CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?

~709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

~293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

~EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.

~20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

~232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

~19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

~500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

~FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.

~IS THIS COUNTRY?

RUSSIA ? NO

CHINA ? NO

GREAT BRITAIN ? NO

FRANCE ? WRONG AGAIN ( What a Laugh!!!!!)

MUST BE USA ? STILL WRONG (SORT OF)

GIVE UP ?

THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.

That leaves us with just enough weaponry to blow the earth up 36 times.

Good thing for the libs I suppose as using their logic OL GW would have launched WWIII if he had the means.

Wow, put in that perspective, I hadn't realized Clinton had done so well. Cut all that excess, by which saving billions of dollars to put towards the conservative-created deficit, balanced the budget plus creating a surplus. And with that "reduced" force we still won Bosnia and Iraq I while keeping North Korea and others in check. Not too shabby.

Sounds like pretty darn good management to me.

By the way, in '93 the authorized troop strength for the Army was only 578,000 and by 2000 it had only dropped about 80,000. So I'd question that 709,000 figure even if it does include all branches.

And note that Colin Powell himself was behind the reduction in forces. Remember that with new technology it takes less manpower to fight a war, less bases for less troops, etc. And isn't GW a big advocate of outsourcing to gov't contrators, too? There's a reduction in forces in itself.

Plus there's that nasty Graham-Rudman act thingy that started the ball rolling in the late '80's.

However, I admit to complaining about creating a hollow Army once upon a time. But you can't pin all the blame on one guy.

Another thing that I wonder about is, since we have a Republican controlled House, Senate, and Whitehouse, why hasn't all those "reduction in forces" been replaced?

Seems I remember Rumsfeld talking about reducing forces even more to be lighter and faster. Didn't they cancel a major artillery weapon, a new helicopter program, and some Boeing contracts?

Oh, it must be something left over from the Clinton administration.

"Remember that with new technology it takes less manpower to fight a war, less bases for less troops, etc."

Theoretically. No one predicited what is happening today and tactics being used to offset our techo. 1996 ASFTDS was predicted to be the way of the future and is a tad bit away from being reality. 100k troops sitting in an underground stadium playing video games with live effects on the other side of the console is still in the future. Even though the Taliban was convinced we had a death ray because of laser guided bombs falling from the sky and Preators showing up and then all hell breaking loose with out seeing a US soldier. But then again they never imagined you could fight a war at night and sleep all day.

Yeah, it was somewhat tongue in cheek. But I really wanted to point out that it wasn't Willy alone doing the damage. It started before him and continues today with more talk of base closures.

Consider this from the past:

"Cheney said at the height of the Cold War that if Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he
becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town." Cheney urged Reagan to cut defense spending, saying, "the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible," and told the White House that "you've got to hit defense".

Six years later, Cheney followed through on his statements by changing the same Reagan defense policies he now touts. In 1990, he bragged to Congress that as Defense Secretary he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He highlighted, "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze".

It was also a Republican legislature.