Bill Clinton was probably the most inept commander and chief the US Armed Forces has ever had. In his recent book " Dereliction of Duty " military aide Robert Patterson tells the sad story. Heres an overview..When he was tapped to accompany President Clinton and carry the nuclear "football" that contains the top-secret codes the President needs in case of nuclear war, Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson was proud and grateful. He had already put his life on the line for his country many times as he flew combat missions over the Persian Gulf and Bosnia, and he was honored to take on this new and awesome responsibility. But when he got to the Clinton White House he found a commander and chief who actually lost the codes for the football, had no respect for the military and systematicly reduced the military and intelligence communities to a near state of non readiness. Heres where we are today.... Tanks for the Memories by Oliver North Posted Jul 17, 2003 Liberals are, by nature, opportunists. While I was in Iraq, covering the U.S. Marine and Army units in Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was fascinating to catch American television broadcasts on my man-pack satellite video equipment. If we were in a semi-secure situation, the troops would gather 'round the tiny screen and watch -- some for the first time in months. It was great entertainment -- observing the troops' reactions as liberal pundits like Barry Lynn, Peter Fenn and Alan Colmes explained that military victories in Iraq proved that critics were wrong about William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's tenure as commander in chief. The troops would hoot and holler as Clinton defenders claimed their boy Bill hadn't harmed the military. "See," they argued, "our troops are just fine. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were right to gut the military and slash defense spending. If Clinton was so bad for the military, why are we having such an easy time in Iraq?" they asked rhetorically. The rant usually concluded with, "The troops have all the equipment they need." The troops do have equipment -- no question. But much of it is aging, outdated and difficult to maintain. The Marines with whom I was embedded in Iraq -- Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 268 -- were flying some of the same CH-46 helos that carried me and my mates into combat in Vietnam more than 34 years ago. With the exception of a few sergeants major, the squadron commander and I were the only people in those birds who were older than the helicopters. The Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs) that carried most of the Marine combat units hundreds of miles into battle were nearly all older than the troops inside them. The Marine C-130s that landed on highways in the middle of the night to deliver supplies and evacuate wounded were equally ancient. And while the Army and Marines had magnificent M-1 Abrams tanks, the M-88 Tank Retrievers, essential to recovering damaged armor, date back to the Vietnam era. It's not just the Army and Marines. The USS Tarawa, LHA-1, was commissioned in 1976. The Navy's P-3 aircraft are the geriatrics of intelligence collection. And the word "venerable" inadequately describes the B-52s that fly the unfriendly skies over Afghanistan and Iraq. The "wrench turners" who tirelessly and creatively keep these weapons, ships, planes and equipment working acknowledge -- off the record -- that they often have to use unorthodox methods. On a recent Freedom Alliance-sponsored visit to the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, a high school student asked a staff sergeant what was best about being a Marine. "The attitude and ingenuity of other Marines," he replied, "They're like MacGyver -- a good Marine can disarm a nuclear warhead with a paper clip, a Band-Aid and bubble gum if necessary," he explained only half jokingly. Unfortunately, he's right -- and I witnessed it numerous times in Iraq. While dodging enemy fire, and fighting sandstorms and blackouts, aging equipment was patched together by soldiers and Marines using ordinary household items. Once, a field expedient repair was made using tape and chewing gum. And outside Baghdad, after a bullet had cut a helicopter fuel line, I watched a Marine gunnery sergeant use his "Leatherman Tool" to snip a tube from the heater and use it to repair the damage. All of us "on the ground" in Iraq and Afghanistan understand stories like these -- because we saw them. What's more alarming are the efforts to repair aging equipment that we can't report because they are unseen. Earlier this week, my seat-mate on a flight back to Washington was a USAF Reserve pilot who volunteered that he was quitting the service because he doesn't want to fly a "death trap" any more. "What do you fly?" I asked. "Tankers," he replied. "Check it out," he challenged. "We've got a big problem that's getting worse." I did, and he's right. The USAF refueling capability -- essential to fighting forces outside the United States -- is limited to 60 converted civilian airliners -- designated KC-10s -- and 545 aging KC 135s, first purchased during the Eisenhower administration. The KC-135s -- now averaging 43 years old -- have been used in every conflict from the Vietnam War to Iraq -- and every gunfight in between. If we send more troops to Liberia -- KC-135s will support the deployment. According to congressional testimony, they are falling apart. Seems like replacing these essential aircraft would be high on everyone's list. But not in Washington. The Air Force says buying new tankers will take 20 years, and it needs them now. The USAF brass wants to replace the 100 oldest KC-135s with leased Boeing 767s converted from commercial use. According to congressional testimony, the new KC-767s would carry 20 percent more fuel and would service Navy, Air Force and Marine aircraft on the same mission. The proposed lease deal needs congressional approval, but Congress is now playing Bill Clinton's role: "Let them buy new ones in the 'out years.'" It shouldn't take a KC-135 becoming a smoking hole in the ground before Congress cuts through the red tape. It's time to get creative and ensure our men and women in uniform have modern equipment to fight modern war. If we don't, their ingenuity and hard work will eventually succumb not to our enemies, but to weapons and equipment that are too old to maintain. Col. North is a nationally syndicated columnist, a combat correspondent and host of "War Stories" on the Fox News Channel.
Yeah, and nothing happened in Somalia and Bosnia. And the Middle East was nice and quiet the whole time.
No, but you in particular would enjoy this book I've been jocking: People's History of the United States (Zinn). That book really documents the exact financial and military state of the USSR pre-Reagan. Newly released documents show that government intelligence agencies (even under Carter, absolutely) categorically exagerated the USSR's military capability and budget. 500% exagerations of quantities were routine, and this has been blatantly admitted now. Sorry, but while we're going to visit history (this thread, cold war reference, etc), I wanted to add that. It should not be an accepted "fact" that Reagan's defense spending closed the Soviet menace. I know, I know, many links to many essays can be made that it is a "fact," but Zinn very convincingly argues that our build up may have even delayed the fall of the USSR. As for North, fuhgetaboutit. Makes Michael Moore seem reasonable and balanced, if that's possible. Let's continue derailing the thread into the history of US military policy.
B-Bob -- I did not say that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union...I merely said that Clinton was not responsible for the end of the cold war...his presidency came at a very advantageous time for him. Events had already transpired, which he had no hand in, that helped shape peace...or at least the perception of peace...during his administration.
no, no, I wasn't attributing anything to you or even arguing, just blathering about something I thought we both found interesting. That's all. we're in agreement about Clinton not being a bastion of peace. I've heard too many of my liberal colleagues in the Poli Sci department say that he was horrible for world peace because he was ignoring so many things. I do think, with his diplomatic abilities and his people skills, he was overall good for our image internationally ... at least compared to some.
depends...maybe to europe...not so to the middle east. terroristic activity was rampant during those years...we just didn't have the big knockout punch yet that we ultimately had on 9/11. i do think that bin laden saw zero resolve from clinton...he made statements to al qaeda members that they could do as they please with no reprise from america and pointed to the cole incident as an example.
Haven't you ever heard of "prepare for the worst, hope for the best?" You build forces capable of overwhelming the enemy, not merely paralleling his capabilities and strengths. Zinn's points are ridiculous at best, downright moronic at worst. Zinn is a revisionist whose points have been largely rejected by most objective historians. Our military buildup spent the Russkies into the ground. There was no way they could counter our control of the seas with Reagan's grand 600 ship Navy. By showing strength rather than kissing Brezhnev like that dumbass Carter did, Reagan won the Cold War through sheer will and good-ole fashioned lead-from-the-front leadership. That man was a warrior and God, was I proud of having a C in C like him. And on our aging forces, Clinton cut the military's budget in every way he possibly could. We have in the Corps Amtrac amphibious tractors that are 30 yrs old, CH-46 Bullfrog helicopters which fought in Vietnam and go to war on ships like the Shreveport (over 30 years old, the average ship lasts about 25-30 years). What did Clinton do about it? Sent us all over God's creation on little chicken-**** peacekeeping ops where we were more cops than soldiers. Our optempos went through the roof to keep up with his policy of intervening where no national interests were even remotely threatened. He cut our training and maintenance budgets so he could blow it on various social engineering vote-buying schemes. He was a schmuck, a liar, a traitor and history's judgement will see him after his death as probably the most corrupt, downright evil and derelict president ever to disgrace the Oval Office.
While it is true that intelligence estimates overstated the power of the USSR, it is also extremely rare in history for a nation to simply collapse like that. There was good reason to expect that the USSR would continue to spread it's influence around the world. Had the US not been there to contain it with significant military power, more countries would may have come under it's influence, with all it's horrible consequences. It wasn't that conservatives thought that communism would make a great and powerful economy. It's that the USSR military could still spread its influence. "In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards... Even today, the Soviet Union cannot feed itself. The inescapable conclusion is that freedom is the victor. "- Reagan in 1987 "I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street ... those in the United States who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink are wishful thinkers who are only kidding themselves."- Arthur Schlessinger in 1982
For the record, the Mid-East went south when Clinton was in office. But if me saying that makes you think I agree with the article, don't. I stopped reading at the sentence "Liberals are, by nature, opportunists" Load of crap.
Uh, yeah. I live my whole life by that rule. Look, I'm not even arguing against the build-up. I'm just saying it's interesting to revisit what the exact effect was. Geez, the only thing more volatile than the word "Clinton" is using the world "Reagan" in any context other than a reverential one. Mr. C, thanks for that Schlessinger quotation. Is he related to Dr. Laura?
Exactly. As if opportunists have a certain political party. I guess Oliver doesn't follow corporate business practices and management styles very closely.
Sorry, maybe I was being a bit too sensitive there..... I probably should've have sounded so snippy. My bad.
I would hardly blame Clinton if the aircraft are 40 years old...... We should replace them though..... DD
No, no problem. I am curious though, after you mentioned chicken-**** peace-keeping type operations, what you think of our post-war plans in Iraq. I'm not assuming anything or baiting you at all: I'm just curious. me, I wish we had put together a better plan ahead of time, and I wish we had built in a substantial role for the UN. And I would let the former weapons inspectors back to look for WMD too. But maybe the UN-Whitehouse trust is just gone now.
When Clinton got into the White House, he probably thought streamlining the military would be a good thing, maybe so he could pay for some of his domestic initiatives. Then he got briefed by the CIA and he probably went into shock when they told him everything going on in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, China, Somalia, Bosnia etc etc etc So I don't think he really gutted the military because he had no choice.
A few months ago there was a thread where this was discussed. I don't feel like digging up the sources again, so maybe someone who has access to search can find it.
