Comparisons Of Army Manpower End Strengths News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

The Clinton Administration has no intention of developing and equip- ping the forces needed to defend America's global interests for the rest of the 20th century. Indeed, President Clinton will fall some $ 100 billion short in ffinding the level of military might he has determined is necessary over the next five years. I But in no armed service are the potential effects of the Clinton Administration's dis- mantling of America's defenses more vividly foretold than in the United States Army. The Clinton Administration's defense budget for the period of 1995 through 1999 leaves the Army with a Hobson's choice: it will either be too small to perform its mission of seizing enemy-held territory overseas, or it may be large enough, but lack modem weapons and not be combat-ready. General Sullivan, for good reason, is balking at having to make this choice at all. But his statement of "smaller is not better" suggests that he will re- sist ftulher force structur ....

United States , Baker Spring , Les Aspin , Gordonr Sullivan , John Mccain , Tablei Army Force Structure Comparison , Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No , United States Army , House Armed Services Committee , Comparison Of Army Budget , Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Updwe No , Division Equivalents , Comparisons Of Army Manpower End Strengths , Clinton State Of The Union , Building An Army For The , Washington Post , Clinton Administration , Updating Backgrounder , Post Cold War Era , United States Anny , Army Chief , President Clinton , General Sullivan , Defense Budget Falls Far Short , Foundation Backgrounder Update , House Armed Services ,