Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Wow, some historical (hysterical) blindness here. The drawdown in forces that folks blame on Clinton started under Bush. But to blame it on either of them is patently ridiculous. The drawdown happened because we won the Cold War, and Reagan-era spending simply wasn't necessary anymore. The only reason the Pentagon has for justifying current spending is the 2-war scenario, where we are fighting a war in both the middle east and in korea. Once Iraq is back in the ranks of peaceful society, I wonder how the military chiefs will be able to justify current levels of spending.
|
Given the lack of resources available in Iraq alone, how can anyone possibly believe we need a "new" justification for military spending? We are barely able to conduct a one front war in Iraq and you think that once they are "back in the fold" of peaceful societies we should cut spending again?
There are shortages of manpower, weapons, and body armor and we aren't even in a large scale conflict. If anything the current state of the world dictates that we increase spending and attract more people willing to put in time in the military.