It's getting old hearing Democrats say that the reason we should pull out of Iraq is because the conflict there is straining our military. They constantly say the military is stretched too thin.

One statistic that should be kept in mind when we hear that is that in 1993 President Bill Clinton, as one of his first acts in office, cut the size of all three branches of the armed services by one-third to one half. The active army which had been sized at 18 divisions during operation Desert Storm was reduced to 10 divisions by the mid-1990s.

Now, they go around the country complaining that George Bush is stretching the resources of the military! They complain that George Bush isn't providing enough resources for the military to do their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. They claim that they are pro-military while Bush is wrecking the military. If you confront them with the fact that they have always been “weak on defense” they respond by saying “how dare you call us unpatriotic”! If you point to the fact that it’s Democratic presidents that seem to always slash defense spending they deny it.

In an April 21, 2008 article by former Senator Jim Talent, Talent writes about Hillary Clinton in this 2008 campaign:

Sen. Clinton rightly points out that the Reserve components of the Army are under stress. But the right answer is not to abandon the mission in Iraq. It is to reverse the cuts in American military strength that reduced the number of troops available for Iraq and for which her husband is largely responsible. In 1993, President Clinton cut the size of all three military services by one third to one half; the active Army, which had been sized at 18 divisions during operation Desert Storm, was reduced to 10 divisions by the mid-1990s, with the final and most dangerous reductions during the Clinton years. The risk to American security was not only foreseeable but was foreseen. At the time the cuts were made — even before the attacks on 9/11 made it clear that the military would have to fight a war against terror in addition to its other responsibilities — a panel of retired generals testified unanimously before Congress that the smaller Army would not have the flexibility it needed to carry out its missions without unacceptable levels of stress on the troops. The size of the Army was reduced anyway, and now the troops are paying the price.

The Clinton administration didn’t just cut the size of America’s military in the early 1990s; it also failed to supply and modernize the force that remained. It took what the defense community called at the time a “procurement holiday”; modernization budgets were cut, and the government bought only a fraction of the “platforms” — ships, planes, and tracked vehicles — that were necessary to maintain the existing inventory. As a result, the military is not just small; its inventory is rusty. For example, the average age of planes in the Air Force fleet is approaching 25 years old, compared to 9 years old during the Vietnam era. The B-52 bomber, which is still the Air Force’s main bomber, is over 50 years old; many of the C-5 cargo aircraft on which the military relies are 35-40 years old, with mission capable rates of 50 percent. (For a full explanation of the history and current condition of the Armed Services see my National Review cover story from March 5, 2007.)