Good Idea Fairy runs rampant in Pentagon
The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration has an “austerity plan” to provide for our national defense. Yeah, I’d like to see their “austerity plan” for the Environmental Protection Agency.
The document will call for a greater shift toward Asia in military planning and a move away from big, expensive wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, which have dominated U.S. operations for most of the past decade, said a senior military official.
I hope our enemies all take this into account before they begin their respective rampages and cooperate with our new plans. How in the name of all that is holy do you “move away from big, expensive wars”? Are we just going to ignore any threats that are too big or too expensive?
From Deebow over at our major league team;
Wars are not something you can fight with a coupon or try to duck out on the cheap and my bet is that we could afford a poop ton more troops and equipment if we weren’t making loans/campaign contributions to outfits like Solyndra and putting our debt at 100.3 percent of our GDP, along with all of the other Marxist crap that the OinC has decided is good for America.
It’s as if that problem with training and sufficient equipment that we had at the beginning of this last war just suddenly appeared after January 20, 2001. Like I said, where’s the austerity plan for the EPA and the Commerce Department? Are they being asked to slash billions out of their operating budgets? Especially since their policies are killing jobs and DoD’s policies are only killing our enemies. Well, almost;
On Wednesday, Boeing announced that it will shutter a factory in Wichita that produces military airplanes for refueling, an early casualty of what is expected to be a wave of closings among defense contractors.
On differences;
The strategy is different from past Pentagon reviews in that it establishes clear priorities for the military, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not been publicly released.
Yeah, “clear priorities” from muddled brains. There were clear priorities before Bush, too – a military that handed out MREs to the world’s hungry. As deebow points out, there is an endless list of nations that wish us ill, some of whom already consider themselves at war with us, but I guess since they don’t fit our “clear priorities”, I’m sure they’ll cooperate and not give us any trouble. Or we can depend on the Europeans to intervene where we’re unable to summon the testicular fortitude like in Libya.
Just because the Washington Post tells us this time will be different doesn’t make it so. Like I mentioned the other day, Leftists think there wasn’t a moment of human history written before the moment of their births.
So who wants to be the first to die for a lie?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
Wasn’t so long ago that our “clear priorities” were close held secrets. Most members of the military had no idea what the strategic plans were much less were they being editorialized.
Somehow – this new way of dealing with our enemies and potential enemies doesn’t make me feel secure, all warm and fuzzy, or confident in the decision makers’ abilities.
They are also keeping the 11 carriers and delaying the JSF. It leads me to wonder just what the next National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy are going to look like. There is going to have to be a focus on victory with limited land occupation and show of force with a paper tiger with the Army and USMC facing cuts, and we all know how well that works. UAVs and cruise missiles to decapitate enemy C2, but no land force to occupy and control territory will lead to an endless requirement for UAV pilots and cruise missile assemblers, but not a desired strategic or operational endstate.
Yup, time to take the Good Idea Fairy and beat the shit out of that crazy bitch.
Oh, and for those trolls/lurkers who think I’m being misogynistic, lighten up, Francis.
Finally, someone ought to tell the folks in the Obumbles administration to pull out a map and identify exactly which continent contains the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just sayin.
Boeing is moving the plant to Oklahoma, creating 800 jobs. I’m sure the newly re-communized NLRB will be blocking that effort as well, effectively destroying that industrial capability.
Great, they are Cartering the frakking Army. Because, you know, the Army doesn’t do anything that the USMC couldn’t do. Panetta just said that bullshit. Last time I checked, the Marines took it and them the Army came in and held it while building it back up.
While someone is showing the Obumbles where Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is, they ought to dig out the PLA and NORK orders of battle and point out to them how many battalions of infantry and armor each has.
Sadly, Progressives/liberals/democrats never learn that you can’t do national defense on the cheap. The folks on the ground always end up paying for their stupidity, in blood and lives.
The other part of the story is they want to get rid of 10,000 ground pounders, as part of this “trimming” of the military. Yeah, because we all know how many wars are won with sea and airpower alone.
We just got the Public Affairs guidance on this. Its all stars, unicorns and sunshine. The are rumors that the early retirement option will come back. I’m actually thinking about that posting John and company did about the Aussie military needing folks. I have 4 until retirement…19 for pay and have alot of family there. This is all going to fall somewhere between the late 70’s and early 90’s Army misery. I have zero faith that this assbag won’t sell us out. I hope that all these senior leaders that have watched our kids do amazing things actually step up to the plate…confront Obama and then retire in protest.
@7: Sorry, it should have said tens of thousands of ground troops, because they don’t have a set number, yet, but it is well over 10,000 for starters.
“Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.”
Obumble says, “agile and flexible”. “Panetta says future budgets will mean smaller U.S. armed forces and some greater risk. But he said the country does not have to choose between national security and fiscal responsibility”, according to the AP.
Maybe not, but it’d be nice if this administration could choose one of the above. Personally, I’d prefer to have them obey the Constitution and provide for defense. Or just have them obey the Constitution.
Someone in this administration is truly whistling past the graveyard with this damnfool idiocy- carter redux, clintonian tripe… wonder if they will push early retirements again? ‘Cause can’t you see we’ve reached the “end of history”.
“Someone in this administration is truly whistling past the graveyard with this damnfool idiocy”
That would be the CinC. This is his baby. He owns it.
If you wish to shrink your presence on the globe and render yourself incapable of protecting your interests wherever and whenever they may be threatened; If you wish to ensure that several of your smaller traditional ‘competitors’ can push you around when they join forces to do so; If you want to show the world that America is no better or worse than Swaziland or Bolivia, then you do what Obama and company are doing. This isn’t about cost savings. It’s about reworking America and her role in the world. Everybody gets a trophy and dodgeball is verboten.
Perfect analysis, AC. Yep.
“Everybody gets a trophy and dodgeball is verboten”. Agree, this is all about “transforming America”.
“How in the name of all that is holy do you ‘move away from big, expensive wars'”? Come on Jonn, you know the answer to that one. You don’t lie to the American public and then start big, expensive wars on false pretenses. Pretty simple, huh?
Panetta himself said that we will only have the capability to cover 1 engagement and be a “spoiler” for a 2nd. Does that sound like appropriate strategic planning? Those around the world who wish to bring us to our knees are looking at this and waiting patiently for the right time to collaborate with others to attack from 2 directions which will fracture our “smart power” to the point of ineffectiveness within mere moments and leave us vulnerable to the whims of those who wish us ill. Do we rely on the help of allies? NATO? The UN?
We have been down this road before and like a bunch of dumbasses, we never learn from history. Before WWI we were not even considered in the top 15 militaries in the world. After WWI we were ranked 10th or 8th (definitely not in the top 5) and in each case, we had to rebuild and ramp up. The cycle was repeated after Carter and after Clinton and we will continue down this road over and over where we cut and have to spend more and more in order to rebuild when the SHTF. Does anyone think that China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, or any number of others are downsizing? No, they are actually building their forces and capabilities while the neophytes in this administration are singing kumbaya and playing fucking golf.
Joey, just once it’d be refreshing if you could come up with an original thought, and not something you picked up at DU or Kos.
Well, UpNorth, it might be nice, but whether my idea was original or not, it’s true and understood by about 6 billion people.
Really, Joey? 6 billion. Almost every person on the planet agrees with you, Kos and DU? I don’t fucking think so. But, thanks for admitting that you don’t have any original ideas. Now, go sit in the corner, suck your thumb and wait for mommy to explain to you, yet again, that you shouldn’t try to talk with the adults in the room.
Old Trooper,
We could cut our defense spending by a factor of three and still spend more than China does, or cut it by a factor of eight and still outspend Russia. Look up the definition of “overkill”.
So, Joey wants PFC’s and Corporals in the Army and Marines, Airmen and Sailors paid the same that China pays their cannon fodder? Joey, how much do the Rooskies spend on their version of the EPA, lets cut ours back to match theirs.
Hey Joe. Tell me, what’s your plan? I mean, what do you do if we are attacked or threatened with attack on multiple fronts? What if our national interests are threatened here and there? What if, what if, what if…Do we say, “Give us 12-18 months to respond, please.” Do we bow, capitulate, appease? This isn’t about overpriced ashtrays and toilet seats. This is about being able to ensure that we can meet violence with overwhelming violence and multiple threats at different places with the credible threat of overwhelming violence. That’s reality. Or is it that the plan is to go nuke here on out and do away with conventional warfare? Seriously, Joe, what’s the big idea?
@24 – Not speaking for Joe, but if we opted to not nation build for decades, we might actually be better positioned to respond to crisis around the world.
And if we hadn’t enslaved a few generations of human beings into welfare, we could have saved even more.
No argument there…it’s not either/or for me.
Smart cut backs are needed and always were. However, the party in control realizes that the voting bloc of the military doesn’t go their way so thus easy and drastic cuts will be made. You won’t see welfare take these drastic cuts. I’ll never forget the cartoon of a Paul Revere shouting at the Pentagon that “McGovern is coming, McGovern is coming.” McGovern didn’t make it, but Carter (hollow force) and Clinton (peace dividend) did. Now it’s Obama’s turn. You reap what you sow. History repeating itself and nothing new.
@28 – There may be some truth to that, but why then doesn’t the other party ‘gut’ social and entitlement programs?
Since when does outspending = victory? Is that the whole goal? Spending more money than our adversaries? Joe, I’ve seen you make some stupid points before, but that has to be right up there in the top five. I guess it’s just your way of proving that you’re out of your depth here.
@30. I didn’t follow that but I am quite serious that this whole business is not about cost. The Left cares not a whit about the cost of anything else but defense expenditures. And the Left believes in the guns OR butter choice, as if without the guns you can convincingly appeal to a bad guy not to take away the butter.
@30. I must be having a psychotic episode or something, Jonn. The first time around, all I saw of your comment were the first three questions. Strike the “I didn’t get that” in 31. Guess I better check the meds.
Just read the accompanying strategy. More depend on the friends to fill the gaps idealism.
Anything over quarter of an inch deep is out of Joe’s depth….
I think Joey is out of his depth when he gets close to the pool.
Old Trooper @13- absolutely, though of course he’ll deny, deny, deny…
“a greater shift toward Asia in military planning and a move away from big, expensive wars like Iraq and Afghanistan”
Because wars in Asia are never big and expensive. Does anyone even remember the last time something of note has happened there. Or particularly when a growing nation with empirical aspirations and freshly developed long strike weaponry has been a problem in Asia?
I guess I will sum up by saying this…You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…
Should we really be suprised by what this administration is doing. Many liberals in this country are more supportive of socialist or communist countries and leaders. It’s natural they want countries like China and Russia to be stronger in the world, since they don’t like our current form of government.
I wrote two days ago- “Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to “spoil” a second adversary’s ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone.” I think Gates already articulated this. We have hinted over the last 30 years to be hard pressed if forced to fight in two large conflicts at the same time. The Fight in one and hold/disrupt prevent from losing in a second, was already stated by Gates or Rumsfeld. “…With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, Mr. Panetta is weighing how significantly to shrink America’s ground forces.” Again we have a tiny ground force. We really have less then the minimum then nessary as is. The world wars aside, which were wars of national massive mobilisation, in Korea we fielded 8 American divisions and in Vietnam(add up the odd brigades) nearing 9. In Iraq, excluding the Surge, we had just over 4, when you add the preramped up Afghanistan deployments(1 or 2 brigades) that brings us to about 5 total. We had to call up guard units for a credible 1yr deployed, 1yr home schedule and that stretched our force to the breaking point. Frankly we just barely have the forces needed for one medium war, assuming no other contingency occurs, without straining the active side and needing to call up the Reserves/Guard. THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING TO CUT WITHOUT LOSING A CREDIBLE GROUND FORCE CAPABILITY!!! NOT ONE COMBAT BATTALION!” Then I wrote ““…The final numbers will make it clear that the United States could not carry out lengthy stability and nation-building efforts, like those ordered for Afghanistan and Iraq, without a huge mobilization of the National Guard and the Reserves.” NO!!! It really can’t do that now without them giving the active duty side a cushion for emergencies.” Remember the years the Democrats in congress bemoaned the overstretch of our troops and the stress on the force,… Read more »
@ Joe in #22: Well, we could cut our entitlement budget the same and would still outspend China, if you look at it as a percentage, too. What’s your point? If you consider 17% of our budget on defense as “overkill”, then I would like to see what you call our entitlement program spending.
My point – we do not currently have an enemy like the USSR during the cold war. We don’t need a military to re-fight the cold war. Even if China or Russia started some serious saber rattling it would take them years to build up to the point where they would be a re al threat, giving us plenty of lead time to respond. We don’t need our current level of spending or military structure to stay ahead the te rrorists. A lot of the weapons systems amount to corporate welfare.
Internet down, last post was from me, Joe, on my smartphone in case you were wondering.
Joe we have one enemy that could potentially be as destructive as the USSR. Islamists could cause nearly as much chaos, or cause just as much destruction famine and death as Communism ever did.
Add to that you have regional enemies that will work to hamper our efforts, like N Korea, Iran, even Russia could be thrown into the mix. Never mind that nearly the whole of Africa is in a state of low grade warfare (with a little ethnic cleansing on the side). Let us not forget the Baltic states. East Asia, the pacific Islands. . .
Joe there is a possibility for many many MANY internessing regional conflicts that could roll into each other. Trust me when I say this Joe, a weak American Military is bad news for everyone.
Doc,
Even with big cuts, we would not have a “weak American Military”.
Dumb people shouldn’t be on smart phones, Joe.
BTW–have you pulled the meter on your house yet?
we do not currently have an enemy like the USSR during the cold war
Nah, they’ve just sold all their shit to everyone else like the Norks, Iran, and a shitload of other 3rd World asshats.
it would take them years to build up to the point where they would be a re al threat, giving us plenty of lead time to respond.
Cause yeah, building an aircraft carrier is something we can do as easily as a fry cook making up a Big Mac.
Dipshit. Try looking at the procurement schedules–they’re written up to a decade in advance, in some cases.
Oh, and since when do we “spend so much” on defense? Matter of fact, if you look at it in terms of percentage of GDP, even at the “huge” levels under Bush, we’re still spending less than 4 percent of GDP on defense. Compare that to 5 percent under Carter, 9 percent under JFK/LBJ, 14 percent under Truman, and of course, the 38 percent of GDP under FDR.
Compare that to the current 17-19 percent on entitlement spending.
Procurement schedules can be fast tracked if needed.
“Procurement schedules can be fast tracked if needed.”
Yeah, that’s more naive bullshit. Do you mean like the “fast tracked procurements” of up-armored HMMVs and body armor that never seemed to be fast-tracked enough for the Left during this last war? the stuff we should have bought and fielded after Mogadishu? Do you have a magic wand that makes that stuff appear out of thin air when we need it? And you can’t procure something that hasn’t been developed.
Is the water warm down there in the shallow end, Joe?
@41: We haven’t had a Cold War military since 1991. We are far short of that mark already (which tells a lot about why the National Guard and Reserves are pulling more deployments than at any other time in history). The “corporate welfare” meme is outdated. There is a whole lot of “welfare” going on out there i.e. environmetal welfare (Solyndra comes to mind immediately and other “green” companies), university/big education welfare (in Minnesota 47 cents of every tax dollar goes to education, including higher education, yet tuition keeps going up, plus in k-12 education, the amount of state and federal money going to it doesn’t include local property taxes and bond issues, etc.), and all the other departments that have their “sub-contractors” that siphon off our tax dollars. There is plenty of that type of welfare going around, yet the only one of those that is enumerated in the Constitution is national defense. No matter how much denial you are in, there are bad actors out there wanting to do harm to us, or our interests, around the world and having a robust defense that doesn’t have to be rebuilt on the fly when something happens is and should be a mainstay of every administration.
Define “robust defense” in the context of today’s challenges. Big, sexy, shiny, expensive hardware does not necessarily make for a robust defense. Look at the Maginot Line.
“Look at the Maginot Line.”
Strawman. No one is recommending that we build something to fight the wars of the last century like the French did. And the French only half-assed built the Maginot Line – they stopped at the Argonne Forest. I mean, who expected the Germans to invade through the Argonne – they’d only done it three times in the previous 50 years. Which counters your argument. Half-assed preparedness gives the enemy an opening.