State of the Union

From the USAToday:

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, Bush urged skeptical members of Congress to give his plan a chance to work.

The president said he had considered every possible approach for ending the sectarian violence in Iraq.

"In the end I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success," he said. "Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq — because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching."

Despite widespread opposition to his policies, Bush said that "both parties and both branches should work in close consultation."

Some Republicans worried that the non-binding resolution, which appeared likely to pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate, would undermine Bush's diplomatic efforts on Iraq. "The worst thing we can do as a Congress is to undercut the president internationally," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said Wednesday on CNN.
Click to expand...

1) "Give his plan a chance to work"? We've done that for 4 years. The moron even got re-elected! How much more of a chance does he need? Time's up. Time for someone else to take control.

2) He chose the plan because he thinks it gives us the best chance to succeed. Unfortunately, his track record in that regard is not good. His judgement about what it will take to succeed has continually been shown to be wrong. Why should we think he is right this time?

3) "Both branches should work in close consultation"? When he starts consulting with congress, that will be the first step. Perhaps he should start consulting congress, if he thinks it should be done. This goes back to Dick Lugar's comment: "Both branches must retain the ability to work together," he said. Bush and Lugar apparently think that "work together" means that the congress should rubber stamp everything the president wants. Of course, that way they can boast of how well they worked together for the first 6 years of this administration.

4) ""The worst thing we can do as a Congress is to undercut the president internationally," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said Wednesday on CNN." Is that even possible? How do you undercut someone who has no international credibility in the first place? On the contrary, congressional action might be a start to create some credibility for the US as a country, irrespective of what it does to the President. In fact, distancing itself from the President might be the best thing the country could do for its international stature.
 
4) ""The worst thing we can do as a Congress is to undercut the president internationally," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said Wednesday on CNN." Is that even possible? How do you undercut someone who has no international credibility in the first place? On the contrary, congressional action might be a start to create some credibility for the US as a country, irrespective of what it does to the President. In fact, distancing itself from the President might be the best thing the country could do for its international stature.[/QUOTE]

Very well put, and true.
But I still like his encouragement of ethanol production.:)
 
ConspiRaider said:
Hey Darth -

Yep, he wants that many over the next 5 years:

And that Civilian Reserve Corps - what the hell is that?!?
Click to expand...
OK, it's an End Strength increase.

Funny old thing, US Navy and Air Force have had to cut active duty cut End Strength since 9-11. It would take me some time, but I may dig into End Strength figures for all 4 services from 2000 to 2007 and present them here. Rummy's "do it on the cheap" was not confined to Iraq. The move to cut the manpower allocation was just getting into the works when Osama did a "defense cuttus interuptus" thing on 9-11.

IIRC, Admiral Clarke's recapitalization a couple of years ago cut the carriers from 12 to 10. Need to check on it.

DR
 
He and this Administration have done so brilliantly in managing the war, that we should see if the new plan works.

To paraphrase John Lennon and set a new GOP motto for 2008: "All we are saying, is give war a chance"

C'mon. Hold hands. Sway with me while we sing along.
 
Darth Rotor said:
OK, it's an End Strength increase.

Funny old thing, US Navy and Air Force have had to cut active duty cut End Strength since 9-11. It would take me some time, but I may dig into End Strength figures for all 4 services from 2000 to 2007 and present them here. Rummy's "do it on the cheap" was not confined to Iraq. The move to cut the manpower allocation was just getting into the works when Osama did a "defense cuttus interuptus" thing on 9-11.

IIRC, Admiral Clarke's recapitalization a couple of years ago cut the carriers from 12 to 10. Need to check on it.

DR
Click to expand...

Sheeeeeeit. While you are at it, look at the decline in end strength from 1992 to 2000.
 
Luke T. said:
Sheeeeeeit. While you are at it, look at the decline in end strength from 1992 to 2000.
Click to expand...
I have that for Navy and Marines. And a few other numbers to consider. Note: I am not discussing reserve, which is a significant matter. This is the simple view. The Reserves have been tapped, rather than the active forces augmented. The long term impact of that is yet to be felt.

FY93 (Bush/Cheney/Powell's last year of budget authority)
Navy - 510,000
Marines - 178,000
FY 97 (Clinton's fourth DoD budget)
Navy: 396,000
Marines: 174,000

FY 2000 (Pre 9-11 budget)

Navy - 372,000
Marines - 173,00
Army - 480,000
Air Force - 360,800

FY 2001 (The year of 9-11, Clinton's last budget)

Navy 372,000
Marines 172,600
Army 480,000
Air Force 357,000

Fy 2003 (First manpower final with War On Terrorism in play, before Iraq War starts)

The Navy, 375,700.
The Marine Corps, 175,000.
The Army, 480,000.
The Air Force, 359,000.

FY 2005 (War been on for a year and a half when this was authorized)

Navy, 365,900
Marine Corps, 175,000
Army 482,400
Air Force, 359,700

FY 2006
Navy, 352,700.
Marine Corps, 178,000.
Army, 522,400 (I think there was a reserve activation issue on this one)
Air Force, 357,400.

FY 2007:

Navy 340,700.
Marines 175,000.
Army, 482,400.
Air Force, 334,200
================================================
Navy and AF had shed 30,000 billets from active accounts in the past couple of years, IIRC to allow more billets to be kept in the Army . . . while a war is going on. :confused:

As of this FY, you note no significant increase in end strength numbers for Marines and Army.

In five years, with him having two budget cycles left, GWB thinks we'll add 92,000 to Army and Marines in a five year plan?

If one assumes no change in party, and him being able to pass that vision to his successors, and a like feeling in Congress, sure, it might happen. But assuming politically dubious things is what has Bush in the mess in Iraq in the first place. I think he's smoking dope.

Given what I have seen at administration changes, end strength numbers can change radically downward in a two to five year period.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
I have that for Navy and Marines. And a few other numbers to consider. Note: I am not discussing reserve, which is a significant matter. This is the simple view. The Reserves have been tapped, rather than the active forces augmented. The long term impact of that is yet to be felt.

FY93 (Bush/Cheney/Powell's last year of budget authority)
Navy - 510,000
Marines - 178,000
FY 97 (Clinton's fourth DoD budget)
Navy: 396,000
Marines: 174,000

FY 2000 (Pre 9-11 budget)

Navy - 372,000
Marines - 173,00
Army - 480,000
Air Force - 360,800
Click to expand...

I don't see Army and Air Force for 1993 or 1997. :)

Also, where did you get these figures?

I think it would also help to see the number Divisions, Battle Groups, etc., and their decline.

I know that's asking a lot.
 
The planned size and structure of the Navy has changed several times over the last 20 years, largely as a result of the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War years of the 1980s, the Reagan Administration planned a Navy of about 600 ships, including 15 aircraft carriers, 242surface combatants, and 100 nuclear-powered attack submarines. In the initial post-Cold War yearsof1991-1992, the formerBush Administration, as part of its “Base Force” plan for future U.S. military forces, planned a Navy of more than 400 ships, including 12 aircraft carriers, about 145 surface combatants, and 80 attack submarines (later adjusted to about 55 attack submarines). The Clinton Administration, as part of its 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR) of U.S. military forces, planned a Navy of 346 ships, including 12 carriers (11 operational carriers and 1 operational/reserve training carrier), about 124 surface combatants, and 45 to 55 attack submarines. Following the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Clinton Administration planned a Navy of about 305 ships, including 12 carriers, 116 surface combatants, and 50 attack submarines. In 2000, the Clinton Administration adjusted the attack-submarine goal to 55boats, resulting in a revised force-level goal of about 310 ships.
Click to expand...

Navy Ship Procurement Rate and the Planned Size of the Navy

From 600 down to 300 ships. I lived through that crap. Our op-tempo was 80 percent on our destroyer.
 
Last edited:
Luke T. said:
I don't see Army and Air Force for 1993 or 1997. :)

Also, where did you get these figures?

I think it would also help to see the number Divisions, Battle Groups, etc., and their decline.

I know that's asking a lot.
Click to expand...
I deliberately chose 2000-2007, due to regime change and war onset. I happene upon a chart for Navy Marine 93-2005, accomodated your request. (Plus, as a Navy Man, it was closest to my interests. ) I didn't bother with Army and Air Force 1993 and on, as it was not my original intention.

The CVBG issue is strange, as the fleet is just under 300 ships, but the mix has split. More amphibs, fewer multi purpose combatants, (DD FF CG) in terms of balance. The SSN fleet is halved since 1993, and looks to shrink a bit further. Boomers are limited by tubes, by treaty, and so SSBN shrank as Ohio class took on the entire roll.

Army 1993
Air Force 1993
Army 1997 495,000
Air Force 1997 385,400

My Google fu can't get the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993 to come up. I'll add the other numbers if I can figure out what I am doing wrong.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom