Posted on 01/11/2007 5:23:14 PM PST by neverdem
Here is what I remember. The approval to go from from 18 to 10 divisions happened under Bush 41.
Clinton cut the army about another 25% but didn't cut any divisions. Clintons cut were under the radar. For example, an armor battalion back in 1992 was 4 companies of 14 tanks and 2 for the battalion headquarters for a total of 58 tanks. Clinton cut out a company from every battalion. So each battalion then had 44 tanks. This happened to all combat arms battalions. Then all units that support these battalions experienced similar cuts. Most people didn't see these cuts.
That m' f'er. Why couldn't the media shout this from the rooftop. I don't need an answer for this, but thank you for the information.
I'm bookmarking also. Hi there, hows Jonathan?
I guess he's okay...his new laptop broke and has been sent off to Calif for repairs...he's been borrowing his pal's to email when he gets a chance.....
I do not think President Bush has ever had the political capital to increase the military. Even after Sept 11.
At what point could it had been done without the Democrats screaming, with all of the media support.
I agree this should have been done earlier. And yes he should have explained the war better but how?
When would his detractors allowed a complete and truthful explanation that we are in WWIII. That all of our lives and our children's lives and their children's lives will never be the same?
In WW2, my ex-father in laws term was 'Duration plus 6 months'....
Thank GOD my brother is retiring when he comes home or else he would be going back to the battle field in two years!!
Continuing to pray for those who come home only to go back...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.