The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno said the downsizing of the Army's active end strength is being accelerated, with plans to drop from 532,530 to 490,000 moved up to 2015 instead of 2017.
That increase in pace was designed to set up further cuts by 2017.
I suspect this 'news' is being put out yet again as an attempt to rile up the masses and get them to influence their congress critters as they finalize budgets.
Officials warned that if sequestration-level cuts remain in place as of 2016, the Army would be forced to trim down to 420,000 — a level they called unacceptable.
Looks like their simply winding down after Iraq/Afghanistan. As the technology improves less soldiers are neccesary.
Although honestly in all mllitaries simply culling the fairly useless members would be more efficient IMO so your crusty old guys who arent relevant and all the fatties etc.
The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno said the downsizing of the Army's active end strength is being accelerated, with plans to drop from 532,530 to 490,000 moved up to 2015 instead of 2017.
That increase in pace was designed to set up further cuts by 2017.
I suspect this 'news' is being put out yet again as an attempt to rile up the masses and get them to influence their congress critters as they finalize budgets.
Officials warned that if sequestration-level cuts remain in place as of 2016, the Army would be forced to trim down to 420,000 — a level they called unacceptable.
Fair points, but given that Russia seems to be up to its old tricks again, China's flexing its muscles, and of course, the ME never seems to go away, is it wise for the US army to lose 4 divisions worth of troops?
Personally, I don't blame the Americans for pulling the plug on the Middle East, and my own country, alongside France and Germany, should shoulder the burden of defence in Europe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mitch_rifle wrote: Looks like their simply winding down after Iraq/Afghanistan. As the technology improves less soldiers are neccesary.
Although honestly in all mllitaries simply culling the fairly useless members would be more efficient IMO so your crusty old guys who arent relevant and all the fatties etc.
That's not a new problem for the US military, or any military. I read that during the Vietnam war, only around 1 in 10 American troops were frontline soldiers. The rest were cooks, mechanics, etc etc
Russia is engaging in it's old tricks, but it is an asymmetric type of warfare. Unless the conflict becomes a more traditional form of warfare the soldiers being cut do not fit this asymmetric conflict. Any role in these engagements should be intelligence lead.
China seems to want to be a regional power first, so we can support allies in the region (training, materials, logistics, etc.) without boots on ground.
Middle East, we should avoid yet another conflict there. Our allies in the region are pursing their own agendas that don't always fit with our objectives (looking at you Turkey).
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Russia is engaging in it's old tricks, but it is an asymmetric type of warfare. Unless the conflict becomes a more traditional form of warfare the soldiers being cut do not fit this asymmetric conflict. Any role in these engagements should be intelligence lead.
China seems to want to be a regional power first, so we can support allies in the region (training, materials, logistics, etc.) without boots on ground.
Middle East, we should avoid yet another conflict there. Our allies in the region are pursing their own agendas that don't always fit with our objectives (looking at you Turkey).
A reasoned assessment, but as you know, a presidential election is coming up, and candidates tend to say all sorts of wild and crazy things in order to gain votes, including daft things about foreign policy.
Even WITH China and Russia becoming more belligerent, the USA NEEDS to recognize that it is over-spending on our Military for a Military that is not actively engaged in an actual war.
Our previous deployments in the 00s were ridiculously inefficient (using far too many Reserves), and pandered a little too heavily to the Private Sector.
We just do not need a military budget that is larger than the seven largest military budgets beneath us combined.
Getting rid of two Carrier Strike Groups would also be an excellent cost-savings, given developing drone technologies that can be deployed from Submarines, Frigates, or Destroyers.
Also, even though it has been hugely criticized for its expense to date, the F-35 will see decreasing military costs as we get into the 20s, as our aging fleet of current aircraft are retired, and the smaller fleet of F-35s will be capable of fulfilling their roles at a lower cost (and this does not include the savings from AACAV drones that will be entering service in the 20s as well, which will be able to carry out missions impossible with a piloted craft at a fraction of the cost).
We need to start streamlining our Military.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: And, what little else I agree with him on, Dreadclaw is correct regarding the role of these soldiers, and the various actors we face (or supposed allies, such as Turkey - although Saudi Arabia is a far bigger problem than Turkey).
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Russia is engaging in it's old tricks, but it is an asymmetric type of warfare. Unless the conflict becomes a more traditional form of warfare the soldiers being cut do not fit this asymmetric conflict. Any role in these engagements should be intelligence lead.
indeed.
China seems to want to be a regional power first, so we can support allies in the region (training, materials, logistics, etc.) without boots on ground.
The US has no interest here other than trade. The chickenhawks are pushing us towards a confrontation.
Middle East, we should avoid yet another conflict there. Our allies in the region are pursing their own agendas that don't always fit with our objectives (looking at you Turkey).
I think "GET TODA CHOPPA!" is the best policy here. revisit the issue in 250 years.
Not to mention that with the very idea of invading mainland China utterly ludicrous, the Army is not the most important branch of the armed forces in the power struggle with China. It is in fact the Navy, followed closely by the Air Force.
Hopefully they'll be cutting some tail and not a whole lot of tooth. Has anyone (impartial) done a study of the Army's command structure? I feel we've got way too many directorates and logistics activities that could be streamlined into a much leaner force that doesn't use 90% of its soldiers in a combat support or combat service support capacity.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Hopefully they'll be cutting some tail and not a whole lot of tooth. Has anyone (impartial) done a study of the Army's command structure? I feel we've got way too many directorates and logistics activities that could be streamlined into a much leaner force that doesn't use 90% of its soldiers in a combat support or combat service support capacity.
HAHAHAHAH no Bureaucracy ever voluntarily gave up power. Have faith.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Hopefully they'll be cutting some tail and not a whole lot of tooth. Has anyone (impartial) done a study of the Army's command structure? I feel we've got way too many directorates and logistics activities that could be streamlined into a much leaner force that doesn't use 90% of its soldiers in a combat support or combat service support capacity.
HAHAHAHAH no Bureaucracy ever voluntarily gave up power. Have faith.
I know it. Bet dollars to donuts most of these cuts do not affect anyone in the Pentagon.
The US's role as hegemon is going to be less powerful as time goes by, which is inevitable given China's ascension to global great power status, and other regional powers. That won't change our status as global hegemon.
Industrialized powers just don't engage in all out shooting wars any more. Nuclear weapons are a deterrant, as is the sheer destructive power of the conventional weapons. Even without nukes, there is no scenario for total war between industrialized powers that does not leave both ravaged by bombings. As hegemon, the US still prevents those all out wars, at least not involving any of our allies. (I'm aware this is a slipperty definition, as African wars are quite nasty, and India/Pakistan have fought numerous border wars)
Much of the remaining conflict is not the wars of conquest and imperialism that dominated from the 30 years war through World War II. This is admittedly eurocentric, but increasingly States are not engaging in war with States.
The future of war is States vs. non-States, or even Non-State vs. Non-state. It's civil wars, revoluationay wars, and wars of resistence. It's freedom fighters and terrorists. No Hegemony on earth has put down a resistance without engaging in whole sale slaughter.
The role of the US is changing, but it's not a decline. Sure, other actors are catching up, at least economically, but no nation has the web of alliances and the projection power to actually influence events gobally.
A US Army division is between 10,000 and 18,000 soldiers. So technically they won't lose ANY divisions, they will just downsize subordinate units to meet the manpower goals.
Anyone who thinks you don't need an army and can rely on airpower (Drones and Airplanes) has never studied military history. Boots on the ground win wars, not airplanes.
As far as is this a sign of the US losing power? no. After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.
If you really think that industrialized countries won't fight a "Shooting" war against one another then again, you need to read more history.
Ghazkuul wrote: After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.
Actually, the 450-440k figure is lower than pre-9/11 numbers. 2000 we had 482K troops, 2001 480k.
Ghazkuul wrote: A US Army division is between 10,000 and 18,000 soldiers. So technically they won't lose ANY divisions, they will just downsize subordinate units to meet the manpower goals.
Anyone who thinks you don't need an army and can rely on airpower (Drones and Airplanes) has never studied military history. Boots on the ground win wars, not airplanes.
How many wars have boots on the ground won for the US since World War II? It wasn't a lack of manpower that prevented us from succeeding in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It was the nature of the war. Infantry will do better, but nothing is going to end tribal/religious violence from the outside.
If you really think that industrialized countries won't fight a "Shooting" war against one another then again, you need to read more history.
The nature of mutual destruction makes that increasingly unlikely though, right? How does any war between, say, the US and China end? We bomb their means of production and C&C. We gain air superiority as far as our carrer groups can reach, and probably capture a coastal city or two. Partisans alone make venturing into the country side untenable, much less the People's Army. The more China industrializes, the more they have targets we can destroy that actually hurt them. Even if we agreed to some lukewarm armistace, our populace and infrastructure would be unaffected, and they'd have a ruined infrastructure and crazy domestic strife. And that's before you start thinking about nuclear weapons!
Having a military is wise, and there may come a day when there are major wars between industrial powers. It's tough to see it happening in the next decade though.
Ghazkuul wrote: After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.
Actually, the 450-440k figure is lower than pre-9/11 numbers. 2000 we had 482K troops, 2001 480k.
So PRIOR to 9/11 the US military was DOWNSIZING and their was a flux by year but if you look overall the numbers were decreasing. AFTER 9/11 the numbers spiked pretty rapidly. And at its peak in 2010 the US army alone was at 566,045.
If you look at military size throughout those same years I posted you can see the downsizing even more noticeably
Ghazkuul wrote: After 9/11 the US rapidly expanded the military to fight a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that we are officially done with those wars we are downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11.
Actually, the 450-440k figure is lower than pre-9/11 numbers. 2000 we had 482K troops, 2001 480k.
So PRIOR to 9/11 the US military was DOWNSIZING and their was a flux by year but if you look overall the numbers were decreasing. AFTER 9/11 the numbers spiked pretty rapidly. And at its peak in 2010 the US army alone was at 566,045.
If you look at military size throughout those same years I posted you can see the downsizing even more noticeably
Yes, but there was never even intent to go down to 450-440k at that point. In fact 1999 was when they realized they had cut a bit too deeply and revamped a few things as a result.
So, even using your numbers, we are not " downsizing our military to where it was BEFORE 9/11. " We are going quite a bit below that.
Can you post a source for your information that the Military was going to stop downsizing? because it was my understanding that they were still in the process of downsizing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: regardless I think the numbers going down even further are a result of recent advances in the military technology and the fact that we pulled HUGE numbers of soldiers back from foreign bases and we just don't need 500k soldiers. I believe the USMC is even thinking of dropping as low as 150,000
In the 1990s the Army dropped from 780,000 to 480,000 active duty end strength. Many in Congress wanted to increase the Army's end strength by as much as 40,000 troops in order to ease the strain of deployments. But the Army's top general, Peter Schoomaker, adamantly opposed adding end strength. Army planners believe the service can gain 10,000 spaces from military to civilian conversions.
The Army today announced the final phase of the Active Component downsizing program to meet the goals of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) panel recommendations. These final active duty reductions will reduce the force to an end-strength of 480,000 soldiers.
By March 1994 the Bottom Up Review had taken effect, and the Army accepted the loss of two of twelve divisions with an end-strength target of 495,000.
...
Changes in unit MTOEs were expected to offset the reductions, however, since mission requirements remained the same units began doing more with less. The Army began to resemble the hollow force of the 1970s.
Army recruiters began to feel the pinch of the rapid downsizing effort. In 1999 Army recruiters were tasked with recruiting 90,000 new soldiers. The total was 20,000 more than the previous year, an overall increase of 28.6 percent.35 However, the Army fell nearly 1,000 recruits short of its goal in Fiscal Year 1998 and over 6,000 short in Fiscal Year 1999.
dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415899
With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the Army once again reduced its size during the early 1990s, going from 780,000 soldiers to 480,000.
Some good replies there from people in the know. I've been on Wikipedia looking at the US army (not exactly an authority, I know )
According to Wikipedia, the US army has 10 active divisions, a heap of command organisations, and a lot of bloated departments by the look of things. Maybe some of that could be cut back.
Wikipedia also lists 335,000 National Guard, and 195,000 in army reserve.
How good are these reserve troops and guard units?
I read a book about the 101st in Iraq, and they were scathing about the national guard units they replaced. Is this criticism justified, or are they generally effective for what they do.
In the UK, we had a problem with reserve troops at the front line in Afghanistan, for a few years. They didn't get enough time to train properly.
And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.
The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.
CptJake wrote: And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.
The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.
Of course its budget driven, im simply saying that maybe because of the last 15 years or so of war we have come up with enough tech and gotten rid of enough other MOS's that we don't need the full 480k anymore, its a theory not fact. Calm thyself
As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.
CptJake wrote: And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.
The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.
Of course its budget driven, im simply saying that maybe because of the last 15 years or so of war we have come up with enough tech and gotten rid of enough other MOS's that we don't need the full 480k anymore, its a theory not fact. Calm thyself
As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.
Perhaps you could save money by making the guards and reserves better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.
The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.
Wouldn't it be better to have fewer, but better trained troops?
For example, the 101st, 82nd, Rangers etc al, are obviously Crack infantry troops. Wouldn't it be better to have more of them?
CptJake wrote: And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.
The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.
Of course its budget driven, im simply saying that maybe because of the last 15 years or so of war we have come up with enough tech and gotten rid of enough other MOS's that we don't need the full 480k anymore, its a theory not fact. Calm thyself
As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.
Perhaps you could save money by making the guards and reserves better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: And it doesn't have crap to do with tech. The missions our guys are doing are PEOPLE intensive. Tech doesn't conduct 'advise and assist' nor training missions. Tech doesn't set up FARPS, LOG bases and field hospitals in support of disaster relief.
The cuts, actual and proposed are budget driven. You will not find any credible source stating 'We can afford to go to XXXXX troops due to advances in technology'.
Wouldn't it be better to have fewer, but better trained troops?
For example, the 101st, 82nd, Rangers etc al, are obviously Crack infantry troops. Wouldn't it be better to have more of them?
Guard and Reserve units get a bum rap. Not all are bad, some are darned good, especially many of the NG units which have deployed multiple times in the last 20 years or so (with Kosovo/Baltic deployments, Sinai peace keeping missions, and deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan). Not all are ( or realistically can) be as good as full time troops, but they have done decently given the resources allocated and the demands put upon them.
As for 'better trained troops'. Great idea, and one being done. Every unit (including the ones you mention) go through cycles. Prep to deploy, deploy, recovery from deployment. Units in 'recovery' don;t get a lot of training resources. Units prepping to deploy work up from individual/small unit (squad/platoon) through collective/big unit training events (through at least BCT though there have been several Division exercises lately). Training is aligned with their projected mission set AND the specific AO they will be going to. So, Arty and Armor units for example have not been getting a lot of large scale Typical War/Decisive Action training, but that has begun to change over the last couple of years (see the current heavy and Stryker rotations to EUCOM AO for example, and both NTC and JRTC have been refocussing rotational units on decisive action phases lately).
For a while the cycle was so fast and vicious that anything other than COIN type training (be it counter insurgency/nation building/advise and assist) just didn't happen. We've gotten back on track, but big unit training, especially for mechanized units is expensive. A lot of simulation and confederated simulations are on line which help to mitigate cost to some extent. For example, Son2's BCT recently took part in a division level exercise. Most of the units were nothing but bits/bytes in sim world, but there was interaction with the live units and to the trained staffs it was pretty invisible which were which.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.
I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.
I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.
It's possible for both these things to be true. It's possible for the military budget to be unreasonably large, inefficiently allocated or otherwise in need of adjustment while still underpaying troops on an individual basis even if a meaningful part of those out of whack costs are personnel. It is also true the fact a person on social assistance may receive more money (or even overall benefits) than a soldier isn't particularly meaningful. It could mean the soldier is underpaid, it could mean the social assistance overpays, it could mean that the overall situations of soldier & social welfare recipient are very different not easily compared in a meaningful sense.
Even if we do accept that individual soldiers are underpaid and individual welfare recipients are universally overpaid this still doesn't preclude the possibility that in a broader analysis social welfare is underfunded while military personnel is over-funded.
Not that I'm trying to making any strong claims here about soldier's compensation, military budgets or the like specifically. It's just that an outraged comparison of two items with no context is a poor argument against anything, even the paper-thin post that was being responded to here.
Ghazkuul wrote: I believe the USMC is even thinking of dropping as low as 150,000
Unless something has changed very recently, that's not accurate. There was some talk of dropping as low as the 170s awhile back (I want to say 174-176k) but it's looking like it will be closer to 182-184k. Which is still higher than the USMC's pre-9/11 strength.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.
This isn't true at all. I agree with CptJake in that it varies. Some reserve and National Guard units have performed just fine, particularly the ones that have deployed a lot. And some haven't performed as well, but they also have far fewer resources to work with.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the reserve components of some services bring force-multiplying capabilities to the table that the active component doesn't have. For example, many civil affairs units are reserve units. Some reserve units deploy quite a bit, or have deployed quite a bit in the past. Many reserve units also have a lot of members who did one or more terms of service on active duty prior to joining their reserve units, so bring all of that experience to the table.
Reservists also regularly deploy as individual augments to active duty units. If they never mention it themselves, most of their active duty fellows wouldn't have any way of knowing they were a reservist.
So, I'm not saying that reserve units and the National Guard are all super elite ninjas. Obviously active duty units with more resources and more training time are going to generally be expected to perform better. But to say that reserve units and National Guard units "all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage" simply isn't true and doesn't tell the whole story.
As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.
Can you just stop talking now? Your ignorance is making the room stink.
As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.
Can you just stop talking now? Your ignorance is making the room stink.
I missed the part I highlighted the first time I read this.
The Air Force guard and reserve folk fly a LOT of the missions in theater, from CAS to cargo/troop hauling to ISR to tanker missions.
Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's
National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.
As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment
82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6)
101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent.
10th Mountain similar
Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously
Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES
The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF
C17 fleet was run to the ground
A10's were a God send
C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan
F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS
Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated
Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)
Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.
Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.
The vast majority of those numbers will be through people who separate normally. They Army isn't exactly an employee friendly environment, so retention rates could be better... The Army will let a lot of people separate, and just not refill those shoes. Some people will be forced out, no question about that, but it won't be 57,000.
Actually they can be rehired eventually and/or hired through another Department/Agency
Only applicants who meet one of the employment authority categories below are eligible to apply for this job. You will be asked to identify which category or categories you meet, and to provide documents which prove you meet the category or categories you selected. See Proof of Eligibility for an extensive list of document requirements for all employment authorities.
Current Civilian Employee with the Department of the Army
Current Permanent Department of Defense (DOD) - Civilian Employee (non-Army)
Former Federal Employee, eligible for reinstatement
Eligible due to Interagency Career Transition Program (ICTAP)
Eligible under Veterans' Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA)
Veterans with a service-connected disability of 30% or more Priority Placement Program, Program S (Military Spouse) registrants referred through the Automated Stopper and Referral System (ASARS) for this position
Co'tor Shas wrote: Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.
Depends on how you measure 'largest'. Most expensive? Yep. Most folks on active duty? Nope (beat by China, and India is pretty close behind us). Most tanks? Nope. Towed artillery? Not even close to #1. SP Arty? We're 4th. Total aircraft? We are #1 by a crap ton. Number of ships in the Navy? We're quite a bit behind 1 and 2 in that category...
If one had a choice between an American made IOTV body armor or Body Armor made by China.............
China still uses steel helmets
US uses Advance Combat Helmets
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: By largest I mean most powerful. At least I'm pretty sure we are...
Remember Stalin maxim, quote, law, or whatever however he said it
The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.
40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?
Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?
I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.
Sign of the USA in decline? No.
I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.
The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.
Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.
So, for a more nerdy reference, it's like the US is tau, and china is the IG. The US invests heavily onto having the soldiers alive, and china just gets as many soldiers as possible.
The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.
40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?
Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?
I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.
Sign of the USA in decline? No.
I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.
The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.
Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.
We have two conflicts budding right now with Asia's two strongest powers. This is hardly the time to be downsizing the military.
The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.
40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?
Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?
I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.
Sign of the USA in decline? No.
I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.
The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.
Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.
We have two conflicts budding right now with Asia's two strongest powers. This is hardly the time to be downsizing the military.
Are we going to be fighting land wars requiring large numbers of conventional ground forces against nuclear equipped powers on the other side of the planet, many hundreds of miles from primarily supply points?
Methinks not.
Likewise, with this sort of mentality, there will never be a time to draw back military resources, there can always be a potential threat on the horizon pointed to to say we need to keep these large standing forces. That's how empires bankrupt themselves.
Lets look at the facts. Russia has been making military backed land grabs, in the Ukraine, greatly upsetting the power balance in that part of the world with it's annexation of the Crimea. It is now making rumblings at the Baltic states.
China has become very belligerent along a vital ocean route that sees a large percentage of the worlds shipping, not to mention air traffic. They've been massively building their military might, especially their capability to project power. We have to very large, very powerful military powers, making real world moves that threaten not only the US's place in the world, but that of many of our allies.
Our response? Continual shrinkage of our military power. What does that say to those belligerent powers? It gives them the green light to go ahead.
Hell, this isn't even taking into account that we will end up putting combat forces on the ground in Iraq again within the next 5 years, and if US combat forces never enter Afghanistan again, I'll gak a gold brick. I've spent the last 4 months watching how effective the Afghan National Army is. Once we pull up out of here, this country is going to turn into a Taliban/ISIS cock fight.
Jihadin wrote: Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's
National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.
As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment
82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6)
101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent.
10th Mountain similar
Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously
Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES
The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF
C17 fleet was run to the ground
A10's were a God send
C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan
F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS
Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated
Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)
Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.
Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.
"Ghaz Mentioned all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk" thats completely true, besides the patrols and support operations I was on, PB Whitehouse, PB Faheem, FOB Inkerman FOB nolay. been to all of those and did my fair share. Furthermore, My job was never operating a VBOS. I was a 2621 Operator AND analyst.
SO please lets keep up all the abuse from people who didn't even deploy or serve along side reserve units. For the handful that did and found reserve/guard units to be good, well they were the exception not the rule.
djones520 wrote: Lets look at the facts. Russia has been making military backed land grabs, in the Ukraine, greatly upsetting the power balance in that part of the world with it's annexation of the Crimea. It is now making rumblings at the Baltic states.
China has become very belligerent along a vital ocean route that sees a large percentage of the worlds shipping, not to mention air traffic. They've been massively building their military might, especially their capability to project power. We have to very large, very powerful military powers, making real world moves that threaten not only the US's place in the world, but that of many of our allies.
Our response? Continual shrinkage of our military power. What does that say to those belligerent powers? It gives them the green light to go ahead.
Hell, this isn't even taking into account that we will end up putting combat forces on the ground in Iraq again within the next 5 years, and if US combat forces never enter Afghanistan again, I'll gak a gold brick. I've spent the last 4 months watching how effective the Afghan National Army is. Once we pull up out of here, this country is going to turn into a Taliban/ISIS cock fight.
Russia thus far has been intelligent enough not to actively mess with a NATO member. Neither Ukraine, nor Georgia, were NATO members, and in Georgia's case, they did something stupid first. The Russian moves primarily are aimed at internal audiences to distract from internal issues. Even with drawn down ground forces, Russia cannot deal with a large, conventional conflict against the US military. Russia has lots of troops and tanks, but not trained, equipped or supplied to the same standard of the US military and certainly can't be employed for anywhere near as long without major headaches, particularly in offensive operations on foreign soil. And, again, it must be kept in mind that if anything did come to open conflict, this would have a short and unfortunate escalation ladder given that Russia and the US are the two largest nuclear powers on the planet, and that's about the only thing anywhere near parity that Russia has with the US, even with a drawn down army, meaning that's Russia's only real card to level the playing field. Russia has her own problems and a large scale shooting war with NATO is that last thing she's really capable of right now.
Likewise, with China, what is the Army going to do? That's going to be a Navy/Marine/Air Force/special-forces deal, *if* anything comes to blows, and that's a rather huge *IF*. Most of China's issues are not with nations that the US has strong military interests with. It's not going to be something where the US Army throws its bulk into a land war in Asia with a nuclear armed opponent. A drawing down of the US army isn't going to have much of an effect here. This is to say nothing of the economic disaster for both nations if trade were to cease.
What we're talking about isn't an undercutting of the US army in most respects, in large part it's about returning to an appropriate size and a move away from being a long term occupation force.
Sure, we may put some forces back into Iraq or Afghanistan, I would not rule that out. Special forces, maybe a few hundred or a couple thousand troops? Sure. But going back with six digits worth of soldiers, for years on end, that such extra troops would be required for? Can't see it happening any time in the near future, instant political suicide.
Jihadin wrote: Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's
National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.
As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment 82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6) 101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent. 10th Mountain similar
Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously
Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES
The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF C17 fleet was run to the ground A10's were a God send C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated
Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)
Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.
Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.
"Ghaz Mentioned all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk" thats completely true, besides the patrols and support operations I was on, PB Whitehouse, PB Faheem, FOB Inkerman FOB nolay. been to all of those and did my fair share. Furthermore, My job was never operating a VBOS. I was a 2621 Operator AND analyst.
SO please lets keep up all the abuse from people who didn't even deploy or serve along side reserve units. For the handful that did and found reserve/guard units to be good, well they were the exception not the rule.
Yes, the USMC Reserve has combat arms units, as does the National Guard. As far as I know, the Army Reserve does not, and that's what Jihadin was referring to. I believe you that there were reservists who didn't perform well where you were at. But to take that as an indication that all reserve units are "garbage" is simply ridiculous, and quite frankly, not true. I guarantee you that there are active duty Marines and soldiers who have fallen asleep on post and that didn't have the skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned on at some point. The difference is when someone comes across a service member like that, they don't take it as an indication that all active duty units are "garbage." In both the active and reserve components, there are ways to address those kinds of issues, and none of them involve writing off entire units as "garbage."
I don't think folks who want to shrink manpower as much as is being proposed really understand how many places we have how many troops and how 'boots on the ground' intensive the "Build Partner Capacity" mission really is.
Take the 'find Kony' mission. True, only 100 or so guys deployed at a time, but that is taking about 500 out of the force pool as they go through the various deploy/recover/train cycles and also need a lot of support (though some is provided via reachback, those guys are committed to the mission and can't easily be re-tasked).
Now, that is a small example, I get that. But unless we are willing to disengage from all kinds of mission we have going on in the 150 so countries we have a presence in, shrinking the force AND maintaining a trained and ready contingency force isn't easy. I know units having a hard time now covering down on all the stuff they have going on.
CptJake wrote: I don't think folks who want to shrink manpower as much as is being proposed really understand how many places we have how many troops and how 'boots on the ground' intensive the "Build Partner Capacity" mission really is.
Take the 'find Kony' mission. True, only 100 or so guys deployed at a time, but that is taking about 500 out of the force pool as they go through the various deploy/recover/train cycles and also need a lot of support (though some is provided via reachback, those guys are committed to the mission and can't easily be re-tasked).
Now, that is a small example, I get that. But unless we are willing to disengage from all kinds of mission we have going on in the 150 so countries we have a presence in, shrinking the force AND maintaining a trained and ready contingency force isn't easy. I know units having a hard time now covering down on all the stuff they have going on.
Right. Afghanistan for example. We have 10,000 troops here. 101 CAB is here, but really only half of it. So only about 1,000 personnel are needed for the mission here. But that leave only half a CAB back in garrison, that can't do anything but continue training. They don't have the staff to support any operations, because all of the vital components are here. So you've got 1,000 folks deployed, and that takes 2,000 folks out of action.
We have 10,000 in Afghanistan, but we've probably got twice the numbers of that throughout the rest of the world also directly supporting the mission here. The Air Force and Navy have to have multiple bases set up outside of the country just to support the logistics here. We have massive units back state side supporting the CiC for things here as well. People only see the "10,000 boots on ground" but they don't realize that the foot print supporting that also exists.
I pointed out in another thread recently that much of our service is pretty burned out as well. We've been carrying this burden for a long time now, and us lifers are getting pretty tired of it. Cutting are man power just tells us one things. We're only going to get busier. Doesn't do a whole lot to make us feel better, stay enthused about this, etc...
Edit: All of these numbers are generalizations, so no one needs to start yelling about OPSEC or anything like that.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.
I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.
As someone who was a welfare recipient in the state of NJ, I can tell you that an E3 is better paid.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.
I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.
As someone who was a welfare recipient in the state of NJ, I can tell you that an E3 is better paid.
Basic E-3 is paid about 1800 a month, how does that compare with NJ? thats an honest question I don't know
Jihadin wrote: Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's
National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.
As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment
82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6)
101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent.
10th Mountain similar
Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously
Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES
The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF
C17 fleet was run to the ground
A10's were a God send
C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan
F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS
Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated
Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)
Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.
Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.
"Ghaz Mentioned all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk" thats completely true, besides the patrols and support operations I was on, PB Whitehouse, PB Faheem, FOB Inkerman FOB nolay. been to all of those and did my fair share. Furthermore, My job was never operating a VBOS. I was a 2621 Operator AND analyst.
SO please lets keep up all the abuse from people who didn't even deploy or serve along side reserve units. For the handful that did and found reserve/guard units to be good, well they were the exception not the rule.
Sorry about the mislabel I was going off this
For all the veterans and children/friends of veterans who were graced with the stories of some of the craziest times of their lives. Please leave a post with the craziest or weirdest war story you have.
While monitoring a GBOS feed (Big Camera on a stick) we saw a rather suspicious looking afghan walking into a crowded bazaar by a large bank. Quickly running up the steps the individual started screaming incoherently at people and then detonated a Suicide bomb that he had wrapped around his head and had hidden by wrapping an absurdly large turban around the bomb.
After the smoke from the detonation cleared we were shocked to see that nobody was seriously injured with only 2-3 minor injuries sustained by nearby civilians. The suicide bomber on the other hand......Apparently the Turban had acted as a kind of shield and had turned his Suicide bomb into a shaped charge that instead of exploding outwards, had instead exploded downwards and liquified the majority of his torso......
Anyway
Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.
I'm a Movement Coordinator so I hopped all over theater in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've seen active duty soldiers, marines, and Airman do the same thing to. It's nothing new.
Saw it 2010-2011
2007-2008
2006-2007
2005-2006
2003-2004
Hell I've seen it during peace time 1989 to 2003
Try a new beat stick
I was collecting about $1250/mo while I was on unemployment (I was making 2-3 times that amount while I was working). I was also only given 26 weeks of unemployment, which was a bit of a problem considering that I'll have been unemployed a year this month.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, did I mention that that $1250/mo was taxed as income?
djones520 wrote: A full welfare recipient in NJ makes about $20 an hour, which is about 40k a year.
Even with all the benefits, that E-3 doesn't make as much.
There's more to that DJ.
Time in grade. Max at 2 years or less in service is $1823 before taxes
E3 with dependent receives $539 for BHA (Basic Housing Allowance)
There are additional pay allowance involved
Jump Pay
Diver Pay
Sea Pay
Flight Pay
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: I was collecting about $1250/mo while I was on unemployment (I was making 2-3 times that amount while I was working). I was also only given 26 weeks of unemployment, which was a bit of a problem considering that I'll have been unemployed a year this month.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, did I mention that that $1250/mo was taxed as income?
Service Members receive 52 weeks unemployment and like you its taxed as income
@OP, I don't think that military cuts are a "sign of the USA in decline"
It's a fairly well established trend in our 225+ year history that, when actual fighting comes along, we can rapidly expand our military when we really want to.
In April 1917, just prior to our entrance to WW1, we had around 120,000 active soldiers (just talking army here), and around 80k "militia" as they were known (now known as National Guard).... Through the draft, we were able to expand the military to a bit over 2 million... Historians refer to the US putting 10,000 men into France each day.
After WW1, we again went back to that under 200k mark. In WW2, again through the Draft, the Army and Army Air corps had around 8.2 million men, which after the war, was eventually pared down to around 550k.
It is normal for us to expand and contract the military in times of conflict. In the most recent instances, with Iraq and Afghanistan, we haven't really expanded all that much, as I seem to recall that, at our peak during OIF/OEF, we had a little bit over 1 million soldiers in active duty, which is still less than half of our WW1 numbers, and quite a bit less than WW2 numbers. I haven't studied Vietnam, but I suspect that our numbers are closer to 'Nam, but probably still lower due to the organization and current fighting abilities of the soldier.
I’ve just got to say the question in the OP is incredible. From a single story about the US reducing it’s total manpower, we get a question about the US in decline. If this was a story about the US reducing its annual spending on any other federal budget category, would that question be asked? If health was reduced do you think anyone would ask if it was a sign of the US in decline?
The line of thinking from the OP is actually symptomatic of the problematic approach to defence spending in the US in general. Questions about cutbacks have been answered with generalised scare tactics about the US needing to maintain its supremacy, with too few specifics on whether individual units can actually justify their cost. In this case specifically, can anyone make a sensible case that the US will lose some part of its dominance with a reduction of 40,000 troops? Can someone point out something the US can do with 480k troops that it can’t do with 440k?
And for what it’s worth, in the rest of the developed world, specifically the NATO ANZUS countries, the problem has been the opposite – requests for increased capacity have been rejected with generalised statements that more or less reject the idea of military spending at all.
The result, in the end, has been vast US bloat in spending, and threadbare spending elsewhere. It’s an imbalance that produces a lot of strategic issues.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.
Don't worry about me. My only involvement with the US military is a company of 101st which I collected for a FOW Market Garden campaign
And of course, my New Hampshire volunteers for American Civil War games. Damn rebels!!
Almost forgot my Native Americans and Redcoats for when I try to crush Washington and his lackeys
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I’ve just got to say the question in the OP is incredible. From a single story about the US reducing it’s total manpower, we get a question about the US in decline. If this was a story about the US reducing its annual spending on any other federal budget category, would that question be asked? If health was reduced do you think anyone would ask if it was a sign of the US in decline?
The line of thinking from the OP is actually symptomatic of the problematic approach to defence spending in the US in general. Questions about cutbacks have been answered with generalised scare tactics about the US needing to maintain its supremacy, with too few specifics on whether individual units can actually justify their cost. In this case specifically, can anyone make a sensible case that the US will lose some part of its dominance with a reduction of 40,000 troops? Can someone point out something the US can do with 480k troops that it can’t do with 440k?
And for what it’s worth, in the rest of the developed world, specifically the NATO ANZUS countries, the problem has been the opposite – requests for increased capacity have been rejected with generalised statements that more or less reject the idea of military spending at all.
The result, in the end, has been vast US bloat in spending, and threadbare spending elsewhere. It’s an imbalance that produces a lot of strategic issues.
It's not an incredible question from me, the OP
As I've said before, any nation's authority ultimately rests on armed men and women keeping the peace, keeping control, in the form of police and armed forces. Most nations have this.
But America is an EXCEPTION. It is the most powerful nation on earth, able to exert that authority anywhere in the world, where it deems to be in its interests.
That is the true test of a great power: exerting your influence anywhere at any time.
I always use this historical example, because it illustrates it brilliantly, IMO.
In the year 1900, there was only one nation on earth that could move 100,000 soldiers from point A to anywhere in the world, in record time. That nation was Britain. They moved 100,000 men from England to South Africa, in record time, for the Boer war, and in doing so, made Germany nervous, because the Germans realised that Britain could shift troops from England to Germany, just as easy.
In 2015, only the USA can move 100,000 from A to B in record time.
Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: @OP, I don't think that military cuts are a "sign of the USA in decline"
It's a fairly well established trend in our 225+ year history that, when actual fighting comes along, we can rapidly expand our military when we really want to.
In April 1917, just prior to our entrance to WW1, we had around 120,000 active soldiers (just talking army here), and around 80k "militia" as they were known (now known as National Guard).... Through the draft, we were able to expand the military to a bit over 2 million... Historians refer to the US putting 10,000 men into France each day.
After WW1, we again went back to that under 200k mark. In WW2, again through the Draft, the Army and Army Air corps had around 8.2 million men, which after the war, was eventually pared down to around 550k.
It is normal for us to expand and contract the military in times of conflict. In the most recent instances, with Iraq and Afghanistan, we haven't really expanded all that much, as I seem to recall that, at our peak during OIF/OEF, we had a little bit over 1 million soldiers in active duty, which is still less than half of our WW1 numbers, and quite a bit less than WW2 numbers. I haven't studied Vietnam, but I suspect that our numbers are closer to 'Nam, but probably still lower due to the organization and current fighting abilities of the soldier.
I agree in peacetime, that the USA has reduced numbers, but this ain't peacetime! Joe Commie's on the march in China, Putin's up to his tricks, and the Middle East is going up in smoke...again!!! This ain't the time for troops reductions!!!
The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.
40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?
Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?
I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.
Sign of the USA in decline? No.
I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.
The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.
Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.
If you have tanks sitting around doing nothing, while not sell them to NATO members in Eastern Europe? They might need them.
Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No
The problem is, the term "Great Power" has a reasonably specific definition, which the US more than meets. (Current great powers are US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany, Japan. The club has been more or less seven nations for about 400 years)
The US has been a great power since at least ~1900, when it defeated the remnants of the Spanish Empire and picked up its own empire. At that point, the US had a world class navy, the ports from which to extend their power, and global influence. One working definition of great power is "any nation state that can reasonably defend its soveriegnty from any other power." From ~1950-1990, the US was one of two superpowers: with only two nations really competing for global influence, the globe became unusually polarized. Of course, the USSR collapses, and the US emerges a the lone hyperpower, which is just a more euphamistic term for "hegemon."
A hegemon is a power of such influence and might that no realistic force can be assembled against it. The US is such a power, with four other great powers highly unwilling to step agains the US, the US can dictate a lot of policy through its actions. Other powers still control themselves and their spheres (see russia and Ukraine), but neither Russia no China can really change how the US conducts foreign policy in the Middle East.
Hegomony's aren't lost because a few division are understrength or a new jet isn't developed, they are lost when willing allies stop supporting it, and unwilling allies work against it.
sebster wrote: I’ve just got to say the question in the OP is incredible. From a single story about the US reducing it’s total manpower, we get a question about the US in decline. If this was a story about the US reducing its annual spending on any other federal budget category, would that question be asked? If health was reduced do you think anyone would ask if it was a sign of the US in decline?
The line of thinking from the OP is actually symptomatic of the problematic approach to defence spending in the US in general. Questions about cutbacks have been answered with generalised scare tactics about the US needing to maintain its supremacy, with too few specifics on whether individual units can actually justify their cost. In this case specifically, can anyone make a sensible case that the US will lose some part of its dominance with a reduction of 40,000 troops? Can someone point out something the US can do with 480k troops that it can’t do with 440k?
See, if I was a politician trying to sell military budget cuts, I'd come at it from the other direction. Flip the narrative and sell the strength.
"I promise you that under my watch, the United States will spend at least as much on military spending as the next 7 countries combined."
And there you have what, probably a $200 billion cut?
Of course the objections will come. "But that's a budget cut!" But you just keep brushing that aside and bringing it back to your message. "As a proud patriot, I am 100% committed to having the strongest military in the world, and can promise you that the U.S. will never spend less than the next 7 largest military budgets PUT TOGETHER as long as I have something to say about it." Call it the "7-country plan."
Plant the seed in people's heads. "Well, that does still seem like kind of a lot." The opposition would probably counter by getting granular and taking about military families, base closures, etc. But that's still a more complicated narrative than the "7-country plan." I think this kind of approach could get traction with the public. The lawmakers are the hard part, of course. Pork, pork, pork.
I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.
Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.
So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.
Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No
The problem is, the term "Great Power" has a reasonably specific definition, which the US more than meets. (Current great powers are US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany, Japan. The club has been more or less seven nations for about 400 years)
The US has been a great power since at least ~1900, when it defeated the remnants of the Spanish Empire and picked up its own empire. At that point, the US had a world class navy, the ports from which to extend their power, and global influence. One working definition of great power is "any nation state that can reasonably defend its soveriegnty from any other power." From ~1950-1990, the US was one of two superpowers: with only two nations really competing for global influence, the globe became unusually polarized. Of course, the USSR collapses, and the US emerges a the lone hyperpower, which is just a more euphamistic term for "hegemon."
A hegemon is a power of such influence and might that no realistic force can be assembled against it. The US is such a power, with four other great powers highly unwilling to step agains the US, the US can dictate a lot of policy through its actions. Other powers still control themselves and their spheres (see russia and Ukraine), but neither Russia no China can really change how the US conducts foreign policy in the Middle East.
Hegomony's aren't lost because a few division are understrength or a new jet isn't developed, they are lost when willing allies stop supporting it, and unwilling allies work against it.
It is also lost when the superpower loses the will to defend its interests and gets others to fight for it. See the Kurds fighting ISIL as a prime example of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.
Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.
So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.
In the film, hot shots part 2, President Tug Benson's solution to American problems in the Middle East, was to invade Minnesota
In all honesty, I see a similar logic at work here. Nobody thinks long term in the USA. Obama's out the door in a few months, so what does he care. The Presidential candidates will probably try and out-do each other in the military and foreign policy stakes, next November., so expect a few daft statements.
I watched Hilary Clinton talk about China the other day. It was total hogwash.
It all adds up to a total lack of a coherent plan.
Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No
The problem is, the term "Great Power" has a reasonably specific definition, which the US more than meets. (Current great powers are US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany, Japan. The club has been more or less seven nations for about 400 years)
The US has been a great power since at least ~1900, when it defeated the remnants of the Spanish Empire and picked up its own empire. At that point, the US had a world class navy, the ports from which to extend their power, and global influence. One working definition of great power is "any nation state that can reasonably defend its soveriegnty from any other power." From ~1950-1990, the US was one of two superpowers: with only two nations really competing for global influence, the globe became unusually polarized. Of course, the USSR collapses, and the US emerges a the lone hyperpower, which is just a more euphamistic term for "hegemon."
A hegemon is a power of such influence and might that no realistic force can be assembled against it. The US is such a power, with four other great powers highly unwilling to step agains the US, the US can dictate a lot of policy through its actions. Other powers still control themselves and their spheres (see russia and Ukraine), but neither Russia no China can really change how the US conducts foreign policy in the Middle East.
Hegomony's aren't lost because a few division are understrength or a new jet isn't developed, they are lost when willing allies stop supporting it, and unwilling allies work against it.
It is also lost when the superpower loses the will to defend its interests and gets others to fight for it. See the Kurds fighting ISIL as a prime example of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.
Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.
So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.
In the film, hot shots part 2, President Tug Benson's solution to American problems in the Middle East, was to invade Minnesota
In all honesty, I see a similar logic at work here. Nobody thinks long term in the USA. Obama's out the door in a few months, so what does he care. The Presidential candidates will probably try and out-do each other in the military and foreign policy stakes, next November., so expect a few daft statements.
I watched Hilary Clinton talk about China the other day. It was total hogwash.
It all adds up to a total lack of a coherent plan.
I would argue that the ability to get another country or group to fight for you is actually an indication of hegemony, not a loss of it.
As far as many of our presidential candidates lacking a coherent foreign policy plan....well, I can't really argue with you on that one!
I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.
I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.
I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.
that I completely agree with, but it started with Obama and now its a total feth storm. Long time allies alienated, long time enemies attempting to be friends with. Its like were changing sides
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.
I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.
that I completely agree with, but it started with Obama and now its a total feth storm. Long time allies alienated, long time enemies attempting to be friends with. Its like were changing sides
Yes, I'm sure the US spree of Middle Eastern conflicts and interventions, the drone assassination campaign, economic recessions with global impact, and our generally snobby attitude towards long standing allies all started in 2008. Yep. Totally...
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.
I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.
that I completely agree with, but it started with Obama and now its a total feth storm. Long time allies alienated, long time enemies attempting to be friends with. Its like were changing sides
Yes, I'm sure the US spree of Middle Eastern conflicts and interventions, the drone assassination campaign, economic recessions with global impact, and our generally snobby attitude towards long standing allies all started in 2008. Yep. Totally...
Well middle eastern conflicts and interventions has kind of been the long standing norm since Iran/Contra and hell even before that, I would say as far back as the 50s. The drone strikes...yeah relatively new since the tech is new. Never once mentioned recession as that is economics and not foreign policy per say (related I know) Snobby attitudes...yeah that actually is new as of 08, we had a great relationship with Aussieland, UK, Israel and a few others before Obama.
I would argue that the ability to get another country or group to fight for you is actually an indication of hegemony, not a loss of it.
Quite.
An Empire would send in its legions to fight. But we don't control, or really want to control, the upper middle east. it's almost literally on the other side of the world. Yet we have allies there, willing to fight for us, the ability to sent them arms and supplies, and the influence to do so while another ally, Turkey, hates the idea of an autonomous Kurdish territory. We're doing okay.
I would argue that the ability to get another country or group to fight for you is actually an indication of hegemony, not a loss of it.
Quite.
An Empire would send in its legions to fight. But we don't control, or really want to control, the upper middle east. it's almost literally on the other side of the world. Yet we have allies there, willing to fight for us, the ability to sent them arms and supplies, and the influence to do so while another ally, Turkey, hates the idea of an autonomous Kurdish territory. We're doing okay.
Obviously, I disagree with you both. I had a huge argument about this with Jihadin and CptJake on another thread, so I don't really want to be going down this road...again...but...
In WW2, Britain could get other people to fight its battles e.g Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand (apologies if I left anybody out)
in 2015 the Kurds seem to be fighting America's battles for it in the ME
But there is one crucial difference: the empire countries believed in the empire dream, the empire vision. They fought out of loyalty. After all, what threat did Germany pose to Australia?
The Kurds are different. Their war with ISIL is sectarian, and they're looking for a homeland at the end of it. That some of their goals coincide with some of America's goals, is convenient, IMO.
In other words, the Kurds are not fighting for Uncle Sam because they believe in the American dream. You guys are allies of convenience, nothing more.
Your post brings up a question I had. Did Britain have any territories outside the Isles where the colony was citizens, with complete voting and representation in Parliament (like Hawaii is a full state of the USA)?
Indian and ANZAC forces in WWII actually were heavily focused on fighting Japan, and even to the extent that they fough in Europe, it was to preserve Britain (at the time their cheif ally against Japan). They did see the fight in terms of self interest.
They also were memebers of the British Empire, with de facto but not de jure independence. You seem to conflate the idea of Empire (nations controlled by a single power) and hegemony (A single power having unmatched influence).
As for the Kurds, and fighting ISIS "for us," I guess I ask the question: "Why is fighting ISIS our problem at all?" Aren't we only helping Iraq and the Kurds because they are our allies?
CptJake wrote: I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.
Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.
So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.
That's all fine, but I was really just referring to the political rhetoric involved. Even if you had the smartest, most well-considered and reality-grounded plan possible, it's probably going to be unpopular and go nowhere as long as it can easily be positioned as "cuts to the military."
Pork is reason #1 (and in fact look at how Congress sometimes decides what the military "needs" even when the military disagrees), but reason #2 is the "you're gonna hurt our troops" cry from the public, which inevitably must lead to "you hate 'Murica!" So yeah, totally agree that the country needs a more integrated, thoughtful approach to our military budget. But I think it'll also need a new rhetorical approach to sell it.
Much like how only Nixon could go to China, it'd probably take a Republican to pull it off.
Frazzled wrote: Your post brings up a question I had. Did Britain have any territories outside the Isles where the colony was citizens, with complete voting and representation in Parliament (like Hawaii is a full state of the USA)?
Countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc etc were independent in all but name. They didn't have representatives in Parliament for this reason.
When Japan entered the war and threatened Australia, the Australian government recalled most of its troops from North Africa to defend the homeland. That weakened the British 8th Army and made Rommel happy.
Indian and ANZAC forces in WWII actually were heavily focused on fighting Japan, and even to the extent that they fough in Europe, it was to preserve Britain (at the time their cheif ally against Japan). They did see the fight in terms of self interest.
They also were memebers of the British Empire, with de facto but not de jure independence. You seem to conflate the idea of Empire (nations controlled by a single power) and hegemony (A single power having unmatched influence).
As for the Kurds, and fighting ISIS "for us," I guess I ask the question: "Why is fighting ISIS our problem at all?" Aren't we only helping Iraq and the Kurds because they are our allies?
If Japan hadn't entered the war, those Australians would have been fighting the Germans in France, just like in World War One.
You'd have to ask your President why ISIL is an American problem. I've seen him a few times on TV saying that ISIL threatens American interests. They probably upset the Saudis
If Japan hadn't entered the war, those Australians would have been fighting the Germans in France, just like in World War One.
Any argument based on Japan not launching the Pacifc war is going to struggle with the very real fact that everybody saw war coming with Japan. it's why the US had the fleet it did at Pearl Harbor and the army it did in the Phillipines. It's why the British kept a large force in Singapore despite everything going on in Europe. War was coming (and Japan was cutting through China the whole time anyway), and Australia saw the British Empire as the bulwark to Japan.
I guess I'm just confused by your reading of any change in the US's stance as a meanginful decline.
Ghazkuul wrote: I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.
Except during the Bush presidency when the US was a laughing-stock and embarrassed itself by codifying warcrimes into SOP.
Aren't we only helping Iraq and the Kurds because they are our allies?
Iraq isn't our ally, it's our puppet-state. The Kurds are an.... ally of convenience. They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.
Psienesis wrote: They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.
What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
Psienesis wrote: They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.
What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
I think they provided the intel that allowed the Germans to successfully bomb Pearl Harbor.
Seriously though, I know in 1975 we fethed over the Kurds who we had been using as a buffer between Iraq and Iran (we worked with the Shah to fund/arm the Pesh to fight Saddam for a Kurdistan). Not sure how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a few years later let alone the end of that war had much to do with them though.
My belief that America is a declining nation is not a personal attack on that great nation. As I've said many a time, I freely admit to being a great admirer of the USA. American history is my hobby, I love the food, obviously the culture with the books and the films etc etc
It's only the presence of root beer that prevents me from applying from citizenship
On a more serious note, my observation of American decline is based on historical trends and the inevitability that all great powers fade away.
I love American history, but I love my own nation's history even more, and my own nation was once a great power, arguably the greatest the world has ever seen.
Every empire follows a familiar pattern. Every empire has at one stage, a crusading zeal to shape the world in its own image.
The Romans had it, Britain had it in the 19th century, and the USA had it during the cold war...
But those days come and go, and eventually, somebody else comes along, which is more than likely to be China.
Like Britain pre-World War one, the USA is still powerful, still able to lay waste to its rivals, but there's something missing. The zeal is missing, and you see that zeal slipping away from the USA as it did from the British Empire.
Is America losing it's grip that much though? I can see it stepping back some (and I think that is a deliberate move by the current president) but it's hard to imagine a world in the next 50 years or so where the major movies are not produced by America, or the big brands, ideas, memes, the next Kanye frigging-kill-yourself-already Kardashian. China is still too insular to be the shaper of the world.
Who else is there? Europe's struggling to keep itself together (an ever closer union my arse) and Russia isn't trusted by anyone.
India has a chance, but it'll never dominate the global pop-culture whilst the divisions between rich and poor are more dramatic than anywhere else in the world.
Maybe the comparison with UK pre WW1 is fair. The UK dramatically punches above its weight today. Is this the future for the US?
I doubt many would argue that The US's position as lone hyperpower was sustainable for long.
There will be a reordering of things, and the US will, if not decline, at least not advance as quickly as other nations. The sheer size, population, resources, and political cohesion of the US means that any decline will be slow, barring a complete collapse, but I think its safe to say that the US will not be the hegemon forever.
Something being gradual and inevitable means that pointing to every minor shift as proof is probably ill advised.
Psienesis wrote: They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.
What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
I think they provided the intel that allowed the Germans to successfully bomb Pearl Harbor.
Seriously though, I know in 1975 we fethed over the Kurds who we had been using as a buffer between Iraq and Iran (we worked with the Shah to fund/arm the Pesh to fight Saddam for a Kurdistan). Not sure how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a few years later let alone the end of that war had much to do with them though.
Aren't they the ones who brought the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance as well?
Mon Mothma wrote:"Many Afghans died, to bring us this information."
In all seriousness, it's really difficult for me to take seriously the foreign policy opinion of someone who can't consistently and meaningfully differentiate between Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.
Polonius wrote: I doubt many would argue that The US's position as lone hyperpower was sustainable for long.
There will be a reordering of things, and the US will, if not decline, at least not advance as quickly as other nations. The sheer size, population, resources, and political cohesion of the US means that any decline will be slow, barring a complete collapse, but I think its safe to say that the US will not be the hegemon forever.
Something being gradual and inevitable means that pointing to every minor shift as proof is probably ill advised.
I see the future of the USA being similar to Britain after WW1. As you know, Britain's empire was at its zenith - it controlled a 1/4 of the globe due to colonial possessions it took from Germany and Turkey...but America was the richer country.
Despite this, and because of the USA's isolationism, Britain was far more influential in the world, mainly because of the Empire, and mainly because it was pro-active. Its business interests touched almost every continent.
I see China becoming the USA of the 1920s, and the USA becoming Britain after WW1. China too have a bigger economy than the USA, but too insular to have the USA's global influence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: Is America losing it's grip that much though? I can see it stepping back some (and I think that is a deliberate move by the current president) but it's hard to imagine a world in the next 50 years or so where the major movies are not produced by America, or the big brands, ideas, memes, the next Kanye frigging-kill-yourself-already Kardashian. China is still too insular to be the shaper of the world.
Who else is there? Europe's struggling to keep itself together (an ever closer union my arse) and Russia isn't trusted by anyone.
India has a chance, but it'll never dominate the global pop-culture whilst the divisions between rich and poor are more dramatic than anywhere else in the world.
Maybe the comparison with UK pre WW1 is fair. The UK dramatically punches above its weight today. Is this the future for the US?
It's Belgium that worries me. They have EU headquarters and NATO headquarters on their soil. They've been very sneaky about this, but I know their game!
I agree with most of what you've said - America won't fade away over night, but they are fading.
Slightly off topic but I was embedded with US forces in the states when the sequestration happened. Whenever Brits go over there we're always delighted by how much stuff the yanks have available at the drop of a hat (and how nice they are for letting us play with all their stuff). Piles and piles of stuff, man power, you name it available at the drop of a hat.
The sequestration occurred and all the US guys were seriously worried about how it was going to affect them. There was nothing we could do but laugh at them. The US military machine is one of the least efficient and wasteful organisations I've ever come across.
I'd like to imagine that this cut in man power is someone realising just how wasteful the US military is and this is a result of efficient reorganisation, but I have to be a realist. Waste a squander is so inherent in their system it would take something drastic to force a change.
Henry wrote: Slightly off topic but I was embedded with US forces in the states when the sequestration happened. Whenever Brits go over there we're always delighted by how much stuff the yanks have available at the drop of a hat (and how nice they are for letting us play with all their stuff). Piles and piles of stuff, man power, you name it available at the drop of a hat.
The sequestration occurred and all the US guys were seriously worried about how it was going to affect them. There was nothing we could do but laugh at them. The US military machine is one of the least efficient and wasteful organisations I've ever come across.
I'd like to imagine that this cut in man power is someone realising just how wasteful the US military is and this is a result of efficient reorganisation, but I have to be a realist. Waste a squander is so inherent in their system it would take something drastic to force a change.
I would completely agree with you on that one. The US military is extremely wasteful in all sorts of ways, however that has more to do with politicians and the useless contract system in place not to mention the ZERO Budget that we are forced to utilize.
Zero budget is if you don't spend it you lose it. If your budget is 120,000 and you only spend 90,000 of it, the next year your only given 90,000. Trust me that makes units very wasteful very quickly. Yeah they dont need that 120,000 every year, but when a very expensive piece of gear breaks and it costs 40,000 to get a new one....you get the picture.
Ghazkuul wrote: Zero budget is if you don't spend it you lose it. If your budget is 120,000 and you only spend 90,000 of it, the next year your only given 90,000. Trust me that makes units very wasteful very quickly. Yeah they dont need that 120,000 every year, but when a very expensive piece of gear breaks and it costs 40,000 to get a new one....you get the picture.
That goes for almost everyone though. Even I encountered it while doing my mandatory service - we always used all ammo allocated for practice and if there was food left in the field we dumped it rather than return it and get less next time.
As for defending Europe we're starting to look like a big player with all the others cutting down... That's not good.
Polonius wrote: I doubt many would argue that The US's position as lone hyperpower was sustainable for long.
There will be a reordering of things, and the US will, if not decline, at least not advance as quickly as other nations. The sheer size, population, resources, and political cohesion of the US means that any decline will be slow, barring a complete collapse, but I think its safe to say that the US will not be the hegemon forever.
Something being gradual and inevitable means that pointing to every minor shift as proof is probably ill advised.
Yeah, the US simply will not be the sole hyperpower forever, even if the US does everything right. China and India will, unless something radical happens, match and likely someday exceed the US in terms of raw power given enough time. The EU likewise has the potential to do so as well.
A multipolar world more akin to that of the early 20th century, with multiple first rate powers as opposed to one superpower, is likely to be the reality in a few decades.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
I do hope you're joking.
Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"
Need that money for Social Security. Seriously, I wonder where the savings will go. Invested elsewhere, or realized by taxpayers by a lowering of taxes?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
I do hope you're joking.
Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"
cyber isn't necessarily reported in military spending
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
I do hope you're joking.
Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"
You make a good point. Clearly there's more going on here than money alone - it's not as if the US isn't throwing enough at the problem. I think one issue with our cyber front is the applicant pool, and we can't necessarily get better programmers by throwing food stamps at people.
Here's something I said in the thread about the hacking of the US government:
"Think about this, in 2015 the US spent $620 billion on its military, Russia spent $84 billion on their military, and China spent $131 on their military (assuming my Google-Fu is strong). And who's kicking whose ass in cyberspace?"
Wow, China is getting great mileage out of their one hundred and thirty-one dollars.
As I've said before, any nation's authority ultimately rests on armed men and women keeping the peace, keeping control, in the form of police and armed forces. Most nations have this.
But America is an EXCEPTION. It is the most powerful nation on earth, able to exert that authority anywhere in the world, where it deems to be in its interests.
That is the true test of a great power: exerting your influence anywhere at any time.
Yes, the true test is your ability to project force. But you've gone straight from 'they're making cuts' to 'you need to project force to be a major power', without going through the middle question 'will these cuts limit the US ability to project force in the future?'
Imagine doing that with any other part of government spending. Imagine if there were cuts announced to the national parks sector, and people went straight to the internet to start talking about how parks are very important, and you need parks, without any conversation about whether the jobs being cut are actually needed to fulfill the government's role in maintaining national parks people just start talking about how important parks are and how these cuts mean a decline in the nation.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
I do hope you're joking.
This is what I like to call "pre-heating the oven" - saying something really provocative that doesn't break the rules, but that incites people to do so in response. Once the desired response has arrived, you just have to act really innocent, like what did I say, wink wink? It's gutter level posting imo.
Polonius wrote: Indian and ANZAC forces in WWII actually were heavily focused on fighting Japan, and even to the extent that they fough in Europe, it was to preserve Britain (at the time their cheif ally against Japan). They did see the fight in terms of self interest.
Not quite. Australia did join the fight and fought German forces in Africa before Japan's entry in to the war, and did purely out of loyalty to the Empire, and a belief that if we stood by Britain they would stand by us if we were threatened. Even before Japan entered the war there was significant tension in the relationship - Australia placed a much higher priority on maintaining the strength of Singapore than England.
Following Japan's entry in to the war and collapse of the British position in the Far East, that tension reached it's extreme. Australian troops that had been committed to Africa were actually withdrawn back to Australia without Churchill's approval. WIthin a fortnight of Pearl Harbour Australia was turning the US as an ally with the capability and will to save the Pacific (and part of making that a practical operation was in Australia finally establishing itself as a seperate nation - we finally took on the dominion status Britain had granted in 1930). As fear of invasion of Australia faded we returned to Commonwealth (in 1943 our PM described us as a nation of 7 million Britons), but there was now an underlying reality that our primary military relationship was with the new Pacific power, the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Every empire follows a familiar pattern. Every empire has at one stage, a crusading zeal to shape the world in its own image.
The Romans had it, Britain had it in the 19th century, and the USA had it during the cold war...
But those days come and go, and eventually, somebody else comes along, which is more than likely to be China.
I think you're building a very broad narrative in your head, and things are generally a lot more complicated in real life. And that's led you to pick China as the next empire just because your narrative needs a next empire, but the reality on the ground is that China has cra-cra problems.
The aggressive expansionism of China alarmed Japan. The U.S. government is now looking for a new ally and so supporting Abe's effort to revise the postwar Constitution of Japan so its arms race can now becomes legal so the IJA and IJN size of Army and Navy is needed to counter Chinese aggressions.
Psienesis wrote: They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.
What do the Kurds have to do with the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
Kurdish people have resided in Afghanistan for centuries, not just in Iran/Iraq (or in Kurdistan). They were one of the many local factions (also including the groups the US would form into the Taliban) the US used, via the CIA, to fight the Russians.
They were also hired on during the US' first foray into Iraq, though we left them hanging after that conflict. It is not without note that some of the chemical weapons used against the Kurds in the 80s by Saddam Hussein were of American manufacture, the sale of which was permitted by action of then-President Reagan.
American history with the Kurds is... complicated.
Need that money for Social Security. Seriously, I wonder where the savings will go. Invested elsewhere, or realized by taxpayers by a lowering of taxes?
Social Security is primarily funded by payroll deductions, not the government. The money that is in Social Security comes from the SS taxes that American workers pay, it is not earmarked out of the General Fund or other public source.
Yeah, I'm calling BS on this premise. The Kurdish population of Afghanistan is so small that it doesn't even register as an actual ethnic group of the nation.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, I'm calling BS on this premise. The Kurdish population of Afghanistan is so small that it doesn't even register as an actual ethnic group of the nation.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
I do hope you're joking.
As do I. Welfare and the like might be the worst governmental actions in US history. They're just implemented so damn poorly that an amazing idea turns into a gakky one.
Polonius wrote: Indian and ANZAC forces in WWII actually were heavily focused on fighting Japan, and even to the extent that they fough in Europe, it was to preserve Britain (at the time their cheif ally against Japan). They did see the fight in terms of self interest.
Not quite. Australia did join the fight and fought German forces in Africa before Japan's entry in to the war, and did purely out of loyalty to the Empire, and a belief that if we stood by Britain they would stand by us if we were threatened. Even before Japan entered the war there was significant tension in the relationship - Australia placed a much higher priority on maintaining the strength of Singapore than England.
Following Japan's entry in to the war and collapse of the British position in the Far East, that tension reached it's extreme. Australian troops that had been committed to Africa were actually withdrawn back to Australia without Churchill's approval. WIthin a fortnight of Pearl Harbour Australia was turning the US as an ally with the capability and will to save the Pacific (and part of making that a practical operation was in Australia finally establishing itself as a seperate nation - we finally took on the dominion status Britain had granted in 1930). As fear of invasion of Australia faded we returned to Commonwealth (in 1943 our PM described us as a nation of 7 million Britons), but there was now an underlying reality that our primary military relationship was with the new Pacific power, the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Every empire follows a familiar pattern. Every empire has at one stage, a crusading zeal to shape the world in its own image.
The Romans had it, Britain had it in the 19th century, and the USA had it during the cold war...
But those days come and go, and eventually, somebody else comes along, which is more than likely to be China.
I think you're building a very broad narrative in your head, and things are generally a lot more complicated in real life. And that's led you to pick China as the next empire just because your narrative needs a next empire, but the reality on the ground is that China has cra-cra problems.
Narrative? I'm dealing in cold, hard facts! Of course China has problems, given the scale of its drive for modernity and rapid industrialization, but every nation that undergoes this has problems. Look at the problems Britain had when the industrial revolution started. China's rise is inevitable, given the sheer manpower and resources at its disposal.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps
I do hope you're joking.
As do I. Welfare and the like might be the worst governmental actions in US history. They're just implemented so damn poorly that an amazing idea turns into a gakky one.
welfare would be great for those who really needed it if it was appropriately administered. Instead anyone can get welfare so long as they have a halfway decent reason. What is really pathetic is that when I was in the military, me and my wife qualified for welfare. We never used it but that is kinda pathetic that our soldiers, sailors and marines don't make enough to live on, and I guarantee the average one works more then 40 hours a week.
Ghazkuul wrote: What is really pathetic is that when I was in the military, me and my wife qualified for welfare.
How can that even be possible? Was it because of some technical flaw in the welfare system or truly so bad pay that you can't survive on it?
For lower enlisted families it is. Even as an E-5 I still qualified for WIC. It wasn't until I made E-6 that no longer qualified for any form of welfare.
For lower enlisted families it is. Even as an E-5 I still qualified for WIC. It wasn't until I made E-6 that no longer qualified for any form of welfare.
And that's only while you're stateside. I know of families that I was stationed with in Germany, where the military member was an E-6 and STILL was on WIC.
Being dual military, my wife and I qualified, though we never did use WIC.
Ghazkuul wrote: What is really pathetic is that when I was in the military, me and my wife qualified for welfare.
How can that even be possible? Was it because of some technical flaw in the welfare system or truly so bad pay that you can't survive on it?
For lower enlisted families it is. Even as an E-5 I still qualified for WIC. It wasn't until I made E-6 that no longer qualified for any form of welfare.
The technical flaw in the welfare system is that it exists in its current state at all. E5 pay is better than my crappy gradschool stipend and I still managed to survive.
That's not a slight to our servicemen as I've never known one to take welfare, but rather on our broken welfare system.
Ps: djones, I'm responding to your post because Spetulhu is on ignore. I apologize in advance for any confusion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Narrative? I'm dealing in cold, hard facts! Of course China has problems, given the scale of its drive for modernity and rapid industrialization, but every nation that undergoes this has problems. Look at the problems Britain had when the industrial revolution started. China's rise is inevitable, given the sheer manpower and resources at its disposal.
China's population was vast 100 years ago, and yet they spent the 20th century dominated by numerically much smaller countries.
And sure, China now has a drive for modernisation, but maintaining that drive is never guaranteed, especially as they move in to higher grade manufacturing, where you have to start producing your own innovations. And then you've issues with how China will go when growth slows - can they be stable at 3 to 5% growth?
Now, note I'm not dismissing the idea of China dominating the rest of this century. It's certainly plausible, and maybe even probable. But history is a bunch of stuff that pretty much no-one saw coming, but seemed really obvious afterwards. Big predictive narratives tend to look pretty silly a decade or two later. I mean, go read some 80s cyberpunk, with Japan dominating world events
The income cutoff for WIC is fairly high in my opinion - for a couple with one child, it's $37,167. An E5 makes what, $27k?
Of course, you can't reduce that, because the agriculture lobby / farm bill crowd would scream bloody murder - it is welfare, but mostly the corporate kind.
That being said in the great scheme of things we spend money on, I'm quite happy for my taxes go to WIC. It's one of the better programs we run, I think. When we unflinchingly spend more than the Iraq war on a plane that can't be flown at night, and sometimes catches fire and no one knows why, I have a real hard time arguing against helping to buy hungry kids cereal and milk and eggs for a couple of years.
China's population was vast 100 years ago, and yet they spent the 20th century dominated by numerically much smaller countries.
And sure, China now has a drive for modernisation, but maintaining that drive is never guaranteed, especially as they move in to higher grade manufacturing, where you have to start producing your own innovations. And then you've issues with how China will go when growth slows - can they be stable at 3 to 5% growth?
Now, note I'm not dismissing the idea of China dominating the rest of this century. It's certainly plausible, and maybe even probable. But history is a bunch of stuff that pretty much no-one saw coming, but seemed really obvious afterwards. Big predictive narratives tend to look pretty silly a decade or two later. I mean, go read some 80s cyberpunk, with Japan dominating world events
As a Historian, I can confirm that history is pretty much made by people who think they know what's going on and then get slapped in the face by the hand of God while Jesus screams "WRONG!" into their ear
Ouze wrote: The income cutoff for WIC is fairly high in my opinion - for a couple with one child, it's $37,167. An E5 makes what, $27k?
OK, that E5 at about 25K € wouldn't be seen as great pay here either. Even with food, clothes and medical benefits on the job it seems a bit low to be risking your life for (well, my life at least). I make about a fifth more on a security job and probably pay more taxes, but I'd need a good reason to get any welfare here. The typical recipient here would be a single mom in some really low-pay job like kindergarten assistant, where going back to work instead of staying home with the kid might actually cost her money.
Ouze wrote: The income cutoff for WIC is fairly high in my opinion - for a couple with one child, it's $37,167. An E5 makes what, $27k?
Of course, you can't reduce that, because the agriculture lobby / farm bill crowd would scream bloody murder - it is welfare, but mostly the corporate kind.
WIC is probably the least poorly run welfare program, if only because the stakes are so low. It's not a cash benefit, or even pseudocash like Food Stamps. It's given based on income levels and the nutrition needs of a pregnant woman or children under five. It's generally provided in the form of coupons that can be redeemed for milk, peanut butter, eggs, etc.
A friend of mine was working, and she became pregnant. Despite making about $10/hour, she qualified for WIC. After a few hours waiting, and then seeing the social worker, she received a total of 6 pounds of tofu a month. She took it, because it's free protein, but she didn't exactly live the welfare queen stereotype on six pounds of tofu a month.
OTOH, I will pay about $7-8000 in student loan interest this year. Because I'm married, with a household income of under $120k, I get to deduct that from my income, above the line, when calculating my AGI. That means, in short, that the Federal and State taxpayers are subsidizing my student loans, based on my household income, when my wife and I earn roughly seven times the federal poverty limit.
I'd rather pay $1200 or so less in taxes than have a few pounds of tofu a month.
Ouze wrote: The income cutoff for WIC is fairly high in my opinion - for a couple with one child, it's $37,167. An E5 makes what, $27k?
OK, that E-5 at about 25K € wouldn't be seen as great pay here either. Even with food, clothes and medical benefits on the job it seems a bit low to be risking your life for (well, my life at least). I make about a fifth more on a security job and probably pay more taxes, but I'd need a good reason to get any welfare here. The typical recipient here would be a single mom in some really low-pay job like kindergarten assistant, where going back to work instead of staying home with the kid might actually cost her money.
That's because that 27K while technically true, isn't accurate. First it assumes an E-5 with less than 2 years in the military, not exactly a real enlisted scenario so lets start with a realistic number for base pay, for an E-5 with 6 years in that number goes to 33K but wait there's more. Theres this thing called BAH (basic allowance for housing) and you either get that or you're living somewhere rent free. For a locale close to the national average in living cost that adds another 18K a year for someone with dependents. Bringing our theoretical E-5 to 51K/yr with medical benefits etc. Similar to what Nuggs said earlier, not a slight to our NCOs but we should use accurate numbers in the discussion unlike welfare determination.
In fiscal year 2002, these costs (net of rebates) for State agencies in the contiguous United States ranged from a low of $26.70 in Maine to a high of $41.43 in Connecticut.
By 2012, California's per person cost had skyrocketed to $63 a month.
Having worked a fair bit with USAF, I was always astounded how many more people they had to do the same job.
One example, I was deployed out in Florennes, and we had 3 guys for my particular engineering speciality, and that was for 2 aircraft.
The US guys were moaning they were stretched too thin, they had triple the guys. They couldn't believe it when I told them the scope of my job.
Another, we had a guy driving a fuel truck, and was so unflexable in his role that when I asked a simple question, he had to get two seniors out to assist. Again, if that was a UK driver, it would have been fine.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Narrative? I'm dealing in cold, hard facts! Of course China has problems, given the scale of its drive for modernity and rapid industrialization, but every nation that undergoes this has problems. Look at the problems Britain had when the industrial revolution started. China's rise is inevitable, given the sheer manpower and resources at its disposal.
China's population was vast 100 years ago, and yet they spent the 20th century dominated by numerically much smaller countries.
And sure, China now has a drive for modernisation, but maintaining that drive is never guaranteed, especially as they move in to higher grade manufacturing, where you have to start producing your own innovations. And then you've issues with how China will go when growth slows - can they be stable at 3 to 5% growth?
Now, note I'm not dismissing the idea of China dominating the rest of this century. It's certainly plausible, and maybe even probable. But history is a bunch of stuff that pretty much no-one saw coming, but seemed really obvious afterwards. Big predictive narratives tend to look pretty silly a decade or two later. I mean, go read some 80s cyberpunk, with Japan dominating world events
Most Western countries would kill for a 'slow' annual growth rate of 3-5%
If the British economy grows by 0.5% this year, the Government will probably declare a national holiday
The Division Of Joy wrote: Having worked a fair bit with USAF, I was always astounded how many more people they had to do the same job.
One example, I was deployed out in Florennes, and we had 3 guys for my particular engineering speciality, and that was for 2 aircraft.
The US guys were moaning they were stretched too thin, they had triple the guys. They couldn't believe it when I told them the scope of my job.
Another, we had a guy driving a fuel truck, and was so unflexable in his role that when I asked a simple question, he had to get two seniors out to assist. Again, if that was a UK driver, it would have been fine.
Thats because your dealing with the Air force....not exactly our most flexible branch Trust me I have had to deal with my fair share of those. In the Marines inside the 2600 field we had a MOS called 2651 which is "Special Intelligence system administrator" that sounds like some guy who sits behind a desk and trouble shoots computers...and that is what he does, but inside that MOS these guys were also responsible for making all kinds of gear run and fixing random things, on top of that they usually had a working knowledge of our Vehicles and how to fix them (even though it was against orders to fix them without higher echelon mechanics.) Finally these guys were also in charge of providing SA support in case our positions ever came under attack and were great at building defensive structures and regular structures.
SO yeah the US Military can be very flexible, but the USAF tends not to be as they don't really need to be.
USAF Personnel (NOT INCLUDING CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS): 333,772
USMC Personnel (NOT INCLUDING CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS): 195,338
Of course, because China is still in catch up mode, much of their growth is from doing the easy stuff like taking subsistance farmers from the inner provinces and putting them in cities with a sewing machine in front of them. That easy growth dries up, though, and then China will be like everyone else, and killing for annual growth of 3-5%. And then there's a question of whether their whole economy can stay stable when growth is low.
Ghazkuul wrote: Thats because your dealing with the Air force....not exactly our most flexible branch. SO yeah the US Military can be very flexible, but the USAF tends not to be as they don't really need to be.
Air Force stuff is quite specialized, and there's rigid rules about maintenance because those planes are ridiculously expensive and having them not return from a mission is very bad. Ground forces have specialized gear too, granted, but surely many vehicles and general things can be serviced without quite as many special guys as a fighter jet? Besides, a ground vehicle that fails can usually be salvaged - a flyer that fails might not come down in one piece.
Another thing to consider is how many are career military and how many are reservists with civilian jobs and education behind them. As forces get more professional and get more special gear the need for specialists in maintenance will also increase, ofc. Our guys serving in UN peacekeeping missions are mostly reservists and have a wide variety of skills between them, and not that much really exotic gear. Any smaller construction work on the base can be taken care of without bothering anyone else, things like weapons and vehicles are usually left for those actually appointed to service them - but there could well be several others with the skills to handle it.
So when your given that much money you can afford to be lazy
It isn't about laziness at all.... It's more about the fact that they have more regulations to cover, especially given the number of people who's job it is to maintain jet aircraft. I've a few buddies who were helo mechanics in the army, and they had some definite "horror" stories about FAA regulations and paperwork that goes along with maintenance.
So when your given that much money you can afford to be lazy
It isn't about laziness at all.... It's more about the fact that they have more regulations to cover, especially given the number of people who's job it is to maintain jet aircraft. I've a few buddies who were helo mechanics in the army, and they had some definite "horror" stories about FAA regulations and paperwork that goes along with maintenance.
As a former Blackhawk crew chief back in the day. He is not kidding.
Thats just a quit search and i believe thats around 9-10 Billion dollars wasted. And thats not even going into the F-35 or any of the space laser programs which have all flopped in epic splendor.
SO yeah my bad, the airforce doesn't waste money and needs that budget.
Thats just a quit search and i believe thats around 9-10 Billion dollars wasted. And thats not even going into the F-35 or any of the space laser programs which have all flopped in epic splendor.
SO yeah my bad, the airforce doesn't waste money and needs that budget.
Do you read the articles ?
Yeah, you get the first one, the government as a whole consistently has problems in the IT realms.
However, second one isn't wasted money it's a snit over paperwork.
Third one is the Air Force in the middle of a disagreement between the Pentagon (DoD)and Congress, from the article.
"The Air Force almost had to buy more of the planes against its will, the newspaper found. A solicitation issued from Wright-Patterson in May sought vendors to build more C-27Js, citing Congressional language requiring the military to spend money budgeted for the planes, despite Pentagon protests."
Yeah the F-35 has some issues but no it hasn't flopped and a lot of those issues are because of the three different sets of requirements one of which is the Marines...
On the uniforms, yeah we get it, everything's smaller about the Marines.
Thats just a quit search and i believe thats around 9-10 Billion dollars wasted. And thats not even going into the F-35 or any of the space laser programs which have all flopped in epic splendor.
SO yeah my bad, the airforce doesn't waste money and needs that budget.
Do you read the articles ?
Yeah, you get the first one, the government as a whole consistently has problems in the IT realms.
However, second one isn't wasted money it's a snit over paperwork.
Third one is the Air Force in the middle of a disagreement between the Pentagon (DoD)and Congress, from the article.
"The Air Force almost had to buy more of the planes against its will, the newspaper found. A solicitation issued from Wright-Patterson in May sought vendors to build more C-27Js, citing Congressional language requiring the military to spend money budgeted for the planes, despite Pentagon protests."
Yeah the F-35 has some issues but no it hasn't flopped and a lot of those issues are because of the three different sets of requirements one of which is the Marines...
On the uniforms, yeah we get it, everything's smaller about the Marines.
Paper work errors and disagreements between congress and DoD doesn't matter, at the end of the day thats nearly 10billion wasted. As far as the Uniforms, snappy retort. The point I was trying to make is that when you DONT have the budget that the airforce has you make do with what you have and find innovative ways to get the mission accomplished.
On 26 January 2012, the Department of Defense announced plans to retire all 38 USAF C-27Js on order due to excess intratheater airlift capacity and budgetary pressures;[28] its duties are to be met by the C-130.[29] In February 2012, Alenia warned that it would not provide support for C-27Js resold by the US to international customers in competition with future orders.[30] On 23 March 2012, the USAF announced the C-27J's retirement in fiscal year 2013 after determining other program's budgetary needs and requirement changes for a new Pacific strategy.[31][32] The cut was opposed by the Air National Guard and by various legislators.[citation needed]
In July 2012 the USAF suspended flight operations following a flight control system failure.[33] By 2013, newly built C-27Js were being sent directly to the Davis–Monthan Air Force Base boneyard.[34] The USAF spent $567 million on 21 C-27Js since 2007, with 16 delivered by the end of September 2013; 12 had been taken out of service while a further five were to be built by April 2014 as they were too near completion to be worth cancelling. Budget cuts motivated the divesture; a C-27J allegedly costs $308 million over its lifespan in comparison with a C-130's $213 million 25-year lifespan cost.[35]
In November 2012, the C-27J deployed for its first domestic mission, contributing to the Hurricane Sandy relief effort.[36]
In July 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard was considered acquiring up to 14 of the 21 retired C-27Js and converting them for search-and-rescue missions, while cancelling undelivered orders for the HC-144 Ocean Sentry to save $500–$800 million. EADS claimed that the HC-144 costs half as much as the C-27J to maintain and operate. The U.S. Forest Service also wanted 7 C-27Js for aerial firefighting.[37] The U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) were interested in acquiring ex-USAF C-27Js. If the DoD determined it could not afford the aircraft, they would go to the Forest Service.[38] In late 2013, SOCOM was allocated 7 C-27Js to replace its CASA 212 training aircraft.[39] In December 2013, the 14 remaining C-27Js were transferred to the Coast Guard.[40]
I remember them. Thought they were only for FoB hopping. C130 though was more capable in that environment though. We (US Army) never used them to ship vehicles though. Think palletized cargo only for that aircraft with some PAX. I also remember some of those were slated for the Afghan Air Force to augment the few helo's and small fixed wing aircraft's they have.
EC-27 "Jedi"
In 2010, the Italian Air Force announced the development of an electronic warfare package for its C-27 fleet under the jamming and electronic defence instrumentation (Jedi) program. One publicised ability of the aircraft is the disruption of radio communications and, in particular, remote detonators commonly used on improvised explosive devices (IEDs).[89] The EC-27 has been compared to the capabilities of the USAF's Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call.
Good name for it
Lockheed has furfilled quite a few orders from other countries military.
When we went between FOBs we used CH-53s or V-22s. When we flew out to Leatherneck on our way back out of the country we took a C-130.....and it was hilarious. Pilot lost his nerve when we started taking SAF and did a combat take off....nobody had buckled in and bodies/gear/weapons went flying around the inside of that baby like confetti. Amazing nobody got hurt.
All fix wing aircraft's do combat take off regardless. As in your situation the pilots were laughing their ass off. Where/what was the load master doing
Mind you I use to crew and have taken part in similar stunts
Ghazkuul wrote: When we went between FOBs we used CH-53s or V-22s. When we flew out to Leatherneck on our way back out of the country we took a C-130.....and it was hilarious. Pilot lost his nerve when we started taking SAF and did a combat take off....nobody had buckled in and bodies/gear/weapons went flying around the inside of that baby like confetti. Amazing nobody got hurt.
Remember the critical thinking comment I made earlier?
Aircraft taking surface to air fire. Proceeds to do a combat take off.
Taking fire. Does combat take off.
His take away? Pilot lost his nerve.
Couldn't at all have been that he was following established procedure of what to do in that situation. No, just that he was some AF punk who couldn't hack it. *rolls eyes*
Ghazkuul wrote: When we went between FOBs we used CH-53s or V-22s. When we flew out to Leatherneck on our way back out of the country we took a C-130.....and it was hilarious. Pilot lost his nerve when we started taking SAF and did a combat take off....nobody had buckled in and bodies/gear/weapons went flying around the inside of that baby like confetti. Amazing nobody got hurt.
Remember the critical thinking comment I made earlier?
Aircraft taking surface to air fire. Proceeds to do a combat take off.
Taking fire. Does combat take off.
His take away? Pilot lost his nerve.
Couldn't at all have been that he was following established procedure of what to do in that situation. No, just that he was some AF punk who couldn't hack it. *rolls eyes*
well 1: he was a MARINE PILOT! so calm down with the AF crap and 2: he did lose his nerve because it was SAF it wasn't even AA, we got shot at from about 800-1k yards away by some Talibs with AKs, not exactly a threat to a C-130. Do you guys live to pick apart things? calm down
Ghazkuul wrote: When we went between FOBs we used CH-53s or V-22s. When we flew out to Leatherneck on our way back out of the country we took a C-130.....and it was hilarious. Pilot lost his nerve when we started taking SAF and did a combat take off....nobody had buckled in and bodies/gear/weapons went flying around the inside of that baby like confetti. Amazing nobody got hurt.
Remember the critical thinking comment I made earlier?
Aircraft taking surface to air fire. Proceeds to do a combat take off.
Taking fire. Does combat take off.
His take away? Pilot lost his nerve.
Couldn't at all have been that he was following established procedure of what to do in that situation. No, just that he was some AF punk who couldn't hack it. *rolls eyes*
well 1: he was a MARINE PILOT! so calm down with the AF crap and 2: he did lose his nerve because it was SAF it wasn't even AA, we got shot at from about 800-1k yards away by some Talibs with AKs, not exactly a threat to a C-130. Do you guys live to pick apart things? calm down
A lucky shot could still do some damage, and it's probably better to do a combat take-off upon contact, rather than wait to see if they have anything heavier than an AK to shoot at you with.
let me put it this way. After 6 months their we pretty much destroyed anything bigger then an AK in our area. And yeah you can say a lucky shot could do damage but they pretty much would be bouncing off the airplane at that range
Regardless, we usually try to avoid combat take offs in our airplanes because it puts a lot of stress on the airplane and shortens the life of the markedly. And being Marines we can't afford new aircraft anytime soon
CptJake wrote: I thought the only C-130s the USMC had were tankers. Were they using those to transport you guys?
They are listed as Tanker squadrons but are actually a combination of both Tanker, Supply and Transport.
Side note: I actually don't remember who the hell flew us out for that particular movement, I had been up for about 20 hours getting everything ready. It very well could have been AF but I can't confirm, so I don't want to go on record saying it was USMC or USAF.
CptJake wrote: I thought the only C-130s the USMC had were tankers. Were they using those to transport you guys?
They are listed as Tanker squadrons but are actually a combination of both Tanker, Supply and Transport.
Side note: I actually don't remember who the hell flew us out for that particular movement, I had been up for about 20 hours getting everything ready. It very well could have been AF but I can't confirm, so I don't want to go on record saying it was USMC or USAF.
Believe you had a Navy/Corp version of a C130. USMC had a their own aircraft area Kandahar Airfield
You also had UK C130 group across from them to by the that fly into Leatherneck/Bastion.
Edit
Your heavy stuff was flown into Kandahar by C17 and C5's (before they retired)
After the C5 another country with the capabilities of a C5 was used
Then they rolled out the Wire to Bastion/Leatherneck
USMC version of a Army AFSB was placed by us so we could coordinate together
CptJake wrote: I thought the only C-130s the USMC had were tankers. Were they using those to transport you guys?
They are listed as Tanker squadrons but are actually a combination of both Tanker, Supply and Transport.
Side note: I actually don't remember who the hell flew us out for that particular movement, I had been up for about 20 hours getting everything ready. It very well could have been AF but I can't confirm, so I don't want to go on record saying it was USMC or USAF.
Believe you had a Navy/Corp version of a C130. USMC had a their own aircraft area on the other side of Kandahar Airfield near DFAC 5
You also had UK C130 group across from them to by the ANAF hangars (consisting of four Hips and a Piper Cub) that fly into Leatherneck/Bastion.
Edit
Your heavy stuff was flown into Kandahar by C17 and C5's (before they retired)
After the C5 another country with the capabilities of a C5 was used
Then they rolled out the Wire to Bastion/Leatherneck
USMC version of a Army AFSB was placed by us so we could coordinate together
Just for clarity, the C-5s from that particular unit may have been retired, the Air Force still has a C-5 fleet.
I doubt the Taliban is really browsing Dakka, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my job as a OPSEC qualified officer if I didn't crack the whip every once in a while. Maybe just edit your post?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I doubt the Taliban is really browsing Dakka, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my job as a OPSEC qualified officer if I didn't crack the whip every once in a while. Maybe just edit your post?
Well seeing as the Taliban already blew up a handful of aircraft on Bastion a few years ago, and since we know for a fact the base is laced with Taliban informants but yeah keep trying for opsec, and that wasn't being sarcastic.
It is against Orders/Regulations to take pictures of government buildings, it is against even more rules/laws/orders and regulations to take a picture of a SCIF. While attached to 2nd Rad BN we had a special kind of slow for a Sgt Major who decided to do Sgt Major PT one day that was basically a 8 mile run/scavenger hunt. one of the scavenger hunt objectives was "get a picture of the SCIF". I had to confiscate about a dozen cell phones that day and got to chew out the Sgt Major...albeit in a very polite manner
It is against Orders/Regulations to take pictures of government buildings, it is against even more rules/laws/orders and regulations to take a picture of a SCIF. While attached to 2nd Rad BN we had a special kind of slow for a Sgt Major who decided to do Sgt Major PT one day that was basically a 8 mile run/scavenger hunt. one of the scavenger hunt objectives was "get a picture of the SCIF". I had to confiscate about a dozen cell phones that day and got to chew out the Sgt Major...albeit in a very polite manner
Spoiler:
And that's about what I have to say on the subject
)
