Army is Billions Short

[Witling]

Los Angeles Times

Interesting article. Some of the points: The army has refused to go through with the budget charade this year and has not submitted a budget request that was due August 15. They've requested a 41% increase over current budget spending for the 2008 budget. Both the White House and Congress have proposed budget cuts (support our troops) with the House and Senate proposing $4 and $9 billion less than the White House requested for the 2007 budget. Total expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan have been about $400 billion so far. The Defense Department budget has been largely unchanged since the 2003 invasion. And, finally, toward the end of the article, the lion's share of the funding for the border fiasco is probably going to come out of the Defense Department budget.

Come on, Hawks. Let's hear it for support the troops. This war was a terrible mistake AND the Hawks seem to want it on the cheap.

 

[Lemon law]

The armed forces always want an increase in funding---no matter what---but this time they are someone justified because of the expensive and basically unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afganistan---so we are bogged down occupying two countries, the military is hemmorging red ink, and the military can't solve political problems.

Just a few minor details GWB and his band of merry neo-cons should have thought about before they got a hard on to invade.

And lucky us taxpayers---we get to bail out this and other mistakes of GWB---or do we just put it on the national credit card for our grandchildren to pay?

 

[Pens1566]

The solution is easy:


TAX CUTS!!!!

 

[nageov3t]

anyone remember when this war was going to pay for itself? heh.

 

[ayabe]

A big part of the problem is that our gear is wearing out a lot faster than before, due to damage sustained in combat or just the wear and tear caused by being in the desert. What they ought to do is stop all funding for missle defense, which won't work and is already outdated.

 

[Craig234]

No. Stop the military spending and start dealing responsibly with other countries as apolicy, rather than using military threats to get your way. I'd like to see a 75% military cut. We are now built for empire, not defense.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Craig234
rather than using military threats to get your way.

like Iran, North Korea, Hezbolla, Hamas, etc... right?

 

[catnap1972]

Oh pipe down!

We're winning the hearts and minds of war profiteers everywhere, and that's what's important!

 

[fitzov]

a very large piece of the federal pie is military. it needs to be cut, and so does the rest of the federal budget. we should start with the politician's salaries.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Craig234
rather than using military threats to get your way.

like Iran, North Korea, Hezbolla, Hamas, etc... right?

If Iraq had been all chocolates and roses as was stated, I have no doubt in my mind that we would be in Iran right now. Just because we can't doesn't mean he wouldn't if he could.

 

[Craig234]

Exactly, Ayabe.

I think the issue far bigger than any war we're now in or considering is the fact that the very political system of the world lacks any good setup to restrict bad behavior: again and again, policy is driven by the military strength of what you can do rather than any principle restricting the use of that strength (with the important exception of nukes).

At the moment, it's impossible to seperate the motives of things like removing an evil dictator from removing someone who is good for their nation but bad for our interests.

This is why we see inconsistencies like eliminating Saddam one time and the elected Salvadore Allende (or more recently, the attempt on Hugo Chavez) another; why we see contradictions such as our rewarding Saddam with better relations right after he gassed Kurds in the 80's and then citing those same attacks to overthrow him in 2003.

Our decision whether to attack Iran should be determined by principle, not by military ability. The fact that it isn't is a reason to use caution in our military build up; if you build them, they will get used, applies to more than ballparks.

Note, I don't say the global politcal problem is a US problem - it's a global one. No nation has solved it. The US is just more visible as the one with the power now.

Other nations from Japan to Germany to France to Russia to England to China have had similar problems dealing with military power that exceeds their political maturity.

The US is among the best nations in the world, probably, for dealing with the issues, but that's not saying much.

 

[CaptnKirk]

There comes a time when a military fighting a set piece war, or a superior adversary that relies on tecnological advantages
must face the grunt to grunt tasks that go with the daily routines.
When that time come, their grunts are dug in, deep within the culture, they live there, have always lived there,
blend in with the locals and speak the language and dialects of those who they represent as the local populace.
When we enter that phase, or when any other Army enters that phase, they cross forever over the line of liberators
and transition into the role of invader of occupying forign force, and the local underground supports their every move, not ours.

It happened in Vietnam, the US was the collective enemy of the NVA, the Viet Cong, then in the end we had no friendly support.

Hamas used this method to embarass the technically superior Israeli Army, body count is moot when a political 'In your Face' results.

Now we have somewhere around 140,000 soldiers just trying to hold steady on a situation where a stalemate is the best hope.
Gains cannot be made when chaos is the norm, and our troops become the designated target, sitting waiting for the next hit on them.
Even if we continue to send troops on a rotation for a year - after 50 years, they still live there, and we will still rotate foriegn occupiers
through their country and they watch, speak to each other, cover for each other, and hit when it benefits their cause.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our military supply chain cannot replace the equipment that is wearing out this fast,
and the troops that will be next to go will do so with a degraded level of equipment, some assuming the trashed out resources
that are already in place over there, hoping that it will suffice long enough for them to receive the stuff that they already
should have, should have trained with, and need to continue the present effort.
Hell, they are already asking to delay future builds of long lead items that they won't be able to receive into inventory for 4 or 5 years out
just so they can have a better chance to get equipment that they need now, but cannot expect realistic deliveries for 6 more months to a year.

 

[Witling]

jrenz. I really wonder where thoughts like the one you expressed come from.

Craig234 said, in part" "rather than using military threats to get your way. " Your response was, "like Iran, North Korea, Hezbolla, Hamas, etc... right?"

Not one of the organizations or countries that you mentioned are a military threat to us. Our military is not being used for our defense, it's being used as an instrument of foreign policy. Crai234 is correct.

Please, give me some justification for spending $$$ "defending" against the entities you mention.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No. Stop the military spending and start dealing responsibly with other countries as apolicy, rather than using military threats to get your way. I'd like to see a 75% military cut. We are now built for empire, not defense.

Saying we should deal with other countries is one thing, calling for a 75% decrease in military spending is just insane. Clinton cut defense throughout his 8 years and look at what that got us, nice terrorist attacks. Everything you say Bush should be doing Clinton tired, and we were still attacked.
Maybe we should come to the understanding that terrorists and religious zealots are going to hate and want to kill us no mater what we do.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Witling
jrenz. I really wonder where thoughts like the one you expressed come from.

Craig234 said, in part" "rather than using military threats to get your way. " Your response was, "like Iran, North Korea, Hezbolla, Hamas, etc... right?"

Not one of the organizations or countries that you mentioned are a military threat to us. Our military is not being used for our defense, it's being used as an instrument of foreign policy. Crai234 is correct.

Please, give me some justification for spending $$$ "defending" against the entities you mention.

All of those entities are grave and growing imminent threats against America's very own Heartland. :Q

North Korea could hit Hawaii if they get the Taepodong 2 working, and Iran, Hezbolla, and Hamas could launch terrorist attacks against America.

In all seriousness, to maintain our standard of living we must be engaged and involved around the world. Isolationism will not only reduce our economic and political power, but will open up vaccuums for less savory nations to fill, harming not only our interests but very well innocent people around the world. For instance, if Iran was more powerful in the Middle East, the regions stability would not be better. Not only would Israel be even more heavily armed and nervous, but the Gulf States especially Saudi Arabia would be much more concerned with Iran. We are somewhat seeing this now with Saudi Arabia's tens of billions of military hardware they have just bought in the past six months or so.

This does not mean we have an obligation to invade and bomb at a whim, but a strong military with a strong worldwide presense, ideally in the form of exchanges, excercises, and cooperation with other nations' militaries, is in our best interest.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
No. Stop the military spending and start dealing responsibly with other countries as apolicy, rather than using military threats to get your way. I'd like to see a 75% military cut. We are now built for empire, not defense.

Saying we should deal with other countries is one thing, calling for a 75% decrease in military spending is just insane. Clinton cut defense throughout his 8 years and look at what that got us, nice terrorist attacks. Everything you say Bush should be doing Clinton tired, and we were still attacked.
Maybe we should come to the understanding that terrorists and religious zealots are going to hate and want to kill us no mater what we do.

I'd have thought the FBI was a bit responsible for at home terrorism... and abroad terrorism is sorta under the watchfull eye of each Sovereign nations own "FBI" or are you talking about Iraq and Afghanistan... ? Don't see the terrorism issue a military failure at all.. our military has done what it was called on to do.. they really ain't 'street cops' neither are a battalion of MPs... I say send the NYPD there.. and maybe the RCMP.. now there is a few who know how to deal with street crime... maybe Ex Mayor G... nah.. not him.

Yup.. we should figure out what the motive of terror from the ME is generated by.. Israel and personal control by OBL types to force their belief system upon everyone they can or what ever it is..

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
No. Stop the military spending and start dealing responsibly with other countries as apolicy, rather than using military threats to get your way. I'd like to see a 75% military cut. We are now built for empire, not defense.

Saying we should deal with other countries is one thing, calling for a 75% decrease in military spending is just insane. Clinton cut defense throughout his 8 years and look at what that got us, nice terrorist attacks. Everything you say Bush should be doing Clinton tired, and we were still attacked.
Maybe we should come to the understanding that terrorists and religious zealots are going to hate and want to kill us no mater what we do.

Still blaming 9/11 on Clinton are ya?

Stop drinking the kool-aid. There are many things that caused 9/11, and Clinton, while perhaps one for failing to capture Osama, is one of the least. The planning for 9/11 happened under Clinton. The actual act, the months of preparation, the months where the attempt is going to be MOST visible and MOST stoppable, happened under Bush. Clinton warned them about Al Queda. He set up anti-terrorist networks designed exactly to prevent something like 9/11. What did Bush do? Nothing. In fact, he did worse than nothing. He demoted Clinton's top security people, one of which had been with Bush Sr. and Reagen before him. He set up Cheney in charge of anti-terrorism, and they did not meet once before 9/11. Things like 9/11 have been stopped in their tracks before, but they don't get stopped years and years before they happen. If you really think that, you need to get a clue.

Hindsight is 20/20, but in this case Bush really did drop the ball. It's not making excuses for Clinton to say this, because he doesn't need to be excused. One guy said Clinton handled terrorism more effectively than any president before him, but his one fault was that he was obsessed with Bin Laden. You can read that again. Stop drinking the Rush kool-aid. It's bad for your intellect.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
No. Stop the military spending and start dealing responsibly with other countries as apolicy, rather than using military threats to get your way. I'd like to see a 75% military cut. We are now built for empire, not defense.

Saying we should deal with other countries is one thing, calling for a 75% decrease in military spending is just insane. Clinton cut defense throughout his 8 years and look at what that got us, nice terrorist attacks. Everything you say Bush should be doing Clinton tired, and we were still attacked.
Maybe we should come to the understanding that terrorists and religious zealots are going to hate and want to kill us no mater what we do.

Military spending has almost nothing to do with terrorist attacks. Outside of the portion of the DoD budget for intel, of which very little is/was used on terror groups. Try again to make it Clinton's fault.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No. Stop the military spending and start dealing responsibly with other countries as apolicy, rather than using military threats to get your way. I'd like to see a 75% military cut. We are now built for empire, not defense.

Thanks for your opinion, Mr Gore. It must be nice living in your world, where everyone knows you, and doesn't mind this sort of senseless drivel! :roll:

The single largest problem with the DoD is the SUIT in charge. No, not W.......and not Shotgun Dick......we're talking he who is named after Cuban/PuertoRican alcohol. Quit trying to run the DoD like a business, as if you have to make a profit, and start running it like a military. The problem right now is that Rummy tells the Generals & Admirals every year, "You have X number of dollars, that you can spend on future weapons or personnel.......it's YOUR choice". Now what do you think they pick?? :roll:

Bottom line. If you expect more than peacetime work out of your military, you MUST budget for the extra. Rummy has run the DoD on not much more than peacetime funding, while expecting them to perform at a much higher tempo.

Oh, and for anyone who thinks the Clinton administration had nothing to do with this mess is sadly mistaken. All throughout the 8 years previous to the current administration, all we heard was how the military was being cut for a "peace dividend". Here's a clue.....the real peace dividend was PEACE. Now we have a military that's in not much better shape than it was during the Carter administration, being tasked with MAJOR tasking. Also, guess what usually gets cut first during a military drawdown?? Training and Maintenance.......coincidentally, the two things you need the most once you expect your military to go into combat. To tell the truth, I'm amazed our military has done as much as it has, with as little as it's had to do it, for as long as we've asked them to do it.

So PLEASE, don't spout your flower child platitudes about cutting the military down to nothing........all you do is show your incredible ignorance!

 

[Lemon law]

Sadly, two basic things motivate career military types----beyond trinkets like medals for meritorious paper pushing. Those are---

1. New toys for the arsenal---except the price tag for these toys run into the billions and possibly into the trillions of bucks---never mind if they work or not---and if we use em and break em---we gotta replace them----promotion and glory for those who can shepard a system into production---early retirement for those who fail.---best get into bed with the defense contractor.---nothing is worse than early retirement.

2. Some sort of war is always good for promotion---from private to general---but you get a classic heirarcial organization that hates indivual iniative---and no one must produce results.
Surviving and promotion are enough. But above all, the guys at the top must mollify the secretary of defense---and make that jerk look good. Results are secondary.

 

[Craig234]

It's great to see many of the responses here.

On another note:

So PLEASE, don't spout your flower child platitudes about cutting the military down to nothing........all you do is show your incredible ignorance!

75% is not cutting to nothing, and it's ignorant to confuse the two.

I don't know how to post an image here, so I ask you to click the following link to see a picture.

Picture is right here

This is no substitute for military analysis, but our spending is so out of control and dominated by a corrupt military-industrial complex that you can see the obvious.

The US currently spends as much as the other 95% of the people in the world combined on military spending. It's the largest discretionary item in our budget.

In that picture above, look at how our line extends out; now, take 75% off and note we're still around double the next largest spender in the world.

What's 'insanity' as John called it, or 'ignorance' as the poster above? Cutting spending to 'only' twice the level of the next largest nation, or our current spending levels?

Of course, the question comes down to the merits of the issue - and as I said, the bulk of our spending fits the needs of an empire, not a nation paying for defense.

We have several hundred military bases in nations on every populated continent. What other nation can begin to say anything like that?

We're spending fortunes on new weapons to gain yet further dominance - new 'usable' nukes, space-based weapons, and much more, to shift the balance of power more.

And yet, our public too often votes in fear of missiles from somewhere landing on us, something that our military budget priorities does not well deal with.

We have a bit of a double standard, expecting others not to mind too much when we go around threatening with our real military, while we demand for ourselves that no other nation have any capacity to do anything much to us - and that just happens to also mean they are unable to defend themselves if we attack. At that point, the mere hint of our use of force is enough to use military blackmail.

We are wasting money, which forces us to justify the spending by 'using' the military somehow. There's a reason it was said power tends to corrupt.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: fitzov
a very large piece of the federal pie is military. it needs to be cut, and so does the rest of the federal budget. we should start with the politician's salaries.

It's over 50% of the discretionary budget.

 

[sandorski]

Get in line behind the Government which is $trillions short.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, two basic things motivate career military types----beyond trinkets like medals for meritorious paper pushing. Those are---

1. New toys for the arsenal---except the price tag for these toys run into the billions and possibly into the trillions of bucks---never mind if they work or not---and if we use em and break em---we gotta replace them----promotion and glory for those who can shepard a system into production---early retirement for those who fail.---best get into bed with the defense contractor.---nothing is worse than early retirement.

2. Some sort of war is always good for promotion---from private to general---but you get a classic heirarcial organization that hates indivual iniative---and no one must produce results.
Surviving and promotion are enough. But above all, the guys at the top must mollify the secretary of defense---and make that jerk look good. Results are secondary.

I would love to hear where you came up with this BS.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: fitzov
a very large piece of the federal pie is military. it needs to be cut, and so does the rest of the federal budget. we should start with the politician's salaries.

Because that takes such a huge portion of the budget, right? Go back in your hole.