Deep Cuts’ Coming to U.S. Army

[Mycroft]

I will ask you one more time...

What level of military spending (budget size) do you want for America?

And whatever that level is - do you have ANY links to unbiased, factual proof that that level is required to justify the expenses that you want?

I want whatever level is necessary to ensure that our soldier's ability to engage in the actions they are ordered to undertake is possible without needlessly putting their lives at risk. I'll leave it to the experts to determine that amount.

What I DON'T want is to cut military spending solely for the purpose of cutting government spending. There are other, better ways to reduce the size, scope and power of the government, which I've suggested.

 

[Mycroft]

Honor and expand commitments to veterans, and reduce the military to peacetime levels. Then, if we need to scale it up in time of war, we enact wartime tax rates to pay for it. If the desire is to have a constant wartime military, then wartime tax rates need to be in place permanently. We can't have it both ways.

Actually, we can...and should...have a military capable of responding rapidly to threats...without a special wartime tax rate. Our government spends entirely too much money on other things that aren't even mandated by our Constitution. Let's reduce that stuff before we ax something that is mandated.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Here's where they can cut:

Stop putting ailing soldiers through the same battering ram of tests - over and over and over.

My husband wasn't diagnosed until he was sent to the new - state of the art - Center of Excellence (technically: NICoE) in DC last year. There he had a team of 8 doctors give tests every day for a month to determine what he ailments really were. And you know what? They diagnosed him - with neurological and other physical ailments - most of which are manageable with medications.

Upon returning home, though, to go through the process of retiring out - he was sent to Oklahoma (long story short). There - they had the 30 page report of his ailments and what they were which was written up by NICoE. Only - they didn't 'trust' the reported health issues as was worked up by some of the top specilialists in the military medical field. Instead - Ft. Hood, and then Ft. Sill - and not Camp Robinson . . . are all REPEATING the same TESTS over and over.

They repeated all the tests in Texas: same results.
They repeated all the tests in Oklahoma: same results.
They're GOING to repeat all the tests in Arkansas: Let me make a prediction: same results.

Blood pressure monitoring
Sleep studies
Physical therapy
Memory studies and therapy
Cognitive relations testing
Heart monitoring
Medications - trials and errors (nevermind that constantly swapping is BAD for him)
Chronic migraine treatment - trials and errors (nevermind that we already KNOW what treats this best)

I CRINGE at the cost of his healthcare - going to the NICoE last year cost a pretty taxpayer penny (thank you for yoru contribution) - and that was after several years of local doctors failing to diagnose anything. (hah - funny, hunh, that they now think they can be trusted and thus do the routine tests).

Quit it!

He's been diagnosed - at the cost of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS - and considering his injuries and surgeries - I dare say his healthcare since returning from Iraq probably has nudged close to a million dollars by now.

Adding onto the healthcare costs alone are: transportation, liaisons to take him around, travel for him and me (kids too - to visit) . . . and so on.

After a year of being away from home - he is FINALLY back (yeah!) but he's going, again, through all the same stuff. . . they'll keep up this expensive song and dance until his military retirement comes through. For that - they say we're half way done with the process. That means we have 4 or 5 more months of that to go - maybe more.



No one wants to cut healthcare costs or give sub-par treatment . . . but their compulsive need to redo everything when they're proven inferior is pathetic and highly costly. They should improve their treatment and care from the start - then maybe they wouldn't have to spend millions to administer the same tests.

Calculate that **** and smoke it. :roll:

 

[cpwill]

What sea lanes did you have in mind?

And defend them from who exactly?

The existence of global supply chains relies on global free sea lanes which are a public good provided by the U.S. In the US Navy's absence, regional powers reassert themselves. So, roughly, Malaysia, China, Iran, plus a world full of asymetric actors.

 

[DA60]

The existence of global supply chains relies on global free sea lanes which are a public good provided by the U.S. In the US Navy's absence, regional powers reassert themselves. So, roughly, Malaysia, China, Iran, plus a world full of asymetric actors.

So, you want the U.S. Navy to have the capability - on her own - to single-handedly keep ALL the world's sea lanes open?

Great Britain tried to - more or less - do that during the 19'th century; and look what happened to that empire.

America cannot afford such luxuries any longer - just look at the national debt/deficit.


As far as I am concerned, the only sea lanes the Navy should worry about are the east to Europe, the west/southwest to Japan/Australia and the south to northern South/Central America.

And, imo, 6 carrier strike groups should be able to easily do that.


The middle east is none of America's business - barely a fifth of US oil imports come from the Persian Gulf.

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports


And as for America's allies - it's time they took care of themselves.

That includes Israel, Saudi Arabia and South Korea (though a nuclear deterrence probably should stay in place with the latter - but no troops).

 

[DA60]

I want whatever level is necessary to ensure that our soldier's ability to engage in the actions they are ordered to undertake is possible without needlessly putting their lives at risk. I'll leave it to the experts to determine that amount.

What I DON'T want is to cut military spending solely for the purpose of cutting government spending. There are other, better ways to reduce the size, scope and power of the government, which I've suggested.

So you whine about liberals wanting to cut the military budget - but you give zero indication what you think that budget should be.

Okaaaaaay.

 

[cpwill]

So, you want the U.S. Navy to have the capability - on her own - to single-handedly keep ALL the world's sea lanes open?

Plus a surge capability to handle a crises in the littorals.

Great Britain tried to do that during the 19'th century - and look what happened to that empire.

A tiny island became the greatest power the world had ever seen and global GDP exploded?

A better answer might be: what was global trade like before the British Navy ruled the sea's generally unopposed?

America cannot afford such luxuries any longer.

:shrug: the economic collapse following the inability to secure sea lanes would reduce revenues more than the savings would reduce expenditures and we would find ourselves worse off.

As far as I am concerned, the only sea lanes the Navy should worry about are the east to Europe, the west to eastern Asia and the south to northern South/Central America.

And, imo, 6 carrier strike groups should be able to easily do that.

Well, we need to be able to secure against the PLAN and the PLAAF as well as the PLA artillery, not to mention secure the Malaysian/Indonesian Straits, as well as the Persian Gulf, while retaining the ability to respond to crises. So that's 5 Carrier Groups deployed. You need a three part cycle - deployment / refit / training, so now you have a requirement for 15 Carrier Groups. Currently we have 11, so we rob Peter to pay Paul, and hope that Iran, China, and smaller asymetric actors all have a secret agreement to take turns being provocative rather than trying to take advantage of the chaos the others create.

The middle east is none of America's business - barely a fifth of US oil imports come from the Persian Gulf.

Oil is fungible and the market is global. The idea that serious U.S. oil spikes would not occur should the Persian Gulf get closed or seriously threatened is simply untenable.

And I could care less about America's allies - it's time they took care of themselves.

That includes Israel, Saudi Arabia and South Korea (though a nuclear deterrence probably should stay in place with the latter - but no troops).

Yeah.... that's a really..... bad..... idea.....

 

[DA60]

A tiny island became the greatest power the world had ever seen and global GDP exploded?

Oh come on now - you know perfectly well that I meant what happened to it as in how did it end up?

Or are you honestly saying that you thought I meant 'what was it like at it's height of power'?

Yes or no, please?

Well, we need to be able to secure against the PLAN and the PLAAF as well as the PLA artillery, not to mention secure the Malaysian/Indonesian Straits, as well as the Persian Gulf, while retaining the ability to respond to crises. So that's 5 Carrier Groups deployed. You need a three part cycle - deployment / refit / training, so now you have a requirement for 15 Carrier Groups.

Define 'need' please?

And do you have links to unbiased, factual evidence that America 'needs' all that you state?

 

[Mycroft]

So you whine about liberals wanting to cut the military budget - but you give zero indication what you think that budget should be.

Okaaaaaay.

Zero indication? Perhaps you have a reading deficiency?

 

[Helix]

Actually, we can...and should...have a military capable of responding rapidly to threats...without a special wartime tax rate. Our government spends entirely too much money on other things that aren't even mandated by our Constitution. Let's reduce that stuff before we ax something that is mandated.

we aren't Sparta. i think it's an exceptionally poor idea to remove social safety nets in exchange for funding a continuous state of war.

in times of war, everyone needs to sacrifice. margins should be significantly higher. it will fully fund the military, and it will also have a side benefit of reducing public appetite for a constant state of war.

 

[DA60]

Zero indication? Perhaps you have a reading deficiency?

So you stating 'I'll leave it to the experts to determine that amount' - is your answer to what level you think the defense budget should be?

Noted.


Have a nice day.

 

[OscarB63]

classic. rinse and repeat. liberal POTUS guts the military. **** kicks off somewhere and the military is under prepared and equipped. Soldiers get sent in and die needlessly because they don't have body armor or armored vehicles.

 

[Mycroft]

classic. rinse and repeat. liberal POTUS guts the military. **** kicks off somewhere and the military is under prepared and equipped. Soldiers get sent in and die needlessly because they don't have body armor or armored vehicles.

My point exactly.

In the meantime, more and more citizens find themselves dependent upon the every growing entitlement spending the liberals love so much.

 

[washunut]

My point exactly.

In the meantime, more and more citizens find themselves dependent upon the every growing entitlement spending the liberals love so much.

More likely we lose are technological edge and wind up with the result you mention. Let's remember in Libya we did not even have to send troops, just planes and cruise missels. If/when we lose this edge, America will understand that the ostrich strategy will not work any better in the 21st century than it did in the 20th century.

 

[Drake McHugh]

Slash, slash, slash! Just what I like to see!

We don't need to be the police of the world. We can't afford that ****. Let's focus on us for a while.

Except their will be no savings and the spending will just be transferred to more welfare and entitlements.

 

[fmw]

classic. rinse and repeat. liberal POTUS guts the military. **** kicks off somewhere and the military is under prepared and equipped. Soldiers get sent in and die needlessly because they don't have body armor or armored vehicles.

All we have to do is leave all these ridiculous wars and we will have a huge surplus of military people and equipment. Either that or start requiring payment for our services as a global police force.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

PJ Media is well known as the home of the Neocons.

It has zero credibility among those in the know.

If you want to hear Israel's point of view, read PJMedia.

The next thing you'll demand is that Jewish people in America are required to wear yellow stars.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Except their will be no savings and the spending will just be transferred to more welfare and entitlements.

Not my fault. You can blame our politicians for that. Cutting needs to be done all over the place, plain and simple.

 

[notquiteright]

classic. rinse and repeat. liberal POTUS guts the military. **** kicks off somewhere and the military is under prepared and equipped. Soldiers get sent in and die needlessly because they don't have body armor or armored vehicles.

Interesting myth, except it was Bush the Elder who did the first 'peace dividend'. And soldiers go to war poorly equipped because the Military/Industrial complex invests in bigger and more complex white elephants that seldom fit the next war, especially the brush wars of Empire. Body Armor or small armored patrol vehicles are a nit in the overall cost of a military suited for brush wars but that doesn't garner fat commissions or insure comfortable retirements for army project managers.

Take the Crusader Self Propelled weapon- 'conservatives' rended garments and wailed to the GAWDS that President Obama was 'gutting the military' by cancelling a super heavy gun system better suited for defense of the Fulda Gap than a FOB halfway around the world and only accessible by air vs the BushII decision to keep the production of Body Armor in the hands of a few very small shops instead of a war time footing license the production out. Or using the Jeep's replacement as an armored vehicle in Urban environments for which it was poorly suited taking forever to develop specialty vehicles that other nations have had for decades.

Everything from main battle tanks to tracked armored fighting vehicles we take forever to develop our versions, sometimes decades after our enemies have standardized their versions. (good thing we don't fight the enemies we plan for) But we push hard for boondoggle nuke subs and 'they cost how much jet fighters???'

It isn't who occupies the White House or even Congress that seems to matter, as long as jobs get doled out across the nation.

No Sir, it is a mad cap conglomerate that decides what to build... eace

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Interesting myth, except it was Bush the Elder who did the first 'peace dividend'. And soldiers go to war poorly equipped because the Military/Industrial complex invests in bigger and more complex white elephants that seldom fit the next war, especially the brush wars of Empire. Body Armor or small armored patrol vehicles are a nit in the overall cost of a military suited for brush wars but that doesn't garner fat commissions or insure comfortable retirements for army project managers.

Take the Crusader Self Propelled weapon- 'conservatives' rended garments and wailed to the GAWDS that President Obama was 'gutting the military' by cancelling a super heavy gun system better suited for defense of the Fulda Gap than a FOB halfway around the world and only accessible by air vs the BushII decision to keep the production of Body Armor in the hands of a few very small shops instead of a war time footing license the production out. Or using the Jeep's replacement as an armored vehicle in Urban environments for which it was poorly suited taking forever to develop specialty vehicles that other nations have had for decades.

Everything from main battle tanks to tracked armored fighting vehicles we take forever to develop our versions, sometimes decades after our enemies have standardized their versions. (good thing we don't fight the enemies we plan for) But we push hard for boondoggle nuke subs and 'they cost how much jet fighters???'

It isn't who occupies the White House or even Congress that seems to matter, as long as jobs get doled out across the nation.

No Sir, it is a mad cap conglomerate that decides what to build... eace

I strongly agree with most of what you said there, but this retired sailor disagrees about the nuke subs - we need them. If I had my way, we'd deep-six that the carriers that I served on for eight years - they're much too vulnerable, could be disabled for weeks even by a speedboat with explosives a la USS Cole (got an interesting story about that), and are the most expensive single system in the military - but the subs are the key to maritime supremacy in this new world of supersonic ship-killing missiles, especially given that subs can now project conventional power with Tomahawks.

 

[shrubnose]

The next thing you'll demand is that Jewish people in America are required to wear yellow stars.

You have a vivid, but totally inaccurate imagination.

I'm still waiting for you to delete the egregious lies which you have posted about me.

I've been keeping score - so far you haven't got one right.

The USA must do what's best for the USA, and let other countries (Including Israel.) take care of themselves.

The U.S. Government's primary obligation is to protect and defend the USA.

Helping the rest of the world is way down the list.




"Better day's are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[head of joaquin]

Finally, we're cutting the most bloated inefficient and useless institution in the US.

If Romney were president, he's have doubled the military budget and be bombing Iran right now. Thank God elections matter.

 

[captainawesome]

Typical liberal action: Drastically cut our military so that the next time we need them they will be ineffective and a danger to themselves. Gotta love Democrats and their desire to kill our soldiers.

People die in war.

 

[fmw]

Finally, we're cutting the most bloated inefficient and useless institution in the US.

What, the federal government? Well, it's a start. There is a very long way to go.

 

[notquiteright]

I strongly agree with most of what you said there, but this retired sailor disagrees about the nuke subs - we need them. If I had my way, we'd deep-six that the carriers that I served on for eight years - they're much too vulnerable, could be disabled for weeks even by a speedboat with explosives a la USS Cole (got an interesting story about that), and are the most expensive single system in the military - but the subs are the key to maritime supremacy in this new world of supersonic ship-killing missiles, especially given that subs can now project conventional power with Tomahawks.

Oh I did not wish to imply I want to do away with all nuke subs, no Sir, I meant the development of extremely expensive program that then go begging for a role, post cold war. The SeaWolf and F35 come to mind. seems sometimes the IM complex loves expense and technology just for the sake of it.

While subs look more like 'em, Aircraft Carriers act more like national penises. In many places two carriers parked off the coast suddenly become THE largest Air Force in the region, sometimes larger than ALL the Air Forces of that region.

The question on carriers is do we really need so many to defend the nation or do we use so many to enforce the Empire?