GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush military expansion may cost $108 billion over seven years

• 22567
  

  I thank SSA (DHS ICE) for a well reasoned and, apparently, knowledgeable response. As I've stated before, I can only offer my opinions based on my experiences and will bow to those whose experience and knowledge exceed mine. While high emotions are understandable, this reasoned discussion and exchange of perspectives and facts encourages me.

  I must admit that the final analysis of the two varied courses of action will be determined by either biased opinion, as many historical analyses actually are, or by the final results achieved, as they should be.

  So saying, IAW the latter, the jury's still out. If our current expenditure of money and lives achieves more security and understanding among our allies and co-habitants of this fragile world, then I too will consider it a success. For now I must base my evaluations on the current level of our quality of life, our sense of safety, and it appears to be a net loss. Additionally, we do not yet know if this action will deter future atrocities by fanatics. If the past is any indication, that is not likely. If so, we would no longer have genocide, religious persecution, or any of the myriads of human faults that appear again and again through out history. Yes, the War-to-end-all-wars would have been the last.

  I suppose it may have been worth a try. I guess we had to try something different. I truly hope this works, that all those lives have not been in vain and money thrown onto the fire of futility. But, IMHO, those money and lives would have been better spent securing that walls of our homes, strengthening the bonds that tie us to the global economy, and proving tolerance and diversity are truly qualities to be cherished rather than fear, despised, and eliminated. Unfortunately, it may be my myopic view point from these near sighted eyes, because I just can't see that as being the case; particularly as a result of our current foreign policy.

  Tip off

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 27, 2007 10:22 AM
• 22552
  

  I was there for both the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and the attack on 9/11. From my perspective, as a federal agent for over 20 years, it was a mistake to treat the 1993 attack (by definition, an act of war) as a crime, and making a law enforcement response rather than a military one. Years of investigative work, and millions of dollars were spent convicting 10 terrorists, but it didn't stop the next attacks, let alone deter their colleagues. We suffered additional attacks in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the African embassies, and others despite the Clinton doctrine of treating terrorism as a crime, like bank robbery, instead of as a hostile act by enemies of the United States. He bombed Bosnia, which wasn't a threat to us, but neglected Bin Laden, other than sending a few cruise missiles against sand dunes and an aspirin factory. History will eventually judge both Clinton and Bush, both of whom made mistakes, but that is for the future, when people will have the ability to examine all of these events from a different, and more objective, perspective.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 26, 2007 4:17 PM
• 22520
  

  The military has always resembled a rubber band, expanding and contracting as external and internal forces pull at our nation. Presidents from both parties have responded to the cries of outrage from a public who saw little conflict on the horizon and less use for an armed and idle military. In my half a century of observations, I've only seen one president who increased the military budget in a time of peace. And, to be honest, I think Reagan was really using that expansion primarily as a means to stimulate the economy with his trickle-down economics.

  Regardless, our times of great military expansion were, historically, reactions to external aggression. Our greatest strength has always been our people and their ability to respond to need with dedication and productivity. Given a reason, we kick butt.

  Much has been said about Bill and his proclivity for world peace, and piece of tail; but please consider: The first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, also shortly after the investment of a new president, did not result in a misdirected, injust, and costly war (in both terms of lives and money) but the convictions of 10 military Islamic conspirators; each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years, and all within his term of office.

  Mr. Clinton did not pay for the expansion of the economy with a war-time budget, as did Ronny and Dubya, but presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget, a federal surplus, and the largest growth in the stock market's history. Bottom line? He gave the people what they wanted; regardless of whom he diddled.

  Besides hating being lied to, I have a serious problem with a leader that when faced with the most egregious attack on American soil in history, felt the need to retaliate against someone and simple pointed at the most visible target. To compound the error, instead of listening to his experts (the military) and starting the process of rebuilding the military, he decided to totally reorganize it (twice) causing disorganization, confusion in doctrine and tactics, and the inappropriate reallocation of resources.

  Tip off

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 25, 2007 12:58 PM
• 22501
  

  Clinton's fault? You bet it is. How else could he balance the budget. Traditionally after every war there has been a serious military draw down just to build back up for a new conflict. How many times must history repeat itself before these fools get a clue.

  Rick Posted April 25, 2007 2:57 AM
• 22496
  

  Actually, although this is a large number, the defense budget as a percentage of our Gross National Product, and our Gross Domestic Product, is smaller than it is at just about any time since the end of World War 2, even with the proposed increases.

  It costs a lot to defend this great nation, but the cost of not doing so would be far greater.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 24, 2007 5:54 PM
• 22495
  

  Well, it was Clinton who reduced the Army from about 15 active duty divisions to 10, wasn't it? Not to mention the hundreds of Navy ships decommissioned, Air Force squadrons disbanded, diminished infrastructure, cutbacks in equipment, ammunition, training, spare parts, or, well, you get the picture. He was so busy working on his "peace dividend" that he neglected to focus on the emerging threats to this nation. If he had spent as much time worrying about Bin Laden as he did getting involved with the Europeans in Bosnia (or with Monica, for that matter), there might not have been a 9/11, or a USS Cole, or the African embassy bombings, or the situation we have today. By the way, I'm not letting Bush off the hook, because he made mistakes too. However, at least he had the guts to do something to defend this country, rather than talking everyone to death at the U.N.!

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 24, 2007 5:50 PM
• 22434
  

  Yes, Tom, once again its all Clinton's fault. If Bush had increased the military size after 9/11, after all, it is the idealogical struggle of our time, isn't it?, then the Army wouldn't be on the verge of breaking. Instead he chose to enrich his contractor buddies to the detriment of the entire nation.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 21, 2007 12:42 AM
• 22407
  

  "The administration's proposal to increase the permanent end strength and structure of the Army is welcomed, although late," Levin told Army leaders at a hearing last month. "Had we started in earnest to grow the Army even four years ago, our forces today would be less stressed and more ready. We must guard against merely creating a larger version of a less ready force."

  As I stated earlier, this would not have been necessary if the Clinton Administration took the advice of the Pentagon back in the early 90's about the RIF planned but Slick Willy needed to make a point. He balanced the budget back then, but at what expense!

  tom Posted April 19, 2007 9:33 AM