Mattis shocked by readiness
Yesterday, Secretary of Defense James Mattis addressed the House Armed Services Committee and told them taht he was ‘shocked” at the state of readiness of his Department to face the threats arrayed against the US, according to AFP;
Pointing to Obama-era budget caps known as sequestration, Mattis said limits on military spending have left troops at greater risk and blocked important new programs — even though the defense budget is already greater than that of the next seven countries combined.
“I retired from military service three months after sequestration took effect,” Mattis, a former Marine general, told the House Armed Services Committee.
“Four years later, I returned to the Department (of Defense), and I have been shocked by what I’ve seen about our readiness to fight… No enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than sequestration.”
I’m sure the Committee “tsk, tsked” their way through the hearing but the fault lies with Congress as much as it does with the Obama Administration since Congress couldn’t make the hard choices bout cuts to the budget’s domestic funding, afraid to anger voters who would lose their “piece of the pie” while defense spending risked national security. Essentially, the last eight years was spent kickig the can down the road. Now President Trump makes the tough choices for them, and still they worry about the effect at the polls.
Committee Chairman Congressman Mac Thornberry and other Republicans bemoaned the increase as insufficient.
“We have spent six years just getting by, asking more and more of those who serve, and putting off the choices that have to be made. We cannot keep piling missions on our service members without ensuring they have all they need to succeed,” Thornberry said.
Although many Democrats on the committee agree, they worry where the money will come from, given the Trump administration’s pressure to cut taxes.
Lord, please don’t let them cut the fat and glut out of the government spending.
Mattis pointed to the war in Afghanistan, which has dragged on since late 2001 with no end in sight, as exacting a heavy price.
Such campaigns have “exhausted our equipment faster than planned. Congress and the Department (of Defense) could not anticipate the accumulated wear and tear of years of continuous combat use,” he said.
Lawmakers repeatedly asked Mattis for an update on Afghanistan, and about whether Trump will deploy thousands more troops to help Afghan partners reverse a stalemate against the resurgent Taliban.
“We’ve got to do things differently,” Mattis acknowledged, noting only that any Afghanistan decision would come “soon.”
Yeah, if Congress would get out of the way and let the generals win in Afghanistan and Syria, that would save taxpayer money. But again, Congress is worried about the beating they’d take in the polling place if the military did what it would have to do to win and end those wars. We already know that unilaterally calling a victory, without the enemy’s agreement, doesn’t work. The examples are Vietnam and Iraq.
Category: Terror War
This is not a sequestration or spending problem. At least not the way they are thinking. The US spends more money on defense than any other in the world and more than the next 15 countries COMBINED. The US spends almost 1% of the GDP of the entire world on military spending. Of the top 15 spenders half are allies, most with defense agreements.
Now how effectively that money is spent… that is another story. I would say the last time that money was spent effectively would be around 1953.
Eisenhower warned us to be weary of the military-industrial complex. We were not, so now we have a system where we are over-paying for equipment that doesn’t work properly and is behind schedule, government employees (to include military and congress) “do their time,” then get out and use their connections and experience to work for the very contractors they were involved with before, and more functions soldiers used to do themselves are out-sourced to contractors every year. It boggles my mind to think how quickly we were able to churn out quality warfighters and machinery in WW2 and how long it takes to crap out mediocrity today.
You gotta pay to play. The vast majority of Americans are either unwilling or unqualified to serve the country that has the most foreign commitments in the world, yet Uncle Sam expects a world class military anyway. Unless the draft comes back, it’s gonna be expensive to keep the machine running. History has proven time and time again that isolationism doesn’t work. Eventually somebody will try and conquer you or you’ll expect another country to foot the bill.
If you think not having the draft is expensive you evidently didn’t know any draftees like me. Does the phrase waste of government resources sound familiar. I know it applied to me.
The difference between WWII and today is leaps and bounds in technology. Delays occur because hardware and software compatibilities exist, lines of code need to programmed, and the requirements to synchronize and fuse information across multiple domains takes specific material and processes to be accomplished by highly trained/technologically competent people. The US has become more powerful due to our technological advantage, not our numbers on the battlefield. Rosie the riveter is not going to cut it today.
Well, when politicians and bureaucrats get to make all the high money decisions, it makes it tougher for commanders to spend the money on what they need vice what some desk jockey who knows jack shit, or the politician wants to get them re-elected.
If I were King for a day, I’d make Congress recuse themselves from any defense money decisions that would effect jobs in their districts. Not realistic, nor would it ever happen, but I can dream.
One of the best moves Trump made for DoD is slamming the “revolving door” shut.
A combination of sequestration, vain and aspiring “men” holding the highest seats in government playing General (while dicking it up for the past decade) and our use as a social justice petri dish got us to this point.
Don’t forget about a JEF that was more concerned about who was going to perform the next hip hop concerned in the Rose Garden instead of going after the “JV” team…
Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan think “leading” means playing bureaucratic footsie.
Both of them enjoy getting dorked in the squeakhole by Pelosi and Schumer with the Barbed Cock of Satan/Soros… all in the name of “bipartisanship”
By (lack of) readiness, is it approaching the level of the Carter administration?
One of the times I got chewed out by my Battalion CSM, he told me about how he had to survive in the “VOLAR” (Volunteer Army) days and how bad it sucked.
I did my best not to get yelled at by him again because I didn’t want to listen to him cry about the 70s sucking.
As an operations guy, I’d say that yes, it was getting pretty bad. The Army’s High Royalty Command (HRC) is still trying to cut positions NOW that they wanted to cut in 2015. Of course, none of those positions are in HRC Headquarters, just in lowly minion/peasant units naturally.
Next year should be better, but this year is still uncertain.
From my youngest brother’s stories, the VolAr of the 80’s was not much to brag about even in the 82nd.
In all fairness to Carter, the crapola had hit the phan long before Jimmuh took office. Some stuff I read from Generals Norm Schwarzkopf & Barry McCaffrey about their experiences of army readiness (or lack of) in early to mid 70’s was eye popping scary. Things came to a boil when Carter’s handpicked Army Chief of Staff GEN Edward Meyer blurted out the famous words “Hollow Army” during congressional testimony in 1979.
Well, if he had done what Reagan did and boost pay and benefits substantially for the military, he’d probably have had 8 years and the military would’ve started off with improvements that much earlier.
Jimmy’s bigger concern was turning down the heat in the White House and making people wear sweaters to ease costs. Yeah, that worked out so well.
I came in at the end of that, Ex. AWANEd didn’t know any better, and was having too much fun applying all that schooling and flying around in little green helos.
These days, I see junior officers and second tour enlisted leaving in droves (0-3 and -4, E-5 and -6).
That’s sad, but I saw the same things happening in 1974 with Nixon’s debacle over Watergate and Ford taking his place, and it just went from there.
As a contractor, I actually heard a Booz Allen Hamilton state that defense contracting “hasn’t been this bad since Carter.” LPTA (Lowest Price Technically Acceptable) seems to be the order of the day. Instead of hiring senior analysts with years of experience and education, they’re hiring kids straight out of the gate simply because they can obtain a security clearance much faster.
“We already know that unilaterally calling a victory, without the enemy’s agreement, doesn’t work.”
The bad guys get a vote? Who knew? Did the previous guy in office, The Disaster in Chief, know that?
I’m asking for someone else.
Now to be fair, I distinctly recall Bush aboard an aircraft carrier with a “Mission Accomplished” banner hanging behind him some time in the 2000s. I hope Donny will at least ensure the job is done before making such proclamations, but I’m not holding my breath.
you do know that banner was supposed to be for the SHIP’S mission, not the GWOT?
Hmmm… I hadn’t heard that before, but, according to Wikipedia, there was some back and forth afterwards about who put there and why:
“The banner stating “Mission Accomplished” was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier’s 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying “It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew.”[8]
The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner. Afterward, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy’s idea, White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN, “We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up.”[9] According to John Dickerson of Time magazine, the White House later conceded that they hung the banner but still insists it had been done at the request of the crew members.[10]”
“When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase “Mission Accomplished” in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded: “I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it’s too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign.”[12]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech
Either way, it was confusing at best and incredibly misleading at worst to have it hanging in the background without context, considering what Bush said in the speech.
The proggies gotta stick with the narrative of the party-line propaganda. It’s what they do. Don’t confuse them with facts.
I’ve read somewhere that the “Mission Accomplished” banner was for the carrier’s mission, but, if I had been in charge of set dressing for the POTUS’s speech I probably would have let it stay up too, ’cause it did look spiffy.
It may have been for the ship’s mission, but placement and timing was poor for the perception of what Bush was trying to say.
I’m guessing that pilot had the best and worst day of his life. He got to fly to a carrier with the President. If he screwed up he’d be infamous forever. If he did well, he’d get to tell his grandchildren “I flew the President onto a carrier!” which is pretty damn cool.
Point taken … agreed.
idk, though i served 29 years, i think the dod gets plenty of cash to get the job done. its the generals in charge that are blowing it. 500 million to switch pistols from one 9mm to another 9mm is a fine example. f35 gazillion dollar dodo bird is another. littoral ships? can’t get too far from shore lest it break down, again. super artillery gun that shoots a million dollar each round of ammo. it goes on forever.
To be fair, the M9s they have now have been in service as long as I have. (And have more deployments than the troops do.) They come back and get a couple new parts and go right back out the door.
Though, it won’t matter for shit if they don’t use better ammo with those new pistols.
If we didn’t have to worry about the defense jobs in any particular Congressman’s district, I’m sure that would be beneficial too.
How’s the “green [lead free] ammo” working?
A reason we had to kick more troops out because it is so expensive.
They say that is the genius of how the F35 was implemented… components are built all over the country, with the consequence that any program cancellation affects jobs in a huge amount of Congressional districts. No one will vote to cancel it because their district loses jobs.
By the way, the 1911 made it through two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam in over 70 years of official service – and many STILL want it back today. THAT is an enduring design (exceeded only by the M2 and approached only by the almost 60 years of the M16/M4 platform. Most small service weapons have maybe a 30 year lifespan at best.
^^^this^^^
Hell my unit still had M1911s when I first joined in ’93.
The first time I got to qualify with a pistol, we had M9s so I never got to fire an Army .45.
Aren’t we supposed to have laser guns already?
“Aren’t we supposed to have laser guns already?”
That and flying cars. Where is my flying car, dammit?
Well, the Navy’s getting close to laser guns.
Same here, MSG Eric. We turned ours in when the engineering company next door deactivated and we got their M9.
I definitely ain’t no pistol expert. The only time I shot a .45 was before I was in service; I shot my uncle’s old M1911. I fired about a half a box of cheap aluminum ammo on a hot day. Some of the rounds actually split after firing; some jammed. (My uncle had had a Belgium cobbler make him a shoulder holster; I don’t know if that was during or right after WWII ended in Europe.) I can’t remember if I used only two hands or if I tried it with one hand. I could hit an air filter box (12″ square or so) from 7 to 10 feet.
It shouldn’t have taken 10 years nor 500 million dollars (someone please tell me that’s a typo) to make that decision.
They say it takes practice—more than with a rifle—to get good at shooting a pistol. If it were my decision, I probably would have gone 9 mm just for the ammo cost; I might would have looked long and hard at .40 or 10mm, if there was one that built as .40, and not a 9 mm sized up somewhat. Once you go to .45, I would think ammo would cost noticeably more and you can’t carry as much in the magazine.
Even DOD should have worked through that decision tree in less than two years.
Three wars David, Mine was built in 1913 in Cal .455 and shipped to the British Navy. It was returned during the interwar years and reissued to the US Army after depot level refurb. It came out of active service in the late 1960’s after being used as a practice arm for the US Navy PAC. Pistol shooting team. The government got more than its money’s worth on that sweet shooting old gun.
MSG Eric I agree. Since they stuck with the 9MM instead of going to a larger caliber, at least get the newer, more lethal 9MM ammo to use in it.
It’s inhumane, only fit for the police and personal self defense.
It would cost 2-3X as much too, for a weapon that is not all that useful.
Yeah, when we kill someone, we have to do it humanely 😁!
I know, I know, but I couldn’t help myself.
So, you put down your rock, and I put down my sword, and we try to kill each other like civilized people?
Rgr that GB.
We’ll kill each other like gentlemen. 😎
And in some contexts that makes perfect sense.
Oddly enough.
With what? Bean bags at five paces?
In the context of the Princess Bride quote – it was hand-to-hand combat.
Fezzik: We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.
Man in Black: You mean, you’ll put down your rock and I’ll put down my sword, and we’ll try and kill each other like civilized people?
Fezzik: (hoisting a large stone) I could kill you now.
Man in Black: Frankly, I think the odds are slightly in your favor at hand fighting.
Fezzik: It’s not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don’t even exercise.
Shortly after assuming command of the Continental Army, General Washington was informed that the total ammunition supply, army wide, was nine rounds per man. He was speechlesss for the rest of the day.
Washington was in near perpetual fights with the Continental Congress for the funds needed to arm, feed, train, and support the Army. To say the Congress was miserly in this undertaking is to slander misers. Note that at the time, the members of Congress faces a standing sentence of -death- as traitors to King George, and faced the traditional and horrific fate if the Patriot cause was defeated. Miserly they remained to the end, in matters of fielding a fighting army.
Nothing much has changed, eh? Billions for boondoggles, but bupkas for bullets.
And it sounds like SecDef Mattis is digging into his job.
And I shoulda written my Congressman over the green ammo debacle; it’s not like it’s inhaled lead anyway (like say, primers). It’s not some man-made element like plutonium. It’s lead for crying out loud; it was dug out of the ground and to the ground it’s going to go back 98% of the time straight into some clay backstop. You gotta ingest the stuff before it’ll hurt you; sure people work at factories making those bullets and cartridges, but I doubt they inhale that much lead fumes or dust (and there’s already regulations for that).
I thought by “green ammo” you were referring to the green steel penetrator ammo. That “debacle” was merely an ATF effort by King Putt to use his pen and phone at gun control. Ban that ammo and claim they did it to protect the popo from evil “armor piercing” bullets. It was another PR stunt, like fast and furious, designed to convince the public we need more gun/ammo restrictions for law abiding citizens.
The US DoD is literally awash in cash. Budgets are not the problem, hard decisions left to the next seat holder are.
IT costs out of control? Here is a plan to fix it in 40 years.
Fuel costs out of control? Buy this really expensive “green” fuel.
Can’t keep your planes in the air? Here, buy this new F35.
In fact, the only “cuts” anyone seems willing to make are to MWR, pay, and benefits.
No, we spend money like there is no tomorrow and that, frankly, is the real problem
Heaven forbid that someone make a decision for which they can be held accountable.
Let me correct one large point. The Dems under Obama never passed a budget. Its how all their shit got funded leaving our troops hanging in the breeze
Readiness is a complicated business, and it is slightly different for each service. The common thread is that force structure is is one thing, but readiness is a whole different price tag. Think of the military like your fire department. For the most part, you are paying for them to sit around (and hopefully) do nothing but train. That’s hard for check-writers to accept. Our edge over the Russians and Chinese and Koreans will never be mass, it will always be quality- relatively highly educated troops operating state of the art equipment with cutting edge techniques and tactics. That ain’t cheap. The military turns over 1/4 to 1/3 of it’s personnel each year. Each year, experienced entry level people leave and new guys show up. I’m not sure about the other branches, but by the time the Army recruits and trains a new Soldier it is about $70K. That’s before they get to a unit and start to train. Then we have to do collective training. For a BCT to be ready to deploy it has to do a lot of individual and collective, multi-echelon training. Squad, platoon, and company live fires, battalion combined arms live fires, and force on force external evaluations. Mounted units and the Artillery have gunnery- thousands of tank, Bradley, and howitzer rounds. Those aren’t cheap. On top of that are fuel and maintenance costs. I’m not experienced with Aviation, but I know that roughly half of TRADOC’s budget goes to aviation. I can only imagine what it costs the three air forces to keep a bunch of jets flying and pilots qualified. Don’t ask me about ships, but my guess is that you don’t want to go to war in a cruiser if the crew just showed up from boot camp. Aren’t most ships essentially in a constant state of rusting away in the water? So, you can spend your base budget and have 36 Army BCTs. That looks great on paper. But if you don’t allocate the money for training, those BCTs are not ready for war. The jets will be modern, but the… Read more »
People may bitch about Clinton, but he continued the drawdown of the military that started under Bush I, and balanced the budget. But I had many commanders bitching and moaning about it because the good old Reagan days of fat budgets were gone.
We could not as a country continue to add to the military budget at the Bush II pace. We would have been absolutely beggared.