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
As usual, Joe, you keep going back to the leftist talking points of what you all think is the bugaboo of defense spending. No, Joe, robust defense spending doesn’t revolve around “Big, sexy, shiny, expensive hardware”. It revolves around troops and the equipment needed to field those troops, train those troops, clothe those troops, house those troops, feed those troops, arm those troops, and get those troops to the trouble spot. If something comes along that is “Big, sexy, shiny, expensive hardware” that will require less troops or will save lives on the battle field; why would you be against developing and fielding such things? You have always lambasted the loss of life in our military (they didn’t have up-armored Humvees and they didn’t have ballistic vests, etc.), so you should be all for “Big, sexy, shiny, expensive hardware”; right?
Joe, the Maginot Line was a static display of poor planning and thinking. That “Big, sexy, shiny, expensive hardware” that the Germans fielded made the Maginot line a picnic stop.
Next meaningless example?
@43 – “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.”
Possibly, but also irrespective of decades long adventures in nation-building.
How about we drastically scale back defense cuts, pull out of Afghanistan and finally work on eradicating al Qaeda and it;s franchises?
One man’s Maginot Line is another man’s F-35.
You have yet to offer a rational thought as to why defense should bear the brunt of all of the budget reductions that Owebowma wants. Regurgitating dem talking points is not a cogent argument, Joey.
You trot out the “procurement schedules can be fast-tracked” bullshit, but when it’s pointed out that your head is so far up your fourth point of contact you can’t see the sun, you retreat to strawmen like “One man’s Maginot Line is another man’s F-35”.
Hey people–Joe has a point–why build an F-35 to go up against Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters with their own stealth technology, thrust vectoring, etc., that are sold worldwide when P-51’s are so much cheaper?
And keep in mind that F-35’s aren’t designed as an air-superiority fighter like the Raptor.
Ah, what the fuck, right? It’s not like the F-15 is 40 years old, or falling out of the sky from metal failure or anything. Oh wait–IT IS. And it is.
Finally, Joe, newsflash for ya–we could elminate every DIME of DoD spending, and thanks to your Annoited Wun, the deficit would be cut to just under $800 BILLION a year.
Next…
Look around the country and then tell me defense is bearing the brunt. I mean take a frickkin’ look around! Sheesh!
I am. I do. I will.
Show me where Commerce, the EPA, DOE, or any other government agency is taking any sort of a hit.
“Procurement schedules can be fast tracked if needed.”
It cost on the order of a few hundreds of millions of dollars to fast track XSAPI plates, which were an existing program with a program manager and a budget. MRAPs were fast tracked on the order of several hundreds of millions of dollars, took several years to field even with a clearly defined capability gap, and had to be made in multiple variants because the fast track process resulted in a vehicle that didn’t meet all of the required capabilities. I can’t imagine what it would cost and the insignificance of time saved to fast track a carrier or a submarine. It all comes down to pay me now or pay me later, and the contractors will make sure that the quick pay me later will all but make up for the not paying them now. The key is that the pay me later option will come out of some other Congress’ budget with a different President’s signature, so that is just fine.
Joe,
Here are some placed not taking a hit:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is looking for an “Invitations Coordinator” with a pay range of $53.5K to 120.9K (http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306225500)
Everybody gets a pay raise, despite already being paid above the national average (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/white-house-proposes-05-percent-pay-increase-for-federal-workers/2012/01/06/gIQA18fyeP_blog.html?hpid=z1)
#50 “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.” The problem is we haven’t bought any big ticket items outside drones and MRAPS for the last few years. Most of the funding has gone directly to the wars themselves. Even the large acquisitions like the JSF, F-22, Stryker, Osprey, and new Marine Amphibious Track have been in development for 20 plus years. Only the Osprey and Stryker are arguably redundant. The others are required to continue capabilities as is. The JSF is supposed to replace three different aircraft, how much more bang for your buck can you get? They have already trimmed down the raw numbers we planned to purchase. Its time to pay the piper.
As I stated above somewhere, most of the cuts are coming out of USA/USMC ground troops, of whom we really don’t have enough of as is.
#54 “How about we drastically scale back defense cuts, pull out of Afghanistan and finally work on eradicating al Qaeda and it;s franchises?” Impossible on the Afganistan/Pakistan border CI. Did you see how Al Qaeda just united all of the various Taliban franchises. They’ve made up with Pakistan and now plan to prioritise the NATO/ISAF and Afghan forces. Nope they don’t work together. You can’t separate them CI.
P.S. I saw that article you linked a few days ago, have not read yet, but will soon.-Cedo
@62 – “As I stated above somewhere, most of the cuts are coming out of USA/USMC ground troops, of whom we really don’t have enough of as is.”
Remember though, that some of these cuts in manpower are going to come from staff structures and overhead created for OIF. These aren’t on permanent MTOEs.
“You can’t separate them CI.”
You absolutely can. Defeat the Taliban (et al), and al Qaeda still prospers. Defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban are of less threat to our national security than the meager level they are at present.
@58: Ok, Joe, I will tell you defense is bearing the brunt of cuts. All you have to do is look at where they are announcing cuts in the budget (even I can figure that out) and look where they aren’t announcing budget cuts. Show me where the federal government is cutting $450 billion (minimum) out of medicare/medicaid/social security/ HHS/EPA (they recently stroked congress for $1.2 billion per year to add a bunch of enforcement agents), etc., which, as I have stated, is a far larger chunk of the federal budget than defense spending (especially when the defense budget is $700 billion dollars out of a $3.7 trillion dollar budget). Keep believing the lie, Joe, you have downed a whole keg of the koolaid and are going back for more. If you are having problems coming to grips with what you see around the country; maybe you should ask your buddies on the left why they keep getting more budget money and do less with it?
#63″Remember though, that some of these cuts in manpower are going to come from staff structures and overhead created for OIF. These aren’t on permanent MTOEs.” I hope so, did you see that somewhere? As far as I know they already factored that with the temporary 22,000 troops that we were to lose before this next wave.
“You absolutely can.” NO YOU CAN”T! Not in this locale you can’t.
@65 – “NO YOU CAN”T! Not in this locale you can’t.”
I am concerned with eradicating al Qaeda, not nibbling at it’s edges. If you support staying mired in a backwater, fine. It’s not a strategy that is going to eliminate the entity who attacked us however. Haven’t you ever been curious as to al Qaeda seeming to have just enough fighters in Afghanistan to allow proponents of staying to make a case [strong enough apparently]?
Meanwhile, AQAP, AS, AQIM, AQI and other lesser franchises are ascendant.
“I hope so, did you see that somewhere? As far as I know they already factored that with the temporary 22,000 troops that we were to lose before this next wave.”
Nothing I can point to at present…I’ll see if that’s documented anywhere.
#66 1)”I am concerned with eradicating al Qaeda, not nibbling at it’s edges.” The fighters on that border are not on the edges, that is the head of the Dragon. I don’t disagree on a larger scale in other areas of the world but the fact remains that won’t work here and hasn’t. 2)”If you support staying mired in a backwater, fine. It’s not a strategy that is going to eliminate the entity who attacked us however.” The problem is CI you don’t pontificate a strategy either but a hope. A pure CT is completely impractical, would not eliminate the entity, and would lead to us being besieged in Kabul and a few other locales, with the enemy free to do as they please beyond. Al Qaeda would almost certainly recamp in Afghanistan in the wake of our defeat. It would be nearly impossible for us to regain access to that area. 3)”Haven’t you ever been curious as to al Qaeda seeming to have just enough fighters in Afghanistan to allow proponents of staying to make a case [strong enough apparently]?” Well for starters most of Al Qaeda is based in the east. With possibly(big possible) one exception, we really haven’t have elimanted that many of them to being with. Second we liquidate relatively few members of Al Qaeda, like the high value target(HVT) campaign being waged against enemy leadership by SOF, those small loses are easy to replace. Third the organisation’s numbers(I estimate a few thousand) show its amazing ability to rally all the various factions on the border to fight a common foe, either Pakistan or NATO. Simply it’s a force mulitplier. Al Qaeda, not the ISI, or Haqqani, or even Omar, have constantly been able to get the various factions to patch up differences to unite. They just used the lull in the drone campaign, that allowed factional leadership to travel, to organise a caucus. To get at the heart of Al Qaeda you have to deal with the chest that is the Taliban, for all practical purposes it is impossible to parse between them. “Meanwhile, AQAP,… Read more »