At Thursday's Republican debate in Florida, Rudy Giuliani said Bill Clinton had slashed the military by 30 percent as part of a post-Cold War "peace dividend:
And then, I believe there's a military aspect to it as well. I think we should increase the size of our military substantially to overcome the damage that Bill Clinton did with the peace dividend. Because when the two of you were talking about the military, what I wanted to jump in and say was, a lot of the cause of this was Bill Clinton's peace dividend, in which he cut the military 25 and 30 percent.
We've never redone or did up -- made up for that damage. We have to do that.
Politifact rates Giuliani's claim as "half-true":
Republicans are correct that military forces were reduced significantly under Clinton. The active-duty military totaled 1.8-million at the start of his presidency in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000. They are also correct that the naval fleet shrank dramatically. The Navy had 454 ships in 1993, but as vessels were retired and not replaced, the fleet was down to 341 by 2000.
But they are selectively choosing numbers that make it appear that the military cuts were Clinton’s alone. In fact, the cuts were prompted by the end of the Cold War during the presidency of President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.
During Bush's presidency, he and Congress agreed to a sharp drop in military personnel. Active-duty military declined from 2.2-million to 1.8-million. Total defense forces also shrank, from 3.3-million to 2.9-million.
Bill Clinton was responsible for reducing the size of the military. Truth or not?
Thoughts
If Bush 41 started the
Submitted on March 5th, 2008 by oldgoatIf Bush 41 started the cutbacks and Clinton continued them then why is it all on Clinton? Seems like the pentagon said that they would be capable of a 2 ocean war under Clintons proposals. Since Russia was gone wasn't that suppose to be one of the benefits that we didn't need such a large military? Besides I'd say that gutted military was able to cut through Iraq pretty well. It's not Clintons fault 7 years later that we don't have large enough military and have had to resort to stop loss, lowering standards, raising the age limits and offering far larger bonuses. It isn't Clintons fault that Bush has gone through all of this and still has a hard time meeting Army recruiting goals.
clinton expanded the program
Submitted on February 17th, 2008 by Anonymoushe gutted the military, this is why the reserves are in Afghanistan and Iraq. remember he "loathed the military"
Gutted?
Submitted on February 16th, 2008 by Mad JayhawkThe military numbers stood at 1.8 million troops when Clinton took office. He had a choice. He could continue with GHWB/Congress's plan to reduce the size of the military or stop its implementation. He chose to continue (your use of the word 'merely' makes it sound like he did this on a whim). Therefore during his term in office the numbers of troops went down - that in and of itself is not 'gutting' the military. It was his decision to cut the numbers not GHWB's.
There can be more to 'gutting' the military than reducing troop numbers. Did the Clinton administration support getting newer, more modern equipment? Did they do any type of re-organizational effort to streamline and make better use of the forces we had? Were adequate maintenance funds provided? The number of boots cut does not provide the entire story. I do know that the military hated the Clintons and there was probably a good reason for that.
Bill Clinton was responsible for reducing the size of military
Submitted on February 2nd, 2008 by brain62The question that was "voted" on was not whether Clinton "gutted" the military; the question: was Clinton responsible for reducing the size of the military and that is true he did reduce the size of the military; I agree that he did not "gut" the military and he did not reduce it anymore then other administrations; maybe the question that was voted on should not have been changed from the original.
I too am surprised to see
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by TaliaI too am surprised to see the number of respondents thinking he was responsible. Clinton carried forward an action plan that was started by the previous administration.
Just goes to show how uneducated and prejudiced we still are as a country.
Clinton gutted the military?
Submitted on January 26th, 2008 by leftyontopI just read everything on the blog pertinent to the subject. The evidence clearly shows that Bill Clinton did NOT "gut" the military or use the peace dividend in any such nefarious way. The facts (as presented here) show that downsizing of the military was begun during the GHWB administration, and with Colin Powell's able assistance to Bush I. Clinton merely continued the policy of downsizing, a policy that has continued to this day under GWB, Bush II. Yet six out of nine respondents agree that Clinton is responsible. Am I missing something...? LEFTY
Clinton and Defense Spending
Submitted on January 26th, 2008 by MidwesternerColin Powell was the original architect of defense cuts following the signing of CFE in November 1990. Powell early on, recognized that Congress would push for a reduced defense budget after the treaty was signed and decided it was in the military's best interests if the cuts were designed by people on the military side.
Powell's boss, Cheney contested the proposals put forth by Powell but drastic cuts were initiated under GHW Bush.
Clinton appointed Les Aspin to the Secy Defense position. Aspin had a good standing in the defense community but made what some could argue to be serious blunders early in his tenure. He initiated the 'bottom up review' of defense spending and his initiatives resulted in further major cuts in the budgets. One was the extremely expensive 'star wars' initiative which to this day has never been proven to be effective.
Clinton's administration was part of a trend process to cut military spending, he did not initiate the cutting process, nor have cuts been suspended under GW.