If the gap between the standards of living of the industrialized world and the rest of the world is not addressed-then terrorism will have the lifeblood of resentment on which to feed.

I’m not advocating Marixan ideas at all. Economic inequality is the oxygen that fed communism however and will feed Islamic terrorism.

Men a lot smarter than me are pointing out that if that gap is not addressed, the seeds of future conflict will be sown.

Your number 3 is decidedly Marxian – no slur intended – can one assume you also believe economics (or “our capitalism”) is the “religion” of North America and will ensure our continued existence? Your solution to the problem appears to reduce the issue to creature comforts – surely you’ll admit the evidence in human history points elsewhere. If you were correct then only the poor & dispossessed would commit crimes. As to the oft tried “Leveling the playing field”; it’s also the ideal of every thief and worse.

What I get tired of though, is the idea of transferring all the blame to Clinton while ignoring the role that others played in the the reductions. The military itself made some pretty boneheaded decisions in the 90′s-not all of which were orginated at the White House. A lot of the improvements that are in place today are out of a recognition that we could have done better then. Our current flag leadership has said as much in public forums. Our flag leadership then should have been screaming bloody murder- or at the least getting retired flags out there to bang on desks. Remember what happened in 1998 when the JCS finally got a spine? The 99 and 2000 budgets grew. ( It probably did not hurt that Clinton was in trouble politically, but whatever works).

I think that even GWB’s Dad had been re-elected the force would have gotten smaller-not as much to be sure, but the pressure to balance the budget and cut taxes would have been intense-especially as die hard Republicans kept would have kept throwing his ( I beleive) courageous decision to raise taxes in his face.

The hindsight record now is pretty clear that in 2002, the military wanted to execute the OPLAN with more troops and it was vetoed in the SECDEF’s office. I agree that it was hard to see that the Iraqis would be so stupid as not to sieze the opportunity given to them, but there were voices that were pointing that out-particularly within the Army in the late fall of 2002.

Bush came into office pledging to re-vitalize the military and fix the “broken military”. Those were his words. The actions of those he appointed to do his bidding were exactly the opposite-from personnel, to benefits, to end strength the actions were 180 degrees out from the rhetoric. The documentation is there, if anyone wants to look. The second tier management at the time earned every bit of the scorn that has been directed at them IMHO.

An 80,000 person increase in Army end strength over five years was doable -because it was done before. Also, I have no problem with a draft if the number of volunteers is not enough.
The point was though that Rumsfeld and the rest of the herd was fixed upon cutting people because they were “expensive”. I submit the money is there-the government just has to after it.

I really do believe what I write here. I have evolved as I get older, I will admit that-and politically I am a lot more open minded than I was 20 years ago. I regard that as an improvement.

Was that strictly necessary, Cap’n?

As for the drawdown, you know perfectly well that President takes the NIE and forms the NSS using it in his first 150 days. He formulates the PRESBUD, and Congress only tinkers around the edges, adding and subtracting from favored programs.

Examining the Reagan build-out in the 80′s without reference to the post-Vietnam draw down and the economic malaise of the Carter years seems altogether too convenient to your cause, Skip. That draw down, and the Reagan years were anomalies driven by the geopol. GW Bush may have started down the peace dividend path but Bubba took it to the hole, and he took the rest of us with him. No one knew that was a bad call at the time, but we’re paying the price on it now and it’s disingenuous to suggest that a 45% peacetime cut of head count could be made up in war time using a volunteer force.

You lived through those days. Squadrons and in fact whole air wings went into preservation for months for lack of funds to operate. How can you forget what that was like?

I know we often disagree, but it’s almost always in good faith. It’s hard for me to believe that you actually believe any of what you’ve written here.