• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Guess who replaced Robert Novak at CNN?

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Glenn Black, who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a Boy Scout.

  • On Hurricane Katrina survivors who remained in New Orleans: "And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones that we're seeing on television are the scumbags -- and again, it's not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they're getting all the attention."
  • On filmmaker Michael Moore: "Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"
It appears that CNN has joined FOX News in a race to see who is first to get to the bottom of the septic tank.

Article is here.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
Glenn Black, who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a Boy Scout.

[/LIST]It appears that CNN has joined FOX News in a race to see who is first to get to the bottom of the septic tank.

Article is here.
I hadn't heard this news. I think that's awesome. I love his radio show. Although, I can;t find the part that reports he is the "replacement for Novak". Maybe you just made that part up. By the way, dan, his last name is Beck, not Black.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
Glenn Black, who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a Boy Scout.

[/LIST]It appears that CNN has joined FOX News in a race to see who is first to get to the bottom of the septic tank.

Article is here.
Most of these quotes are not nearly as controversial as you are portraying them. And, being that these unqualified quotes are coming from such a discredited, hysterical, Move On sheep, I will not accept their authenticity until you come up with a transcript from one of his shows.

I am not asserting that these quotes are false, just that you have no credibility.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you're just trying to make an entertaining and provokative radio show, then sometimes people just say things like this at the spur of the moment. With 15 hours of talking per week, I think its reasonable to expect at least 30 minutes of crap from anyone.

Then again, I haven't heard Glenn Beck, so I don't know.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
1) Got the name wrong...

2) CNN & CNN Headline News are two different entities...as per the first friggin' sentence...

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on January 17 that CNN's Headline News has hired Glenn Beck -- a nationally syndicated radio host known for making controversial statements -- "for a new prime time program."

Now look at the Headline for MediaMatterstoWhoeverWeSayItDoes...

CNN reportedly hires radio host Glenn Beck

WRONG!...

Now look at the headline that MediaMattersHasAHissyFit links to from the Atlanta-Constitution Journal...

Headline News adds conservative Beck

CORRECT!...

3) Since he's not going to the SAME channel that Novak was on, I'd like to see you explain how BECK could be replacing Novak...:confused:

4) Even IF everything above wasn't relevant and Beck did indeed replace Novak, then what the hell is the point anyway?!?!?

They got rid of one Conservative, bringing their total to ZERO, then hired another, bringing their total back to ONE...

Big whoop...:roll:

This is dumb on so many levels it hurts...
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
BTW - Please read my above post and then read what the original poster said about ME...

danarhea said:
So much for your blatant and unmitigated dishonesty. Give it a rest
The smell of hypocracy looms from this thread...:rofl
 
H

hipsterdufus

danarhea said:
Glenn Black, who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a Boy Scout.

[/LIST]It appears that CNN has joined FOX News in a race to see who is first to get to the bottom of the septic tank.

Article is here.
danarhea - A correction.

Nofacts was replaced by Bill (abort the black babies/gambling addict/wife deceiver) Bennett.

Glenn Bekk is a new show on CNN Headline news.

That CNN is so liberal :roll:

Coming soon - The Dan Coulter Hour
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Glenn Bekk is a new show on CNN Headline news.
Neither one of you can get it right. It's Beck. B-E-C-K
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
1) Got the name wrong...

2) CNN & CNN Headline News are two different entities...as per the first friggin' sentence...

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on January 17 that CNN's Headline News has hired Glenn Beck -- a nationally syndicated radio host known for making controversial statements -- "for a new prime time program."

Now look at the Headline for MediaMatterstoWhoeverWeSayItDoes...

CNN reportedly hires radio host Glenn Beck

WRONG!...

Now look at the headline that MediaMattersHasAHissyFit links to from the Atlanta-Constitution Journal...

Headline News adds conservative Beck

CORRECT!...

3) Since he's not going to the SAME channel that Novak was on, I'd like to see you explain how BECK could be replacing Novak...:confused:

4) Even IF everything above wasn't relevant and Beck did indeed replace Novak, then what the hell is the point anyway?!?!?

They got rid of one Conservative, bringing their total to ZERO, then hired another, bringing their total back to ONE...

Big whoop...:roll:

This is dumb on so many levels it hurts...
Excellent points, all. Thanks for showing how some automatically twist a story into partisan drivel before posting their own version on the forum.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This only confirms my belief that all news stations are beginning a transformaton from reporting real news to reporting a bunch of editorialized garbage. I think we're going to have to abandon CNN and other news stations like it and find more reliable sources of information.

This should keep the conservatives happy though, if what their looking for in CNN is more conservatives.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
This only confirms my belief that all news stations are beginning a transformaton from reporting real news to reporting a bunch of editorialized garbage. I think we're going to have to abandon CNN and other news stations like it and find more reliable sources of information.
you mean like salon and rawstory?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Dunno about those guys. I just think we should find independent media. Not neccesarily unbiased media but independent. Ones that are not interested in government and corporate interests but rather the interests of covering the story.
 
H

hipsterdufus

FinnMacCool said:
Dunno about those guys. I just think we should find independent media. Not neccesarily unbiased media but independent. Ones that are not interested in government and corporate interests but rather the interests of covering the story.
The internet is the future of media. It is imperative to keep the big corporations and the government from trying to control the content.
 
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
1)
They got rid of one Conservative, bringing their total to ZERO, then hired another, bringing their total back to ONE...

Big whoop...:roll:

This is dumb on so many levels it hurts...
Nofacts was replaced by Bill (abort the black babies/gambling addict/wife deceiver) Bennett.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Nofacts was replaced by Bill (abort the black babies/gambling addict/wife deceiver) Bennett.
was Clinton a wife deceiver too, or does that hit too close to home?
 
H

hipsterdufus

KCConservative said:
was Clinton a wife deceiver too, or does that hit too close to home?
IMHO Clinton's lack of control with regards to his zipper, and the subsequent actions he took to defend his unethical behaviors in that area, were the biggest failures of his presidency.

I always love the ole "Two wrongs make a right" argument.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Uh-oh 'danarhea.' It appears that the masses are finally catching onto you. With the ferocity of bash posts you have become known for....it was just a matter of time before you desperately reached out too far. It appears that the branch broke.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hipsterdufus said:
IMHO Clinton's lack of control with regards to his zipper, and the subsequent actions he took to defend his unethical behaviors in that area, were the biggest failures of his presidency.

I always love the ole "Two wrongs make a right" argument.

Just perception. It was a nuisance at best. IMHO Clinton's disregard for the military was his biggest failure. There is a reason for our national deficit fix and our military lacking equipment and readiness prior to Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
IMHO Clinton's lack of control with regards to his zipper, and the subsequent actions he took to defend his unethical behaviors in that area, were the biggest failures of his presidency.

I always love the ole "Two wrongs make a right" argument.
I didn't say it was right. I'm saying you speak from both sides of your mouth.
 
H

hipsterdufus

GySgt said:
Just perception. It was a nuisance at best. IMHO Clinton's disregard for the military was his biggest failure. There is a reason for our national deficit fix and our military lacking equipment and readiness prior to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I don't know exactly what you're talking about in terms of Clinton's disregard for the military. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I agree that too much stock was put in using technology to aid our defense - unmanned satellite probes etc. and not enough boots on the ground to do real intelligence gathering info. I think the problem is compounded now with the massive amounts of data we are collecting from the NSA. It puts a tremendous burden on the FBI to sift through all of this info.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is also a ridiculous policy. We have already lost valuable translators and other key personel in the Armed Forces because of their sexual orientation. If you're willing to die for your country, I don't think it makes an iota of difference whose "team" you're on.
 
H

hipsterdufus

KCConservative said:
I didn't say it was right. I'm saying you speak from both sides of your mouth.
Yes, in fact, most people, when speaking, have sound particles travel from their entire mouth. :roll:
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hipsterdufus said:
I don't know exactly what you're talking about in terms of Clinton's disregard for the military. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
My thoughts.......I remember a time when I wore equipment that my father wore in Vietnam. The majority of our vehicles were "deadlined" and parked in a lot and often times our administrative needs fell to the way side so that we could purchase repair parts and training materials. Since 2002, we have seen better boots (God send), new weapons, updated weapons, better uniforms, life saving technologies on the battle field (GLINT Tape, EPLRS, etc.), better flak Jackets with bullet proof SAPI plates, updated equipment to match our technology, The regular force has been issued weaponry and gear that reflects our special forces, our ancient helicopters have been updated finally, the Osprey was kicked into over drive to take the place of our 'Vietnam vintage' helicopters, Our Humvees have been made stronger, UpArmor has been created for our humvees (although, bad for the axles), etc.,....the list goes on. Because of tax breaks and the raise of pay in the war zone (which includes Kuwait, though don't agree with it), we feel like we are being rewarded personally for our efforts and through this money, we are able to create and pick up our lives easier after combat.

There is a plethora of support we have gotten under President Bush. No time in history has the military felt so appreciated in such a short period of time. While I'm sure you could remind me of something we got from the Clinton administration, I remember drastic cutbacks and barely enough money to train and repair broken gear. Our great stock pile of money after Clinton was finished doing good things for our economy came with a price. Memories also take me back to Marine deaths in Embassies in Africa and a U.S. Naval ship being attacked where we did nothing in retaliation. Our nation didn't seem to care. The sentiment divide between the military and America's citizens were still hanging over from the Vietnam era. Sadly, many Americans didn't even realize. These attacks were just headlines mixed in with their local news.

This "War on Terror" is a new kind of war. We don't have a formula and we are having to learn as we go. At present and to a lesser degree, we're still fighting the Bill Clinton approach to warfare. We are still trying to do as much as we can from a distance to produce low casualties at any cost. We're a super power that's still thinking small. Our strength, our wealth, our raw power is our greatest advantage -- not our entertainment media, not our moral force even. Raw power. We can't wage sterile warfare. What we need to do is focus on destroying those men and organizations that have killed Americans and want to kill Americans. The rest of what we must do we will have to stumble through it.

We have an intelligence system that is still structured for the Cold War. In some ways our intelligence system has evolved as well as military tactics and our governments acknowledgement of field wisdom. But for the most, the International Intel community, as well as our own, is still trying to adhere by the rules that our current enemies have discarded. Our current enemies do not sneak around and spy. They are waging a public IO (Information Operation) war, in which they are winning. Radical Islamist are winning the IO Campaign via savvy use of Radical Islamic print, radio, television and Internet sources. The funding of Radical Islam would be easy to stop were it only for International government sponsership. But what is greatly helping them is almost impossible to block - a complex maze of uncontrolled Islamic charities whose mainly well-meaning donors are unaware how their money is utilized. This includes Americans!

We are having a difficult time combatting today's and the future's threats, because the administration of the 90's did nothing to acknowledge what the military and intel community were screaming about. And now, we are having to evolve to meet those demands to protect. We'll evolve beyond it. It has taken time to build an anti-terrorist network globally, but we are making great strides in a short amount of time. I think we will definitely get the combinations right, but I think it will take time to undue the damage of the last decade.
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hipsterdufus said:
I don't know exactly what you're talking about in terms of Clinton's disregard for the military. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
For something more proffessional with number crunching and such.....


Jack Spencer is Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He writes....

The reduction in forces of the U.S. Armed Forces began in the early 1990s. After the end of the Cold War, the Bush Sr. Administration began to reduce the size of the military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. Under the Clinton Administration, however, that reduction in forces escalated too rapidly at the same time that U.S. forces were deployed too often with too little funding. The result was decreased readiness as personnel, equipment, training, and locations suffered.

Most are not aware of military presence abroad, but since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military had been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations. Yet the resources available to fund these missions had steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel had decreased nearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services had decreased 16 percent. The military got used to deploying with insufficient and antiquated equipment.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone had lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army had lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions had increased significantly throughout the 1990s.

Every 'Army' Division required additional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely to the units' commitments to operations in the Balkans. Some 23 percent of the Army's Chinook cargo helicopters, 19 percent of its Blackhawk helicopters, and 16 percent of its Apaches were not "mission-capable."

In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178 bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased significantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number of Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent.

In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but since 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reserve personnel from 42,300 in 1992.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm
 
H

hipsterdufus

GySgt said:
My thoughts.......I remember a time when I wore equipment that my father wore in Vietnam. The majority of our vehicles were "deadlined" and parked in a lot and often times our administrative needs fell to the way side so that we could purchase repair parts and training materials. Since 2002, we have seen better boots (God send), new weapons, updated weapons, better uniforms, life saving technologies on the battle field (GLINT Tape, EPLRS, etc.), better flak Jackets with bullet proof SAPI plates, updated equipment to match our technology, The regular force has been issued weaponry and gear that reflects our special forces, our ancient helicopters have been updated finally, the Osprey was kicked into over drive to take the place of our 'Vietnam vintage' helicopters, Our Humvees have been made stronger, UpArmor has been created for our humvees (although, bad for the axles), etc.,....the list goes on. Because of tax breaks and the raise of pay in the war zone (which includes Kuwait, though don't agree with it), we feel like we are being rewarded personally for our efforts and through this money, we are able to create and pick up our lives easier after combat.

There is a plethora of support we have gotten under President Bush. No time in history has the military felt so appreciated in such a short period of time. While I'm sure you could remind me of something we got from the Clinton administration, I remember drastic cutbacks and barely enough money to train and repair broken gear. Our great stock pile of money after Clinton was finished doing good things for our economy came with a price. Memories also take me back to Marine deaths in Embassies in Africa and a U.S. Naval ship being attacked where we did nothing in retaliation. Our nation didn't seem to care. The sentiment divide between the military and America's citizens were still hanging over from the Vietnam era. Sadly, many Americans didn't even realize. These attacks were just headlines mixed in with their local news.

This "War on Terror" is a new kind of war. We don't have a formula and we are having to learn as we go. At present and to a lesser degree, we're still fighting the Bill Clinton approach to warfare. We are still trying to do as much as we can from a distance to produce low casualties at any cost. We're a super power that's still thinking small. Our strength, our wealth, our raw power is our greatest advantage -- not our entertainment media, not our moral force even. Raw power. We can't wage sterile warfare. What we need to do is focus on destroying those men and organizations that have killed Americans and want to kill Americans. The rest of what we must do we will have to stumble through it.

We have an intelligence system that is still structured for the Cold War. In some ways our intelligence system has evolved as well as military tactics and our governments acknowledgement of field wisdom. But for the most, the International Intel community, as well as our own, is still trying to adhere by the rules that our current enemies have discarded. Our current enemies do not sneak around and spy. They are waging a public IO (Information Operation) war, in which they are winning. Radical Islamist are winning the IO Campaign via savvy use of Radical Islamic print, radio, television and Internet sources. The funding of Radical Islam would be easy to stop were it only for International government sponsership. But what is greatly helping them is almost impossible to block - a complex maze of uncontrolled Islamic charities whose mainly well-meaning donors are unaware how their money is utilized. This includes Americans!

We are having a difficult time combatting today's and the future's threats, because the administration of the 90's did nothing to acknowledge what the military and intel community were screaming about. And now, we are having to evolve to meet those demands to protect. We'll evolve beyond it. It has taken time to build an anti-terrorist network globally, but we are making great strides in a short amount of time. I think we will definitely get the combinations right, but I think it will take time to undue the damage of the last decade.
Thanks for your insight, I appreciate it.

A few points. What about the parents of Iraq now that are buying armor for their sons and daughters? Isn't this the same thing? There was a recent study that showed many lives could have been saved in Iraq if the soldiers were properly armed with body armor.

Of course everyone has heard the stories that persist to this day about the Humvees that don't have enough armor.

But my main point is this:

Congress is in charge of appropriating funds to the military and the Republicans have been in the majority since 1994 - so isn't it a bipartisan problem at best?

How can you blame Clinton?
Presidents don't submit budgets - they sign or veto them.
The President doesn't decide what bases to close nor are they in charge of recruitment quotas.

It seems like putting the blame on one person (Clinton) is misstating the facts of the matter.
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hipsterdufus said:
What about the parents of Iraq now that are buying armor for their sons and daughters? Isn't this the same thing? There was a recent study that showed many lives could have been saved in Iraq if the soldiers were properly armed with body armor.
You have to consider that before Iraq, we didn't have SAPI Plates, so it wasn't as if it was a part of our natural supply issue. (Back to the poor funding up to that point). Before the attack into Iraq in 2003, many Marine units did not have the SAPI Plates to go with the new Flak Jackets we received the year prior. The Marine units in the front received them just in time, while our more "supportive" elements behind us went without. Today, no one deploys without SAPI Plates or they receive them inside Kuwait before they cross the border. The funding and the supply system through contracts have caught up. Like all studies, proof can always be shown that lives could have been spared if the technology was readily available when it needed to be.

The reason the problem persists today is not because National funding or because of a lack of equipment. You must realize and question..."Why is it that only one branch has these problems and continues to report that they are "under funded?"


hipsterdufus said:
Of course everyone has heard the stories that persist to this day about the Humvees that don't have enough armor.
UPArmor is not a problem. This has been blown way out of proportion. Individuals will complain about it and Army officials will make studies around it to gain funds. But the reality is that once all of the UpArmor became more available, many chose not to use it. It is cumbersome and it damages the axles of the HMMWVs. It also hinders the shooters from readily aiming at targets and from quickly dismounting the vehicles. We have to weigh our abilities to maneuver expeditiously with our concerns for personal safety. We must also weigh our abilitities to keep our vehicles moving vice sitting in loits with broken axles. In the end, now we need new HMMWVs. This goes for the attempts to introduce more protection in corporation with our Flak Jackets. Sometimes the ability to move quickly in tight spaces outweighs the sense of individual protection. Sometimes being "safe" is more dangerous. [/QUOTE]

hipsterdufus said:
But my main point is this:

Congress is in charge of appropriating funds to the military and the Republicans have been in the majority since 1994 - so isn't it a bipartisan problem at best?

How can you blame Clinton?
Presidents don't submit budgets - they sign or veto them.
The President doesn't decide what bases to close nor are they in charge of recruitment quotas.

It seems like putting the blame on one person (Clinton) is misstating the facts of the matter.
I did not mean to blame an individual. I try to always be careful to shy away from that with this subject. It's just that I don't ever have enough room to write all that I could, so I wind up shortening my posts into somehting that can mislead (But you did ask specifically about Clinton). The 90's was a definate blow to military readiness, but it certainly didn't begin there. While both political parties are notorious for using the military for what ever agenda they need, the administrations steer the direction. Our military—especially the Army and Marine Corps—felt betrayed by our national leadership over Vietnam. It didn’t end there. President Reagan evacuated Beirut shortly after the bombing of our Marine barracks on the city’s outskirts, beginning a long series of bipartisan retreats in the face of terror that ultimately led to 9/11. We hit a low point in Mogadishu, when Army Rangers and line troops delivered a devastating blow against General Aideed’s irregulars only to have President Clinton declare defeat by pulling out when adherents of Al-Queda ambushed some. One may argue about the rationale for our presence in Somalia and about the dangers of mission creep, but once we’re in a fight, we need to win it and remain on the battlefield long enough to convince our enemies they’ve lost on every count.

Things began to change less than two weeks into our campaign in Afghanistan. At first, there was caution…would the new President run as soon as we suffered casualties? Then, as it dawned on our commanders that this Administration would stand behind our forces, we saw one of the most innovative campaigns in military history unfold with stunning speed, though many were not even aware. All of a sudden our technoligies, funding, and equipment staus went into over drive. Operation Iraqi Freedom, one of the most successful military campaigns in history, was intended to be a new kind of war of maneuver, in which aerial weapons would “shock and awe” a humbled opponent into surrender while ground forces did a little light dusting in the house of war. But instead of being decided by maneuvered technologies, the three-week war was fought and won, triumphantly, by soldiers and Marines employing both aggressive operational maneuvers and devastating tactical firepower. Like I said, we are stiill adapting to this new threat and how to deal with it. Our current enemy is new.

Far from entering an age of pure maneuver (shock and awe to certain and immediate defeat), we have entered a new age of attrition warfare in two kinds: First, the war against religious terrorism is unquestionably a war of attrition - if one of your enemies is left alive or unimprisoned, he will continue trying to kill you and destroy your civilization. Second, Operation Iraqi Freedom, for all its dashing maneuvers, provided a new example of a postmodern war of attrition—one in which the casualties are overwhelmingly on one side. The largely ignored U.S. military have been warning of this certain inevitable future since the Reagan era.

Would we have received all of this attention from our government were it not for 9/11 making them face the facts and the reality of what has been happening? Would President Bush have looked at the intel and military reports that other Presidents looked at and decide to act were it not for 9/11? Would President Bush had gifted upon us the funds necessary to don the equipment and weaponry that the world's mightiest miltary force should have to reflect its talents were it not for 9/11? - Sadly, probably not. Our readiness would have continued to decline.

Now, there was a time when our military was built around the ability to fight two wars simultaneously. When that objective conflicted with Washington’s intent to cut defense spending, our objectives were scaled back. They continued to scale the military down over the years to what we have today. Through it all, the ruling class continues to demand more and more from our military. Deployments and re-deployments have been coming so frequently over the decade that Marines barely have enough time to catch a movie stateside before boarding another plane or ship. National Guardsmen and reservists are being used in unprecedented ways and for longer periods of time. With Active military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, the HOA, the Far East, foreign natural disasters, and now performing natural disaster missions in our own country, their presence helps to masque the shortage of Active Duty personnel.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom