The US military will become "leaner" while maintaining superiority as it switches focus to the Asia-Pacific, US President Barack Obama has announced.
In a rare appearance at the Pentagon, he unveiled a far-reaching defence review under which thousands of troops are expected to be axed.
He said the tide of war was receding, and the US needed to renew its economic strength.
The Pentagon faces more than $450bn (£288bn) in cuts over the next decade.
"So yes, our military will be leaner," Mr Obama told reporters on Thursday, "but the world must know - the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats."
Joined by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, President Obama stressed that the defence budget would still grow, but at a slower pace.
He said the US was "turning the page on a decade of war" and faced a "moment of transition".
"Even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding," he said.
President Obama added: "At the same time, we have to renew our economic strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength around the world. That includes putting our fiscal house in order."
The president said the new strategy would end "long-term, nation-building with large military footprints", with the Pentagon instead pursuing a national security strategy based on "smaller conventional ground forces".
Mr Panetta said the review would make the US military "more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly".
Ground forces would see a new mix of active and reserve components, while increasing capacity to mobilise quickly, he added.
Mr Panetta emphasised the military would retain its ability to confront more than one threat at a time, and would be more flexible and adaptable than in the past.
But he also warned that further reductions to the Pentagon budget, possible at the end of the year if Congress proceeds with steep across-the-board cuts, would undermine the military's ability to function at full capacity.
Mr Obama has been closely involved with shaping the blueprint, meeting high-ranking defence officials six times since September.
Analysis by
Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review of US strategy is prompted by three broad factors.
There's the growing pressure on the defence budget in an age of austerity.
The commitment of US combat forces in Iraq is over and the developing draw-down of US numbers in Afghanistan makes this a good moment for a re-appraisal.
There is also a broader desire to re-orientate the focus of US defence policy away from the Middle East and towards Asia.
Today will not be the moment for detailed announcements about troops cuts and weapons programmes delayed or cancelled. But cuts there will be in due course, with more US troops likely to be brought home from Europe.
The US Army and the Marine Corps will be reduced in number and the US Marines will return to their traditional role as a rapid intervention force.
The focus for the future looks to be on what the Pentagon calls "the Air-Sea Battle" - the creation of forces capable of containing a rising military player in the Asia-Pacific region. Nobody says so explicitly, but it's China they clearly have in mind.
It's amazing how things change. Right now I'm reading about the American army pre WW1 and the troop levels of about 20,000 which were considered a drain on the budget by congress!!! Back then, they were still planning against a British invasion from Canada!!
I see Obama's using similar rhetoric to Cameron, as in:
'more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly'
...Or 'smaller', as it's more accurately known. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course. I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue that the USA doesn't do the lion's share in terms of policing the world.
Want to make the military cheaper? Well you could always try solving the horribly bloated costs of the US arms industry but then who would pay for the next election party.
It seems to me to be quite likely that the culture of censure of criticism of the armed forces in the US (which I percieve, may not actually exist) would be an ideal environment for some serious inefficiency and bloat to set in. Certainly the US spends a staggering amount on defense.
Melissia wrote:A switch to focus on asia-pacific makes sense to me given the aggression that China is starting to show.
Why? We have no beef with China. One war was enough thank you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:It seems to me to be quite likely that the culture of censure of criticism of the armed forces in the US (which I percieve, may not actually exist) would be an ideal environment for some serious inefficiency and bloat to set in. Certainly the US spends a staggering amount on defense.
Someone had to. The Europeans sure weren't doing it.
Nice dig at your allies there I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.
Da Boss wrote:Nice dig at your allies there I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.
There are no allies, just shared interests, but you're right and thanks for the reminder. I am NOT talking about the UK.
(Am I the only person who never quite connects the UK with mainland Europe?)
As a person who sees some of the spending/waste my base goes through, yeah we could really tighten up on that. One of the civilians on base did some number crunching and a few years ago we were wasting about $500,000 per year on buses. A lot of it has to do with the military contracts that are out there. These guys are getting paid WAY too much for their own good sometimes.
Da Boss wrote:Nice dig at your allies there I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.
Oh of course we could. It is a government bureaucracy after all.
Step 1: close down 95% of foreign bases and withdraw all troops from non US locations.
Step 2: Profit!
Frazzled wrote:Step 1: close down 95% of foreign bases and withdraw all troops from non US locations.
Step 2: Profit!
That's a radical loss in the ability of the US military to mobilize. Plus, we then have to negotiate (again) with Japan, Germany, or any other country to get space for a facility. As it is now, we have proper facilities already in place and maintained. Foreign bases are worth their costs.
Frazzled wrote:Step 1: close down 95% of foreign bases and withdraw all troops from non US locations.
Step 2: Profit!
That's a radical loss in the ability of the US military to mobilize. Plus, we then have to negotiate (again) with Japan, Germany, or any other country to get space for a facility. As it is now, we have proper facilities already in place and maintained. Foreign bases are worth their costs.
Da Boss wrote:Nice dig at your allies there I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.
There are no allies, just shared interests, but you're right and thanks for the reminder. I am NOT talking about the UK.
(Am I the only person who never quite connects the UK with mainland Europe?)
Just you and David Cameron.
I thought it was actually a fair dig, especially at the Brits whose worldwide maritime policing of the world preceded our role. Especially in relation to cutting the Harriers and carriers from the RN. The fact that the USMC either has or likely will purchase those British planes and use them is a vociferous statement of what the Parliment gave up. Those GR7s should have been in Libya before the US flew a single mission.
Anywho. While we are "leaning up" the defense budget how bout we lean up our foreign aid, grants, and subsidizing of FORIEGN militaries (that occurs under the Defense budget...slash.) I'm just thinking about how out of one side of his mouth he is talking about leaning up the military, and out of the other about some sort of new plan to "rescue" bad mortgage holders which will cost...how much? I don't really know because I haven't looked deep into either of his newest best ideas ever.
This isn't a new strategy on Obama's part, more of a return to General (ret.) Eric Shinseki's pre 9-11 vision for the military, a smaller , better trained, equipped and fast response army. At its heart its modelled after how the US Army's Ranger, airborne and air assault regiments/divisions operate, so much so that Shinseki gave every soldier the black beret, a former signature apparell piece of the Rangers. They then adopted a tan beret, so set themselves apart again, thereby defeating the purpose of why the black beret was given to everyone.
I loved the army transformation project, but hated the new headgear with a passion. Never undertood our military's fixation with berets. Nothing says elite combat soldier like a french headpiece, apparently.
Anyway, the army transformation was curtailed by the occupation of Iraq and its need for a larger military presence, which ironically Shinseki warned the Bush administration about and was promptly shitcanned. Its good that we are returning to this project as it will reduce our footprint while still maintaining our combat effetiveness, obstensibly reduce the military budget, and make our military as a whole even more elite.
Do not want. I probably won't be axed while I'm in (they'll always need lower ranking people to do dog crap work), but it does worry me. Makes sense though.
Get rid of the air force and give the army their planes. Air force doesn't need to exist, in my opinion. It worked just fine as the Air Corps. Guarantee that'll save some money.
AustonT wrote:IAnywho. While we are "leaning up" the defense budget how bout we lean up our foreign aid, grants, and subsidizing of FORIEGN militaries (that occurs under the Defense budget...slash.) I'm just thinking about how out of one side of his mouth he is talking about leaning up the military, and out of the other about some sort of new plan to "rescue" bad mortgage holders which will cost...how much? I don't really know because I haven't looked deep into either of his newest best ideas ever.
Our Foreigh Aid budget is all ready pretty low compared to the Defense Budget.
and is pretty small in the overall budget.
It's hard to trim the budget, where almost no budget exists.
Personally, i would rather try to help out bad mortgage holders, then find more ways to kill people that aren't much of a threat to begin with. Call me old fashioned.
LordofHats wrote:Want to make the military cheaper? Well you could always try solving the horribly bloated costs of the US arms industry but then who would pay for the next election party.
Ah you guys spend more than ten times what anyone else does, I say save a few billion and do something useful with it. Its not like shaving 50 billion off the budget is going to suddenly make the next biggest spender go "get em!"
Its 2012, the worlds moved on from the last couple of major wars, and it makes sense the military evolves a little as well.
mattyrm wrote: Ah you guys spend more than ten times what anyone else does, I say save a few billion and do something useful with it. Its not like shaving 50 billion off the budget is going to suddenly make the next biggest spender go "get em!"
Its 2012, the worlds moved on from the last couple of major wars, and it makes sense the military evolves a little as well.
What's even worse is that rather than it being a decline in spending, it's a decline in the growth of spending.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Do not want. I probably won't be axed while I'm in (they'll always need lower ranking people to do dog crap work), but it does worry me. Makes sense though.
Get rid of the air force and give the army their planes. Air force doesn't need to exist, in my opinion. It worked just fine as the Air Corps. Guarantee that'll save some money.
Ironically, my MOS in the army has a major history of actually growing during times when the Army is at its smallest.. hooray job security.
I do agree, and had heard rumors (they were just that AFAIK) that the AF will be somewhat Axed, and their various duties branched into the Navy or Army. Which would save a ton of money, since there is a perception that the AF, when building a new base, builds all the super nice housing, and ice cream places, etc. run out of money, then run back to 'daddy' saying, "but we haven't built the runway, give us more money!!!" Not to mention, the Air Force has already started getting smaller, but there was a cover article on AF Times, that said blatantly that they had eliminated 43,000 "enlisted" jobs, yet created 43 "General" slots. To me, this doesn't save money, since often times, we dont need MORE Generals, we need the 'grunts' to actually do something useful.
And, Matty, you should also realize that the military (both of ours) have evolved quite a bit since WW2. Everything from equipment to doctrine and tactics have evolved majorly each campaign is different, and we all as militaries learn our lessons (usually the hard way), and create new doctrine to reflect those lessons.
Unfortunately, at least in our US Military, we are faced with "updating" our arsenal, and in some cases congress shoots them down for very weak reasons. The most telling is in the new AR hunt, read an article about how the XM8 and SCAR both decimated the M16/M4 family in all tests, yet many voices from Congress said that they didn't want to get rid of the M16 family, not because of cost to the military, but because "I used it in "Nam, and it worked great for me, so it'll work great for the boys now" excuse. This sort of mind set, to me ultimately drives up the costs of ALL of our developments, and ultimately hinders certain progresses in our military..
I'm sure if someone sat down and did a proper cost benefit analysis on defence spending (particularly in the last decade), it would be a laughably inefficient use of a country's finances. Yet somehow, defence always seems to be immune to the proper laws of economics.
I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely. It makes me wonder whether war is addicitive... a bit like gambling, but without the big jackpot.
Flashman wrote:I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely.
Yeah, they do pretty well benefitting from our defense spending.
Maybe during the cold war (itself a classic example of billions being spent by both sides for no reason whatsover), the strength of the US dissuaded any Russian musings about an invasion of Europe, but the war on terror? A few bombs stopped here and there perhaps, but nowhere near worth the money that was spent on doing it. Note that the war on terror didn't stop two major bombings in Madrid and London.
Flashman wrote:I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely.
Yeah, they do pretty well benefitting from our defense spending.
Yes that's the obvious point, in the same way that the British empire took on the cost of fighting pirates back when they ruled the waves, all the other people that used the sea benefited from that umbrella but paid nothing towards its upkeep.
I'm not disagreeing with that fundamental point, the Americans spending is what allows the little county's to spend nothing obviously. I'm merely saying that a few billion dollars off what is already a ridiculously large budget isn't sufficient to cause any major issues. A ten percent slash in the US budget wont embolden her enemies to act any more aggressively than they are now.
Flashman wrote:I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely.
Yeah, they do pretty well benefitting from our defense spending.
Yes that's the obvious point, in the same way that the British empire took on the cost of fighting pirates back when they ruled the waves, all the other people that used the sea benefited from that umbrella but paid nothing towards its upkeep.
I'm not disagreeing with that fundamental point, the Americans spending is what allows the little county's to spend nothing obviously. I'm merely saying that a few billion dollars off what is already a ridiculously large budget isn't sufficient to cause any major issues. A ten percent slash in the US budget wont embolden her enemies to act any more aggressively than they are now.
Oh no, I don't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with the idea that every country should spend nothing on defense.
I'm all for cutting US military expenditures supposing it is done intelligently.
Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.
How is the "leaner NASA "working out?
The point surely is not that they are spending less, thats obvious! I was simply saying that I cant see a small reduction (say 5-10%) of the US military budget being an issue?
Frazzled wrote:
Someone had to. The Europeans sure weren't doing it.
So you're claiming that there is a global minimum for defense expenditure?
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself. They can do what they want, but we no longer have to spend to defend them.
If the Russian bear comes, we can sell him potatoes and buy back good vodka from Him.
Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.
This is unintentionally hilarious.
You're essentially criticizing a person for using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response, while using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response. I assume you'll try to defend this on grounds of apparent accuracy, but the reality is that both the term you used, and the term used by Obama are accurate. This is not "doubletalk" (by which I suspect you mean doublespeak), unless you are also engaged in "doubletalk".
Melissia wrote:Oh no, I don't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with the idea that every country should spend nothing on defense.
If everyone spent nothing, at least the best anyone could do to attack each other would be to grab a big stick and drive/sail across the border
You forget, in a world where no one spends anything on defense, the US and Somalia kick ass. between us we have what 800 trillioins gazillion small arms in civilian/militia hands. Bring it!
Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself. They can do what they want, but we no longer have to spend to defend them.
If the Russian bear comes, we can sell him potatoes and buy back good vodka from Him.
As I said earlier though, its a different world isn't it? We are at risk from a couple of rogue states tossing WMD's maybe, or terrorist acts.
But nobody is likely to "invade" anyone these days are they?
Easily available modern technology has increased the punching power of the little nations. If the USA with its gigantic military budget attempted to occupy somewhere in Western Europe unsustainable casualties could be inflicted upon the occupiers, so how on earth is Russia going to march into anywhere this day and age?
As I said, I'm a military man, I think we should all have big armies, but this news really isn't going to feth anyone's country up.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself. They can do what they want, but we no longer have to spend to defend them.
If the Russian bear comes, we can sell him potatoes and buy back good vodka from Him.
As I said earlier though, its a different world isn't it? We are at risk from a couple of rogue states tossing WMD's maybe, or terrorist acts.
But nobody is likely to "invade" anyone these days are they?
Easily available modern technology has increased the punching power of the little nations. If the USA with its gigantic military budget attempted to occupy somewhere in Western Europe unsustainable casualties could be inflicted upon the occupiers, so how on earth is Russia going to march into anywhere this day and age?
As I said, I'm a military man, I think we should all have big armies, but this news really isn't going to feth anyone's country up.
The Russians walloped Georgia a short period ago.
But I agree, I don't think Europe is in great danger. Of course, the USA is in substantially less danger. We have no natural foes.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself.
That's not really true. The US outpaced all of NATO in terms of defense spending, but it wasn't really about defending Europe (Europe defended itself quite ably after pulling it together following WWII) it was about fighting Communism.
The USA genuinely believed that the Soviets would start a campaign for world domination in Europe (they already did at the end of WW2, by some measures).
Under the principle that a major war is best fought as far away as possible from your own country, the USA was pretty much obliged to defend western Europe.
The situation has changed. Britain has been pulling its forces out of Germany. The US should of course follow suit and concentrate on more important strategic areas.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying when staring across at The Evil Empire, most of NATO wasn't spending its fair share to defend itself.
That's not really true. The US outpaced all of NATO in terms of defense spending, but it wasn't really about defending Europe (Europe defended itself quite ably after pulling it together following WWII) it was about fighting Communism.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Do not want. I probably won't be axed while I'm in (they'll always need lower ranking people to do dog crap work), but it does worry me. Makes sense though.
Get rid of the air force and give the army their planes. Air force doesn't need to exist, in my opinion. It worked just fine as the Air Corps. Guarantee that'll save some money.
Ironically, my MOS in the army has a major history of actually growing during times when the Army is at its smallest.. hooray job security.
I do agree, and had heard rumors (they were just that AFAIK) that the AF will be somewhat Axed, and their various duties branched into the Navy or Army. Which would save a ton of money, since there is a perception that the AF, when building a new base, builds all the super nice housing, and ice cream places, etc. run out of money, then run back to 'daddy' saying, "but we haven't built the runway, give us more money!!!" Not to mention, the Air Force has already started getting smaller, but there was a cover article on AF Times, that said blatantly that they had eliminated 43,000 "enlisted" jobs, yet created 43 "General" slots. To me, this doesn't save money, since often times, we dont need MORE Generals, we need the 'grunts' to actually do something useful.
Secret Squirrels? Hmm, I didn't know that. My dad was a secret squirrel at quantico before he shipped out for Iraq in 2003.
Yeah, honestly, the AF seems to step on a lot of toes and overlaps with the doctrine and operations of the other branches. The navy has a vast armament of planes itself, which don't require massive bases with runways and base housing, Exchanges, etc. That's not necessarily the best way to do things, but it seems to be the best way to do it if you're trying to project force and allow rapid deployments around the world, like obama is saying. I don't think they'll ever actually do it, but man, I personally think it would work. The formation of the air force was based on the shortcomings the army air corps came across during WW2, I think. But the military climate of out modern world doesn't really warrant a dedicated force, IMO.
Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.
A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.
Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.
If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.
These cuts will be painful. Do they need to happen - perhaps. It depends on what gets cut.
As an aside, I believe we don't actually spend the most on defense as a percentage of GDP - I believe China holds that distinction.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.
A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.
Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.
If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.
These cuts will be painful. Do they need to happen - perhaps. It depends on what gets cut.
As an aside, I believe we don't actually spend the most on defense as a percentage of GDP - I believe China holds that distinction.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.
A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.
But I'd be willing to bet that you could assimilate these functions into the other branches, right? I admit I totally forgot that the Air Force does a massive amount of intelligence and information things. That would be hard to separate.
Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.
Yeah, that's also true
If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.
As much as I like the Marine Corps, I don't feel like it's essential in a modern military, where the other branches have units that are capable of performing the same function (albeit with a different methodology and doctrine). The marines were more or less acting as a second army in these previous conflicts, which is a complete contradiction of their duties. The Marines have a place, but only aboard ships that support their missions and on bases that are too far away for immediate action (like Australia and Japan) from the other branches.
I can see why these cuts are so hard for the government too decide on.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, the Navy houses all it's carrier squadrons on land bases when not deployed on sea-cruises.
A leaner, smaller military that still wishes to project power on a global scale needs the Air Force more than a large military ever would. If you are going to effect global politics in a country not immediately accessible by sea, you are going to need long range bombers, missiles, space imagery, and all the various electronic warfare and intelligence assets that the AF brings to the table.
But I'd be willing to bet that you could assimilate these functions into the other branches, right? I admit I totally forgot that the Air Force does a massive amount of intelligence and information things. That would be hard to separate.
Hell, the transportation and refueling capabilities of the Air Force are reason enough to keep them around.
Yeah, that's also true
If you are going to argue for the elimination of the Air Force, then you must, at the same time, be for the elimination of the Marine Corp.
As much as I like the Marine Corps, I don't feel like it's essential in a modern military, where the other branches have units that are capable of performing the same function (albeit with a different methodology and doctrine). The marines were more or less acting as a second army in these previous conflicts, which is a complete contradiction of their duties. The Marines have a place, but only aboard ships that support their missions and on bases that are too far away for immediate action (like Australia and Japan) from the other branches.
I can see why these cuts are so hard for the government too decide on.
Oh Samus,
You are woefully mistaken, but not alone. I personally hate Zoomies, but I think the problem lies in the sense of entitlement the AF has. As referenced earlier they tend to focus on amenities rather than being an effective fighting force. Fixing the culture is more important than renaming the force or reorganizing as that culture of entitlement is likely to follow. Not to mention that they just do stupid things as a matter of course. Like the Light Support Aircraft contract...a contract primarily designed by OUR Air Force to spend OUR money to equip OTHER countries. But the AF isn't why I said you are mistaken...
The Marines are another kettle of fish entirely. In very broad and general terms each of the historic branches has a specific role. The Navy (and Marines) are the offensive force. The Marines in particular are a force used to project a countries influence on and beyond the ships of their Navy. The Army by contrast is a defensive force, not to say that they are not used offensively. But that their role is defensive in nature. The Marines feth gak up and leave, the Army feths gak up and stays there to keep it. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have muddied those roles but the fact remains that marines are not soldiers on ships.
The best way I can think of to describe it is that the Marines are an attack dog, the army is a guard dog, and the navy is a shark. I hope that makes any goddamn sense because as I read it, well it sounded better aloud.
Kilkrazy wrote:
The situation has changed. Britain has been pulling its forces out of Germany. The US should of course follow suit and concentrate on more important strategic areas.
The problem here is that the US bases in Germany, Japan, and Korea; But especially Germany hold great strategic significance to our "ability to fight". Germany has been deemed important because of its location relative to much of the world via aircraft. The bases act as a way point between the US, and most other countries, allowing our forces to not have to negotiate new terms and treaties with another country anytime we train, or fight in another country. This also allows us to transport wounded troops back home for further treatment, and they get some treatment 'en route' as it were.
mattyrm wrote: Easily available modern technology has increased the punching power of the little nations. If the USA with its gigantic military budget attempted to occupy somewhere in Western Europe unsustainable casualties could be inflicted upon the occupiers, so how on earth is Russia going to march into anywhere this day and age?
As I said, I'm a military man, I think we should all have big armies, but this news really isn't going to feth anyone's country up.
The Russians walloped Georgia a short period ago.
Sort-of. A chunk of Georgia where half or more of the people also hold Russian passports and consider themselves Russian, decided they wanted to secede, and Georgia decided to stomp on that notion militarily. Russia jumped in to try to annex the portion which wanted to leave anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.
How is the "leaner NASA "working out?
Orlanth, meet Nels' post of a couple hours before you posted. Nels' post of a couple hours before Orlanth, meet Orlanth.
NELS1031 wrote:This isn't a new strategy on Obama's part, more of a return to General (ret.) Eric Shinseki's pre 9-11 vision for the military, a smaller , better trained, equipped and fast response army. At its heart its modelled after how the US Army's Ranger, airborne and air assault regiments/divisions operate, so much so that Shinseki gave every soldier the black beret, a former signature apparell piece of the Rangers. They then adopted a tan beret, so set themselves apart again, thereby defeating the purpose of why the black beret was given to everyone.
I loved the army transformation project, but hated the new headgear with a passion. Never undertood our military's fixation with berets. Nothing says elite combat soldier like a french headpiece, apparently.
Anyway, the army transformation was curtailed by the occupation of Iraq and its need for a larger military presence, which ironically Shinseki warned the Bush administration about and was promptly shitcanned. Its good that we are returning to this project as it will reduce our footprint while still maintaining our combat effetiveness, obstensibly reduce the military budget, and make our military as a whole even more elite.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As an aside, I believe we don't actually spend the most on defense as a percentage of GDP - I believe China holds that distinction.
Its actually Eritrea.
China actually spends, or so it is estimated, a little over 2% of its GDP on the military which is about half of the US expenditures similarly expressed.
2.5% seems about par looking at the UK,France, and the estimates for China which are 2-4.
I'd love to see the US military cut it's budget to those levels and remain at the same or similar capability. I also think it's possible, .gov seems to take a fleecing by defense contractors on a regular basis...
As said by someone on another board
Just an observation- it's interesting that we have now bought planes with props and browning machine guns... in 2012... For $17.5M each...
"$17,500,000.00 in 2011 had the same buying power as $1,117,807.82 in 1940."
To put that into prospective- the P-51 Mustang cost $51,000.
Now I'm not saying this is a glorified P-51, but it's entertaining to think we now have a new plane with a prop and brownings on it- sort of harkens back.
AustonT wrote: I also think it's possible, .gov seems to take a fleecing by defense contractors on a regular basis...
No joke. Not only is defense a central issue at the national level, with a lot of public support for a high defense budget, but the defense industry itself is extremely powerful, and individual defense contractors make a habit of employing former military personnel in their sales and marketing divisions which doesn't generally mean that a lot of budget oversight goes on at the project level.
I'm probably alone, in many ways I hope I am. But I think the military should take (back?) over the production of certain things. Ammunition for one Lake City could be staffed by soldiers. I think government owned arms manufacturing should return, maybe even again staffed by soldiers. If Springfield Armory (not the current company the place) built the M16/M4 we'd have a new battle rifle by now. Some things require the innovation and competition of private industry. Somehow I think the construction and design of destroyers, LHDs, and Carriers arent among them...you know those things the Navy spends a couple bucks on.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that it would be cheaper to produce weapons in house, given the present cost inflation in the American defense industry. Really, I think the major hurdles would be the standard "big government" thing, and staffing.
That being said, alternative solutions like cutting the defense budget, restricting lobbyists, and taking steps to fight corruption in program oversight are also pretty difficult; with cutting the budget being the easiest.
AustonT wrote:I'm probably alone, in many ways I hope I am. But I think the military should take (back?) over the production of certain things. Ammunition for one Lake City could be staffed by soldiers. I think government owned arms manufacturing should return, maybe even again staffed by soldiers. If Springfield Armory (not the current company the place) built the M16/M4 we'd have a new battle rifle by now. Some things require the innovation and competition of private industry. Somehow I think the construction and design of destroyers, LHDs, and Carriers arent among them...you know those things the Navy spends a couple bucks on.
Why do you think that? The Army has a nice, very nice tradition, of crap last generation manufacturing for its military when left alone.
-Unrifled muskets instead of rifled muskets
-Civil War rifled muskets instead of breechloaders or repeaters
-Breechloaders instead of repeaters
-crappy bolt actions instead of the latest Mauser wannabe.
(always had decent artillery though)
Its not until right before and during WWI that the US really got into the game on the personal armaments front.
Orlanth wrote:"Strategy for leaner US military", how come Obama gets away with the doubletalk, he means cuts.
This is unintentionally hilarious.
You're essentially criticizing a person for using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response, while using a particular term in order to elicit a particular response. I assume you'll try to defend this on grounds of apparent accuracy, but the reality is that both the term you used, and the term used by Obama are accurate. This is not "doubletalk" (by which I suspect you mean doublespeak), unless you are also engaged in "doubletalk".
Leaner strongly indicates improved efficiency, that is the doubletalk. Cuts do not usually result in that. When cuts occur departments start to try and ringfence their budget, what actually ends up going is not what actually should go. Administrators normally stay but functionality is cut. Its easy to cut a budget than it is to re-manage it efficiently.
You should try to think rather than laugh you will find out that sweeping cuts almost always means starved, not fighting fit.
Take a look at this:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
[/url]
Functionality slashed, spending similar. Is that hilarious too?
Eh, that's not as true as you might think. Springfield was producing rifles as early as 1855, and the first large numbers of rifled former smooth bore musket occured in Springfield on the Model 1842 Musket. In fact te reason the Model 1855 rifle didn't enter service in the Civil War in as large of numbers as say the 1853 Enfield or 61 Springfield was because the Armory attempted to use a more modern priming system, the Maynard tape. The 55 Springfield was the standard issue of the (tiny) US Army at the outbreak of war and the 61 Springfield was simply the 55 minus the tape system nonsense.
Seeing that the American Civil War was the first conflict fought at large scale with rifled muskets, let alone breech loaders or repeaters I'm not sure why you think that the Army or Springfield was responsible for not adopting them but I'll bite in 1857 the Army purchased close to 1,000 Greene bolt action rifles, but ultimately decided they were too complicated and issued the 61 Springfield at large instead.The "crappy" Krag Jorgenson rifle that Springfield produced from 1892-1899 beat the Mauser the SMLE and 50 other rifles in open competition: twice.
Then when shown the error of their ways by Spanish Mausers improved and produced the Sprinfield 03 until the 50's. Which covers us from pre-Civil War to WWI. The Armory was always at the forefront of developing modern arms which for a second rate backwater like pre WWI America is fairly impressive.
I think the realistic thing to hope for is an efficient reduction of capability, but still a reduction of capability.
Suppose you were able to cut 10% of the budget while only losing 5% of your capability. You have still technically weakened the military, but you have also increased efficiency. That's not automatically bad, if you make sure the 5% is either spread out or in an area we don't value as much anymore.
Now, if the cuts are in the wrong places, you can really screw things up, so tread carefully. But you know, government etc.
Rented Tritium wrote:I think the realistic thing to hope for is an efficient reduction of capability, but still a reduction of capability.
Suppose you were able to cut 10% of the budget while only losing 5% of your capability. You have still technically weakened the military, but you have also increased efficiency. That's not automatically bad, if you make sure the 5% is either spread out or in an area we don't value as much anymore.
Now, if the cuts are in the wrong places, you can really screw things up, so tread carefully. But you know, government etc.
The point. You can slash by say up to 1% and cut junk, if you check the books carefully and end stuff that needs ending. You can also save money by recruiting freezes etc.
5% means the axe has to fall hard. Assuming that US military is not run by morons, each sub-department etc will be clutching hard at their cheques. The first thing that will be saves is the paycheques of administrators and senior personnel, then they mates, then come essential stuff and everything is assumed to be more essential than the other guys department. Civil servants the world over know how to play this game.
5% cuts will come out of functionality, and the savings will disappear quickly because the core costs like admin remain intact. Sure Obama might make a monetary saving to win some votes with a tax cut before the election, but its entirely for his benefit. Once the election is done (thanks suckers) the US military will be approx 5% less efficient and the budgewt will return as empty bureaucracy always refills itself as a defence mechanism.
Obama has no track record of handling bureaucratic costs, few leaders have, and this is way too sudden. If Obama was genuine about making the US military more efficient he should wait until a second term then take on the DoD forcing cuts at the top to accompany a 5% cut to guarantee the saving sticks. That would be a tough job best left as a legacy policy.
As it stands its an election gimic for which the US is expected to pay for long term, number of beneficiaries: one.
Kilkrazy wrote:I wouldn't call late 19th century USA an engineering backwater.
I meant the country itself. I don't think you could consider 19th C America a first rate power, which effects it's military spending. Contemporarily think Argentina maybe ( there's probably a better example I was thinking Italy but...it's in the Med and stuff) A possible threat to established world powers but too far away and too poor to make a difference.
Eh, that's not as true as you might think. Springfield was producing rifles as early as 1855, and the first large numbers of rifled former smooth bore musket occured in Springfield on the Model 1842 Musket.
***Yes but our dear revolutionary patriots were shooting redcoats with rifles nearly a century before.
In fact te reason the Model 1855 rifle didn't enter service in the Civil War in as large of numbers as say the 1853 Enfield or 61 Springfield was because the Armory attempted to use a more modern priming system, the Maynard tape.
***True dat. Of course, no one figured out the tape was crap????
Seeing that the American Civil War was the first conflict fought at large scale with rifled muskets, let alone breech loaders or repeaters I'm not sure why you think that the Army or Springfield was responsible for not adopting them but I'll bite in 1857 the Army purchased close to 1,000 Greene bolt action rifles, but ultimately decided they were too complicated and issued the 61 Springfield at large instead.
***The Henry and superior Spencers were about. Indeed certain cavalry units “self equipped” themselves with Henrys and Spencers carbines were issued to horse. Why not everyone? Indeed the War Department wouldn’t pursue Spencers until the developer managed to see Lincoln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_carbine
Need I not note the joy of Yankee troops vs. repeater armed local citizenry? Can you say Never bring Custer to an Indian fight?
The "crappy" Krag Jorgenson rifle that Springfield produced from 1892-1899 beat the Mauser the SMLE and 50 other rifles in open competition: twice.
***Meh. I’m familiar with government “open competitions.” The winner is defined by the test parameters. The Krag was a single loader and picked for that reason.
Then when shown the error of their ways by Spanish Mausers improved and produced the Sprinfield 03 until the 50's. Which covers us from pre-Civil War to WWI. The Armory was always at the forefront of developing modern arms which for a second rate backwater like pre WWI America is fairly impressive.
***We’ll just have to disagree. I’ll further note the BAR in WWI not being permitted tobe used because we didn’t want Germany to get a look at them, even though we were in a major war.
Now I will grant they liked artillery toys, particularly from the Civil War onwards.
We don't necessarily have to "disagree" I'm simply pointing out that the Army and Springfield did attempt to push arms development forward. Those arms were not necessarily used or the best, but you can't win them all. What I'm really driving at is that the production should be held in .gov hands. Not GOCO. At the very LEAST Lake City could be run by the Army and Marines.
The leadership of the Marines Corps have actually been pushing for a reduction in size. They have been used as a 2nd army for a long time now, and the leadership of the corps wants them to return to their roots rather than do the army's job.
That being said Obama isn't going to be axing military service members left and right. Recruiting will drop, and the military will do what they do best: Make do with what they have.
Total defense related spending (DoD budget+ counter terrorism+ pensions+ va benifits + interest from debt accrued from the Iraq war) for 2012 is going to be between $1.030–$1.415 trillion.
Something for the UN and Nato allies to consider. The US Armed Forces have been supplying most of the troops for various actions/wars/defense. The USA has been providing most of the funding, and most of the equipment as well.
This has allowed most of the European countries to spend money they would have spent on military on other things.. like National Health Care plans, Trains, etc. Meanwhile recognizing they needed some military capacity, they just relied on the good ole USA.
Now it looks like that plan of the big bad best friend being about to help keep the bullies and wolves away will be a thing of the past.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the European countries to sort out that they need to move finances to military, and give private cotrol back to things like health care.
Germany is already making moves to take over Europe again, this time they are doing it with money, and pen and paper though, so not suprising not many have caught on.
Only a matter of time before the neighbors say "Hey Germany.. you have the finances, can you build an army to protect us all?" And then they have you.
Personally I think it will be a good thing for the world to get along a bit without us constantly helping out with military matters. Kind of sounds like Obama is moving further back to the centre in the direction and the nutty isolationist ideas of people like Ron Paul...
I would hope that NATO AND the US take NKorea more seriously than Libya. Which as a civil war EVERYONE should have stayed out of. You know except Libyans.
This is just my simple opinion, being in the Army right now myself...
The first things to be cut, will be retention benefits. Basically, sometime soon, I may be seeing a cut in the bonus I receive for staying on longer. After this will more than likely be the recruiting of new soldiers for certain MOSs. In "peace times" certain jobs see major decreases in numbers, some others see moderate to fairly large increases in numbers.
We'll probably see a drive to dump old and outdated equipment that is just rotting in various units around the world (which would be fantastic, because my shop is loaded with crap from the 60s and 70s that no one can fix or use any more)
After a drive to temper or reduce numbers, we'll see a drop in "available" ammunition and fuel for the fiscal year. For example, a Battalion has 500 soldiers, and currently gets allotted 1 million rounds of various type for training prior to heading into a warzone. Under these budget "cuts" this same battalion may only receive 750 thousand rounds of various types, or even half a million rounds available.. This means that units will need to become much more efficient in their qualifying and training with live rounds to meet army requirements (you'd be amazed the people who cannot shoot and qualify to save their lives without hundreds of rounds in a given range day).
Classic guns versus butter. The thing is we're not living in 1980's anymore with a hostile USSR aiming 10,000 nuclear warheads at our cities. Now we're dealing with a bunch of Jihadies that feth goats and live in caves. They got lucky once on 9/11 when they were armed with nothing more than box cutters. The red menace is gone, so I would not expect the guns versus butter ratio to be the same as it was in the 80s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?
Yes it does. I went into the military in 1997 and got out in 06. Pay and benefits have done nothing but improve over the past 15 years, and nobody is even talking about reducing either. Cuts would be in expensive hardware like F22s and the over all size of the military (reduced recruiting)
Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If anything it's a little higher
Base pay for an E-5 over 4 was 888 in 1984 in 2006 when inflation had roughly doubled the same place in the chart made 1935.
There are one or two people on this thread (Frazz and schadenfreude) who keep muttering about there being no Red threat, whilst over zealously declaring their love for Texas, Nancy Reagan etc etc
Now I can't speak for Schadenfreude, but I know from previous threads that Frazz is of a similar age to myself, old enough to be the product of Commie spies sneaked into America during the 60s and 70s... Do the maths, Dakka, do the maths...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:There are one or two people on this thread (Frazz and schadenfreude) who keep muttering about there being no Red threat, whilst over zealously declaring their love for Texas, Nancy Reagan etc etc
Now I can't speak for Schadenfreude, but I know from previous threads that Frazz is of a similar age to myself, old enough to be the product of Commie spies sneaked into America during the 60s and 70s... Do the maths, Dakka, do the maths...
NELS1031 wrote:This isn't a new strategy on Obama's part, more of a return to General (ret.) Eric Shinseki's pre 9-11 vision for the military, a smaller , better trained, equipped and fast response army. At its heart its modelled after how the US Army's Ranger, airborne and air assault regiments/divisions operate, so much so that Shinseki gave every soldier the black beret, a former signature apparell piece of the Rangers. They then adopted a tan beret, so set themselves apart again, thereby defeating the purpose of why the black beret was given to everyone.
I loved the army transformation project, but hated the new headgear with a passion. Never undertood our military's fixation with berets. Nothing says elite combat soldier like a french headpiece, apparently.
Anyway, the army transformation was curtailed by the occupation of Iraq and its need for a larger military presence, which ironically Shinseki warned the Bush administration about and was promptly shitcanned. Its good that we are returning to this project as it will reduce our footprint while still maintaining our combat effetiveness, obstensibly reduce the military budget, and make our military as a whole even more elite.
Bring back the kepi!!
I think the biggest issue is the basis that we need a military sized to handle two major fronts. If we look at the purely military portion of the Iraq war - not the military police occupation - I believe it was over in 7 days. If China/North Korea invaded the South, I doubt that we could get the troops in position fast enough to curtail such an advance and would be forced into an Inchon II or a naval blockade/air-only counter attack.
I think we should be spending our efforts looking at faster response time rather than bigger.
Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If anything it's a little higher
Base pay for an E-5 over 4 was 888 in 1984 in 2006 when inflation had roughly doubled the same place in the chart made 1935.
I had said that yes we get raises roughly with inflation, I think that up until the last couple years, its been a 3.3% increase.. So, inflation gained something like 3%, and we gained slightly more than the actual inflation value, but really, when combined with "necessary" bills and such, most of us live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to make ends meet (especially those with multi-child families), which I actually attribute more to lifestyle than I do our pay. My wife who is also military do just fine when compared to other dual income families who are of similar rank/income to us.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:There are one or two people on this thread (Frazz and schadenfreude) who keep muttering about there being no Red threat, whilst over zealously declaring their love for Texas, Nancy Reagan etc etc
Now I can't speak for Schadenfreude, but I know from previous threads that Frazz is of a similar age to myself, old enough to be the product of Commie spies sneaked into America during the 60s and 70s... Do the maths, Dakka, do the maths...
Right and wrong...
Wrong about my love of Texas and Nancy Reagan. No love for the Texas myself, born and raised in the People's Republic of California and currently living in Northern Nevada. No love for Nancy Reagan either, or any 1st lady for that matter the position is over rated. I've also said multiple times the things I liked most about Reagan was how moderate he was, and how good he was at reaching across the isle and working with Democrats.
Right about me being a commie spy. Yes I was born in the 1970's, and my biological mother was a Russian Jew. Thanks for blowing my cover as a covert Red operative, but at least you didn't blow my cover as a covert Zionist operative.
Wrong about my love of Texas and Nancy Reagan. No love for the Texas myself, born and raised in the People's Republic of California and currently living in Northern Nevada. No love for Nancy Reagan either, or any 1st lady for that matter the position is over rated. I've also said multiple times the things I liked most about Reagan was how moderate he was, and how good he was at reaching across the isle and working with Democrats.
Right about me being a commie spy. Yes I was born in the 1970's, and my biological mother was a Russian Jew. Thanks for blowing my cover as a covert Red operative, but at least you didn't blow my cover as a covert Zionist operative.
Dang, well I guess you blew your cover now, so you'll have to kill all of us.. if you can find us.
Melissia wrote:Doesn't soldier pay match with inflation?
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If anything it's a little higher
Base pay for an E-5 over 4 was 888 in 1984 in 2006 when inflation had roughly doubled the same place in the chart made 1935.
I had said that yes we get raises roughly with inflation, I think that up until the last couple years, its been a 3.3% increase.. So, inflation gained something like 3%, and we gained slightly more than the actual inflation value, but really, when combined with "necessary" bills and such, most of us live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to make ends meet (especially those with multi-child families), which I actually attribute more to lifestyle than I do our pay. My wife who is also military do just fine when compared to other dual income families who are of similar rank/income to us.
I've known guys who lived paycheck to paycheck and I could never figure out how. I actually snapped to say no because I mistakenly thought it was much less, then checked my facts. *shrug* it happens. It always seems like you aren't making what you should, until you get out and realize how very much it is.
Orlanth wrote:
Leaner strongly indicates improved efficiency, that is the doubletalk.
No, that's spin, or selling a policy. Its huge part of any politicians job. Obama isn't "Getting away with it." so much as "Doing what all other politicians do."
Orlanth wrote:
Cuts do not usually result in that.
However, they might, and that may be their intention, which makes the description valid.
Orlanth wrote:
You should try to think rather than laugh you will find out that sweeping cuts almost always means starved, not fighting fit.
Interestingly, when I laugh, its usually because I am thinking.
So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?
Should we, then, have not cut defense spending after WWII?
Rented Tritium wrote:I think the realistic thing to hope for is an efficient reduction of capability, but still a reduction of capability.
Essentially, yes. Any significant reduction in spending is going to result in a reduction in capability. The question, then, is whether or not we really needed the capability that was lost.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Now, if the cuts are in the wrong places, you can really screw things up, so tread carefully. But you know, government etc.
So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?
Pointing out that someone's argument is incorrect does not constitute acceptance of the counter argument.
So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?
Should we, then, have not cut defense spending after WWII?
As a history major here, I think The issue and my opinion is that we need to learn from past cuts. I think that pre-WW1, and post-WW1, into post WW2, Korea and possibly even Vietnam, the American Govt has had a tendency to trim TOO much off of the military. Our saving grace in many of these situations was the ability to quickly expand our forces to meet the perceived need of the country. Within a few months to a year of beginning into WW1, we were able to take a force of around 200k troops, and expand that into a force of over 1 million. After WW1, IIRC we reduced to between 4 and 500k, but were again well over the million mark once WW2 kicked off. I realize that in each of these situations, the draft was implemented, and that the shrinking was really just the large majority of draftees leaving service; But, we did begin to maintain slightly larger forces after each conflict, possibly using the reasoning that each war will, if past indications are anything to judge by, the "next war" would be bigger than the last.
While I may not particularly enjoy some of the forthcoming "cuts" and they may suck, it is my job right now to perform here, and I will keep doing my job the best I can, with whatever I am given or can create, it's kinda what we've always done. I do hope that some of the things that we have now are not even discussed as part of any cuts, or limits in growth. These sorts of things include medical and dental treatment and coverage, as well as our current education benefits, housing a food allowances that are about the only things that let some of us enjoy a "normal" life (as in, able to purchase homes, try and establish some sort of roots into a community, etc.)
I have sincere doubts that Tricare, BAS, or BAH are in danger. The Air Forces frivolous COLA payments probably should be.
Like you said upthread removing equipment that ist being used or isn't in the supply system preferably only when both conditions exist. Even in the "boom" of spending over the last decade I know that some parts of the Army have been recognized as doing so much, with so little, for so long that further cuts will only be detrimental.
KilKrazy wrote:Altogether I consider Libya a much superior model to Iraq for western military intervention in the Arab world.
That is certainly true. I just think that America, and by extension her allies but not necessarily in a binding way. Should seek to avoid interventionist policy, especially in civil wars. Self determination vice OUR determination should dictate the development or collapse of thier nation.
So you argument is that defense spending should not be reduced because during the Cold War, when we were engaged in an arms race and a series of proxy wars with the world's only superpower, defense spending was higher?
Pointing out that someone's argument is incorrect does not constitute acceptance of the counter argument.
Facts are, so I've been told, stubborn things.
Actually it shows you are starting to agree with me that we don't need a cold war era budget for our military.
Is DoD spending is less now than it was in the cold war( linflaton adjusted $)?
biccat wrote:
Pointing out that someone's argument is incorrect does not constitute acceptance of the counter argument.
Who claimed that we spend more on defense, as a percent of GDP or federal outlays, than we did during the Cold War?
You made an irrelevant statement, you make a habit of this, you should learn to accept this tendency (and stop making irrelevant statements).
Even if we use you measure of "percentage of federal outlays" your initial claim is wrong. The military budget as a percentage of federal outlays was, in 1960, roughly double what it is currently. And no one, ever, or anywhere, would claim 1960 was not during the Cold War.
I pretty much said we are spending more now than we were during the cold war on defense spending. My statement is true if you look at inflation adjusted spending. We capped out at about 800 billion a year when 10,000 nuclear warheads were pointed at our cities, and are now spending about 50% more to fight guys in caves. Others attacked my claim by pointing out how dod as a % of gdp has gone down, which roughtly translates to its ok to overspend on dod as long as medicare and social security overspend by even larger amounts of money. Doesn't make sense to me but what do I know I am just a cheap ass penny pinching libertarian who would want dod spending rolled back to inflation adjusted 800b/year cold war levels so we could take the 400b in dod cuts to lower taxes on middle class families. But that's just me being a libertarian cook.
To look at it very simply, GDP is all the money the country has to spend on everything.
If you increase GDP faster than inflation, you can increase defence spending in real terms while also reducing its proportion of GDP. This leaves you more money to spend on everything else.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:This is just my simple opinion, being in the Army right now myself...
The first things to be cut, will be retention benefits. Basically, sometime soon, I may be seeing a cut in the bonus I receive for staying on longer. After this will more than likely be the recruiting of new soldiers for certain MOSs. In "peace times" certain jobs see major decreases in numbers, some others see moderate to fairly large increases in numbers.
We'll probably see a drive to dump old and outdated equipment that is just rotting in various units around the world (which would be fantastic, because my shop is loaded with crap from the 60s and 70s that no one can fix or use any more)
After a drive to temper or reduce numbers, we'll see a drop in "available" ammunition and fuel for the fiscal year. For example, a Battalion has 500 soldiers, and currently gets allotted 1 million rounds of various type for training prior to heading into a warzone. Under these budget "cuts" this same battalion may only receive 750 thousand rounds of various types, or even half a million rounds available.. This means that units will need to become much more efficient in their qualifying and training with live rounds to meet army requirements (you'd be amazed the people who cannot shoot and qualify to save their lives without hundreds of rounds in a given range day).
Certain people I've spoken to tell me that recruiting will have to go up in order to keep the branches performing as they usually do, especially with higher-ranking people being axed left and right. How true is this? I still want to get a place in the military, but It does worry me that there simply won't be room
Also, I'm surprised you still have equipment from that long ago. What kind of stuff are we talking about? Flak Vests and Web gear or vehicles and tank parts? Usually the former ends up in surplus stores after a replacement is available, while I was under the impression that we sold off our old tanks and crap to emerging compliant militaries. We could definitely make some quick cash off of selling our old stuff, whether that means flooding the civilian markets or to countries abroad.
Kilkrazy wrote:Personally I consider the Libyan intervention to have been highly successful.
We were invited by an internal faction who had broad support among the people. We got the backing of the Arab League.
Those points legitimised the intervention.
Many NATO nations contributed.
The risk to our forces was low, because we had very few boots on the ground, and the Libyans were nearly incapable of opposing our aircraft.
We caused the minimum of collateral damage.
Thus, we avoided angering the local people and Arabists generally, and we did not seem like invaders or crusaders.
Overall cost of operations was pretty low and gave our forces useful live firing experience (if you want to be cynical about it).
A vile dictator was ousted, to the great satisfaction of everyone except himself and other vile dictators.
Gaddaffi was topped in circumstances which can be explained as "fortunes of war", which removed a variety of potential future aggro.
The whole thing took under a year.
Altogether I consider Libya a much superior model to Iraq for western military intervention in the Arab world.
Of course Al Qaeda is reported to be sending people in there now. In the words of the immortal bard: we'll see.
On the positive a dictator who directly ordered the killing of American civilians is dead, and in a nasty way. I'll light up a fat one in celebration of that.
schadenfreude wrote:Actually it shows you are starting to agree with me that we don't need a cold war era budget for our military.
I agree that we don't need a cold war era budget for our military.
schadenfreude wrote:Is DoD spending is less now than it was in the cold war( linflaton adjusted $)?
In terms of government outlays? Yes.
Hard to tell otherwise, wars (including particularly expensive ones like Iraq and Afghanistan) tend to create bubbles in spending. Of course you would acknowledge that a lot of the "military" spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to non-military purposes.
What I found most interesting about your chart is that it only shows $1.2 trillion in spending for 2010. Interestingly, the 2010 budget (such as it was) was actually $3.7 trillion. If you're going to make a "guns vs. butter" argument, shouldn't the growth of the 'butter' section be relevant? Where did the other $2.5 trillion get spent?
dogma wrote:Who claimed that we spend more on defense, as a percent of GDP or federal outlays, than we did during the Cold War?
Dogma, if you're not going to honestly debate and won't bother reading the thread before you respond, I'm not going to argue with you.
"The red menace is gone, so I would not expect the guns versus butter ratio to be the same as it was in the 80s."
I'm going to just ignore the rest of your posts because you apparently can't engage in debate without resorting to personal attacks.
