The “new”, supposedly triangulating and fiscally prudent Obama has appeared… or has he? With a nation so fed up with the federal spending, increased size of government, and an economy that isn’t as rosy on Main Street as it is in the Obama pressers, the POTUS takes the “cut spending” midterms message to heart, and goes for the military’s jugular. But Obama’s first proposed cuts to make the news are a mixed bag. Included in the WH demands to Defense Sec’y Gates is cutting up to 47,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps forces, and raising the Tricare military family health insurance premiums.
To make ends meet, Mr. Gates also announced that he would seek to recoup billions of dollars by increasing fees paid by retired veterans under 65 for Defense Department health insurance, even though Congress has rejected such proposals in the past. And he outlined extensive cuts in new weapons.
The Pentagon’s proposed operating budget for 2012 is expected to be about $553 billion, which would still reflect real growth, even though it is $13 billion less than expected. The Pentagon budget will then begin a decline in its rate of growth for two years, and stay flat — growing only to match inflation — for the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. (The Pentagon operating budget is separate from a fund that finances the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.)
“This plan represents, in my view, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary, given the complex and unpredictable array of security challenges the United States faces around the globe: global terrorist networks, rising military powers, nuclear-armed rogue states and much, much more,” Mr. Gates said.
To be sure, the actual size and shape of future military budgets will continue to be reset by annual spending proposals from the president, and those in turn will be based on shifting economic factors — decline or growth — and threats around the world, as well as by Congressional action.
But for now, the Army is expected in 2015 to begin cutting its active-duty troop levels by 27,000, and the Marine Corps by up to 20,000. Together, those force reductions would save $6 billion in 2015 and 2016.
~~~But some — especially increases in fees for the military’s health-care system, called Tricare — require Congressional approval, and have been rejected before.
Proposals to increase Tricare fees will pit Mr. Gates against those in Congress — and veterans’ groups — who say retired military personnel already have paid up front with service in uniform. Ten years ago, health care cost the Pentagon $19 billion; today, it tops $50 billion; five years from now it is projected to cost $65 billion.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in this? Troops that are to be cut from the military will instead be Joe Citizen, pounding Main Street for jobs in an economy that has seen unemployment figures of over 9% for 20 months, and promises little hope for reprieve over the next 4-5 years, per Fed Reserve guru, Ben Bernanke. I would guess that Mr. Bernanke sauntered over to Calculated Risk Blog, and had a gander at the incoming housing bombs looming on the horizon… as noted in the various graphics showing the increased default mortgage payments of unemployed or struggling homeowners, comprising 2011’s onslaught of foreclosures.
The irony is further compounded by the POTUS who claims to make health insurance more affordable, while sanctioning raising the premiums for military families out of the other side of his forked tongue.
But the bad joke known as the Obama economy doesn’t stop there. Admittedly, while the Pentagon, like virtually all federal agencies, could use a thorough accounting house cleaning for waste, Obama has spent his time in office adding new agency after new agency for both health care, and his financial “reform”. Yet when it comes times to looking at cutting, does he consider his damage and increased spending in the health world? But of course not…. instead, he turns his attention to the defense budget, which is less than a quarter of all US expenditures.
Taking the military back to pre 911 Clinton days in this era is simply not a wise idea. Constitutionally, the POTUS as commander in chief is sworn, duty bound, to protect this nation. Our strong military has not only served as our protection, but is depended upon by an international community of nations who have substandard militaries and defense budgets to make up the difference. While we are not to be the police of the world, without our military strength the international conflicts over the past century would have pulled our nation into the dangerous net inevitably.
Do we need spending cuts? Absolutely. Should we also be embarking on austerity measures, like Euro nations? You betcha. But what and how we cut may make the difference to our very survival of the nation, as it was founded. It’s been a difficult enough learning curve, waiting for Obama to catch on that Keynesian policies is a dead end road. But now it’s painfully obvious that this Commander in Chief prefers his Community Organizer tasks over commanding a strong, superior military. And there is little room left under that proverbial bus for the soldiers who will not be soldiers in the wake of this, or the hardship imposed on our military families, who have sacrificed the most for our nation, with the increased costs of medical care.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
You know, matter, it is probably a bad idea to link to articles that directly undercut your opening screed. But that is what you did in posting about these devastating cuts to the military. The New York Times article mentions The Pentagon’s proposed operating budget for 2012 is expected to be about $553 billion, which would still reflect real growth, even though it is $13 billion less than expected. The Pentagon budget will then begin a decline in its rate of growth for two years, and stay flat — growing only to match inflation — for the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years.
Hmm . . . cutting $78 billion over five years (about $15.5 billion per year). The 2012 spending will be $553 billion instead of $568 billion a whopping 2.3% decrease. THAT is “going for the jugular” to you? And why do you think GOPer Bob Gates is “going for the jugular”? You think Bob intends to devastate the military? Because these are HIS proposed cuts. But can you ever REALLY call it a cut when the budgets are still increasing each year?
It gets better:
But for now, the Army is expected in 2015 to begin cutting its active-duty troop levels by 27,000, and the Marine Corps by up to 20,000. Together, those force reductions would save $6 billion in 2015 and 2016 . . . The Army’s ranks number 569,600, and the Marine Corps has just over 202,000 members; both would remain larger than when Mr. Gates became defense secretary four years ago.
Say what? The post -“going for the jugular” Army and Marines will be LARGER than it was in 2006 when Gates took over? And the manpower cuts are not set to kick in for ANOTHER FIVE YEARS? Oh, OK . And by the way, Mata, why would we need more soldiers in 2015 than we needed in 2006 when we had two full blown wars raging simultaneously? And are you actually suggesting that we keep a larger military because “Troops that are to be cut from the military will instead be Joe Citizen, pounding Main Street for jobs”? You don’t set troop levels based on the economy, Mata! That’s just nutty!
No, Mata, the fact is that we have a bloated, expensive military. We are equipped and organized to fight non-existent threats from the Soviet Union, our navy is too big, and the different forces don’t work together on weapons procurement. It is wasteful and we cannot afford it. The military is just another big expensive government agency and there should be no sacred cows in this era of “austerity.” Besides . . . how “austere” is a 3% reduction in future spending estimates, when the budget increases each year? Please . . . .
This is no surprise to me. The Democrats have never supported nor felt any loyalty for our military. Hells bells, they don’t even like this country. I can only hope I live long enough to see them regret their actions.
B-Rob, there is no Soviet Union. Putin is trying, he’s just not there yet. Where I disagree with you is, I do think Russia is a threat.
We have a “bloated” military?
Billy Bob… bozo… first of all, the military is experiencing cuts from now until 2015. From 24% of the total expenditures to 21% of the total expenditures. Now I have to laugh that you lib/progs love to play the talking point “cut” game when a budget is only increased by 5% instead of the 10% they want. But then you get incensed with it’s reciprocated. No surprise. You don’t hesitate a moment, eh? ‘
Were you to not increase spending one more dime, generally things go up annually because of inflation. Therefore, if you want to include the indexed cost of expenditures at the same price, it would still be a “cut”. i.e. the index inflation for 2011 is projected to be 1.1%.. (heaven knows what it will be for 2012 under this admin, Geithner and Bernankek for another year…) which makes that 2.3% you project for 2012… which is actually yet another percent down from the pie chart above, more than 4.4% .
Tell us again, for reference sake, just how much the increased costs of providing insurance via O’health is in percentages? And that’s not even a Constitutional mandate of federal power, and a quasi-Constitutional action at best.
So here’s your ugly reality… it’s a budget cut in total budget expenditures. It’s also a budget cut via prior year’s standards. Your historic rules, plus more. I’m just playing by them.
Secondly, we are not in the position to gut … what you term… a “bloated” military. The military is a Constitutional prime duty of the federal government. Something that healthcare, welfare and pensions are not. We are still in two battlefield theatres, with unknown ahead of us. Bad decision. But of course, you, Mr. pampered Paralegal, determine we have “non-existent” threats. Gee… I feel better knowing you and all your lack of military experience has pronounced it such. Consider your military threat assessment filed where it belongs… in the toilet with the rest of the sheeeet you generally drop around here.
Thirdly, the “going for the jugular” is in reference the choice of cuts Obama and Gates opted for. As I pointed out, there is room in Defense, as well as all federal agencies, for cutting of waste. But look where they choose to apply those cuts. Personnel and iced with raising health insurance premiums that your POTUS promised would be *more* affordable. So, according to you, increasing the nation’s unemployment with former soldiers… or no new soldiers in Obama’s mini-military… plus increasing health insurance premiums is a wise choice. Gee… from you, why does that not surprise me?
uh… can you say *jobs lost*? But then, you can’t be too upset when they are soldiers’ jobs, and not their precious newly created healthcare bureaucrat jobs, eh?
Did they cut foreign military aid? Nope. Did they cut Pentagon civil servants pensions or overhead? Nope. They went straight for the heart of the military… thus the “jugular” reference, Mr. not so bright… the soldiers themselves, and health care for them and their families thru Tricare. Misplaced focus? Absolutely. But not with this POTUS. Predictable.
Please… you are utterly disrespectful of the military “common man”, a shill for Obama, and a pathetic excuse for an American who enjoys your freedoms by virture of those directly under Obama’s axe.
If there should be, as you call it, “no sacred cows”, then the first places to be focused upon is the 76% of spending that is not a Constitutional mandate for the feds. But then, you wouldn’t know about the Constitution.
I have never understood why the cities cut their fire and police when they have budget problems. When the economy goes down, crime goes up. You need the police even more in a recession. You need fire fighters in bad and good economies. Even in the video game called Sim City it mentions that if you start building your city from scratch you might want to cut the police and fire budget for a while.
In my own opinion this is one part of the liberals taking over the USA. I knew this was Obama’s agenda when he said, “We gotta have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.” (referring to the military)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Why would he want a civilian security force that is as strong as the military? What did Hitler call his?
They know they only have a short time before the public finally figures out what they are up to, so they have to push as much of their agenda through as they can before the republicans take over the Senate too.
On the other side of the coin, we need to watch where the money goes more closely for all government spending.
Smorgasbord, they always cut the fire/police because they want to get a rise from the public, and thereby garner opposition to more spending. It’s the game they play constantly. And when it happens to our troops and their families before newly created healthcare bureaucrats and civil servants, the public should be outraged… just as they should be when they axe police and firemen instead of civil servants and politico pensions.
You are absolutely correct that we need to follow the money. I trust the GOP no more than I trust the lib/prog scum.
Ain’t that the truth. I’m in no danger of being laid off because of my 20 years of seniority but those young kids just getting out of the military and just making it out of the police academy are screwed. I remember being in their shoes once. I remember going from the Marine Corps paycheck to receiving my first paycheck as a officer and thinking WOW…I’m rich. That’s because we got paid in pennies in the military, but I didn’t care…never really thought about it much. I wanted to serve my country, and when I worked to become a officer I never once asked about the pay. Looking back on it now that first paycheck as a officer wasn’t really all that much but when you’re 23 it’s all about perspective.
Reducing the Marine Corps by 10,000? Cutting important defensive programs?
Another Democrat President and another paper tiger we have become. Democrats will never fully be happy until we are reduced to third world status and a laughing stock of the entire planet.
Kansas Girl #2 Tell that to Navy Cross recipient Sen.Jim Webb (D.Va.).You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The other day, while DADT was being debated, Gen Mullin made the rebuttal to John McCain’s remark that, IF men who didn’t want to serve within an openly gay force were all allowed to leave the military might lose 225,000 men.
His comment wasn’t that they all wouldn’t WANT to leave, but rather that they could NOT leave that easily.
Now we see a plan to allow 47,000 to leave.
And based on what reasoning?
Just budgetary?
Or will that 47,000 be those who would like to leave honorably rather than risk a dishonorable discharge because open homosexuality offends them?
Intriguing sidebar, Nan G. While I haven’t really followed the actual military personal response to the DADT (as opposed to media hype), I’ve always been under the impression that most were probably aware of the sexual preferences of their trench mates, but placed the more prominent “watch each other’s back” mentality in priority position.
I’m not a member of the military, and just a former 70’s military wife, so I’m not privvy to the current scuttlebutt within the ranks. Most of the young I know serving now… my nephews or kids of friends… really don’t think one thing or another about a peer’s sexual preferences. Hardly a scandal in this day and age. So I have no where to go on this issue personally.
But I will say this… I sure don’t take the media’s word at the high number of disgruntled they quote either. On the surface, I find that a somewhat unbelievable in today’s society. So I leave this subject with an open mind.
Despite all that, I do find your suggestion that this government “layoff” is a sort of a back door avenue to those that wish to bolt has some merit. If you find more on this linkage, I’d sure appreciate the additional source fodder.
I will say this. The DADT was a Clinton/Dem imposition, and it was an Obama/Dem removal. Sort of a wash when it comes down to it. As for the guys in the field? They deal with everything thrown at them with magnificence. So it seems to be more political than functional.
@rich wheeler: I know exactly what I’m talking about. The Democrat party has never been a friend of the military. As far as Jim Webb is concerned, I don’t consider him an ally.
Kansas Girl Are you saying Jim Webb isn’t ” a friend of the military” or just wouldn’t buy your B.S.?
It always puzzled me why no one seemed to think much about that when Obama’s stimulus package funds were all that was keeping police, fire, and EM services up and running in hundreds of towns and cities across America.
Greg Greg… it all comes down to the same thing as this post… who they choose to be the sacrificial lamb. The local governments didn’t choose to cut the bureaucrats who aren’t integral to the citizens. They choose to pick those that they know will get a “rise”.
There was no sense for the nation’s taxpayers to subsidize every local government’s fiscal irresponsibility. Paying their payroll for six months, when they haven’t cured the problem, just means that six months later they’ll be looking for another federal handout for the next six months… or they will again lay off police and firemen. Its a predictable and vicious cycle.
My suggestion to the locals? Hang your local politicians, their pensions and their staff, out to dry instead. They are more expendable than your law enforcement and fire personnel. But stop looking to the nation’s taxpayer to bail out your idiot elected bozos.
Provide links to something substantiating this claim that the stimulus prevented layoffs in the police & fire ranks.
@rich wheeler: I’m not selling anything, just stating my opinion.
@MataHarley: I trust the GOP no more than I trust the lib/prog scum.
That’s why I call today’s republicans “republicrats.” They have taken on so much of the democrat’s agenda it is hard to tell them apart.
I want the military to be funded first. I also want them to be the biggest, baddest, and best trained in the world so that others will know not to mess with them. I also want them taken care of like they should be.
Ditto in all aspects, Smorgasbord
BTW, rich…. you and family on Tricare?
@Greg: I have never understood why I have to help pay for debts cities incur. Large cities have millions of people who should be able to take care of themselves. The larger the city, the more corruption that is possible. You even have city employees who don’t show up for work but still get a paycheck and medical coverage.
I can understand all of us helping pay for highways and other infrastructure that all of us use.
MH, I was going on memory….not a good thing at my age.
LOL.
The actual exchange was between Sen McCain and Sec Defense Gates…….
SEN. MCCAIN: Secretary Gates, this survey says nearly 60 percent of respondents in the Marine Corps and Army combat arms say they believe there would be a negative impact on their units’ effectiveness in this context. Among Marine combat arms, the number was 67 percent. Nearly 60 percent of the Army combat arms soldiers and 66.5 — two- thirds of the Marine Corps combat armed troops, voiced these concerns about repeal.
……..
Within the combat units of the Army and Marine Corps, the numbers are alarming.
Twelve point six percent of the overall military force responded to the survey say they’ll leave the military sooner than they had planned.
Twenty-one point four percent of Army combat troops indicate they will leave the force earlier.
In the Marine Corps, that number jumps to 32 percent, nearly a third of all Marine Corps combat arms force, which is probably why the service chiefs, particularly the commandant of the Marine Corps, is, quote, in your words, “less sanguine” than you are about this issue.
Also, if they left the — this 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned.
SEC. GATES: …..you have the reality, they can’t just up and leave. They have enlistment contracts. The officers have contracts in terms of the amount of time they have to serve. And so it isn’t like they can just say, well, I’m out of here. They are going to have to complete their obligation.
Transcript is here among other spots:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/12/sen_mccain_defense_sec_gates_j.html
Unfortunately I can’t find the older quote which had a top member of Obama’s team telling someone that if military men and women don’t think they can serve under DADT they can leave.
But I think I posted it here….somewhere.
Thanks for the transcript link, Nan. And boy do I know that “memory at my age” bit… LOL
I don’t know where McCain gets his polling stats. It’s not volunteered in the transcripts either. Since I’m not much of a poll person, I tend to look at polling as exactly what it is… meaning that an “x” percentage of those participants in the poll said that. So 60 to 67 percent of the polled respondents make that comment. Well… how many did they ask? What were their positions within the military? And what percentage of the total military community did the respondents comprise?
I still find it questionable that, in 2011, so many young adults may harbor such an attitude INRE sexual preference. Certainly if they are not of that flavor themselves, they do not want to suffer unwanted advances. But I still find it hard to believe that over 260,000 young adults, between 18 and 25 years old, refuse to function in their chosen military career because there are gays in their environment. Nor do I believe that gays enlist in the military thinking of it as an idyllic dating pool, a “match.com” so to speak. It just doesn’t compute for our societal indoctrination.
But, as I said… I really have an open mind. The stats quoted don’t compute, but I really don’t know. I can only go by those I know serving now… and DADT or not, it just isn’t that much of an issue. If a peer starts volunteering “too much information” in a one on one, they just sack their sorry azz…. LOL
Really can’t comment on the poll numbers and the data, but the time I was in…if someone in my unit was gay, that wouldn’t of gone over well with the rank and file. We are talking about 18-20 year old males here and no way would we want someone gay sharing a foxhole with us. Showering with us. Bunking with us. Were their gays serving with us who we didn’t know about? No idea, didn’t ask. But if we KNEW he was gay then there would of been a problem. There will be a problem in today’s military. All this PC crap can be shoved back into the ass of those pushing it (pun intended).
Mata I use my V.A. coverage exclusively and love it.My wife 47 is covered through her employment.
Tricare seems to be relatively inexpensive No?
@Curt, allow me to add to your links request that they aren’t some Obama soaring rhetoric speech, but actual stimulus funds spending that is verifiable. More lip flap from “duh one” we don’t need.
@rich wheeler, don’t know how “relatively inexpensive” Tricare will be after this. However the families can hold out some hope because Congress would have to approve this cut, I believe. That, of course, puts everyone on notice for the typical “GOP DOESN’T WANT TO CUT SPENDING” spin. There are cuts that should be done, and cuts that should not.
Go for the bureaucrats, and leave our military and families alone.
@Curt, that’s up to 20,000 cut to the Marines… Twice as bad as you thought.
I’m just at a loss for words. I only served under Reagan, thank god, but lived through the Carter years and the Clinton years. Never thought it would get worse then those years and here we are. Worse then I ever thought possible. I’m glad all those conservatives stayed home and didn’t vote out of principal now.
If you didn’t catch that, there should be a sarcasm tag at the end of that sentence.
Time to Cut the Military Budgets…
China’s New Fighter Jet Could Pose ‘Terrifying’ Challenge to U.S. Fleet
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/07/chinas-new-fighter-jet-pose-terrifying-challenge-fleet/
**************************************************************************
While the Pentagon downplays China’s rollout this week of what appears to be a jet fighter designed using sophisticated stealth technology, military experts are warning that the aircraft – reportedly capable of besting America’s F-22 in speed and maneuverability – could pose the greatest threat yet to U.S. air superiority.
Decorated Navy fighter pilot Matthew “Whiz” Buckley, a Top Gun graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School who flew 44 combat missions over Iraq, says, “It’s probably leaps and bounds above where we are, and that’s terrifying.”
“As a former Navy fighter pilot, going up against something that’s stealthy, highly maneuverable and with electronic systems more capable than mine — that’ll keep me up at night,” said Buckley, now chief strategy officer at Fox3 Options LLC.
Buckley said photos posted online of the radar-evading Chengdu J-20 jet fighter lead him to believe the aircraft has great stealth capabilities, based on what appears to be a bumpy exterior possibly housing stealth technology, and the lack of external components, such as a gas tank and missiles.
“It was built to reduce radar signatures. You can tell it has some serious stealth technology,” he said. “My F-18 looks like an 18-wheeler on radar. That thing might not even show up.”
The U.S. military’s current top-of-the-line fighter is Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor, the world’s only operational fifth generation fighter. In 2009, Congress capped production of F-22s at 18, relying on the cheaper F-35. Congress does not appear to be reconsidering the cap, which experts call the only real challenger to China’s J-20.
Richard Fisher, a senior fellow on Asian Military Affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a Washington-based security think tank, says Chinese officials have said that their program is aimed at competing with the F-22 Raptor.
“From what we can see, I conclude that this aircraft does have great potential to be superior in some respects to the American F-22, and could be decisively superior to the F-35,” said Fisher.
Fisher in particular pointed to the Chengdu J-20’s stealth technology and ability to super cruise, or fly supersonically without using fuel-guzzling afterburners. He said it has super maneuverability due to its thrust-vectored engines that allow for sharp turns.
And while the J-20’s engine is still in development, Fisher said it’s supposed to deliver 15 to 18 tons of thrust, more powerful than the F-22.
“This fighter will likely start entering service in serious numbers by the end of this decade. The Chinese can accelerate this event by purchasing new Russian engines and settling for a lesser capability,” Fisher said.
Experts say it’s hard to say exactly what the J-20’s capabilities are, especially in a fire fight — but offered a dire prediction: “With China having a fifth generation fighter, the U.S. will lose F-22s faster than previous estimates.”
As for the J-20 pilots, Fisher said the Chinese Air Force has over 500 fourth generation fighters and is making pilot training a priority.
.
“China’s air training capabilities have increased greatly over the last decade, to include multiple levels of aircraft, better simulators, and more realistic air combat exercises. They will be able to train pilots for their fifth generation combat force,” Fisher said.
Buckley says the U.S. has moved in the opposite direction, dramatically reducing flight-time training for its fighter pilots, choosing instead to use cheaper flight stimulators.
Limiting F-22 production could prove a grave mistake, Fisher said.
Referring to the J-20 photos — and a new video of the fighter taxiing on a runway — Fisher said: “There is now every justification for us to be building modernized version of F-22 and to consider capability enhancements for the F-35 that preserve its competitiveness into next decade.”
The next generation joint strike fighter is supposed to be the F-35, Buckley said, which is built for use by all services and must encompass the specific and different needs of the Navy, Air Force, Marines.
“When you try to make a jack of all trades, you have tradeoffs,” Buckley said. “It’s obvious that the Chinese are throwing money and technology to making something the best, and here we’re worried that one is going to bankrupt the country.”
“We used be No. 1 at having the leading technology. … Now, we’re kind of in catch-up mode, where we’ve never really been before.”
*******************************************************************************
ABSOLUTELY TIME TO CUT BACK ON THE BUDGETS…..
YUP, BRILLIANT!!!!! (As per Usual…)
@Old Trooper 2, don’t know if this is pertinent, but they sacked the amphibious EFV transport and transferred the funds to the JSF instead (or as they sorta refer to as the F-35 in some form?).
But they did delay delivery on about 24 of them for the budget concerns. With the few they are taking delivery on, at least some of those pilots have a chance…..
Clowns to the left, jokers in Oval office. Here I am, stuck in the middle with the rest of the nation.
@MataHarley: #22
Well… how many did they ask? What were their positions within the military? And what percentage of the total military community did the respondents comprise?
I also want to see the “exact” questions.
@Old Trooper 2: #26
What really bothers me is that Americans are paying for the Chinese aircraft and their military by doing business with them. I don’t buy any more Chinese stuff than I have to, but with them making about 1/2 of the world’s products and them being the only manufacturer of a lot of the products, you HAVE to buy some of their stuff.
@Curt: #27
My son has been serving for about 17 years. I knew he couldn’t say anything negative about Clinton, but I asked about the cuts Clinton made to the military and he politely said that he couldn’t comment about it. This was probably one reason he once got Airman Of The Year.
@MataHarley: According to US Air Force Pilots that have flown both the F-22 and F-35, the F-22 is the superior Fighter. The F-35 was a Concept that some DOD Nimrods wanted because they wanted an A/C that could be placed into service for Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps Fighter Wings as a cost savings and for “Simplicity” of manufacture. The F-35 JSF was designed and conceived on that notion. It is not as advanced an A/C as the F-22 as a true Fighter. Each Service has different needs and roles but the DOD Nimrods did not listen to the advice of the individual Services on that so they are stuck with adapting to the F-35 as a lesser A/C.
In regards to the claims of waste or bloat in the Military, the place to get out the AXE, not a Scalpel, is within the DOD Civilian Management. There is still a lot of Clinton RESIDUE there. The same folks that denied Light Armor to US Forces in Somalia and we all know how keen that worked out for Rangers and Delta Spec Operators. Further, there was no Naval Air Support there because the presence of an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group was viewed as the UN as “intimidating” so one was not sent. No life saving close Air Support available either. Outcome…Predictable.
Despite our Multipurpose Expert on All Things, Mr. Para Legal’s talking points as per usual are neither relevant, well informed or anything more than LIB/PROG talking points. He has neither the background or specific knowledge required to comment intelligently on Military Readiness, Military Budgets or has ever served at Any Level within the Military or DOD. I disregard any of his commentary as it comes off as LIB/PROG gossip/talking points anyway.
Now, what if FDR had told Europe to just Liberate itself in 1941, or told Japan that America had been arrogant and disrespectful and they have His Apology?
Obama is a Failure in Foreign and Domestic Policy. Cutting back on Forces that were too small anyway is the height of Stupidity. Our Forces have seen repeated Deployments, some Service Members as many as FIVE to Iraq and Afghanistan because the Force was too Small. I am not a fan of Rumsfeld or Gates as they stuck with “Do more With Less” that obviously has not provided the desired result in either Theater. The State Department Oafs have failed at Diplomacy so there is no Diplomatic solution that worked either.
The Current Pay Raise for US Armed Forces is an insult. Raises on TRICARE Premiums are another way to show Service Members that this Congress and Administration despises the Military. During the Carter years, a great many Service Member Families were on Food Stamps due to that Regimes Budgetary measures. That may happen again.
I am just amazed at this gesture of gratitude from Congress and the Obama Regime on the FY Pay & Benefit package. Cutting down the Force is stupid and inexcusable. Unless of course You desire the Republic to be a Second or Third rate World Power. If that is the Goal, Obama is right on Target!
Now as a footnote, has the cost of an Aircraft Carrier Battle group “yachting” off the coast of India for the Pretenders escapade in India been documented? Was that part of the Military Budget that was well spent?
Lets be serious here Folks… Even the British Royal Navy has tightened up the belt on Naval Exercises and plan fewer deployments of their Aircraft Carriers in light of the costs. Just Who is the Fool here and Who is being Fooled by Whom?
I am neither the Fool or the Fooled.
Thanks for this stellar write up Mata, just when we have been trying to build up our forces, bam. Did we not just go through years of lefty congress critters complaining about deployments and attempted to mess with R&R …. attempting to thwart war fighting capability? Were there not complaints that our forces were not being built up fast enough, accusations that the Bush administration were not doing enough recruiting even though the numbers were always reached?
Now, nevermind.
BTW, Jim Webbs thoughts…………cut forces not benefits:
Wonder how that’s going to fly in Virginia? Isn’t he up for re-elect in 12?
@Old Trooper 2: #32
For many years I have thought that the president should not be able to decide military issues on his own. Whatever he/she wants done should go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to decide if it could be done, then decide how, not to do it just because one person wants it done.
Blackhawk Down is a perfect example. I don’t remember who it was that convinced the president to go in after one person in a daytime raid. Since it was going to be such a simple operation, no backup was included in the operation. You remember the result.
The Current Pay Raise for US Armed Forces is an insult.
My son went through the Clinton no pay raises for several years. I still remember reading that some of our military were housed in buildings that had been condemned and that a lot of them qualified for Food Stamps.
Obama is a Failure in Foreign and Domestic Policy. Cutting back on Forces that were too small anyway is the height of Stupidity.
You keep forgetting who’s side our King-in-Chief is on. He wants HIS side to win.
Raises on TRICARE Premiums are another way to show Service Members that this Congress and Administration despises the Military.
Remember how Obama wanted wounded soldiers to have THEIR medical insurance pay for their care? First off, that isn’t in the policy, so they aren’t going to pay for it. If it would have been changed so that new members joining the service would have to carry their own insurance, did Obama expect them to pay the premiums themselves? I am guessing yes.
Since insurance rates are based on amounts paid out, the ones on the front lines would be paying the highest rates. This would lead to a list of the different rates for the different MOSs. I can’t see anyone signing up for front line MOSs once they see how much there insurance premiums would be.
The good thing about the military being under private insurance companies is that they would probably get a lot better care than a lot of vets are getting in some VA hospitals. I have been hearing horror stories where some vets are just laying in bead waiting to die.
Cutting down the Force is stupid and inexcusable. Unless of course You desire the Republic to be a Second or Third rate World Power. If that is the Goal, Obama is right on Target!
What do you mean, “If?” What more does he have to do to prove how he feels about OUR military?
You are one of the few people who call the USA the republic that it is. I have written to many propaganda news media and asked them why they call the USA a democracy and have yet to get an answer back from any of them. You know why they do. Try this with your local propaganda media and see if you do better than I did.
This crap all started with Clinton. Bush brought the force levels up a bit. Now we have the Commie in the White House. Hell, there are more deer hunters in Pennsylvania than combat soldiers in the Army and Marines combined and that Commie bastard wants to cut forces in the middle of an armed conflict. Want to make some real cuts? Eliminate the Dept of ED, Housing and Urban Development, Dept of Energy, EPA and Dept of Interior. Why in hell do we still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs? Give the land to the tribes and make them pay taxes. Eliminate pensions for civilian govt employees and have them pay in to social security like everyone else. Initiate a flat tax, eliminate the present tax structure and the IRS can be phased out. Gates has no balls. Needs to stand up to Obama and listen to the field. If not resign now. Don’t think Tricare will get hurt much; MOAA and other groups have a lot of sway. Those in Congress who would vote to reduce military health care have to only look at the recent election to see what their fate would be if they voted wrong.
It’s no wonder that the Democrats were upset over the reading of the Constitution at the opening session of the House. The first and foremost duty of the government is to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. Which the Democrats are doing the exact opposite and don’t want to be reminded of it. A weak military is the first step to a weak country and that makes it ripe for attact from anybody that don’t like us. We need a strong offense not a weak defense.
@minuteman26: #36
Why in hell do we still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs? Give the land to the tribes and make them pay taxes.
They kept every treaty they signed with us. We broke every one. Now, you are saying you want us to break the last one we made with them and take the last land we gave them. That is Native American land, not American land.
Eliminate pensions for civilian govt employees and have them pay in to social security like everyone else.
What should have been done with all government and private retirement accounts is to do it like a 401(k) where the money goes into each person’s account and they decide how to invest it.
Clark Howard, the radio talk show host, said that if a person would put $2,000 per year in a Wroth IRA account starting at age 15 and did it for only 7 years, then left the money in it and didn’t add any more, using the average for the stock market from its beginning, they would have $1,000,000 in the account at age 65. If anyone has kids in that age bracket, think about them having $1,000,000 for a $14,000 investment. Anyone who knows how to estimate how much would be in a person’s retirement account if all of their Social Security money had been put in it all of their lives, please let me know what your estimate is.
The problem is it would be money the politicians can’t get their hands on, and you wouldn’t be depending on the government for your retirement.
Initiate a flat tax….
I could go along with that, but if you haven’t read The Fair Tax book, I suggest you do. It’s a better way. It’s a Federal sales tax and you pay your taxes every time you buy something NEW. No tax forms to fill out, and even the illegals will pay into it when they buy something. With the Flat Tax you would still need a collection agency (IRS). I call it the Income Redistribution Service, and you would still have to fill out tax forms, and the politicians could still come up with tax deductions.
MISSY Gates built Marines from 175,00 to 202,000 between 2006-2010 and reduution by 2015 would be to 182,000 to 187,ooo.Jim Webb up for re-election in 2012.Expect he’ll win big.
Exit question How’s Scott Brown working out so far?
INRE military armed forces strength numbers worldwide, I found some of the history back to 1990s on the DOD site.
In Sept 1994, 20 months into Clinton’s first term:
Army: 541,343
Marines: 174,158
In Dec 2000, at the end of Clinton’s CiC terms:
Army: 476,488.. a cut of 64,855
Marines: 171,676…a cut of 2,482
By March 2004, a year after we entered Iraq:
Army: 493,816
Marines: 175,616
When Gates assumed his appointed position as SoD in December of 2006, these are the troop levels he started with:
Army: 502,466
Marines: 178,477
As of September, 2010, troop strength was:
Army: 566,045… a growth of 63,579
Marines: 202,441… a growth of 23,964
Apparently, to paraphrase, what Gates “giveth” to the Marines, he now wishes to take away…
Reduction of Army by 27,000 takes us to 539,045, or about 62,500 higher than it was in pre 911 years, and before the US was engaged in two battlefronts.
Reduction of the Marines by 20,000 takes us to 182,441, or only 10,765 more than pre 911 years, and before the US was engaged in two battlefronts.
In historic context relating to other times of active conflict, there were 300,000 Marines in 1965 during the Vietnam war. During the Korean War in 1951, there were 192,000 Marines.
Considering there are two battlefronts, we are low in military personnel compared to other American conflicts on foreign soil, not “bloated” as Billy Bob suggests. Considering the fragile state of the int’l community (NK/SK, Iran, etc), and the still active battlefronts, these cuts are irresponsible.
And we will be considerably lower when Obama and Gates get through. But fear not… we’ll have plenty of health care bureaucrat paperpushers with a bloated HHS.
Cut funds to foreign military aid first. Slim the bureaucratic paperpushes and their pensions at the Pentagon… that place is long overdue for purging, as OT notes above. I leave the choices of which weaponry programs to alter or abandon to the brass and those more knowledgeable. But going for the heart and jugular of the military with personnel cuts at this time, plus raising their family health insurance premiums, is indicative of very dangerous leadership at the helm. At least when Clinton and the GOP Congress were slashing away, we were not actively engaged long term and only had to deal with Clinton’s hit and run wars.
Again, can anyone say *jobs lost*? Chalk this up to another Obama’s “will not rest” until he creates… er… slashes more jobs, as he did with the oil rigs and associated dependent businesses in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon.
Let’s not forget that when they downsized the military in the ’90’s we were told numerous times by the administration and those in charge of the military that despite the cuts the military was easily capable of fighting two regional conflicts at the same time- Iraq and North Korea. The two regional conflicts we are engaged in now- Iraq and Afghanistan, strained our military and they required far less troops than Iraq and North Korea would have required. That’s one of the reasons I believe a some of those Clinton era generals like Shalaskavili opposed the war in Iraq because it would prove their assertions in the ’90’s to be grossly wrong meaning they either lied to the American people or were so far off in their assessments that they were incompetent. The military can definitely cut costs by cutting waste but training, readiness, personnel, and logistics are not the places to start and unfortunately that is where the cuts usually do start. Look at history and you’ll see that it costs lives on the battlefield.
Army is at least 3 combat divisions short. Marine Corps needs 1 more active division. Air Force and Navy would also need a boost to support said increase.
BTW, also railing about the unmitigated stupidity of these cuts in a time of war, and our already dangerously low levels in relation to committments is Max Boot in his Weekly Standard edition article, “A Farewell To Arms”.
Re: The DADT military polling.
The questionnaires were NOT returned by all.
Of those who did return them those in COMBAT were the highest level opposed to the repeal of DADT.
Those who worked in desk jobs really wanted DADT repealed.
The raw data was out there a while back, but I’m having a tough time finding it today.
@Nan G:
I believe if there had been a poll asking if current military members wanted DADT to be repealed by congress and implemented by the military, or repealed by Anthony Kennedy and forced on the military, they would pick congress and implementation by the military. I was in the Air Force from 79 to 90, no one really cared, even back then. As long as you kept to yourself and most people did, homosexual and heterosexual alike. The military has pretty tough standards regarding public displays of affection. They are of course pretty lax when it comes to farewells and reunions, but otherwise kissing and even holding hands in uniform is frowned upon, at least when I was in.
@rich wheeler:
Tricare may be relatively inexpensive, so what? Why is it that libs get all giddy with cuts to the military, but scream bloody murder when someone like Chris Christie tries to cut public empolyee union benefits. So you believe public employees should pay little or nothing to their benefit packages, and have to pay little or nothing for their healthcare when they retire. Yet the military is fair game?
I think defense spending is out of control, but not as it pertains to the size of our forces, or the equipment we need. Defense spending is out of control because of the bidding procedures, the incredible waste, and the ignorant way budgets are handled. Squadrons had to spend the money in their budget or the next year they will get a reduced budget. What idiot came up with that idea?
@MataHarley: #40
One minor point: 911 is for the police. 9/11 or 9-11 refers to the World Trade Center.
Let’s not forget that Clinton also reduced the intelligence gathering agencies so much that they had to pull agents out around the world. We had two agents in Iraq at that time and they both were called back. Because of the reduction in agents around the world, we had to depend more on other country’s information.
The Navy’s tanker fleet was cut in half. One person told me he is former Navy and that ships are not fueled in port. They are fueled out to sea for safety. Is this true? His point was that if the Navy had the amount of tankers they wanted the Cole would have been fueled out to sea like it should have been and it wouldn’t have been bombed.
In trying to find info about fueling the Cole I found a site that the commander of the Cole wrote. He wrote a profile of each victim:
http://www.timjacobs.com/america_uss_cole.htm
This from the Blog of a Retired Army SGM that I have met:
http://www.jdpendry.com/2011/01/08/destruction-of-the-warrior-culture/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JDPendry+%28JDs+Bunker%29
Destruction of the Warrior Culture
***************************************************************************
Accurate and On Target from an Old War Dog…an Infantry Top Soldier…
@Aqua: #45
The military has pretty tough standards regarding public displays of affection.
I remember the propaganda media saying George Bush kept ships off shore for a few days instead of letting the sailors come to port so he could have his famous aircraft carrier landing, only to find out it is standard Navy procedure that when a fleet comes in they all come in together. Some ships weren’t there yet, so, like they always do, the other ships waited for them.
you really are uninformed, i can not believe you have as little knowledge as you do and want to make comments about the military health care? have you ever been in it? or are you spouting like most people do when they haven’t a clue what they are talking about. don’t bother to answer this i will consider it delivered to the wrong e mail.@B-Rob:
So, just too really piss off people. The superiors of Military esp. Marines are finding very tasteless, unethical and un-American ways to reduce Marine personnel, as a way to help the cuts. They are putting up new orders and not alerting their younger Marines to these orders. For example: They used tell new Marines, new orders and actually used to stop them in there steps to question them to see if they have memorized them according to codes. This happened constantly as recently as year of 2009. Recently, since yr. 2010 the superiors stopped telling their new Marines new orders and keep the fact of new orders very light to knowledge. The Marine may even be deployed when the new orders come about, so they have not chance of knowing unless they are told. So, when a marine goes against an order that they had no knowledge of, they are giving them general discharges, not counseling and a chance, but throwing them out with nothing, real quick. When they come back from deployment, do they really have new orders on their mind or do they have the new tasks given at hand on their mind. If the new orders were so important to the superiors, they would have made sure they were told them, think about it. They don’t want them to know, purposeful deceit and omission. If they really cared about their deployed personnel, they would be trying to make the returning Military’s transition as smooth as possible.
So, not only does the marine loose all VA benefits, GI bills and etc (Saving money). They also loose their chances in life to have a successful career. They loose ability to pay for school. Even if they move to a state like Texas that give all Vets with honorable discharges free education, that marine can’t get it. And that is the thanks Marines and other military groups get for serving their country. Ruining that military person’s life over simple a budget cuts. And to make this expectable, among their peers, the superiors are using the tactic of divide and conquer, to get other Marines to have agreement on these discharges not knowing the whole story (until it is them ). When these orders loose it’s discharge ability, be sure they will create another quiet order and discharge some more military. Is this the American way? And can we as a nation hold our heads up with this knowledge, I think not. It makes me feel shame and anger to know Americans are doing this to fellow Americans. Because the Military are Americans last time I looked. This is a shame of Congress, Democrats and Republicans and the White House if they are turning a blind eye to this. Yes, I know all civilian careers have layoffs, but this career choice is different. The Military put their life at risk for their country, real different.
There are other ways to reduce military budget, then to ruin a person’s life. Offer any military person an honorable discharge with half GI Bill. Therefore payment of salaries, feeding and housing of that Military will go and they will be putting out less for GI bills. There are many Military personnel that would take this offer, simple. Especially the young ones, they would move back home with their parents, get health benefits through their parents (because of the age increase to how long a dependent can be one their benefits). They will have a little money to go to school, find new careers, their reputation, self-esteem will be intact. This is a better solution than the Superior military using fragrant tactics of deception to save their own job. Instead of saying, better you then me. Just get the cuts honestly, so that no one gets hurt. Care about your fellow American and hold your head up, knowing that you did the right thing. As for us, let all know we are aware and let’s stick together and fight for those that fight for us.
OLD TROOPER 2 , hi,
was said, HANG ON WITH THE WARRIOR CULTURE WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT’
I SAY, YES WITH WHAT IS GOING ON, THEY WILL NEED TO BE KICKED OUT,
AND THE WARRIORS WILL BE CALLED UPON TO DO THE JOB, TO SAVE THE CITIZENS
FROM THEIR OWN LEADERS INCOMPETANCE AND THEIR BELEIVERS AND ACCOMPLICES
IN THEIR OWN PARTY.
SMORGASBORD< hi, yes they should give their land back to the INDIANS TRIBES, and why should they pay taxes on the lands that belong to them before the americans moved in, it does'nt take away the fact
that they own it still today.
I just want the guys in DC to answer me one question:
How come the congress and the president are so quick to hack the military and other agencies but do not seem to make cuts in their pay and government goodies?
It seems like they would lead the charge in that manner. What do I know…I’m just your adverage black man from Chicago who served in the Navy for 23 years.
Jarome, hi SR, you have it completly pin down in my views also, they have many
ways to show restraint, and did not even consider it, they have been dining on the peoples money,
and now they should dig in their pocket before telling the AMERICANS what to do,
usualy in a company, It’s a top executive to go when the chips are low, and the ones who sweath under stay, what about the army of lawers they need to get them around the CONSTITUTION’s laws of the land,
the militarys should have the best to carry on the task they put their life on the line
to keep AMERICA safe, and free, and the ELDERLY AND VETERANS need some recognition to what
they contribute previously, bye
As a Vietnam Era Vet we need the military to keep our country safe FROM ALL ENEMIES not just one or the other, so getting rid of the military is a very bad idea. But, what is even worse is have a civilian military like Obama suggested, because then we have mercenaries protecting our country and all it would take is for an enemy to pay them twice or three times more than we are and they would take over the country.
And, before you say the military is bound to one man or woman, I will say this, when you take the oath upon entry into the armed forces we do not pledge our allegiance to any one person, but to the constitution of the untied states of america.
Any civilian military we might get is only in it for the money and that would not be a good thing for anyone.
Anya Marie McDonal, hi,
yes you are, and the intent behind the civil army would probably not be for a good of all americans, but for the good of a special outside class of citizens that will never assimilate because of their ultimate
dedicatition to their ancestral commands which are to conquer the whole world and submit it to their own laws of servitude by killing those who resist, as we are now observing in the MIDDLE EAST
MANY INSURGENCYS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRYS, TO GAIN POWER BY DIRECTING THE REVOLTS OF THE PEOPLE BY FORCE, THAT IS SPREADING INSINUASLY TO WESTERN COUNTRYS AS WE ARE SEEING NOW EVOLVING
BYE