Reply #62: You mean the defense cuts initiated by Cheney, don't you?... [View All]

[Media_Lies_Daily]

Surely you remember that, don't you? If not, here's a reminder:

CHENEY'S PROPOSED DEFENSE CUTS PRIOR TO DESERT STORM:

Defense cuts inevitable, but impact depends on location and pace of change
June 1990
<http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/90-06/cuts.cfm>

...SNIP...

"The question of economic impact will ultimately be answered by the administration and Congress. Currently, Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney is proposing 2 percent annual cuts in the defense budget through 1997, but many believe Congress will insist on deeper cuts, probably in the 5 percent range."

...SNIP...

"Cheney's defense reduction plan will probably be relatively kind to the Ninth District. In June, the secretary of defense proposed cuts over the next five years that would retire six active duty Army divisions, 111 Navy ships and 11 Air Force tactical fighter wings, and remove 442,000 men and women from the 2.1 million active duty ranks. California and states in the East would be hardest hit by the proposal, analysts believe."


DEFENSE CUTS AFTER DESERT STORM ENDED MARCH 3, 1991:

A Hollow Military Debate
September 5, 2000
<http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-05-00.html>

"The Democrats are correct that the Bush campaign has selective amnesia on defense cuts. Since the height of the Reagan defense buildup, the Republicans have been responsible for cuts that dwarf those of the Democrats. The defense budget declined from $448 billion (all figures in fiscal year 2001 dollars) in 1985 to $334 billion in Bush senior's last budget -- a drop of $114 billion. For the last five years, during the Clinton-Gore administration, the budget has held steady at approximately $300 billion -- a net decrease of about $34 billion. In fact, the Clinton-Gore administration, with the backing of Congress, has begun to increase defense spending again.

But Bush and Cheney are also correct when they cite growing problems with readiness in the military -- shortages of spare parts and training, problems with recruitment and retention of personnel, and low morale among the troops. There is no denying that the Clinton-Gore administration has stretched the force to its limits. By 1999, the administration had deployed U.S. forces abroad at a record-setting pace of 48 peace-enforcement and combat missions. Most of the "pockets of unreadiness" in an otherwise dominant military are caused by those furious and far-flung deployments -- for example, Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti -- which rapidly wear out equipment and people.

...SNIP...

...and the following paragraph is hugely ironic given today's circumstances:

"The Bush campaign rightly believes that many such deployments are not required for U.S. national security but is suspiciously vague on which deployments, if any, to eliminate. No less cloudy are the criteria for determining whether and when to intervene overseas. Moreover, Bush and Cheney criticize the current state of the U.S. military but fail to justify maintaining a substantial percentage of U.S. forces at the razor's edge of readiness in the more benign post-Cold War threat environment."