Top US general calls for more troops and warships to counter growing Russian threat

[Rogue Valley]

Top US general calls for more troops and warships to counter growing Russian threat

3/5/19
The top US general overseeing US military operations in Europe warned of a growing Russian threat Tuesday, saying he is "not comfortable yet with the deterrent posture" of the US military in Europe and its ability to deter Russian aggression, recommending the US deploy more troops and warships to Europe. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti issued the warning in response to a question from the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, who asked whether European Command has the right posture and capabilities to credibly deter against Russian aggression in Europe. He warned that his command faced shortfalls with regard to land and naval forces as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. "Of concern is my intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capacity given that increasing and growing threat of Russia. I need more ISR," he said. "In light of Russia's modernizing and increasingly aggressive force posture EUCOM recommends augmenting our assigned and rotational forces to enhance our deterrence posture," Scaparrotti said. Scaparrotti, the commander of European Command and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, specifically requested two addition naval destroyers to join the four already stationed in Rota, Spain, to help counter Russia. "I've asked for two more destroyers for EUCOM," Scaparrotti told the committee, adding, "we do need greater capacity particularly given the modernization and growth of the fleets -- Russian fleets in Europe."

This on the heels of a call by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson to confront Russia and China with more "muscular" responses. No US commanders are liking what they see regarding threats from a resurgent Russian military.

 

[WillyPete]

I'm always leery with these claims. Find a military commander that doesn't want more military spending, and then you'll have an interesting headline.

Also, it's hard to imagine, given the massive military spending gap between our nations that has been there for many decades, that we don't have them completely outclassed on all fronts.

If indeed Russia is catching up while spending less, then the big takeaway for me is that we're not getting good value on our current military spending. Increasing that spending isn't the solution.

 

[DaveFagan]

The US is working diligently to foment a continuous Cold War with Russia and China to maintain a grossly inflated profit stream to the Military Industrial Complex. The economic weapon of Full Spectrum Dominance isn't bankrupting Russia as planned so our next step is to shoot ourselves in the foot by helpiing the Military to bankrupt our own economy. The planning geniuses that create our International policies are a few cards short of a full deck.
/

 

[American]

The US is working diligently to foment a continuous Cold War with Russia and China to maintain a grossly inflated profit stream to the Military Industrial Complex. The economic weapon of Full Spectrum Dominance isn't bankrupting Russia as planned so our next step is to shoot ourselves in the foot by helpiing the Military to bankrupt our own economy. The planning geniuses that create our International policies are a few cards short of a full deck.
/

Where do you get this **** from?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Where do you get this **** from?

RT.com

 

[Cordelier]

Top US general calls for more troops and warships to counter growing Russian threat

This on the heels of a call by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson to confront Russia and China with more "muscular" responses. No US commanders are liking what they see regarding threats from a resurgent Russian military.

Wow... Military Brass calling for more defense spending. Who saw that coming?

FYI - Saudi Arabia spends more on defense than Russia does.

 

[Tangmo]

Wow... Military Brass calling for more defense spending. Who saw that coming?

FYI - Saudi Arabia spends more on defense than Russia does.

This isn't about budgets or increased budgets, increased defense spending. It's about realigning assets. It's about redeploying existing assets. Some of 'em.

Gen. Scap as he's called spoke before the Senate Armed Services Committee, not a budget committee. He spoke of strategy and to realign and redeploy. Obama had been shifting 60% of US Naval assets to the India-Pacific Theater. Gen. Scap wants 'em back. Or at least some of 'em. Gen. Scap's proposal is strategic not budgetary. He said nothing about increasing forces or increasing budget spending. Scap said realign and redeploy existing assets.


NATO Commander Wants 2 More Destroyers, Carrier Presence to Counter Russia

"A revisionist Russia is the primary threat to a stable Euro-Atlantic security environment," Scaparrotti said. "Russia has invaded Ukraine, occupied Crimea, launched cyber-attacks against the Baltic States and Ukraine, interfered in U.S. and other Western elections, and attacked Ukrainian Navy vessels attempting to transit the Kerch Strait to Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov.

"Given Moscow's demonstrated willingness to violate international law and legally binding treaties, and to exercise malign influence, Russia threatens the United States' vital national interests in preserving a Europe that is whole, free and at peace," he said.

NATO Commander Wants 2 More Destroyers, Carrier Presence to Counter Russia | Military.com


Using existing resources.

 

[Cordelier]

This isn't about budgets or increased budgets, increased defense spending. It's about realigning assets. It's about redeploying existing assets. Some of 'em.

Gen. Scap as he's called spoke before the Senate Armed Services Committee, not a budget committee. He spoke of strategy and to realign and redeploy. Obama had been shifting 60% of US Naval assets to the India-Pacific Theater. Gen. Scap wants 'em back. Or at least some of 'em. Gen. Scap's proposal is strategic not budgetary. He said nothing about increasing forces or increasing budget spending. Scap said realign and redeploy existing assets.


NATO Commander Wants 2 More Destroyers, Carrier Presence to Counter Russia

"A revisionist Russia is the primary threat to a stable Euro-Atlantic security environment," Scaparrotti said. "Russia has invaded Ukraine, occupied Crimea, launched cyber-attacks against the Baltic States and Ukraine, interfered in U.S. and other Western elections, and attacked Ukrainian Navy vessels attempting to transit the Kerch Strait to Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov.

"Given Moscow's demonstrated willingness to violate international law and legally binding treaties, and to exercise malign influence, Russia threatens the United States' vital national interests in preserving a Europe that is whole, free and at peace," he said.

NATO Commander Wants 2 More Destroyers, Carrier Presence to Counter Russia | Military.com


Using existing resources.

Before you pass the appropriations, you need the authorizations... and those come through the Armed Services Committee.

You're absolutely right... Saudi Arabia doesn't have Putin - but what it does have is a bat-**** crazy, self-important entitled little bitch of a Crown Prince who is sitting on 18% of the World's Oil Reserves in the middle of the most volatile region of the Globe. He's sitting on top of a powder keg and waving around a lit torch.

But I digress.... I only mentioned the comparison to demonstrate just how little Russia actually does spend on defense - when you consider the size of the territory it has to defend, it's miniscule.

This isn't the Cold War... there aren't hundreds of divisions poised to sweep into the Fulda Gap anymore. Where it comes to allocating defense priorities, I've got to figure about the biggest mistake anyone can make is falling into the trap of preparing for the last war. Circumstances change.

It seems to me that with PRC's aggressive moves into the South China Sea and with the North Koreans continuing to build their ICBM & nuclear capabilities, that our prime concern ought to be the Western Pacific region.

 

[Tangmo]

Before you pass the appropriations, you need the authorizations... and those come through the Armed Services Committee.

You're absolutely right... Saudi Arabia doesn't have Putin - but what it does have is a bat-**** crazy, self-important entitled little bitch of a Crown Prince who is sitting on 18% of the World's Oil Reserves in the middle of the most volatile region of the Globe. He's sitting on top of a powder keg and waving around a lit torch.

But I digress.... I only mentioned the comparison to demonstrate just how little Russia actually does spend on defense - when you consider the size of the territory it has to defend, it's miniscule.

This isn't the Cold War... there aren't hundreds of divisions poised to sweep into the Fulda Gap anymore. Where it comes to allocating defense priorities, I've got to figure about the biggest mistake anyone can make is falling into the trap of preparing for the last war. Circumstances change.

It seems to me that with PRC's aggressive moves into the South China Sea and with the North Koreans continuing to build their ICBM & nuclear capabilities, that our prime concern ought to be the Western Pacific region.

Hilite:
The Budget Committee votes on authorizations, up or down. It forwards approvals only to Appropriations Committee.
Appropriations Committee chooses the authorizations it likes. This committee votes to raise the funds.
Executive Branch and its departments etc commit the outlays of monies authorized and appropriated to be expended.
Using the Armed Services Committee as the instance, it submits its proposed budget to the Budget Committee. After that they can only complain and say wait till next year.



Gen. Scap was commander in South Korea after which he became supreme allied commander Europe. He has supreme competence of the situation in the India-Pacific Theater which includes East Asia, and of Europe-Eurasia and the Atlantic-Med. He has perspective. The general wants two destroyers returned to the US base at Rota Spain and a greater carrier presence in the Atlantic. He also wants:

In addition to naval assets, Scaparrotti said U.S. contributions to NATO should include more long-range artillery, engineers and sustainment brigades. He noted that NATO and U.S. European Command are getting better at being more agile with ground units.

"Three years ago, we were moving one brigade at a time" with difficulty, he said. "A month ago, I moved four brigades -- two armored, two [combat aviation brigades] -- simultaneously. That's progress."

Scaparrotti said he also wants to station F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and bombers in Europe. "I'm looking forward to those being stationed permanently, in some numbers, in Europe as well," he said.

NATO Commander Wants 2 More Destroyers, Carrier Presence to Counter Russia | Military.com


US isn't going to do a land invasion or ground war in China or in Russia. No one in his right mind is going to do that. The US and allies concern about China is air and sea to include of course undersea. With Russia it is the more traditional air and land, to include the Arctic.

The Nato operational environment dictates US-Allied control of the Atlantic, hence the naval aspect to include some air of course. Another factor US and allies east and west know is that Putin wants US armed forces lined up against China while Putin and Russia get a free ride ticket. Gen. Scap wants a small but significant strategic realignment of forces and a better balance and functionality of deployed forces.

Nobody's forgetting about China or ignoring it; nor is anyone selling China short. Japan for instance will continue to have a USN Aegis destroyer in the East Sea 24/7 between NK and Japan as a first line of missile defense. US has new agreements of logistics and storage with VN and India that are in addition to long standing ones with other allies and strategic partners throughout the region. Putin's not going to get the free ride he's trying to get with a little help from his friends.

 

[DaveFagan]

Where do you get this **** from?

Apparently my post is not appoved by the MSM minders. Not to worry, they'll be sending you a new thought soon. Orwell (1984), a time will come when speaking the truth will be revolutionary."
/

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Before you pass the appropriations, you need the authorizations... and those come through the Armed Services Committee.

You're absolutely right... Saudi Arabia doesn't have Putin - but what it does have is a bat-**** crazy, self-important entitled little bitch of a Crown Prince who is sitting on 18% of the World's Oil Reserves in the middle of the most volatile region of the Globe. He's sitting on top of a powder keg and waving around a lit torch.

But I digress.... I only mentioned the comparison to demonstrate just how little Russia actually does spend on defense - when you consider the size of the territory it has to defend, it's miniscule.

This isn't the Cold War... there aren't hundreds of divisions poised to sweep into the Fulda Gap anymore. Where it comes to allocating defense priorities, I've got to figure about the biggest mistake anyone can make is falling into the trap of preparing for the last war. Circumstances change.

It seems to me that with PRC's aggressive moves into the South China Sea and with the North Koreans continuing to build their ICBM & nuclear capabilities, that our prime concern ought to be the Western Pacific region.

I'd be much more worried about China's growing economic power over the world and Russian cyberwarfare than either of those respective countries' military threats. China and Russia may have tiny military compared to the U.S. technological prowess and raw firepower, but that doesn't mean China and Russia won't use those tiny military forces to distract us from the real threat, being cyberwarfare and information warfare, as well as corporate and economic warfare.

 

[Evilroddy]

Perhaps it's time for the US Armed Forces to do more with less:

Comparison Results of World Military Strengths

Comparison Results of World Military Strengths

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Cordelier]

Hilite:
The Budget Committee votes on authorizations, up or down. It forwards approvals only to Appropriations Committee.
Appropriations Committee chooses the authorizations it likes. This committee votes to raise the funds.
Executive Branch and its departments etc commit the outlays of monies authorized and appropriated to be expended.
Using the Armed Services Committee as the instance, it submits its proposed budget to the Budget Committee. After that they can only complain and say wait till next year.



Gen. Scap was commander in South Korea after which he became supreme allied commander Europe. He has supreme competence of the situation in the India-Pacific Theater which includes East Asia, and of Europe-Eurasia and the Atlantic-Med. He has perspective. The general wants two destroyers returned to the US base at Rota Spain and a greater carrier presence in the Atlantic. He also wants:

In addition to naval assets, Scaparrotti said U.S. contributions to NATO should include more long-range artillery, engineers and sustainment brigades. He noted that NATO and U.S. European Command are getting better at being more agile with ground units.

"Three years ago, we were moving one brigade at a time" with difficulty, he said. "A month ago, I moved four brigades -- two armored, two [combat aviation brigades] -- simultaneously. That's progress."

Scaparrotti said he also wants to station F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and bombers in Europe. "I'm looking forward to those being stationed permanently, in some numbers, in Europe as well," he said.

NATO Commander Wants 2 More Destroyers, Carrier Presence to Counter Russia | Military.com


US isn't going to do a land invasion or ground war in China or in Russia. No one in his right mind is going to do that. The US and allies concern about China is air and sea to include of course undersea. With Russia it is the more traditional air and land, to include the Arctic.

The Nato operational environment dictates US-Allied control of the Atlantic, hence the naval aspect to include some air of course. Another factor US and allies east and west know is that Putin wants US armed forces lined up against China while Putin and Russia get a free ride ticket. Gen. Scap wants a small but significant strategic realignment of forces and a better balance and functionality of deployed forces.

Nobody's forgetting about China or ignoring it; nor is anyone selling China short. Japan for instance will continue to have a USN Aegis destroyer in the East Sea 24/7 between NK and Japan as a first line of missile defense. US has new agreements of logistics and storage with VN and India that are in addition to long standing ones with other allies and strategic partners throughout the region. Putin's not going to get the free ride he's trying to get with a little help from his friends.

The Budget Committee is a joke, Tangmo... the detail work on authorizations (including oversight) is done by the relevant specialized Committees. All the Budget Committee does is collate their recommendations and decide on relative priorities.

Anyways... we've got 4 carrier groups in the Atlantic and 5 in the Pacific.... the Ford is due to join the Atlantic fleet next year and then we can possibly homeporting one of the Norfolk boats in the Mediterranean. I really don't see what Scaparrotti's problem is.

 

[Cordelier]

I'd be much more worried about China's growing economic power over the world and Russian cyberwarfare than either of those respective countries' military threats. China and Russia may have tiny military compared to the U.S. technological prowess and raw firepower, but that doesn't mean China and Russia won't use those tiny military forces to distract us from the real threat, being cyberwarfare and information warfare, as well as corporate and economic warfare.

I agree with everything you say... and without being complacent, I think our edge in cyber/information warfare and on the economic front is every bit as dominant as our edge on the military front. If we have an achilles heel, it's in investing in our people. I think our biggest priority ought to be investing in our infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems. In the final analysis, our nation is only going to be as strong as our economy and our economy can only be as vibrant as our people. We've got a labor force of 160 million workers and they're out there every day competing against China's 800 million and India's 500 million and the EU's 240 million. If we want to keep our edge we need to bolster those 160 million and not let anyone fall through the cracks. We can't afford to have people wallowing in poverty or ignorance or working underpaying jobs they're over-qualified for anymore.

 

[Fledermaus]

Apparently my post is not appoved by the MSM minders. Not to worry, they'll be sending you a new thought soon. Orwell (1984), a time will come when speaking the truth will be revolutionary."
/

This isn't the MSM... Derp.

 

[Tangmo]

The Budget Committee is a joke, Tangmo... the detail work on authorizations (including oversight) is done by the relevant specialized Committees. All the Budget Committee does is collate their recommendations and decide on relative priorities.

The Budget Committee of each house is the authorizing committee. The Appropriations Committee of each house decides whether funds will be raised, how much, for what, and spent. The Executive Branch department or agency executes the outlays of the funds authorized and appropriated.

The Armed Services Committee is the standing committee of jurisdiction, i.e., it recommends to each body laws and amendments to the USC as they affect directly the armed forces. The Committee also recommends a budget to the Budget Committee by March 15. Budget Committee decides what to recommend to each house by May 15 of each year. So kindly advise me when the most recent time was that you engaged in this process while you were in the professional employment of the Congress. The process is required by the Budget Act of 1974.

Each body's Budget Committee is required by law to pass a concurrent budget resolution outlining the government's overall expenditures and receipts based on CBO estimates. The Budget Act of 1974 established CBO of course. The concurrent resolution of both houses must be executed by May 15 as I'd noted already. The concurrent resolution then serves as the blueprint for the regular work of the Budget Committee (authorization) and the Appropriations Committees (expenditure) as they draft the budget. Armed Services Committee has no legal authority to authorize or appropriate. Same for each and every standing committee of each house.

You were 100% wrong to say Gen. Scap wanted to increase the defense budget in is testimony the other day to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gen. Scap did no such thing yet you have not acknowledged your error nor have you corrected your error of factual information.

Yes the budget process is a shambles but then so are your posts about it, to include misstating without correcting it Gen. Scap's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee where no one discussed budget much less increasing defense spending. Gen. Scap's testimony proposed no increase to defense spending. Kindly say so to indicate at this time that you have this straight.

Anyways... we've got 4 carrier groups in the Atlantic and 5 in the Pacific.... the Ford is due to join the Atlantic fleet next year and then we can possibly homeporting one of the Norfolk boats in the Mediterranean. I really don't see what Scaparrotti's problem is.

The general does not have a problem. He has command. Gen. Scaparroti is recommending an adjustment to the US strategic alignment and deployment of forces that improves our national defense. I've quoted the general in scrolling and the USN CNO has been referenced in the OP. So I'll quote the CNO Admiral Richardson among other admirals in respect of the adjustment to a global realignment and deployment of US forces:

Vice Adm. Andrew "Woody" Lewis, left, commander of 2nd Fleet in the Atlantic, shares a moment with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, middle, and Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Chris Grady. (Mark D. Faram/Navy Times)

“There are some bad actors on the world’s stage,” Lewis told the crowd. “We call them competitors in our strategic documents. They intend to undermine and rewrite the order that America established at the end of World War II and threaten the very birthright freedoms that we hold sacred.”

His boss at U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Adm. Chris Grady, agreed, telling the audience that “the days of competition at sea and challenges to our maritime security have returned.” “We, as a nation, have not had to confront such a competition since the Cold War ended nearly three decades ago,” Grady said.

“This new dynamic, prompted, in part by a resurgent Russia, the National Defense Strategy made clear that there are countries, once again, competing to define [the Atlantic Ocean], not in the interests of opportunity and equality for all, but on their terms,” Richardson told the audience. Richardson called for 2nd Fleet to seize “a central role in pioneering new and experimental concepts of operation” in cooperation with America’s allies.

Back to the future with 2nd Fleet


In cooperation with America's allies he said. The American Right never speaks like that. Conservatives and other Republicans have only harsh words for American's allies whether it's Nato or all the way over and across to the US strategic partner India. Only.

 

[Cordelier]

The Budget Committee of each house is the authorizing committee. The Appropriations Committee of each house decides whether funds will be raised, how much, for what, and spent. The Executive Branch department or agency executes the outlays of the funds authorized and appropriated.

The Armed Services Committee is the standing committee of jurisdiction, i.e., it recommends to each body laws and amendments to the USC as they affect directly the armed forces. The Committee also recommends a budget to the Budget Committee by March 15. Budget Committee decides what to recommend to each house by May 15 of each year. So kindly advise me when the most recent time was that you engaged in this process while you were in the professional employment of the Congress. The process is required by the Budget Act of 1974.

Each body's Budget Committee is required by law to pass a concurrent budget resolution outlining the government's overall expenditures and receipts based on CBO estimates. The Budget Act of 1974 established CBO of course. The concurrent resolution of both houses must be executed by May 15 as I'd noted already. The concurrent resolution then serves as the blueprint for the regular work of the Budget Committee (authorization) and the Appropriations Committees (expenditure) as they draft the budget. Armed Services Committee has no legal authority to authorize or appropriate. Same for each and every standing committee of each house.

I think we need to gain some clarity if you want to go into the weeds on this one... so I'll put up some definitions from the CBO Glossary:

authorization act: Substantive legislation, proposed by a committee of jurisdiction other than the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations, that establishes or continues the operation of a federal program or agency either indefinitely or for a specific period or that sanctions a particular type of obligation or expenditure within a program. This term is used in two different ways: (1) to describe legislation enacting new program authority (that is, authorizing the program), and (2) to describe legislation authorizing an appropriation.

appropriation act: A statute, under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, that generally provides legal authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. The Congress normally considers 12 regular appropriation acts, which fund the operations of the federal government for the coming fiscal year. In addition to regular appropriation acts, the Congress may also consider supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriation acts (joint resolutions that provide budget authority for a fiscal year until the regular appropriation act for that year is enacted). An omnibus appropriation act typically refers to a single act containing the legislative language of 2 or more of the 12 regular appropriation acts.

budget resolution: A concurrent resolution adopted by both Houses of Congress as part of the annual budget and appropriation process, setting forth an overall budget plan for the Congress against which individual appropriation bills, authorization bills, and revenue measures are to be evaluated. Subsequent appropriation acts and authorization acts that affect revenues or direct spending are expected to comply with the targets in that plan. Those targets are enforced in each House of Congress through procedural mechanisms that are set forth in law and in the rules of each House.

The function of the budget committee is to produce a "big picture" spending plan for the Government - it only allocates money to different broad functions... for instance, it might allocate $103 Billion for Defense Procurement. It's then up to the Armed Services Committee to fill in the details of how that $103 Billion should be spent... they might decide to authorize up to $16.7 Billion of that $103 Billion for Navy Aircraft Procurement and that'll be part of the authorization act. Then it's up to the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee to decide how much will actually be spent - they won't be able to go over what's authorized, but they can certainly decide to go under it.... so they decide to actually appropriate $14.8 Billion of the $16.8 Billion that was authorized for Navy Aircraft Procurement, and then that's the figure that goes into appropriation act.

The point to remember in this whole process is that it's the Armed Services Committee that does the heavy lifting... they're the ones who do the oversight and fill in the details and set the priorities for Defense spending. All Budget and Appropriations really do is balance those priorities with the priorities of all the other functions of the Government to come to a final figure.

 

[Cordelier]

You were 100% wrong to say Gen. Scap wanted to increase the defense budget in is testimony the other day to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gen. Scap did no such thing yet you have not acknowledged your error nor have you corrected your error of factual information.

Yes the budget process is a shambles but then so are your posts about it, to include misstating without correcting it Gen. Scap's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee where no one discussed budget much less increasing defense spending. Gen. Scap's testimony proposed no increase to defense spending. Kindly say so to indicate at this time that you have this straight.

Let me give you a little insight on Congressional testimony... what someone says doesn't matter nearly as much as what they don't say. When you're talking about moving assets from one theater to another, it's not an academic exercise. They're not counters on a map. We're talking about spending serious money on building military infrastructure - dock facilities, runway upgrades, housing, improved logistical support... money that isn't budgeted for, and so, by definition it is a spending increase. And I haven't even gotten into the necessity of compensating for the loss of military capability in the theater that sees it's combat capabilities reduced or even the adverse economic effects of possibly moving assets based in the Continental US and moving them overseas. I'm willing to bet General Scaparrotti didn't address those issues in his testimony, did he?

 

[Tangmo]

I think we need to gain some clarity if you want to go into the weeds on this one... so I'll put up some definitions from the CBO Glossary:

budget resolution: A concurrent resolution adopted by both Houses of Congress as part of the annual budget and appropriation process, setting forth an overall budget plan for the Congress against which individual appropriation bills, authorization bills, and revenue measures are to be evaluated. Subsequent appropriation acts and authorization acts that affect revenues or direct spending are expected to comply with the targets in that plan. Those targets are enforced in each House of Congress through procedural mechanisms that are set forth in law and in the rules of each House.

The function of the budget committee is to produce a "big picture" spending plan for the Government - it only allocates money to different broad functions... for instance, it might allocate $103 Billion for Defense Procurement. It's then up to the Armed Services Committee to fill in the details of how that $103 Billion should be spent... they might decide to authorize up to $16.7 Billion of that $103 Billion for Navy Aircraft Procurement and that'll be part of the authorization act. Then it's up to the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee to decide how much will actually be spent - they won't be able to go over what's authorized, but they can certainly decide to go under it.... so they decide to actually appropriate $14.8 Billion of the $16.8 Billion that was authorized for Navy Aircraft Procurement, and then that's the figure that goes into appropriation act.

The point to remember in this whole process is that it's the Armed Services Committee that does the heavy lifting... they're the ones who do the oversight and fill in the details and set the priorities for Defense spending. All Budget and Appropriations really do is balance those priorities with the priorities of all the other functions of the Government to come to a final figure.

Let's get this manageable so you can grasp it.

The Budget Committee via the House-Senate Concurrent Resolution sets the parameters of the spending of any given committee. In this instance we're focused on the Armed Services Committee. The CR sets the broad priorities which limit the particular committee to chew the on green inside the Budget Committee's fencing only.

So the Armed Services Committee can only provide funds to those functions identified by the Budget Committee and authorized for funding by the Budget Committee. This is new or continued funding. For example, if the CR of the Budget Committees say no money for Meals Ready To Eat -- for example and for argument -- then there's no funding of MREs. Period. If the CR says rather $1 billion for MREs but Armed Services Committee had requested $2 billion, then Armed Services are shat outta luck by $1 billion. For example and argument.

The particular committee -- in this instance Armed Services -- can only work with what the CR from the Budget Committees provide to it. The particular committee does not have its own authority to authorize or appropriate independently of the CR successfully advanced by the two Budget Committees, i.e., House and Senate.

Congressional Budget Office serves the Budget Committees of House and Senate, not the standing committees such as you and I are discussing, e.g., each Committee on Armed Services. Each particular committee must adhere to the CR advanced successfully by the two Budget Committees which rely on CBO. And CBO is under the authority of the Budget Committee, not each particular committee such as Armed Services.

If you had some professional experience in these processes and procedures you'd be better positioned to grasp it and them readily. And to present them accurately and in their full dimension. If you do have experience in these laws, rules, regs, processes and procedures then it must have been as a deputy under legislative or budget assistant in charge of under.

 

[Cordelier]

The general does not have a problem. He has command. Gen. Scaparroti is recommending an adjustment to the US strategic alignment and deployment of forces that improves our national defense. I've quoted the general in scrolling and the USN CNO has been referenced in the OP. So I'll quote the CNO Admiral Richardson among other admirals in respect of the adjustment to a global realignment and deployment of US forces:


“There are some bad actors on the world’s stage,” Lewis told the crowd. “We call them competitors in our strategic documents. They intend to undermine and rewrite the order that America established at the end of World War II and threaten the very birthright freedoms that we hold sacred.”

His boss at U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Adm. Chris Grady, agreed, telling the audience that “the days of competition at sea and challenges to our maritime security have returned.” “We, as a nation, have not had to confront such a competition since the Cold War ended nearly three decades ago,” Grady said.

“This new dynamic, prompted, in part by a resurgent Russia, the National Defense Strategy made clear that there are countries, once again, competing to define [the Atlantic Ocean], not in the interests of opportunity and equality for all, but on their terms,” Richardson told the audience. Richardson called for 2nd Fleet to seize “a central role in pioneering new and experimental concepts of operation” in cooperation with America’s allies.

Back to the future with 2nd Fleet


In cooperation with America's allies he said. The American Right never speaks like that. Conservatives and other Republicans have only harsh words for American's allies whether it's Nato or all the way over and across to the US strategic partner India. Only.

All due Respect to Adm. Lewis - and this is the one and only area I'll ever agree with President Trump - co-operation is a two-way street. We're spending about 3.1% of GDP on Defense. Britain is spending 1.8%. Germany is 1.2%. Canada 1.3%. Italy 1.5%. I don't think it's going to do much to encourage those countries to boost their defense spending if we decide to carry even more of the load for them, do you?

I look at the Atlantic and aside from the French (2.3%), I pretty much see a bunch of free-loading allies.... if Russia is such an emerging threat, I think it's a far greater threat to Europe than it is to us. It's their back yard. I'm not saying we should go back down the isolationist road - of course we need to be standing beside our European allies... but, by the same token, they need to have our back as well.

In the Pacific, the threat from China is an emerging one as well.... but the territory is far greater and aside from Japan (0.9%), our allies seem to take the threat more seriously - South Korea (2.6%), Australia (2.0%) and India (2.5%) seem to be in a whole different league than Europe where it comes to making Defense a priority.

 

[Mr Person]

US 2019 budget for direct military spending: $686 billion.



2014 Russia: worth approximately US$69.3 billion at 2014 exchange rates, but ruble collapse dropped to 52 billion a
2015: 3.1 trillion rubles (go get the rates and run the numbers; or just eye ball it)
2016 (expected as of data availability): 3.145 trillion rubles (ditto)




If the U.S. military could not take on Russia and win, it's because the military must not know what the hell it's doing. Granted, we don't seem to have intended 2019 numbers for Russia, but our ratio in spending is now...

US:Russa = 13:1

Thirteen to one, and we need more gear? Really?

 

[Mr Person]

I'm always leery with these claims. Find a military commander that doesn't want more military spending, and then you'll have an interesting headline.

Also, it's hard to imagine, given the massive military spending gap between our nations that has been there for many decades, that we don't have them completely outclassed on all fronts.

If indeed Russia is catching up while spending less, then the big takeaway for me is that we're not getting good value on our current military spending. Increasing that spending isn't the solution.

Yup...

 

[Tangmo]

Let me give you a little insight on Congressional testimony... what someone says doesn't matter nearly as much as what they don't say. When you're talking about moving assets from one theater to another, it's not an academic exercise. They're not counters on a map. We're talking about spending serious money on building military infrastructure - dock facilities, runway upgrades, housing, improved logistical support... money that isn't budgeted for, and so, by definition it is a spending increase. And I haven't even gotten into the necessity of compensating for the loss of military capability in the theater that sees it's combat capabilities reduced or even the adverse economic effects of possibly moving assets based in the Continental US and moving them overseas. I'm willing to bet General Scaparrotti didn't address those issues in his testimony, did he?

Thx anyway but I have my own experience in congressional testimony having served on a House committee as professional staff. You obviously have some kind of experience in these matters yet I see it is full of holes to include a strident self righteousness that leads with the chin...and that ends up on the ground of course and too easily. And quickly.

Let me reply by advising you of something you didn't know. That is, Gen. Scaparroti who is Nato commander and US Forces Europe Commander testified on 5 February to the Senate Armed Services Committee in respect of the Defense Authorization Request for FY 2020 and Future Years Defense Program, i.e., to 2024.

The Committee's proposed budget to the Senate Budget Committee is due March 15 so it's being worked up now. The Budget Committee is required to report its proposed budget parameters for each standing committee to the full House by May 15. So we'll know soon what could be the possible budget authorizations for a Concurrent Resolution -- in their broad and definitive parameters.

I doubt seriously any possible increases will amount to an "increase in defense spending" of any consequence. I am confident this would shoot down your hysteria shared by some others here of an "increase in defense spending," however vague, that would attend the testimony and proposals of Gen. Scap. For one thing Gen. Scap is talking about realigning and redeploying some limited number of existing assets to existing facilities in existing countries that are either extant formal treaty allies or extamt formal strategic partners. Or simply stated, to include governments that are extant friends of the United States.

I am meanwhile looking high and low to find your position on Trump's brainfart to establish a sixth military force of the United States, namely, the Space Force which would require initially $6 billion in startup. Everybody's against it except Trump. As it presently stands, Trump's space baby is stillborn. Rather and wisely, Pentagon and Congress are tending toward enhancing the established USAF Space Command where a big startup expense would be mitigated and the expertise extant there would be enhanced rather than be born again, to include being borne again.

I'm waiting next for someone to try to say I'm some kid somewhere who doesn't know anything.

 

[Cordelier]

Let's get this manageable so you can grasp it.

The Budget Committee via the House-Senate Concurrent Resolution sets the parameters of the spending of any given committee. In this instance we're focused on the Armed Services Committee. The CR sets the broad priorities which limit the particular committee to chew the on green inside the Budget Committee's fencing only.

So the Armed Services Committee can only provide funds to those functions identified by the Budget Committee and authorized for funding by the Budget Committee. This is new or continued funding. For example, if the CR of the Budget Committees say no money for Meals Ready To Eat -- for example and for argument -- then there's no funding of MREs. Period. If the CR says rather $1 billion for MREs but Armed Services Committee had requested $2 billion, then Armed Services are shat outta luck by $1 billion. For example and argument.

The particular committee -- in this instance Armed Services -- can only work with what the CR from the Budget Committees provide to it. The particular committee does not have its own authority to authorize or appropriate independently of the CR successfully advanced by the two Budget Committees, i.e., House and Senate.

Congressional Budget Office serves the Budget Committees of House and Senate, not the standing committees such as you and I are discussing, e.g., each Committee on Armed Services. Each particular committee must adhere to the CR advanced successfully by the two Budget Committees which rely on CBO. And CBO is under the authority of the Budget Committee, not each particular committee such as Armed Services.

If you had some professional experience in these processes and procedures you'd be better positioned to grasp it and them readily. And to present them accurately and in their full dimension. If you do have experience in these laws, rules, regs, processes and procedures then it must have been as a deputy under legislative or budget assistant in charge of under.

I'm going to make this easy for you, Tangmo.... you've got zero chance of getting into my pants - so you can quit trying to impress me so much. Ain't no way, ain't no how.... no matter how hard you try.

Now that we've cleared the air on that front, I'm going to pick apart your post:

First off, the content of the Budget Resolution (I'm going to suggest, for clarity's sake, that we use the abbreviation "BR" instead of "CR" which is more commonly used to describe a Continuing Resolution) is governed by Section 301 of the Budget Act (2 USC §632). By this provision, it only contains a generalized totals for Budget Authorizations. Now, that being said, the Budget Committee does have the power, under Section 302(a) (2 USC §633(a)), to allocate a certain portion of the total authorization to specific committees, but it doesn't have the power to decide how the committee distributes that allocation. It can't, to use your example, tell Armed Services that the authorization for MREs is zero'ed out.....because that's a matter for the Armed Services Committee to figure out, as they are the ones who mark up the Defense Authorization bill.

The Armed Services Committee doesn't make budget requests.... the requests come from the President. The Budget Committee takes into account those requests and allocates a lump sum to Armed Services for Defense Spending and then Armed Services decides what spending programs it will authorize and their maximum spending level. The Appropriations Committee then decides how much of that authorization it will actually spend.

As for your last paragraph, I appreciate your advice and will give it due consideration. *L*

 

[Tangmo]

All due Respect to Adm. Lewis - and this is the one and only area I'll ever agree with President Trump - co-operation is a two-way street. We're spending about 3.1% of GDP on Defense. Britain is spending 1.8%. Germany is 1.2%. Canada 1.3%. Italy 1.5%. I don't think it's going to do much to encourage those countries to boost their defense spending if we decide to carry even more of the load for them, do you?

I look at the Atlantic and aside from the French (2.3%), I pretty much see a bunch of free-loading allies.... if Russia is such an emerging threat, I think it's a far greater threat to Europe than it is to us. It's their back yard. I'm not saying we should go back down the isolationist road - of course we need to be standing beside our European allies... but, by the same token, they need to have our back as well.

In the Pacific, the threat from China is an emerging one as well.... but the territory is far greater and aside from Japan (0.9%), our allies seem to take the threat more seriously - South Korea (2.6%), Australia (2.0%) and India (2.5%) seem to be in a whole different league than Europe where it comes to making Defense a priority.

Trump Fanboys make these arguments because the chatter focuses on the horizontal, i.e., country by country. Yet the view vertically across Nato blows Russia away. And that's excluding the USA. Including the USA at its ready puts the Russian armed services straight into the ditch.

US in Nato and in supreme command of it provides the Nato member countries with the top tier of command, control, communications by USA generals and admirals who have experience in commanding armed forces victoriously across the continent of Europe. US armed forces commanders have the expertise too of commanding integrated forces successfully across the Pacific-Asia Theater during WW II. US military commanders of the present are chiefs of weapons platforms and systems and combat structures and organizations that are the most sophisticated, vast, complex in the world. Ever.

It is a principal reason European governments and military chiefs and commanders welcome US in Nato and that they do it with open arms. Putin is against this and he wants to wreck it. Putin needs to wreck it so he can take out Nato and EU countries horizontally. Because Putin and his commanders know well it can't possibly be done vertically, i.e., against Nato itself and against Nato commanded and led by US armed forces commanders who bring to bear additionally their awesome fighting forces. Russian forces are formidable indeed but they haven't any staying power against a Nato that is US led and commanded.