; disarm, downsize, decimate what's left of the intelligence services. It'll be grim!

Interesting statement considering the fact that the Military that went into Afghanistan in 2001 was a legacy of the Clinton Administration. How many programs did Rumsfeld cut? What you are saying is that Bush and Rumsfeld completed retrained the military from his Inaguration in 2001 till they deployed to Iraq in Mar 2003 in just 24 months? Mr. I can take 150,000 troops and do Iraq cheaply..lol I dont think so. Mr. we dont need to increase the steenken end strenght because we are fighting two fronts. So much for the Bush military legacy.The military that Bush used was a legacy from Clinton for the first administration.

makes me chuckle when I hear stuff like that.

 

[grymster2007]

Interesting statement considering the fact that the Military that went into Afghanistan in 2001 was a legacy of the Clinton Administration.

Don’t think so. Those forces were a legacy of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s Gulf War.

Simple version:
Carter decimated our forces.
Reagan built them back up.
George H.W. Bush demonstrated their capabilities in the Gulf War.
Clinton decimated them in his term.
George W. Bush has been building them up again.

The military that Bush used was a legacy from Clinton for the first administration.

Again; don’t think so! Just what had survived from the Gulf War.

makes me chuckle when I hear stuff like that.

You go ahead and chuckle, I’ll go ahead and advocate a strong military that will allow you to chuckle in English.

 

[warrior poet]

Training is based on tactics... not strategy. Thus no president... or heck even a general is involved. Training for recruits is based on the experience of NCOs and SNCOs. Officers, in general, have little to do with the creation of training. Most of it is "hip pocket" from NCOs.
Now, equipment procurement is based on strategy... that's why we had unarmored HMMWVs in 2003 and 2004- we weren't planning for a hit and run IED style war. The servicemen of the initial push in 2003 owe their training not to ANY president, but to the veterans of the 90-91 Gulf War, Grenada, and Vietnam who wrote our training doctrine.
NCOs, not politicians lead... and NCOs pass on their knowledge. Show me president, senator, or governor who knows how properly select a bivouac site, how to headspace and time a .50 cal, how to set up a platoon or company level defence... heck show me one who can READ a fire plan sketch. All that's old knowledge from well before Vietnam, so it isn't like their too old. They don't DO anything tactically except tell me where to fight. Give credit where it is due.