All posts by Rand Simberg

“Clinton’s Military”

I didn’t catch this earlier, but apparently earlier this week, in a comment on a NYT article, Josh Marshall claims that “Bush is winning the war with Clinton’s military.”

Well, not exactly. It would be just as, and possibly more, accurate to say that he’s doing it despite Clinton’s military (e.g., the JAG who vetoed taking out the cyclops early on). Even more to the point, we quite likely would have been moving out more quickly, on more fronts, if the arsenal (e.g., cruise missiles) hadn’t been so depleted by various ineffective usages over the past eight years, and not replaced.

The fact that we’re winning the war with “Clinton’s military” is really not very meaningful, since we can’t run a controlled experiment to see how much better or worse we’d be doing with, say, “Dole’s military.”

“Clinton’s Military”

I didn’t catch this earlier, but apparently earlier this week, in a comment on a NYT article, Josh Marshall claims that “Bush is winning the war with Clinton’s military.”

Well, not exactly. It would be just as, and possibly more, accurate to say that he’s doing it despite Clinton’s military (e.g., the JAG who vetoed taking out the cyclops early on). Even more to the point, we quite likely would have been moving out more quickly, on more fronts, if the arsenal (e.g., cruise missiles) hadn’t been so depleted by various ineffective usages over the past eight years, and not replaced.

The fact that we’re winning the war with “Clinton’s military” is really not very meaningful, since we can’t run a controlled experiment to see how much better or worse we’d be doing with, say, “Dole’s military.”

Finally

Not to imply that I’ve been in any way looking forward to it, but it says something about the nature of this war that we just had the first fatal casualty of military personnel from hostile fire (not counting the Pentagon attack, of course). It will be interesting to see if, like the Gulf War, more of our casualties are caused by friendly than hostile fire.