- From 1946 to 1991 the United States of
America deployed military troops to eight foreign campaigns. From 1992
to the present (The Clinton reign), the United States of America has deployed
military troops to 33 foreign places.
- The Internet tends to recycle significant
data as the network of telling 10 people to tell 10 people to tell 10 people
expands. Recently I received a gaggle of messages listing data I had reported
in a September 1998 WorldNetDaily column.
- * 709,000 regular (active duty) service
- * 293,000 reserve troops
- * Eight standing army divisions
- * 20 air force and navy air wings with
- * 2,000 combat aircraft
- * 232 strategic bombers
- * 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines
- * 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles
- * 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads
- * Four aircraft carriers
- * 121 surface combat ships and submarines,
plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain
such a naval force.
- All of the above are GONE ... history
... they have been attrited by the Bill Clinton "Reduction in Force"
from the military of the United States of America. A foreign enemy did
not destroy those significant assets. They were not combat losses. Those
military assets have been eliminated by civilian political policy wonks.
- I am also attempting to determine <http://www.softwar.net/xf117a.html
how many Tomahawk Cruise Missiles (at about one million dollars a copy)
have been expended. ... AND how much of that ordnance has been (or will
- Have the mainstream media mandarins alerted
you to our military atrophy? Have you seen it on ABC, NBC, CBS or the Clinton
News Network (CNN)?
- The Clinton department of propaganda
has succeeded (kinda) in suppressing a significant protest, which has gone
virtually unreported. Some of us have been complaining about the "perfumed
princes" (Colonel Hackworth's phrase) in the Pentagon. The complaint
has been "... why don't you military types DO or SAY something about
the serial absurdities of the administration's foreign policy?"
- Well, in fairness, we know the military
can't itch and moan about their civilian leaders. However, they can, and
have done something. According to what I consider reliable sources, in
1997 24 -- count 'em, twenty-four -- generals retired early. I am still
in the processing of confirming names, dates and replacements (if any).
On July 7, 1997, in what is being called a mass protest over the conditions
in the military (primarily because of administration policy) 24 generals
quit. They reportedly had fought a losing battle to correct, modify, or
mitigate the politically correct, operational tempo, and repeated "hey
you" deployments. They tried to address the problems with readiness
(or lack of) and pay. They tried, and they failed to compel the administration
to fix what is wrong. Then, in a final act of courage and commitment (two
concepts alien to this administration), they ALL went to see Secretary
of Defense Bill Cohen, and RESIGNED. Twenty-four general officers representing
600 years of combined military experience tendered their resignations.
THAT is a big deal. ... So why haven't we heard about it?
- The White House and Cohen reportedly
told them, what they (the generals) were trying to do, would not be allowed.
Those twenty-four generals were not going to be allowed the publicity that
the mass resignations were intended to achieve. According to multiple sources,
the generals, who had committed their lives to serving their country, were
threatened with court martial. However, that wasn't apparently a big enough
stick for the illegitimate spawn of maximum spin control. The non-disclosure
statements (of the generals) were changed in order to include a NEW requirement.
The amended (ex post facto) non-disclosure statements compel the generals
not to discuss their resignations. Failure to comply would result in punishment
and loss of retirement benefits. If that sounds like blackmail ... it is.
- So how could the office of propaganda
cover up the mass resignations of 24 generals? Allegedly, Cohen informed
them they would not be replaced. Their positions would be streamlined and
their previous duties would be spread out among remaining generals. The
"spin" was a tongue in cheek: "Thanks for helping us consolidate
general officer slots in the wake of reductions in force."
- So how DO you hide the resignations of
24 generals? Well, you don't announce the resignations en masse; you spread
them out over several months. Which is just what happened. Less than a
half dozen of the vacated positions were refilled.
- If or when the Department of Defense
provides us with a list of all resignations by general officers since July
of 1997 including names, rank, last duty assignment and date of separation,
we will post it here on WorldNetDaily.
- Meanwhile, this Kosovo absurdity hangs
like another millstone around the neck of career military strategists.
The Pentagon reportedly warned the president that joining NATO in an offensive
"created more problems than it solves."
- Clinton reportedly has become the personification
of my cliché that "Some people just don't want to be confused
with FACTS which contradict their preconceived opinions." Bill-Jeff
was/is determined to send bombers, and doesn't give Jack-spit about the
professional opinions or insights of military planners. According to a
source quoted in Capital Hill Blue, "This campaign is a White House
operation, not a military action. ..." Tell that to the U.S. servicemen
who have and will bleed and die. One professional planner warned the "Commander
in Grief," "... there could be sizable and unnecessary U.S. casualties."
- In what must have been déjà
vu all over again for Defense honcho Bill Cohen, the disagreement between
the military and the White House got SO heated that Cohen warned the Joint
Chiefs to "keep their troops in line on this one." Remember:
this administration has a history of ignoring the advice of military and
intelligence experts, preferring to listen to appointees who won't let
facts get in the way of their blowing smoke up the skirts of their patrons.
- Capital Hill Blue reported "The
tension here is incredible," says one military source. "We have
officers who talk privately of defying orders, but no one is willing to
risk their career to stand up to the president of the United States. It
just isn't done."
- Well, in July of 1997 24 generals DID
stand up to the president of the United States. They were willing, and
in fact, DID risk their careers. Who are these men? Where are these men?
- © 1999 Western Journalism Center