Sidebar

Question: Sequestration - the fear of cuts in military spending

M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Tidewater said:
Yes, one of those things that drove me nuts was the Association of the US Army.
It is illegal for Federal employees to donate money to organizations that lobby for their interests, but AUSA lobbies for the interests of the Army and many, many Army unit commanders pressure their soldiers to "join" and pay the "membership dues." The turning of a blind eye to this ethical error disgusted me.
Click to expand...
Yup. There are all kinds of broken lobbying rules that get "overlooked". That along with the little despots with their own little empires in the system (most anyone who has been in the civil service system dealing directly with the military knows one) and downright cronyism will always be a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I do think we need to stay ahead of the technical curve and develop those expensive aircraft, helicopters, vehicles and ships . However taking care of the troops training, equipping, housing, and care obviously needs to be higher on the agenda.

When forced to have a REAL budget on a REAL limit they tend to prioritize better. Sequestration somewhat proved that.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,463
13,297
287
Hooterville, Vir.
mittman said:
Yup. There are all kinds of broken lobbying rules that get "overlooked". That along with the little despots with their own little empires in the system (most anyone who has been in the civil service system dealing directly with the military knows one) and downright cronyism will always be a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I do think we need to stay ahead of the technical curve and develop those expensive aircraft, helicopters, vehicles and ships . However taking care of the troops training, equipping, housing, and care obviously needs to be higher on the agenda.

When forced to have a REAL budget on a REAL limit they tend to prioritize better. Sequestration somewhat proved that.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points.
To rein in defense spending, we need a much smaller military (probably with a much greater proportion resident in the Reserve Component), and a lot less spent on foreign adventures, at least for the time being.
 
RammerJammer14

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,659
6,679
187
UA
Tidewater said:
Agreed on all points.
To rein in defense spending, we need a much smaller military (probably with a much greater proportion resident in the Reserve Component), and a lot less spent on foreign adventures, at least for the time being.
Click to expand...
One thing that stuck me recently; I was talking with some Marine LTs, all of whom were top notch guys in regards to both their jobs, character, and fitness. But out of the 8 guys, only 2 were active duty Marines. The rest were reserve officers. If they had chosen the Army instead, they would probably all be active duty officers unless they chose otherwise.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,463
13,297
287
Hooterville, Vir.
RammerJammer14 said:
One thing that stuck me recently; I was talking with some Marine LTs, all of whom were top notch guys in regards to both their jobs, character, and fitness. But out of the 8 guys, only 2 were active duty Marines. The rest were reserve officers. If they had chosen the Army instead, they would probably all be active duty officers unless they chose otherwise.
Click to expand...
Bigger service (the Army) with a greater need for officers, plus, the USMC does a really really good job of inflating their accomplishments, and convincing young men that "the Corps will make a man of them," etc., etc., so that the Corps has way more young people, particularly men that want to join the Corps than they have slots to admit them.
The Marine PR machine has been spinning hard ever since Belleau Wood. Patton made notice of it during World War II, when he said that he wanted to finish up in Europe quickly. "The quicker we clean up this [dadgum] mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple p*ssing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the [dadgum] Marines get all of the credit."
Don't get me wrong. The Corps has some great accomplishments, and generally Marines are the kind of guys you want at your side in a fight, but I have seen Marines sell too many woof tickets that they cannot cash.
The US Marine Corps, like a Bosnian woman, is best viewed from a distance.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Tidewater said:
Bigger service (the Army) with a greater need for officers, plus, the USMC does a really really good job of inflating their accomplishments, and convincing young men that "the Corps will make a man of them," etc., etc., so that the Corps has way more young people, particularly men that want to join the Corps than they have slots to admit them.
The Marine PR machine has been spinning hard ever since Belleau Wood. Patton made notice of it during World War II, when he said that he wanted to finish up in Europe quickly. "The quicker we clean up this [dadgum] mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple p*ssing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the [dadgum] Marines get all of the credit."
Don't get me wrong. The Corps has some great accomplishments, and generally Marines are the kind of guys you want at your side in a fight, but I have seen Marines sell too many woof tickets that they cannot cash.
The US Marine Corps, like a Bosnian woman, is best viewed from a distance.
Click to expand...
I witnessed a particularly funny case of this once when 4 marines fresh out of MCRD got feisty with an aging Senior Chief at a bar in Olongapo. He was sitting at a table alone waiting for someone and they decided they needed the table more than he. They didn't understand (or maybe just didn't care) what that eagle with a trident was on his chest. It didn't turn out pretty for them.
 
RammerJammer14

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,659
6,679
187
UA
Tidewater said:
Bigger service (the Army) with a greater need for officers, plus, the USMC does a really really good job of inflating their accomplishments, and convincing young men that "the Corps will make a man of them," etc., etc., so that the Corps has way more young people, particularly men that want to join the Corps than they have slots to admit them.
The Marine PR machine has been spinning hard ever since Belleau Wood. Patton made notice of it during World War II, when he said that he wanted to finish up in Europe quickly. "The quicker we clean up this [dadgum] mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple p*ssing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the [dadgum] Marines get all of the credit."
Don't get me wrong. The Corps has some great accomplishments, and generally Marines are the kind of guys you want at your side in a fight, but I have seen Marines sell too many woof tickets that they cannot cash.
The US Marine Corps, like a Bosnian woman, is best viewed from a distance.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree. I was just surprised with the higher percentage of reserve members being that high.

#1 most powerful component of the Marine Corps is its PR. A friend of my brother's read two books, one by one of those most discrete of warriors, the SEALs, and one by a Marine. Now all he wants to do is go to Annapolis and become one of the two.
 
T

TommyMac

Hall of Fame
Apr 24, 2001
14,040
33
0
83
Mobile, Alabama
I doubt that most of us would have a problem with true military spending, but price gouging, lobbyists, kick-backs and just plain theft are quite another matter.
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/23/hugh-hewitts-defense-budget-litmus-test-misses-the-point/

Without thinking very hard and deliberately about what the vision for the U.S. military should be for the next generation, the question of “how much should we spend?” is completely beside the point. “Should we do sequestration or just airdrop cash over the Pentagon?” similarly misses the point. It puts the cart before the horse without ever considering whether we need the cart or the horse. Anyone who thinks that “sequestration or infinity Pentagon dollars?” is the big strategic question vexing military planning experts is someone who has no business deciding who is or isn’t ready to take command of the U.S. military.
Click to expand...
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,463
13,297
287
Hooterville, Vir.
the cost of the F-35 system increased by approximately one Manhattan Project every three weeks between 2011 and 2012. When the weekly cost increases of a single weapons platform can be measured in Manhattan Projects, we have a problem.
Click to expand...
This is I think a significant part of the problem.
While Republican congressmen will yell about "supporting the troops" they will tolerate unbelievable cost over-runs like this, which have little to do with "supporting the troops."

I can't help having a mental image of congressmen slapping the backs of Lockheed-Martin execs after voting to fund this monstrosity, and receiving a nice "prize" in exchange for the vote.
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
For comparative purposes, here's a short article about the state of defense in Great Britain:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/03/26/great_britains_defense_dilemma__107810.html

The British defense budget currently rests at 2 percent of GDP, the NATO Alliance's non-binding minimum requirement for its members. But it threatens to drop below that level in the coming fiscal year, and – under current spending plans and economic growth assumptions – is in line to fall to 1.7 percent of GDP by 2020-2021.
Click to expand...
Today the Royal Navy operates no aircraft carriers and has just 19 combined destroyers and frigates in its fleet.

The British Army is in the process of losing 40 percent of its Challenger main battle tank fleet, 35 percent of its self-propelled heavy artillery pieces, and seeing its numbers shrink from 102,000 to 82,000 troops (a deployable 30,000 reserve element is intended to compensate for this reduction, but recruiting struggles currently present a hurdle).

The Royal Air Force will receive far fewer F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets than originally envisioned, while the Ministry of Defense has opted out of a prior commitment toward a final batch of Eurofighter Typhoons (production Tranche 3B).

The government's "Future Force 2020" structure calls for the Army to have one multirole brigade of about 6,500 soldiers to be the enduring element of its high-readiness capability, meaning a single brigade will be available to operate for an extended period in a theater such as Afghanistan.

In short, this is no longer the British military that provided 46,000 troops to the U.S.-led coalition on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, much less the force that retook the Falkland Islands from a junta-led Argentina in 1982.
Click to expand...
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,463
13,297
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Tide1986 said:
For comparative purposes, here's a short article about the state of defense in Great Britain:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/03/26/great_britains_defense_dilemma__107810.html
Click to expand...
The British MOD approach is to ruthlessly reduce force structure, but invest in pay and readiness for this that remain. When the PM says, "Oops. We need to go to the Falklands again." The MoD says, "Sorry minister, we disbanded that army two years ago due to budget cuts. Better make the best deal you can with the Argies."

They are not alone in Europe in this. As of this month, the Bundeswehr has 250 Leo 2 main battle tanks in operation. Who needs tanks any more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom