Sequestration, the automatic spending reductions scheduled to take effect March 1, will affect the U.S. military's ability to project force around the world. The current continuing resolution that Congress is using to fund the entire government until March 27 has already affected
U.S. forces. The longer these funding cuts continue, the more degradation the U.S. military will incur, with longer-lasting effects...
Just the threat of continued budget reductions has had an immediate effect on the military's readiness. The Navy decided not to deploy a second carrier to the Persian Gulf, backing down from its standard of two carriers in the region. Instead, the second carrier will serve in a surge capacity for the immediate future. The other branches have extended the deployments of units already in theaters and delayed others from rotating in as replacements since it is relatively less expensive to have units stay in place than move them and their equipment intercontinentally...
The medium- to long-term effects can be even more serious. Any given military platform, from a Stryker armored vehicle to an aircraft carrier, requires a lot of money in order to be ready for use at any time at its intended level of performance. These platforms require consistent use to maintain a certain readiness level because machines cannot sit idle for months to years and then operate effectively, if at all, especially if called on for immediate action. Moreover, the people that operate this equipment need to maintain their working knowledge and operational skill through continued use. This use causes wear and tear on the platform and requires consistent maintenance. All of this is necessary just to maintain the status quo. In the end, there must be a balance between a platform's readiness level and the amount of funding required for operations and maintenance, but if the money is no longer available there is no choice but to reduce readiness...
For example, the Navy has said it is considering suspending operations of four of its nine carrier air wings while shutting down four of its carriers in various stages of the operations and maintenance process. This would essentially give the United States one carrier deployed with one on call for years. This will be sufficient if the world remains relatively quiet, but one large emergency or multiple small ones would leave the United States able to project limited force compared to previous levels...
The single biggest capability gap that will develop will be the U.S. military's surge capacity. If the Syria-Iraq-Lebanon corridor were to become more unstable, the United States will not be able to respond with the same force structure it had in the past. The U.S. military can still shift its assets to different regions to attain its strategic goals, but those assets will come from a smaller resource pool, and shifting them will lessen the presence in some other region. The military's ability to use one of its softer political tools -- joint military exercises -- will also be at risk...
Word came down today that our benefits are already starting to get cut.Thanks, Congress!
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Until further notice the Army is no longer funding FEML travel. I don’t think the other services are following suit yet. For those who don’t know, FEML is “Funded Environmental Morale Leave”.
Until further notice the Army is no longer funding FEML travel. I don’t think the other services are following suit yet. For those who don’t know, FEML is “Funded Environmental Morale Leave”. It is a benefit for those of us stationed in hardship or remote posts, often with our families. Once in a two year tour or twice in a 3 year tour the Army will pay for roundtrip tickets for you and your family to a FEML location. Most people use it to fund a trip back home to the States. It is particularly useful for those of us with families. I have a family of four. I can’t afford 4 round trip tickets around the world on my own.
It is a lot of money and I get why it is being target during this period. But it still hurts. When the military sends us to these remote locations it is with the understanding that every couple years they will at least send us back to the States to visit family and take care of personal business. As it stands, unless things get fixed, I may not be making it my brother’s wedding, unless I want to shell out nearly 12 grand of my own money. I am certainly not the only one being hurt by this and many are being hurt worse. When you start taking away benefits that people have earned morale will be affected.
The taxpayer in me can see the bright side. The brother in me ain’t too happy.
Looks like Obama is getting what he wanted.
Who would have ever thought that America's biggest national security threat would be sitting in the White House.
It has been that way for a very long time.
When I was young and growing up, four years seemed like a century. Today at my age, four years is like a blink of the eye.
When I was young and growing up, four years seemed like a century. Today at my age, four years is like a blink of the eye.
I'm starting to feel that way too (I'm now 26).
What I actually meant, though, was that one could consider the president (whether Obama or most presidents before him) a big threat to our nation's security. I guess I could throw Congress in there too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?