Senate cuts focuses on personnel and weapons
The Air Force Times reports that the Senate Armed Services Committee has focused their spending axes on personnel and weapons budget cuts…because, ya know, who needs people or weapons to fight wars when we have such a brainiac in the White House with all of that “smart diplomacy” he’s got goin’ for him.
A detailed list of savings released by the armed services committee Wednesday morning shows the committee reduced personnel funding by $100.6 million, partly by cutting unspent balances from previous years, and partly from new estimates by the Congressional Budget Office of how much would be saved with a change in hostile fire pay included in the bill.
The measure, proposed by personnel panel chairman Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., would change hostile fire pay from a monthly rate to a daily rate.
The revised bill also would trim $330 million from the defense health-care account. The cut may not affect patients, however, because it is based on new assumptions on private-sector health-care expenses, the committee said.
I wonder if anyone thought that paying hostile fire pay by the day would create an accounting nightmare that might cost more to enforce than the savings? Nothing makes me feel confident about their healthcare cuts for patients when they use the phrase “…based on new assumptions….” Especially since doctors aren’t allowed to make assumptions on their patients.
Here’s a history lesson for the Senators; In 1950, President Truman decided that he wanted to intervene in the invasion of South Korea by North Korea so he sent the only troops he had available to do the job – the 1/21st Infantry of the 24th Infantry Division, commanded by Lt. Col. Charles B. Smith, which had been on occupation duty in Japan for five years. The Battalion’s understrength manpower of less than 500 Americans faced 4000 North Koreans and their tanks, who despite the infantry battalion’s best efforts, rolled right through the US forces in a few hours.
The Army had been slashed to shreds after winning the war against Hitler and Tojo. The infantrymen arrived in Korea with their anemic numbers and only nine rounds for their bazookas to fight off a Korean Division.
The phrase “Task force Smith” has driven our foreign and military policy for over half-a-century, but these clowns think they’re immune to the lessons of history. Who among my readers is willing to be the first to die so Congress can learn this lesson again?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Congress sucks, Military issues
None of this shit will change until Congresscritters are embedded with the troops every time we go somewhere. Not after the fact, DURING the conflict.
It makes me think that sometime down the road, while we’re trying to be the world’s peace keepers, somebody is going to stick it to the continental U.S. We’re spread thinly as it is and to continue to reduce force size and assets is a mistake. If these kinds of cuts continue, we’re not going to have the military strength to defend even our own borders….
…..(not that we don’t have that problem already, we’re just lucky it hasn’t been somebody who wants to take over our country for themselves, or simply eliminate us as a sizable opposition. just people looking to live in a place where you can belittle and spit in the faces of those who protect you, and recieve free financial support from the government if you “can’t” work)
Sparky, how dare you suggest such a thing!! Don’t you know that they are above such nonsense? There have been more recent lessons for the congresscritters to use than Korea, although that is about the best one. I was thinking along the lines of the Carter years and Desert 1. Political will being what it is, a bowl of jello, we know that they only look at the here and now, never the future, and never study the past. Like the generations coming up, it’s all about instant gratification, not planning for future missions or conflicts. They claim to want to trim fat, but use a chainsaw instead of a filet knife to do so. If they cared as much about our foreign policy and defense as they do about making sure that some irresponsible twit gets her welfare check, then things might be different. We all know that won’t happen and future situations will be fought or defended on the cheap, or until someone with a spine gets into office and has to spend much more to build back up than it would to maintain what we already have. Yeah, Ron Paul talks about isolationism as though it’s a good thing. How did that work out for us from 1920 to 1941? Hell, even 6 months into the war we were going against a better armed Japan. That’s how long it took for us to get into shape and start cranking out what we needed and that included all the build up we did prior to the start of the war. China is working overtime to build up, but nobody wants to pay attention to that, or they claim that we spend much more than anyone else. Yeah, that’s easy to say when China pays their people a whole lot less to manufacture their war products. Lets, also, not forget that some rogue nations are signing agreements with nations where a mutual arms agreement works better for both parties involved. India decided to buy French fighters, along with the Russian ones they build under contract, instead of going with… Read more »
Hostile fire pay per diem? Idiocy.
For each day you received hostile airborne explosive rounds, complete Form 123 and attach one piece of shrapnel
For each day you were a target of hostile small-arms fire, compete Form 123A and attach a bullet fragment, if available, or a certified digital image of a bullet hole if a bullet fragment is unavailable.
For each day you were within 250 meters of a land-based IED when it was detonated…
Besides TF Smith, another driving mantra has been “Hope is not a method.” GEN Sullivan’s directive is as appropriate today in the era of HopeyChanginess as it was when he took charge of the Army.
That said, we can offset loss of troops and equipment through aggressive cyberwar (read: (LulzSec + WikiLeaks x 10)). It will also require something of a psychopathic diplomatic corps.
It’s obvious we need more vets in politics. In my experience, those who fought for the country pay far more attention to both the past and future of the nation. It probably has to do with having a bigger personal stake in the matter. I’m curious if there are any organizations dedicated to fund-raising for that sort of thing.
I would have to ask if they’re cutting Guns and Joes, what exactly AREN’T they cutting?
“It makes me think that sometime down the road, while we’re trying to be the world’s peace keepers, somebody is going to stick it to the continental U.S. We’re spread thinly as it is and to continue to reduce force size and assets is a mistake.”
Son, strategic-level continental defense is the Navy’s job.
Among other things, consider ye this: one Trident SSBN can pretty much exterminate the national leadership of any nation on the face of the Earth, and still have some rounds unexpended.
“OK, General, you land an expeditionary force in the United States. Let’s assume that the crazy yahoos with hunting rifles don’t turn into a significant problem–not the way to bet, but, hey, I’m feeling generous today. How do we prevent the Yankees from turning me and my family into radioactive stratospheric air pollution?”
“Uh . . . we’re working on that issue, Mister President for Life.”
Some of the cuts are fine. They’re axing some new production C-17s that the USAF has been demanding be cut for years. I’m okay with that because I want to see them squirm when it turns out they really actually don’t have enough airlift.
They’re also axing JTRS. The only way that could be a better decision is if they also took everybody involved in it and tossed them into a lake.
Spade – on JTRS, if the lake was on fire, that’d be even better.
@5: Our Diplomatic corps would never be psychotic. Too many intellectuals who prefer form over function. In all reality, State needs to be cleaned out and a Law put into effect that you can not get a job with any firm funded by a foreign country until 10 years AFTER you leave State.
matter of fact. What cuts is State having to suffer?
In 1950, the strength of the USMC was 74,279, officers and enlisted. Truman’s Sec Def. had bragged that he’d cut defense to the bone, then cut some of the bone. It would seem that now they want to not only cut the bone, they want to break it so that it can’t be reset.
Yeah, those defense cuts have worked out so well, every time they’ve been tried./sarc
I’m about to get flamed big time. Seriously, be gentle…
As far as cutting back on defense spending in general is concerned, we have enough military to beat every country in the world twice. How many other countries have aircraft carriers like we do? If you added up every non-american aircraft carrier in the world, would it equal our fleet? We can pound any sovereign nation to dust in a matter of a few days, with few exceptions, and probably more than one at once. Those countries that are the exception would be suicidal to provoke us in any way because we owe them massive amounts of money and if they pissed us off enough that we told them to go pound sand and aren’t paying them back, they’d be utterly destroyed (China and Russia). Our problem isn’t military size, or military spending, it is military training. We are still fighting second generation battles in fourth generation wars. You don’t need a big military to fight fourth generation wars.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t be in a state of readiness. I’m not advocating draconian cuts to our armed forces, but in a time when everyone else is cutting back and tightening their belts, why is it so hard for the military to do likewise?
The only quibble that I have with the current talks of military cutbacks is that it is always cutbacks in personnel and gear (which we need). Instead, why not cut back on our military presence in Europe? Our insistence on being their protectors over the last 50 years has allowed them to not have to protect themselves, so instead of keeping a military, they’ve spent the money on socialist programs. We are spending billions protecting Europe so that able-bodied European men can live lives of laziness and non-productivity instead of joining their own damned military and doing something for a change.
Like I said, flame suit on… Be gentle. Pretty please?
Well spoken Goober
How about the Federal gov’t stop doling out billions to states and localities for what the receiving states and localities should be paying for exclusively. You want more cops, more teachers, more grants, more this and more that? Pay for it yourselves! Sure, some states will have much more than others but how much state and local money gets spent and for what should be a state and local concern alone. I’m not done with this line of argument but I can easily write a ream about it so I had better stop now.