Obama's Plan To Disarm America

[Amianthus]

Everything I've read indicates that it began under the first President Bush, but certainly was embraced by Clinton, and no one has embraced it more than the current President Bush.

Historical size of the US Army:

1988 - 508,834 (End of Reagan's term)
1992 - 453,285 (End of Bush 41's term)
1996 - 384,218 (End of Clinton's 1st term)
2000 - 378,571 (End of Clinton's 2nd term)
2004 - 398,312 (End of Bush 43's 1st term)
2007 - 449,563 (Current)

So, the elder Bush reduced the Army by 12%. Clinton reduced it by 18%. Younger Bush increased it by 18%, pretty much reversing what Clinton had done. Nothing indicates the the younger Bush "embraced" in any way reductions in size of the US Army.

[_JS]

Everything I've read indicates that it began under the first President Bush, but certainly was embraced by Clinton, and no one has embraced it more than the current President Bush.

Historical size of the US Army:

1988 - 508,834 (End of Reagan's term)
1992 - 453,285 (End of Bush 41's term)
1996 - 384,218 (End of Clinton's 1st term)
2000 - 378,571 (End of Clinton's 2nd term)
2004 - 398,312 (End of Bush 43's 1st term)
2007 - 449,563 (Current)

So, the elder Bush reduced the Army by 12%. Clinton reduced it by 18%. Younger Bush increased it by 18%, pretty much reversing what Clinton had done. Nothing indicates the the younger Bush "embraced" in any way reductions in size of the US Army.

Right. 

Now, how much did the U.S. Army's budget increase relative to the Navy and Air Force each year from 1989 to present? Let's get that in real terms and not nominal.

[Amianthus]

Now, how much did the U.S. Army's budget increase relative to the Navy and Air Force each year from 1989 to present? Let's get that in real terms and not nominal.

What does budgets have to do with your claim re Bush & Cheney: "the US Army was dismantled and replaced with 'a small elite force.'"?

A "small elite force" would have fewer men, no?

[_JS]

Now, how much did the U.S. Army's budget increase relative to the Navy and Air Force each year from 1989 to present? Let's get that in real terms and not nominal.

What does budgets have to do with your claim re Bush & Cheney: "the US Army was dismantled and replaced with 'a small elite force.'"?

A "small elite force" would have fewer men, no?

A few things:

Combat forces differ from support forces.

How many of these numbers include Guardsmen and Reservists called to active duty?

The budget is a major point of contention within the current US Army, who considers Rumsfeld the worst Defense Secretary alongside MacNamara (indeed the latter actually provided some breakthroughs in military structure, unlike the former)

[Amianthus]

How many of these numbers include Guardsmen and Reservists called to active duty?

None. Actually, I dropped out the numbers for areas where the stats "included Guards and Reservists" so the numbers are all low by about 100k. The percentages are roughly the same, however.

[_JS]

How many of these numbers include Guardsmen and Reservists called to active duty?

None. Actually, I dropped out the numbers for areas where the stats "included Guards and Reservists" so the numbers are all low by about 100k. The percentages are roughly the same, however.

And Combat forces?

And budget numbers?

[Amianthus]

And Combat forces?

And budget numbers?

Feel free to prove me wrong. The size of the US Army went up under Bush, in contrast to your claim that he made it a "small elite force". More men is not smaller.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Feel free to prove me wrong. The size of the US Army went up under Bush, in contrast to your claim that he made it a "small elite force". More men is not smaller.
============================================================
Naturally the numbers went up. Juniorbush started a war. Actually two wars. It takes more men to fight two wars than it takes to fight no wars at all.

Compared with what should have been used to conquer Iraq, a small elite force was used as part of Rummy's plan.

[sirs]

Did you get that Ami?  Bush started wars, which MADE the #'s go up, but was fought with less troops.  Makes perfect sense, right?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Did you get that Ami?  Bush started wars, which MADE the #'s go up, but was fought with less troops.  Makes perfect sense, right?
=============================================================
Listen v e r y     s l o w l y now. Pay careful attention. We want to avoid overloading your circuitry.

(1) It takes more troops to fight a war than not to fight one
(2) To invade Iraq and not make a total mess of things, Gen. Shinsecki claimed that twice as many soldiers were needed.
(3) Rumsfeld, convinced of his superior strategic acumen, convinced the administration to invade with fewer troops than required, but this number was still more than the number that were on hand in the previous administration.
(4) Due to Rumsfeld's bad advice, and additional execrable advice from the Neocons,the Iraq War resulted in Bin Laden getting away in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq turning into a huge bloody mess.

You could mention which of these do not make sense to you now that you have c a r e f u l l y studied them. Think of this as a verbal Rorschach test.

[sirs]

So in other words, thanks to Bush, we fought with more troops, using less troops.  Yea, we got that the 1st time
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

The US had more troops, but fought with fewer than were needed.

Perhaps we should explain this more carefully in a way you might understand better, but I feel you lack sufficient fingers to do this. More than ten are required, more than twenty as well.

[sirs]

Naaa, got it the 1st time.  More troops = less troops

[Xavier_Onassis]

less troops is incorrect. troops is not a collective noun, but a countable noun.

It's FEWER troops.

And no reason to explain anything to you beyond that at all.

[sirs]

less troops is incorrect. troops is not a collective noun, but a countable noun.  It's FEWER troops.

2000 - 378,571 (End of Clinton's 2nd term)
2004 - 398,312 (End of Bush 43's 1st term)
2007 - 449,563 (Current)

Yea, that's it, more is fewer.