View Full Version : Obama guts Army and Marines: $418B in cuts, 520k less ground forces.
variablebinary
01-06-12, 01:32
Obama is making a dramatic shift to military doctrine. We are to become a 1 front military with a dramatic loss to ground forces in the Army and Marines.
"Obama: 'the US can no longer fight the world's battles'
President Obama plans to cut half a million troops and says US can't afford to wage two wars at once
Obama's strategy will have $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming decade, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013."
Krauthammer says it damn well: “This budget strategy is a road map of American decline,”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/05/krauthammer-obama-military-reforms-a-road-map-of-american-decline/#ixzz1if2zQNI6
Prediction: In our lifetime, the USA is going to suffer a massive unexpected attack that we will not be prepared for. It's happened before. It will happen again.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-06-12, 02:59
Just my hunble opionion here:
What our military NEEDS is a budget cut. We need to get back to the basics. If we see a problem, we need to train it away, not throw a pile of money at it and hope new gear solves the issue. We need serious oversight on spending. Too many times we have seen leaders buy en masse items that troops didnt want/need and that ended up hurting the mission (MTV/OTV comes to mind). We have programs with billions and billions invested into them, and then they get dropped at the last second. We have gear that is only a few years old being replaced, while the necessities like new AmTracs and LAV's continue to age and break down. Weve got so many troops now that we dont know what to do with them, hell, we're housing and feeding whole platoons of janitors basically.
I agree with cutting troop levels and spending, but I dont know if agree with how much Obama did. I feel like it was a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" sitaution. I also agree with the refocus on the Air Force and the Navy. For the last 10 years weve been focusing on training to fight an insurgency, and our firepower for fighting a full scale war has suffered. We need to get back to sheer Air and Naval dominance, and let the Army and Corps push out harder, but fewer, warriors than before.
Maybe Im offbase, but thats just the way I see it fro, out here. Feel free to rip me to shreds.
Split decision.
We have lots of spending problems and many ways we can reduce forces now with out having a major impact. Lots of waste out there, and but lots of places we should be spending money also. Some things have been getting fixed in the last couple of years, but others have not.
Belt tightening is never fun, but sometimes makes you focus also and insure you spend wisely. Time will tell if we are able to make work.
Politics will package this in a lot of differant ways. Can't wait to see the congressional deligations fighting over which units get cut (not that I want any to).
I would expect reduced spending will mean alot of us smaller companies will need to retool or go out of business:help: From the domestic stand point that may in the end be the bigger issue. Discharging soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines into a bad economy. Contractors and GS released into a bad bad economy. And companies closing doors. This could be the domestic issue that hits home the hardest.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-06-12, 06:30
Discharging soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines into a bad economy. Contractors and GS released into a bad bad economy. And companies closing doors. This could be the domestic issue that hits home the hardest.
This is what I worry about as well. Im starting to see alot more people let go for offenses that 3 years ago would have been brushed aside. Many people are being denied re-enlistments for very small/once-thought-insignificant reasons. This could be considered weeding out the 10% to make way for the best and the brightest, but as we all know, the military, more often than not, doesnt retain the best and the brightest.
The_War_Wagon
01-06-12, 07:10
Not to worry - he just announced the creation of a whole bunch of unpaid summer jobs for teenagers, that I think will otherwise keep future hi skrool grajuamates 'occupied'... :rolleyes:
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/obamayouth.jpg
montanadave
01-06-12, 07:46
"Don't take a piece of my pie!"
Sorry, we're broke. There are three areas that account for the overwhelmingly majority of federal spending: social security, medicare and medicaid, and the military.
And all three are gonna need to take a haircut. That means raising the retirement age, means testing, and putting a brake on the military-industrial complex.
Anybody that can't see hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and unnecessary spending in the Pentagon's bloated budget is wearing blinders.
But forget the economic realities. It's election season (when isn't it an election season?) and it's time for demagoguery so let's break out that old Republican meme characterizing Democrats as weak on defense.
P.S. And I see Godwin's Law has been confirmed (again) in five posts. Nice!
Our military takes on a lot of roles that are far divorced from the mandate of fighting wars. Those should be outsourced to private industry whenever possible. Take healthcare as an example - it consumes the single largest proportion of the military's budget. Is it really a good idea to fund military hospitals that duplicate nearby civilian facilities? Think of all the overhead expenses to go into keeping these facilities open.
Belmont31R
01-06-12, 08:26
I think most people can agree that we need to be spending less but at the same time he is increasing domestic entitlements the military is the only one being cut. New domestic agencies have been added which will cost us more money.
Huge cuts to the military won't solve our fiscal issues alone, and we're going to end up with an even more bloated entitlement system and go back to the clinton days where units didn't have enough money to buy gas to train and equipment sat broke with no money for parts. Simply slashing the budget without reforming how the money they get is spent is going to do more harm than good.
Godwin's Law, never heard of it. Thanks for the education.
You ever argue with someone about why they don't need the $3.6M in equipment (26 items) they are demanding and have a REALY good reason to say no?
Showing they already have it on hand tends to end the discussion.:no:
On the other hand I have seen very modest purchases get can'ed for silly reasons. Both instances and everything in between make this a very hard discussion to have from outside the loop.
You also have to recall that some of the cuts are simply lifting the TEMPORARY overage in the end streagth. This means that some of the house mouses running around units in excess to MTOE, and the Soldiers/ect in the WTU's are going to either be returned to duty or seperated. Other structures like the Staffs which supported the Iraq war will go away, the staffs for the WTU's will go away, ect., ect.. That's alot of personel cuts, which equals alot of money.
When they start cutting the actual "core" force structure it gets more diciey. Until what those are are released, it's hard to access the real impact of any force cuts.
ForTehNguyen
01-06-12, 08:35
political pandering to his anti war promise. Too bad he already broke it intensifying Afghanistan and going into Libya. Doing this doesnt fix his broken promise.
$500B in cuts over the next decade? What a joke, that isnt enough. Sick of hearing this next decade crap to make the cut numbers sound bigger. $50B a year is nothing compared to what we truly need to get cut
Anyone who's ever been in the military knows there is a ridiculous amount of waste, fraud and abuse of funds. There are plenty of areas the .Mil can cut back on or reform without resorting to slashing 500k positions. Close down quite a few of those overseas bases and bring those people home to train and shore up our own borders.
CarlosDJackal
01-06-12, 12:48
I'm pretty sure this decision will be a great help to our Economy, our Service Members' morale and our country's Warfighting Capability.
Oh wait, this decision is exactly the opposite of what we should do to make things better. My bad!! :stop:
CarlosDJackal
01-06-12, 12:56
Anyone who's ever been in the military knows there is a ridiculous amount of waste, fraud and abuse of funds. There are plenty of areas the .Mil can cut back on or reform without resorting to slashing 500k positions. Close down quite a few of those overseas bases and bring those people home to train and shore up our own borders.
Just starting at the procurement and logistics system and the way they "punish" organizations who are unable to use up all their allotted budget or materiel would go a long way in arresting waste. Of course, this is true of the whole government.
What's sad is the amount this moron of a POTUS wants to slash is less than the amount he was happy to give away to "stimulate" failing companies that supported him and his agenda. How much did we throw away shoring up Chrysler and Chevy? How about Solyndra?
Maybe we should take away Air Force One, Marine One, and his armored limos and force him to ride trains when campaigning? How about forcing his family to use commercial assets whenever they go on their overseas vacations We could probably save more than the amount he proposed to cut within a few months!!
Just starting at the procurement and logistics system and the way they "punish" organizations who are unable to use up all their allotted budget or materiel would go a long way in arresting waste. Of course, this is true of the whole government.
I couldn't agree with you more. I was an AMS3, metal & composite fabricator for jets, and every year we'd be out to sea dumping insane amounts of huge sheets of metal like aluminum, titanium, etc. and plenty of other shit so that we could get our allotment the next year. If we had "consumables" left over then we wouldn't receive our piece of the pie the next year. I couldn't really fathom it as a young Navy dude and I'm even more puzzled by it now, especially when I'm the one taking care of the bill.
What's sad is the amount this moron of a POTUS wants to slash is less than the amount he was happy to give away to "stimulate" failing companies that supported him and his agenda. How much did we throw away shoring up Chrysler and Chevy? How about Solyndra?
Or the billions on top of billions we give away as foreign aid to other countries. **** them, America first.
Maybe we should take away Air Force One, Marine One, and his armored limos and force him to ride trains when campaigning? How about forcing his family to use commercial assets whenever they go on their overseas vacations We could probably save more than the amount he proposed to cut within a few months!!
I'm with you on all counts.
variablebinary
01-06-12, 13:05
Anyone who's ever been in the military knows there is a ridiculous amount of waste, fraud and abuse of funds. There are plenty of areas the .Mil can cut back on or reform without resorting to slashing 500k positions. Close down quite a few of those overseas bases and bring those people home to train and shore up our own borders.
Exactly. You can save billions by cutting waste and bureaucracy within the military. You don't need to gut the military to give welfare to deadbeats and old people.
Cut out some pet projects, and toys like the XM-25. Redo federal contracts so we don't pay S5,000 for toilet seats. Dump the crony contractor system and return duties to actual military for a fraction of the cost. Expand guard and reserve forces and reduce active duty.
There is a lot you can do without hack and slash budgets
If you can't put boots on the ground, you aint shit. Doubly so when talking Marines, which are our expeditionary force.
Is it really a good idea to fund military hospitals that duplicate nearby civilian facilities? Think of all the overhead expenses to go into keeping these facilities open.
Same with Medicare
Maybe we should take away Air Force One, Marine One, and his armored limos and force him to ride trains when campaigning? How about forcing his family to use commercial assets whenever they go on their overseas vacations We could probably save more than the amount he proposed to cut within a few months!!
Ya... lets not protect POTUS or the family. There is a plan with NO faults at all.
Redo federal contracts so we don't pay S5,000 for toilet seats.
One thing I have come to learn though is the governments slow decision making process and tendancey to change requirements or "hoops" means those changes, in the end, get built into the cost of a contract. I worked a project that took 3 years for phase one and it looks like will take another two years from today, ie 7-8 YEARS total to get to the next phase. All expenses are out of pocket until the govenment makes a decision to do the down select. Even then you may still have major "at risk" expendatures. The product was low cost, but if I were to amortize my man hours into the contract development, which companies do, the cost starts to go up.
As it is I basicly gave the government the first 1,302 units. And thats a very small contract, just think what goes into a big contract.
Ya... lets not protect POTUS or the family. There is a plan with NO faults at all.
Try not to be so literal.
PAYING 4 ****ING MILLION DOLLARS FOR THOSE ASSHOLES TO GO TO HAWAII ON VACATION IS NOT MY IDEA OF PROPERLY UTILIZING MY TAX DOLLARS!
Not to mention Europe, Africa and everywhere else that dumb bitch goes spending millions of taxpayer's money. And now back to your regular programming...
If we're never going to be allowed to win a war decisively, if we always are going to have to have a Powell Doctrine "exit strategy" more complex than leaving a smoking crater with a note saying "Mess with us again and we'll be back," if I continue to worry more about our military coming home to round up hate-speaking, homo- & islamo-phobe "religious fanatics" here in the US than killing our enemies abroad, I am all for gutting it entirely.
Let China be the world's policeman for awhile and let's see what happens.
I'm not sure I want America's firepower in the hands of a people that would elect an Obama.
Our military spending is low on a GDP basis to historic norms and percentage of Federal budget. Our military has always been a target for reduction of waste. Everyone says to cut the waste, and it never gets cut. We will just end up with a smaller military with a proportionally equivalent amount of waste.
Each of the last three years our Federal budget has been a third bigger than it was in 2008 without a commensurate increase in military spending. We have been funding every special interest and our entitlement programs are out of control. Just as we do this, the world stage is getting very, very messy.
Right about the time we disarm ourselves, we will be fighting all over the world and wishing we had been building F-22's, etc. instead of nationalizing industries and buying the department of education a SWAT team.....
Rant off.
Mauser KAR98K
01-06-12, 19:35
Our military spending is low on a GDP basis to historic norms and percentage of Federal budget. Our military has always been a target for reduction of waste. Everyone says to cut the waste, and it never gets cut. We will just end up with a smaller military with a proportionally equivalent amount of waste.
Each of the last three years our Federal budget has been a third bigger than it was in 2008 without a commensurate increase in military spending. We have been funding every special interest and our entitlement programs are out of control. Just as we do this, the world stage is getting very, very messy.
Right about the time we disarm ourselves, we will be fighting all over the world and wishing we had been building F-22's, etc. instead of nationalizing industries and buying the department of education a SWAT team.....
Rant off.
+1.
Need I remind about the Islamic Fundamental Urban Renewal Program in the Mideast that is currently going on.
They need to cut wasteful spending and policies, not men and women.
Reagans Rascals
01-06-12, 19:42
Monroe Doctrine.... pure isolationism.... that would be the absolute best course of action for the US at this point in time, bring the troops home, seclude ourselves from the worlds events, lick our wounds here on the home front, and focus all efforts on reviving our country and protecting our own borders.... instead of spending untold billions helping other countries, that when all is said and done, still say they would fight against us were another war to ensue.
When was the last time Switzerland was ever messed with? Their forces are dedicated solely to protecting their homeland, on their own soil...
We got it right half a century ago, just to evolve into the shit show we are now.
Reagans Rascals
01-06-12, 19:48
Try not to be so literal.
PAYING 4 ****ING MILLION DOLLARS FOR THOSE ASSHOLES TO GO TO HAWAII ON VACATION IS NOT MY IDEA OF PROPERLY UTILIZING MY TAX DOLLARS!
Not to mention Europe, Africa and everywhere else that dumb bitch goes spending millions of taxpayer's money. And now back to your regular programming...
The most absolute, disgusting, flagrant abuse of tax payer funds in the history of this country.
Tax Payer funded vacations, when they should be working on fixing this country, and not golfing or relaxing.
When was the last time the average blue collar worker, working 16 hrs a day in a steel mill, was given a sponsored vacation to a tropical paradise so he could relax....
last I remember... the only vacation a real worker in this country gets is the 5 minutes he spends on his back porch smoking a cigarette before the wife starts bitching.... or the hour he spends at the bar after a long shift..... neither of which were paid for with taxes..... just his hard work and sweat
Belmont31R
01-06-12, 19:51
Our military spending is low on a GDP basis to historic norms and percentage of Federal budget. Our military has always been a target for reduction of waste. Everyone says to cut the waste, and it never gets cut. We will just end up with a smaller military with a proportionally equivalent amount of waste.
Each of the last three years our Federal budget has been a third bigger than it was in 2008 without a commensurate increase in military spending. We have been funding every special interest and our entitlement programs are out of control. Just as we do this, the world stage is getting very, very messy.
Right about the time we disarm ourselves, we will be fighting all over the world and wishing we had been building F-22's, etc. instead of nationalizing industries and buying the department of education a SWAT team.....
Rant off.
This is my issue with this type of thing. While I do agree we need to reduce spending, and very soon....simply cutting the budget doesn't fix the inherent issues the DOD has with the money they do get nor the Congressional impact on DOD spending by way of ear marks and other preferential treatment like 'pet projects'.
Just another example of why government is NEVER good with money. Its not theirs, and they aren't going to go out of business because of a bad decision. They still go home with a nice paycheck.
Reagans Rascals
01-06-12, 19:57
...They still go home with a nice paycheck...
That they themselves have the ability to increase.....
The_War_Wagon
01-06-12, 19:59
Godwin's Law, never heard of it. Thanks for the education.
You know - Godwin's pumps (http://www.godwinpumps.com/)!
http://www.godwinpumps.com/images/sized/images/uploads/NCslider637x298b-637x298.jpg
When Democrap shiite gets deep, you need INDUSTRIAL PUMPS to clear it out! :p
Reagans Rascals
01-06-12, 20:16
One thing I have come to learn though is the governments slow decision making process and tendancey to change requirements or "hoops" means those changes, in the end, get built into the cost of a contract. I worked a project that took 3 years for phase one and it looks like will take another two years from today, ie 7-8 YEARS total to get to the next phase. All expenses are out of pocket until the govenment makes a decision to do the down select. Even then you may still have major "at risk" expendatures. The product was low cost, but if I were to amortize my man hours into the contract development, which companies do, the cost starts to go up.
As it is I basicly gave the government the first 1,302 units. And thats a very small contract, just think what goes into a big contract.
I recall a story my father told me when I was younger. One of the ASW's he flew with, left the navy and began working for Northrop Grumman in St. Augustine on their E-2's.
The government was paying $28,000 a piece for new wiring brackets for the inside of the wings. He happened to mention in conversation how the brackets themselves costs less than $120 to manufacture.... well this was overheard by a Government Auditor.... was reported up the chain... my dads friend lost his job.... but the government still continued paying $28,000 for the parts...... despite knowing the amounts they could save.......
the US Taxpayers are the never ending direct deposit for Congress....
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-12, 03:43
This from the same POTUS that wants to put Marines in Australia and got us involved in Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia (again)?
So he wants a US military presence in N Africa and Asia but is going to do this with half of what we got???
While $418,000,000,000 sounds like a lot of money it is drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the TRILLIONS being pumped into the Military Industrial Complex and Military-Academic Complex.
The military-industrial complex as a source of concern was more significant when DOD spending was 60% of the Federal budget. Now that our defense budget is 20% of the overall budget, I believe there are far more egregious areas of waste.
Obama Should Call Rumsfeld to Work on Defense Strategy and Cuts - Atlantic Mobile
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/obama-should-call-rumsfeld-to-work-on-defense-strategy-and-cuts/251028/
---
the above are the opinions of the article writer and not necessarily my own.
-
What Obama is doing to the military (and everything else, when he can) has very little to do with logic and everything to do with his ideology--"to fundamentally transform the US".
Barring complete idiocy, major war between nation-states are probably a thing of the past--but never say never. But more likely are lots of asymetrical 4th generation wars of choice which will always be percolating somewhere.
If the US military needs to be refocussing on anything these days it's the protection of our own borders before someone brings in a WMD in a shipping container. You can bet that quite a few people are staying up late nights trying to figure out how to pull that one off...
You! Stop that logic shit RIGHT NOW!
wild_wild_wes
01-08-12, 00:59
I think most people can agree that we need to be spending less but at the same time he is increasing domestic entitlements the military is the only one being cut. New domestic agencies have been added which will cost us more money.
12345
Hey, guy's, Congress needs another huge raise! Now, where did you expect them to come up with this gihujic raise?
Exactly. You can save billions by cutting waste and bureaucracy within the military. You don't need to gut the military to give welfare to deadbeats and old people.
Cut out some pet projects, and toys like the XM-25. Redo federal contracts so we don't pay S5,000 for toilet seats. Dump the crony contractor system and return duties to actual military for a fraction of the cost. Expand guard and reserve forces and reduce active duty.
There is a lot you can do without hack and slash budgets
If you can't put boots on the ground, you aint shit. Doubly so when talking Marines, which are our expeditionary force.
Exactly. But I highly doubt that any of the big wig contracting companies are really going to be cut as they give too much to the politicians getting elected for that to happen.
CarlosDJackal
01-08-12, 12:07
...Dump the crony contractor system and return duties to actual military for a fraction of the cost..
This is not totally true. Contracts can be cancelled at any time whereas reducing the force to get rid of a particular area of focus takes a bit more.
The use of contractors, if properly implemented, does save us a lot of money. Unfortunately, I do agree with the "crony" part. If they would actually award and renew contracts based on merit, performance and need; we would not have such abuse.
Who would have more incentive to come up with the best bad ass war tools, the US military, or, private contractors who have to prove their stuff, even if it involves buying off govt officials?
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-08-12, 13:00
What Obama is doing to the military (and everything else, when he can) has very little to do with logic and everything to do with his ideology--"to fundamentally transform the US".
Barring complete idiocy, major war between nation-states are probably a thing of the past--but never say never. But more likely are lots of asymetrical 4th generation wars of choice which will always be percolating somewhere.
If the US military needs to be refocussing on anything these days it's the protection of our own borders before someone brings in a WMD in a shipping container. You can bet that quite a few people are staying up late nights trying to figure out how to pull that one off...
I hear this opinion a lot out there and it is as wrong as it was before and after WWI when people thought mass warfare was a thing of the past.
The reason we have asymmetrical warfare is that we have everyone faded on technology and quantity. We could take on all the bad guys, all the good guys and even throw in a few space aliens before you would run out of raw power on target globally.
Reduce our advantages in technology and quantity and people will again try more direct action against our interests. Being on the low side of asymmetrical warfare is the only way that adversaries can mount any kind of challenge. They are not following that strategy because they think it is the most likely route to success, it is their only route to success.
I hear this opinion a lot out there and it is as wrong as it was before and after WWI when people thought mass warfare was a thing of the past.
The reason we have asymmetrical warfare is that we have everyone faded on technology and quantity. We could take on all the bad guys, all the good guys and even throw in a few space aliens before you would run out of raw power on target globally.
Reduce our advantages in technology and quantity and people will again try more direct action against our interests. Being on the low side of asymmetrical warfare is the only way that adversaries can mount any kind of challenge. They are not following that strategy because they think it is the most likely route to success, it is their only route to success.
THIS.
Exactly. We are on a path to guarantee that we will have peer competitors again. And, when we arrive it will be ugly.
The whole Robert Gates "we did not need F22's in Afghanistan" is idiocy. That was not what they were for....
variablebinary
01-08-12, 16:22
THIS.
Exactly. We are on a path to guarantee that we will have peer competitors again. And, when we arrive it will be ugly.
The whole Robert Gates "we did not need F22's in Afghanistan" is idiocy. That was not what they were for....
Short sighted politicians are short sighted.
The sheer amount of force we can project keeps people in check passively, and without direct military action.
Take that away and it will certainly create new challenges and adversaries that are willing to test how big our balls are.
Just my hunble opionion here:
What our military NEEDS is a budget cut. We need to get back to the basics.
Indeed. B-A-S-I-C-S...
We spend billions on completely unnecessary crap. Millions of man hours are wasted on pointless tasks. There are thousands of expensive dissimilar, unique, purpose built, contractor dependent information systems that run the architecture of the force. There is no single enterprise system to run the routine business of the military. We just spend money on things with no thought as to what we really want this thing to do. There are at least 5 different R&D and equipment vetting activities in just the Army. And at the end of all of that time, money and energy, we still end up buying the wrong shit. And that is the good news.
To compound the problem, fully 80% of the Army would be perfectly happy working at the DMV, and thoroughly disdain doing soldierly things like PT, weapons qual and combatives. These numbers are worse in the Navy and Air Force and slightly better in the USMC. Process and bureaucratic seem to trump the final outcome and net effect. Success is frequently measured in terms of 4 day weekends.
At the height of the war (around 2006-2008) the Reserve Component was providing 40% of the force yet only using 9% of the budget. This would seem to be a strong argument for drastic reductions in the size of the Active Component force and large increases in the size of the RC. Most of the Active force that is left should be made up of SOF, Airborne and other rapid deployment units. The bulk of the heavy brigades and large chunks of conventional forces should be sent to the RC. Whole activities should be consolidated or done away with. There is way too much redundancy.
Monroe Doctrine.... pure isolationism.... that would be the absolute best course of action for the US at this point in time, bring the troops home, seclude ourselves from the worlds events, lick our wounds here on the home front, and focus all efforts on reviving our country and protecting our own borders.... instead of spending untold billions helping other countries, that when all is said and done, still say they would fight against us were another war to ensue.
When was the last time Switzerland was ever messed with? Their forces are dedicated solely to protecting their homeland, on their own soil...
We got it right half a century ago, just to evolve into the shit show we are now.
We are not Switzerland. America is exceptional.
We can fight out enemies on their soil or on ours. The fight does not end. The location only changes.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-08-12, 20:50
I am a Swiss Admiral.
Belt-tightening IS in order.
I am just not convinced that I trust our current crop of politicians to accomplish said belt-tightening & still maintain an effective military. :confused:
variablebinary
01-09-12, 12:37
Belt-tightening IS in order.
I am just not convinced that I trust our current crop of politicians to accomplish said belt-tightening & still maintain an effective military. :confused:
It's not belt tightening when the military is slashed to fund some type of government cheese.
Bottom line, 40 cents on the dollar of our budget is borrowed from the Chinese. What should we do? We may, one day, maybe in the next election, do something about Soc Security and Medicare. But, right now we need to drastically cut the budget. The only easy thing to cut is the military.
variablebinary
01-09-12, 13:44
Bottom line, 40 cents on the dollar of our budget is borrowed from the Chinese. What should we do? We may, one day, maybe in the next election, do something about Soc Security and Medicare. But, right now we need to drastically cut the budget. The only easy thing to cut is the military.
Cut waste, and bureaucratic bullshit. That is even easier to taking a wrecking ball to the military.
If we didn't give hundreds of billions to banks and crony green projects there would be no need for the massive gutting of military capability.
Cut waste, and bureaucratic bullshit. That is even easier to taking a wrecking ball to the military.
If we didn't give hundreds of billions to banks and crony green projects there would be no need for the massive gutting of military capability.
Yeah, good point. Shoulda' woulda' coulda'. We were broke then and we are more broke now. The only way to cut the waste and bureaucracy is to cut the budget because there are a great many military fiefdoms that depend on that waste and bureaucracy.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-09-12, 20:54
Defense of the nation is actually a responsibility laid out by the constitution, and that is what we are cutting while we dole out money to Solyndra, Finnish electric car makers and free drugs for former hippies.
We've gone from "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" to "hope for the common defense, provide the general welfare".
Stuck a college proff to the wall once with the promote/provide. He said that the preamble made it so that we have to have all these social programs. I said that is provide, promote is something very different. "A Porsche is an excellent car and you should get one if you can" is an example of promote. "Here are the keys" is provide.
ForTehNguyen
01-09-12, 21:09
BTW these "cuts" are reductions in proposed spending increases. These are not true cuts
wild_wild_wes
01-09-12, 21:28
Indeed. B-A-S-I-C-S...
At the height of the war (around 2006-2008) the Reserve Component was providing 40% of the force yet only using 9% of the budget. This would seem to be a strong argument for drastic reductions in the size of the Active Component force and large increases in the size of the RC. Most of the Active force that is left should be made up of SOF, Airborne and other rapid deployment units. The bulk of the heavy brigades and large chunks of conventional forces should be sent to the RC. Whole activities should be consolidated or done away with.
I concur.
Indeed. B-A-S-I-C-S...
At the height of the war (around 2006-2008) the Reserve Component was providing 40% of the force yet only using 9% of the budget. This would seem to be a strong argument for drastic reductions in the size of the Active Component force and large increases in the size of the RC. Most of the Active force that is left should be made up of SOF, Airborne and other rapid deployment units. The bulk of the heavy brigades and large chunks of conventional forces should be sent to the RC. Whole activities should be consolidated or done away with. There is way too much redundancy.
The reserve components--army and air--are still providing this level of mission capability at a fraction of the cost of active duty. Additionally, the Guard covers two fronts: home and abroad. Army and Air Guard units are the predominant homeland defense force in waiting.
In order to preserve themselves, the AD components have proposed cutting major Guard and possibly reserve units and programs. They will shave the heart of the Guard in order to provide the necessary budget cuts, and in so doing cut 30-40% of their mission capability. We'll see if the addition of the Chief NGB to the JCS provides more than a voice.
They will shave the heart of the Guard in order to provide the necessary budget cuts, and in so doing cut 30-40% of their mission capability.
Yes.
The fact of the matter is there is not enough Army to do all of the shit the Army is being asked to do. Cutting the RC means that an even further strung out force. Given that this COA is stupid, not cost effective, and favors the current military bureaucracy, I am certain that it will be the recommended COA.
However, the Pentagon may be outnumbered here by the 50 states (and 4 territories) who will move heaven and earth to protect their Guard programs.
The_War_Wagon
01-19-12, 08:06
This seemed an appropriate update... :rolleyes:
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/983201187.jpg
crusader377
01-19-12, 10:05
Unfortunately, we are always presented false choices when it comes to defense spending. The debate is always framed that we will have a weaker and hollow military if we make cuts. I'm writing this as a former combat arms officer (CPT) and long time student of military history.
I personally believe that we can have a strong military of equal or greater effectiveness but spend considerably less money (15-25%) cut in total spending. Military spending currently in the United States is very inefficient and often wasteful and if we use the defense cuts and take a hard look at the military, I'm confident that American can still have a highly effective, lethal military that can meet challenges of the 21st century. Here are the changes that the DOD needs to make.
1. End no General Left Behind: Unfortunately, after every defense cut the number of flag grade and even field grade officers remains the same. For example in the defense cuts of the early 1990s, the Army decline from 18 divisions to 10 divisions (40% loss in total combat power) yet the number of senior officers largely remained unchanged. Although most of my time in the Army was in line units, I did serve on staff and I can tell you that all staffs from Battalion level on up are bloated with unnecessary personnel. I also read a few years back that more people work in the Pentagon today than in WWII despite that fact that in WWII we had 10 times the force in numbers and was truly fighting a global war against peer competitors.
2. Redress the ratio between combat and support arms: The ratio between combat and combat support arms has been increasing in favor of support personnel (The current ratio is about 8-1 in favor of support). The military needs to find efficiencies and modernize its support function with a goal of dropping that number to under 5-1.
3. Bring accountability and good program management back into defense procurement: Many of our procurement programs are poorly run when little accountability to ensure that the military and tax payers our receiving the best value for the money spent. For example, the Joint Strike Fighter is 8 years behind schedule and nearly 70% over budget and still is nowhere near ready to be deployed. Even more concerning is that despite over $50 billion already spent on the program, the naval version is unable to land on a carrier which was one of its basic requirements.
http://aviationintel.com/2012/01/10/f-35c-cannot-land-on-a-carrier/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9016442/Navys-5bn-Harrier-jet-replacement-unable-to-land-on-aircraft-carriers.html
Additionally we have to stop gold plating all of our weapon systems. Often we pay huge premiums for minor increases in capability. I think we should more often take a more evolutionary approach to procurement for most items combined with improving training and still realize substantial gains in effectiveness rather than seeking a revolutionary technology that often doesn’t work as advertised or is too costly.
4. Rethink military benefits: A large percentage of the military budget pays for benefits. I’m 100% in favor of keeping superb benefits to our military personnel who serve in harms ways and keeping good benefits for non-combat soldiers but does a admin or supply soldier who serves 20 years mainly stateside deserve the same retirement benefits as an infantry soldier, Marine, or SF soldiers who has 4-5 combat deployments under his belt? Perhaps we should look at a tiered type system.
I have more ideas but wanted to give a few to start with and generate discussion.
Unfortunately, probably none of these ideas will happen and we will end up with a smaller but more bloated force with less capability.
I also agree with the refocus on the Air Force and the Navy. For the last 10 years weve been focusing on training to fight an insurgency, and our firepower for fighting a full scale war has suffered. We need to get back to sheer Air and Naval dominance, and let the Army and Corps push out harder, but fewer, warriors than before.
The Air Force gambled that they could outlast the war without procuring anything that was meant only for COIN or changing doctrine in any meaningful way to support the Army in COIN and they were right. They are intentionally putting hours on the B-1 fleet to justify NGB and the F series fleet to justify F-35.
Want to save money? Split the AF in two. Give the interdiction, CAS and transport missions to the reestablished Army Air Corps and the rest to the Navy.
Want to save money? Split the AF in two. Give the interdiction, CAS and transport missions to the reestablished Army Air Corps and the rest to the Navy.
This idea has been presented and shot down many times. We have to keep a Department of the Air Force because the capabilities have to be their own thing. If the Air Force ended up getting its money from the Army's budget it would suffer horribly. Look at how shitty the USMC has it logistically, now imagine the worlds most powerful Air Force, the most technology dependent of all the branches, dealing with that kind of shit. You can't let a 4 star Army General decide between M1s or F22s because guess what he's going to pick. This idea is usually presented by people who don't get the entire scope of the Air Force (not an insult to you). Airlift is the biggest player in force projection doctrine, the USAF also runs all of our ICBMs, 2/3rd of the nuclear trinity, GPS systems, space systems, and a lot of other functions that keep the entire DoD running.
Here's a statistic- There's 1500 officers at the joint staff, only 100 of them are Marines.
Moose-Knuckle
01-19-12, 15:30
The modern AF is morphing into more of a space agency than anything else. Their budgets (black mostly) will trump the other branches.
Our military takes on a lot of roles that are far divorced from the mandate of fighting wars. Those should be outsourced to private industry whenever possible. Take healthcare as an example - it consumes the single largest proportion of the military's budget. Is it really a good idea to fund military hospitals that duplicate nearby civilian facilities? Think of all the overhead expenses to go into keeping these facilities open.
Having been a recipient of military healthcare, I'd much rather have a good insurance option. Even if the option is "free" (as it should be fore already underpaid military personnel), the cost of paying civilian providers would almost certainly be cheaper than maintaining military hospitals.
Of course, this belies the fact that military medicine really isn't about patient care, but about maintaining manpower. So "minor" but potentially debilitating (if left untreated) injuries are usually left treated with vitamin M (that's Motrin horse pills for those not in the know). My cousin lost a promising career in the Air Force because of a broken ankle. If he had received better care and proper post-treatment he'd likely still be serving, instead he had to fight for disability and this former star athlete and soccer nut walks with a cane. He's just lucky his mother is a retired one-star who knows how to keep DoD from completely ****ing him.
I know plenty of guys who are now having kidney and liver issues because they popped Motrin like it was Pez when what they really needed was post-care, physical therapy and limited duty.
And yeah .mil needs a trim. What prevents this are our ridiculous overseas commitments. It's time we cut Europe lose. Same goes for Asia. It's also time we stop the progs from using the military to do things war fighters were never intended to do. The U.S. military can't be the world's social worker anymore. We can't afford it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.