The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: jnevis on December 27, 2010, 09:24:22 AM
-
Emphasis mine
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20101227797006.html
Wall Street Journal
December 27, 2010
Pg. 17
America's Dangerous Rush To Shrink Its Military Power
Just as in the 1930s, the economy is the supposedly humanitarian excuse for reducing the military—although the endless miseries of the world will not be alleviated if, due to an imbalance of power, great and little wars rage across it.
By Mark Helprin
From the president on down through his secretary of defense, the service secretaries, and a cast of generals whose decorations would choke an alpine meadow with color, we are told that further reductions in American military power are warranted and unavoidable. Those following the "party line" anyway" This view is supported by the left, the right that unwisely fears accounting more than war, by most of the press, the academy, and perhaps a majority of Americans, and it is demonstrably and dangerously wrong.
Based upon nothing and ignoring the cautionary example of World War II, we are told that we will never face two major enemies at once. Despite the orders of battle of our potential adversaries and the fact that our response to insurgency has been primarily conventional, we are told that the era of conventional warfare is over. And we are told that we can rest easy because military spending is an accurate index of military power, and we spend as much as the next however many nations combined.
But this takes no account of the nature of our commitments, the fading contributions of our allies, geography, this nation's size and that of its economy, conscription or its absence, purchasing power parity, exchange rate distortions, the military trajectories of our rivals individually or in combination, and the masking effects of off-budget outlays and unreported expenditures. Though military spending comparisons are of lesser utility than assessing actual capabilities, they are useful nonetheless for determining a country's progress relative to itself.
Doing so reveals that from 1940 to 2000, average annual American defense expenditure was 8.5% of GDP; in war and mobilization years 13.3%; under Democratic administration 9.4%; under Republican 7.3%; and, most significantly, in the years of peace 5.7%. Today we spend just 4.6% of GDP—minus purely operational war costs, 3.8%. That is, 66% of the traditional peacetime outlays. We have been, and we are, steadily disarming even as we are at war.
As in the 1930s, the economy is the supposedly humanitarian excuse for reducing the military, although the endless miseries of the world will not be alleviated if due to an imbalance of power great and little wars rage across it. When Rahm Emanuel fled the White House on his way to torment Chicago, he thanked the president for being "the toughest leader any country could ask for in the toughest times any president has ever faced." One cringes to think how this pronouncement would strike Madison as the capital burned, Lincoln in the years of civil war, Wilson during World War I and the influenza epidemic, and FDR through the Depression and World War II.
Otherwise, how accurate was Mr. Emanuel? In 1929, GDP was $103 billion, in 1933 $55 billion, a decline of 46%. In 2007, GDP was $14.061 trillion; in 2010, it was $14.579 trillion, an increase. Adjusted for inflation it was a decline, but of only one-quarter of 1%. Nominal unemployment in 1929 was 3.2%; in 1933, with no safety nets, 25.2%. Nominal unemployment today is 9.8%.
At West Point this summer, the president said, commandingly, "At no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy." Except of course the United States, the very country of which he is president, which despite the most severe diminution of economic vitality in its history (12 years, the economy cut in half) became the arsenal of democracy, sustained Britain and Russia, swept the seas clear of opposition, freed most of Europe, and conquered Japan—in the greatest war ever known.
The president's point was that despite whatever dangers we may face, the military must wait for the economy. But this is not so. Rather than dragging the economy down, putting the country on a war footing in 1940 revived it. Rearmament was a super-potent organizing principle and engine of production. Between 1931 and 1940 average GDP was $77.5 billion, and average unemployment 19%. By 1944, GDP had increased 271%, to $210 billion, unemployment had dropped to 1.2%, and real personal income had more than doubled. All this despite the fact that by 1945 the country was spending just under 40% of GDP, and 86% of the federal budget, on defense, at a time when a much greater proportion of income was devoted to necessities. And subsequently the war debt was retired with relative ease even as we enabled the rebuilding of Europe and defended it for half a century.
What does this tell us about defense spending? It tells us not only that it is not a poison, it can be an elixir. It tells us that it should proceed, therefore, not according to an ahistorical false premise, but in line with what is actually required to defend the United States. It tells us that, entirely independent of economic considerations, although not a dime should be appropriated to the military if it is not necessary, not a dime should be withheld if it is. The proof of this, so often and so tragically forgotten, is that the costs of providing an undauntable defense, whatever they may be, pale before blood and defeat. As for gauging necessity, we will have to deal with the rise of China, the growing power of Russia, and the nuclearization of fanatic regimes.
The strange, suicidal conviction now fashionable among the elite is that the customary vast reserves of power with which America maneuvers in the international system and, in extremis, wields in its defense, have become irrelevant to security and detrimental to the economy. All across the country, children are growing up who, in the fire next time, may pay for this prejudice with their lives. For a nation that has lost the unapologetic drive to defend itself cannot escape the consequences no matter how deft its self-deceptions or the extent to which, in contradiction of history and fact, error is ratified by common belief.
What argument, what savings, what economy can possibly offset the costs and heartbreak of a war undeterred or a war lost?
Mr. Helprin is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt), "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt) and, most recently, "Digital Barbarism" (HarperCollins). This op-ed was adapted from a speech delivered upon acceptance of the Claremont Institute's Henry Salvatori Prize in the American Founding.
I have said and continue to say that President Obama is the greatest threat to our National Security in this half century.
-
"I have said and continue to say that
President Obama the Democratic Party is the greatest threat to our National Security in this half any century."
FIFY
-
We can't afford a military if we have accelerating entitlements! I guess after our military is gone i suppose the Chinese will fill the void. Isn't THAT something to look forward to...
-
And let's not forget our dependancy on foreign oil! It is critical to "our national security" that we be able to keep the sea lanes open and also have the ability to defend/protect our middle eastern "allies" from whom we buy our oil for our economic and military use. The Obama administration's attitude towards off shore drilling and nuclear power makes it imperative that we be able to react militarily in a crisis.
-
I think America needs to invade Washington DC.
-
Its not just the DNC, its also the GOP...
look at the good job bush and the GOP congress did securing our boarders, oh wait, never mind.
-
Its not just the DNC, its also the GOP...
look at the good job bush and the GOP congress did securing our boarders, oh wait, never mind.
Yeah...like our illegal immigration problem just started 10 years ago.......... ::)
-
The current wave started under Kennedy and Johnson, Nixon tried to beat it back but since carter it has become a flood.
It is one of several reasons I'm not as impressed as the rest of you with Reagan.
-
This raises a good point.Talking about military spending in the abstract is idiotic.
First question :What is the military for?
Second question: What does that cost?
If the first answer isn't defending our borders, you need to rexamine your priorities.
FQ13
-
That is correct in a very shallow sense only.
The purpose of the Army, is defending America's borders.
The purpose of the Navy and Marine Corps (and Air Force since the invention of the plane ) is to defend America's interests since these are by their nature projectable force.
That requires Naval shipping, and Aircraft Carriers protected by a submarine fleet.
These things are very expensive.
-
Yeah...like our illegal immigration problem just started 10 years ago.......... ::)
no it didn't, but for awhile they held both houses of congress and the presidency, they could have stoped it. they didn't.
Tom I'm not impressed with RR, its not just that he also signed in the ADA laws. Its one of the biggest anti biz bills ever written.
Its litterly cost employers and shop owners trillions, not to mention how many went under becuase of it.
-
I don't see the shallowness. What I do see is a lot of drift in strategic thinking. What are America's vital interests? Ask five experts and you'll get at least three answers. Is it to maintain the status quo? Is it to contain China and Russia? Is it to fight Islamic extremism? Is it to protect "sphere's of influence"? Do we focus on economic and cultural dominance? Are we authoring and enforcing a global order ala Wilson or FDR? What do Kosovo, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Taiwan and our own Southern Border have in common?
Since Clinton we seem to have flitted from crisis to crisis, doing an ok job, but without a strategic vision. Given that the Russians, Chinese and Iranians all seem to have one, this seems like a bad idea. I think what I was trying to sugest is that step one in any serious debate about military spending and force structure needs to start with defining our vital national interests. Then we decide what we need to do to protect that. I would suggest that PC or not, getting control over our own borders is by definition job one. Until we have this debate and make a decision however, I think we are destined to be reactive rather than proactive.
FQ13
-
You are using arguments that Jefferson had to eat. What he argued against, until as President he was forced to admit it, is that "America's interests" are freedom to trade with the entire world, regardless of the policies of other states.
The false belief of Jefferson and his adherents that America's military interests ended at her borders and shores is directly responsible for the ass kicking we took from the British in 1812-14, had his policies been ignored we would have had sufficient naval power to defend our own shores by diverting British ships for the protection of their own trade.
Instead, he advocated a fleet of coastal defense gun boats that , while ideal for defending our coastal waterways , had no ability to project power to the point where it was needed. His adherents compounded the mistake by not funding a tenth of the number needed even for defense.
America's vital interest is getting the materials we need to support our economy, your mistake is in "Asking experts" instead of applying common sense . At this time the biggest threats to our getting the things we need and selling our produce abroad are Muslim Extremists (again ) nations that threaten our trading partners, (N Korea ) and competition from other industrialized countries.
We have always in the past excelled at economic dominance, of course that was before the "entitlement mentality", but I do not understand why you would want to dominate other cultures, I thought you were a "Libertarian", that sounds more like a colonizing Imperialist to me.
You are right on 2 counts, we MUST control our borders in spite of congress, and the Governments Strategic vision , which is currently focused on the "one world" Nanny state must be forcefully rejected in a manner they can not misunderstand.
In fact, it would be beneficial to return to the Cold war. Regardless of what they may personally think, the Russians have seen that, it is why the SVR still refers to the US as the "Main Adversary". By establishing an us versus them mentality it gives a focus to their foreign policy and explains their continued opposition to us in international matters, France is the same.
-
You're assuming quite a bit. I'm not an isolationist like Ron Paul or the early Jefferson. However, I do believe that defending the homeland is job one. Beyond that, economic and cultural (read political cultural) dominance is worth looking at. Liberal democracy/republicanism has been ascendent for quite some time. It beat out monarchy, facism and communism. Now it is being challenged by Chinese and Russian authoritarianism (basically facism), Islamic extremism and tribalism. If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed. We must become once again a fighting faith, not apologizing for colonialism, racism and the rest. If we have to apologize before offering an argument we lose. Period.
As far as the rest, what do we want? What do we need? Where do we wish to be twenty years from now in terms of security? This is what I mean by asking experts. Put the wise old men in a room and there is no coherent voice. it seems to me that economic dominance is the key to anything. Without money, its all pipe deams. Secondly comes an ideology worth defending and commonly agreed upon. Third comes a plan to define and defend those interests that are vital and create new alliances and rethink old ones that no longer serve our interests.
FQ13 I have more to say, but this is just where I think a debate should start.
-
You're assuming quite a bit. I'm not an isolationist like Ron Paul or the early Jefferson. However, I do believe that defending the homeland is job one. Beyond that, economic and cultural (read political cultural) dominance is worth looking at. Liberal democracy/republicanism has been ascendent for quite some time. It beat out monarchy, facism and communism. Now it is being challenged by Chinese and Russian authoritarianism (basically facism), Islamic extremism and tribalism. If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed. We must become once again a fighting faith, not apologizing for colonialism, racism and the rest. If we have to apologize before offering an argument we lose. Period.
As far as the rest, what do we want? What do we need? Where do we wish to be twenty years from now in terms of security? This is what I mean by asking experts. Put the wise old men in a room and there is no coherent voice. it seems to me that economic dominance is the key to anything. Without money, its all pipe deams. Secondly comes an ideology worth defending and commonly agreed upon. Third comes a plan to define and defend those interests that are vital and create new alliances and rethink old ones that no longer serve our interests.
FQ13 I have more to say, but this is just where I think a debate should start.
The high lighted area's are your primary mistakes. "Liberal democracy/ Republicanism" is an abject failure, it is what converted America from the most productive nation on earth into a growing welfare state where every one has their hand out that owes it's soul to Chinese banks. It was Constitutional Republicanism that allowed America's entrepreneurs the freedom and stability to make us the greatest power on earth.
The Second point, "If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed", is also flawed by your brainwashed inclusion of "democracy", which is nothing more than mob rule. It means that any tax or other financial regulation is subject to arbitrary change at the whim of people voting themselves bread and circus's, it negates any protections for investors and leads them to put their money elsewhere. (Remember GM ? ) But your point is further flawed by the simple fact that it is not true. We have no reason to care how others rule themselves, we only have to convince them that they are better off trading with us than messing with us. Your opinion on the other hand reeks of the elitism that you claim to condemn in our congress.
Visions of Manifest destiny and the "White mans burden".
Your time in academia is obvious, you come across as an elitist snob, and you are usually wrong. :-\
-
I think America needs to invade Washington DC.
A most elegant and general solution to most all the problems facing the country I can think of.
-
Having been a part of the military for nearly twenty years, we have lost our vision and sense of purpose. We have made radical Islam our enemy, rightly so, but lost track of the other dozen or so countries that REALLY want us to go the hell away, as a nation. We have some really intelligent, capable leaders that are being ground up trying to "eat soup with a knife.1" They know that terrorists are the target but they are also looking over their shoulders at China, Russia, and NK hoping we don't get sucker punched. Some of them believe we already have, we just haven't realized it yet. China OWNS us, Russia is regaining it strength and capability, and North Korea is just waiting for an opportunity to start a fight. If fighting truly broke out on the Korean Peninsula, South Korea would cease to exist before we could even get a carrier underway. Even if we did slow them down, we don't have the force strength to do anything about it. Taiwan is the same way. Used to be the Chinese could rattle their sabers all they want but they had no way of truly invading Taiwan and keeping it.2 That is no longer the case. Take a long hard look at what would happen if we no longer had Taiwan, South Korea, and China as trade partners. Extending that some, Japan would also be threatened and would be preoccupied with survival not supplying iPads. Securing OUR borders IS important but other borders (power projection, freedom of the seas) is just as important, almost more so in the global arena.
Terrorists have been a fact of life for the last half century and bouncing from country to country to "stop" them is a joke. Sure blowing up bomb factories and arresting "masterminds" makes for good TV but isn't solving the problem. If we can prove to the general populace that we are truly willing to help them build/rebuild and make a better life for them they will be able to fix their own problems in time. The whole "Teach a man to fish" principle. Blowing up a bunch of stuff and handing the population the debris just makes it worse as they are convinced we will walk away and they will be on their own AGAIN.
We don't know where we want to be, or how to get there and we've squandered away the ability to recover it. Looking out over the military, as a microcosm of the general society, there is a lot of junior people that have the "entitlement mentality" and lost sight of HONOR, COURAGE, and COMMITMENT to self, Shipmate, and Country. It's become "What can you do for me?" not "What can I do for you?" Thank God I can retire in 18 months. Nothing more frustrating than giving direction, explaining why it's important for the junior person to accomplish the goal, and have them ignore it or tell you they don't want to and having no recourse but to say "OK, I'll do it myself if you won't." There are glimmers of hope but since we are focused on What will it cost in dollars? instead of What will it gain in security/capability? good ideas are shot down as to expensive, not our problem, or drug into the abyss of group-think to the point that they never see the light of day.
1"To make war on rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife" T.e. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, introduction to Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife-Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam by John Nagl
2 http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/index.htm Note a 17% decrease in our Navy and a 116% INCREASE in the Chinese Navy over 12 years, including an aircraft carrier and 15 amphibious assault ships.
-
I tend to agree with jnevis.
Terrorist are a threat to American lives. Nations are a threat to American interests and allies.
Saying that, the defense budget needs to get smaller. We don't have the money plain and simple.
It might not be as painful as you think. A huge part of the DOD budget is earmarks and set asides for things the military does not want but lobbyist promote to elected officials. Lot's of money are spent on re testing because Congressman A local company came up short on a evalution for procurement.
Then look at systems that can not be delivered or run way over budget. New tanker for the Air Force, Joint Strike Fighter, Improved Self Propelled Artillery, the Osprey for the USMC. Millions spent on a new battle rifle evaluation and nothing done.
Lastly the US military is currently used to win hearts and minds when that was never the purpose. The Chinese are running circles around us in this area. We send in military trainers to support the local junta. Chicoms send in engineers to improve infrastructure, creating local jobs so they can get raw materials as cheaply as possible. They build electrical plants and power generation grids that bring energy to whole areas much like the US did in the 50's and 60's.
A smaller better trained and maintained force is what will have to happen. It also will mean less time deployed or deployable.
-
The high lighted area's are your primary mistakes. "Liberal democracy/ Republicanism" is an abject failure, it is what converted America from the most productive nation on earth into a growing welfare state where every one has their hand out that owes it's soul to Chinese banks. It was Constitutional Republicanism that allowed America's entrepreneurs the freedom and stability to make us the greatest power on earth.
The Second point, "If we cannot convince the world that democratic capitalism is the best way to govern, we are screwed", is also flawed by your brainwashed inclusion of "democracy", which is nothing more than mob rule. It means that any tax or other financial regulation is subject to arbitrary change at the whim of people voting themselves bread and circus's, it negates any protections for investors and leads them to put their money elsewhere. (Remember GM ? ) But your point is further flawed by the simple fact that it is not true. We have no reason to care how others rule themselves, we only have to convince them that they are better off trading with us than messing with us. Your opinion on the other hand reeks of the elitism that you claim to condemn in our congress.
Visions of Manifest destiny and the "White mans burden".
Your time in academia is obvious, you come across as an elitist snob, and you are usually wrong. :-\
Two points of reality. We have aways been a liberal demcratic republic. Classical liberalism has been our creed from day one. your republic vs mob rule thing is not to the ponit. We are arguing over taxononmy when we agree. Let us specify a classical liberal republic circa early America (or call it bob for all I care) and move on.
Second, the world's view of "the right way to govern" matters. Zietgeist is hugely important, as it legitimates ideologies world wide. The rightwing shifts of the thirties and leftward shift of the sixties and anti authoritarian shifts of the late eghties and early nineties are cases in point. I mean hell, they brought down the Soviet Empire, every undemocratic regime in latin America and came close to taking out the Chinese in the ninties and gave us WWII in the thirties. Ignore this stuff at your considerable peril.
As to Jnevis' point I agree. He echoes what I am saying. We have been chasing down brush fires and not looking at the larger picture. Al Queda is not an existential threat to America, they are an expensive nuciance, though one we must deal with. China and Russia can be a real threat. Korea and Iran can do tremendous harm to our interests. Our border is vital (though, yes we can ignore it, but it costs us dearly everyday we do). I guess my point here is that we have become so crisis driven in the last twenty years, and this has intensified during the war on teror, that we have stopped planning for the larger picture. Our overall strategy and procurment plans have become disjointed as a reslt.
FQ13
-
Saying that, the defense budget needs to get smaller. We don't have the money plain and simple.
It might not be as painful as you think. A huge part of the DOD budget is earmarks and set asides for things the military does not want but lobbyist promote to elected officials. Lot's of money are spent on re testing because Congressman A local company came up short on a evalution for procurement.
Then look at systems that can not be delivered or run way over budget. New tanker for the Air Force, Joint Strike Fighter, Improved Self Propelled Artillery, the Osprey for the USMC. Millions spent on a new battle rifle evaluation and nothing done.
A smaller better trained and maintained force is what will have to happen. It also will mean less time deployed or deployable.
On paper that sounds like a great idea. In the reality of it it is not workable. The largest part of the military budget is NOT equipment but personnel costs, current payroll and retirement plus health care. Yes, the Acquisition process is broken and Congress has pushed its way into it causing more headaches and costs. The programs Rat mentioned are prime examples of it.
The Air Force cannot contiue forever with a tanker designed in the 50s. The 707 derived airframes are getting old. The KC-135, RC-135, E-3, and E-6s will have to be replaced. The biggest problem with that program is the Air Force itself. They know they need a new tanker but can't decide on how big they want it. The first Airbus submission was huge and would carry a LOT of fuel to pass, but was limited to only the largest airfields. The Boeing proposal met the spec for "give" and number of supportable airfields but the AF decided it was to small. Then a pissing contest insued and the contract is canceled and lots of money was spent to prove the AF screwed up. They tried it again and worked the requirements to favor the Boeing design and Airbus challenged it, canceling it again. We're on round three and we still haven't got a tanker. It's not that it can't be done, just that the leadership can't play by the rules THEY wrote.
JSF is another one. Requirement creep has hit it HARD. Lack of oversight and a lot of "Can we make it do...?" has turned a fairly inexpensive, agile fighter into a flying hippo. Only problem is the only front line fighters we have on the inventory now were designed in the 60s and are quickly nearing the end of their service lives. We've lost more than one F-15, F-18, and F-16 to airframe failure due to overstress and age.
Osprey is a shining example of what we can do RIGHT if we are given the chance. Yes, it took FOREVER to field and cost a lot of money. We proved the concept in the 70s and refined it in the 80s. Then we decided that we didn't need it so it went on the shelf for a while. It was dusted off and began production but it had some issues that were only partially due to design but more on training and employment. The aircraft did what it was supposed to but the aircrew didn't understand some of the limitations. Now we have them in the field and the units are expanding the operational envelope daily. Mud Marines specifically ask for them to transport them and thier equipment. Something that complicated and revolutionary isn't going to be perfect out of the starting blocks. Look at the Harrier, it seemed to kill EVERYBODY, but it's still in use over 40 years later.
A smaller force will not shorten deployment time, only worsen the problem. We have the best trained, best equiped forces in the world, but instead of maintaining that edge we want to strip it to the bone and hand them a slingshot and order them to make sure the person you are going to shoot at is actually shooting at you BEFORE you fire. The whole point of Joint Forces Command is to make the different Services work better together but since they don't have any guns, and have a lot of contractors they have to be bad so we'll get rid of them. Lot's of Air Force mentality. "If it isn't a fighter and flashy cool, it is junk." Stuff that works but isn't high tech with 100#s of computers can't be usable. No matter how much technology you have and how superior it is, it's still a guy on the ground with a rifle that is ultimately going to win or lose a war. In that respect the Chinese have the right idea. "Kill all you want, we'll send more." Do we need the technological superiority, yes. Is it the only answer, no. Cutting back leaves us vulnerable. Look at England. In a few years they will basically have no military to speak of. Everything is on the chopping block. Entire aircraft types are being cut with no replacement because the MoD has determined that they will rely on outside help (NATO) for any defense not within their borders, and that is being cut back as well. The once great global superpower is now just a hollow shell. We are headed down the same path.
-
JNevis is right about England, Most of the amphibious warfare assets they managed to scrape together for the Falklands campaign (Carriers) which did not supply enough air lift capacity as it was , have since been scrapped . In fact, Hermes was on it's way to decommissioning at the time of the Argie invasion and had to be pulled back into service.
-
I briefly saw HMS Illustrious on a auction site similar to our Defense Reutilization Management Office/Service, now Defense Logistics Agency-Disposition Services. It was from a link on WOOT! but went to a UK gov't site.
-
"A smaller force will not shorten deployment time, only worsen the problem.'
That is the issue. If you don't have the forces and it is not in the best interest of the US, don't send troops. Yes I agree that most elected officials don't want to make that call because some talking head will wail about the poor folks in Kosovo, Liberia, Darfur, Rowanda or East Timor. I don't think they are worth one American life.
Procurement and development issues are a very big problem to the budget because you get nothing for the billions you pay out.
Big waste of time and assets. Yes feature creep and unrealalistic parameters are rampant. The last time program we were asked to comment on would need the capture of alien technology and a change in the laws of physics before it could get started.
I just don't see the ecconomy being able to support any government at the current funding much less at growth. I do agree that DOD is the one that need the funding the most for the protection of the country.
-
One aspect that is being overlooked is employment.
The Government currently admits that at least 9.6 % of the country is out of work, we know that number is low (one week they wail that unemployment has climbed to 9.6 % then a few weeks later they brag that new hiring has brought the number down to 9.6% )
Cutting the number of uniformed troops on active duty would increase that number significantly, this is part of the reason we keep so many troops in Iraq, and why congress will not pull out of that hopeless shithole Afghanistan.
-
One aspect that is being overlooked is employment.
The Government currently admits that at least 9.6 % of the country is out of work, we know that number is low (one week they wail that unemployment has climbed to 9.6 % then a few weeks later they brag that new hiring has brought the number down to 9.6% )
Cutting the number of uniformed troops on active duty would increase that number significantly, this is part of the reason we keep so many troops in Iraq, and why congress will not pull out of that hopeless shithole Afghanistan.
Unemployment is the greatest recruiting tool the military has ever had. Always has been, always will be. The Roman Dictator (used as a title, not a slur) Marius realized this in 107 BC when he allowed the poor to join the legions. Its been that way ever since. Hell, Jessica Lynch said she signed up when the local Wal-mart wasn't hiring. Frankly, I think this is a good thing. It beats the hell out of paying welfare, and there is plenty of work to be done (the border anyone?). It also gives folks skills, discipline and a chance to go to college. It ain't cheap, but it seemds like we get more than our money's worth.
FQ13
-
There are 700,000+ civilian employees of the Department of Defense for 1,400,000 active duty personnel.
That does not include contractors working full time on military bases and depots.
I think that ratio could be improved.
-
Not being a smart ass here RC.
Would that allow for continuity when units deploy ? For an example in Maintenance units, wouldn't the remaining civilian employees be needed to keep up standards and skill levels ? Serving as training Cadre for incoming replacements ?
2 to 1 does seem like a ridiculously high ratio though.
-
other strictly I'll take a stab at it for you Tom. It boils down to the same principal as the farm workers. Military leadership want globally deployable members so if they can give logistics and other strictly stateside jobs to a guvvy or contractor they wil. Most of the equipment testing and such is done by contractors and|or gov't civilians with some military oversight. There ate almost no military maintenance here, almost all contract. The upside is it costs slightly less and there are less downtime requirements (watches,training ect). Unfotunately it also limits the billets for people to take to "get a break" from deploying. All the Navy's shore billets are starting to disappear. As they do more Sailors get burned out and leave because they want a break from deployment since the manning levels are so low. Plus the budget weenies see the savings of passing it off on corprate since now they don't jave to cover health care or retirement. So the justify the savings by cutting billets then wonder why retention sucks. The Congress sees we don t need a big military and cuts force structure even further, only worsening the problem.
Trying to do this on the phone so I apologize for any errors
-
Thanks for the explanation J. When I was in the Marines Motor Transport Maintenance Co. (3rd Echelon ) had 2 civilians who were cracker jack mechanics, they served as advisers to the guys doing the work. (almost 200) it seems that a lot can change in 30 years.
-
Tom,
I don't think I made my point clear. Cut the civilian side of the equation. They cost more and IMHO get less done on a day by day basis.
As jnevis said moving to contractors ends up draining E-5 and up technical support troops from the force. There is always some friction when the contractor doing the same job in East Jibib is making 2 to 3 times the amount of money of the troop working next to him. I have worked with some pretty good contractors overseas but they were all in the military before making the jump. Many had 20 and out, but more than a few had bailed at 10-14 years.
If you go to the states it is very different. I have had to deal with some real brain donors in DC, Crystal City, Richmond, Mechanicsburg, Dugway, APG and San Diego. These folks did not know their job, your job or what was clear required under a contract or procurement. Not one of these idiots was in uniform.
-
http://www.warisboring.com/2010/12/29/chengdu-j-20-chinas-first-stealth-fighter/
For months there had been rumblings on Chinese Internet forums: rumors of photos quickly suppressed by censors. Word was, China’s first stealth fighter prototype, the Chengdu J-20, was nearing its inaugural flight. On Christmas Day, photos finally surfaced on-line — and stayed there. It was official: Beijing now possesses an apparently flyable prototype fifth-generation fighter, making it only the third country after Russia and the U.S. to join the stealth club.
The J-20 appears to share design characteristics with earlier stealth types. It has the same angled chin as the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35, plus those jets’ all-moving tailplanes. Its twin engines are probably Russian-made 117S models. Like the Russian T-50, it’s big: an estimated 70 feet, compared to 66 for the T-50, just over 60 for the F-22 and the F-35′s 50. “The bigger that the aircraft is, the more likely it is that it is a bomber as much as, if not more than, a fighter,” Ares‘ Bill Sweetman noted.
Is the J-20 intended as a production program? If so, how soon might it enter service? There’s no way to know for sure, but Sweetman stressed that the J-20 might not spend as long in development as, say, the F-22 and F-35, both of which required 15 years from demonstrator first flight to service-entry. “We don’t have a pattern for Chinese major programs,” Sweetman warned.
If it enters service, and enters service fast, the J-20 could help China flesh out its still largely outdated fleet of some 1,500 fighters, bringing Beijing closer to achieving air parity against its local coalition of rival countries: the U.S., Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and India. Even with the J-20, China will be overall outnumbered and behind technologically — but much less so.
The J-20′s first flight should occur any day now.
-
I disagree that the cost is more and the return isn't worth it for civilians and contractors, to a point. My billet is charged to the gov't at say $200K/yr. Most of that is overhead costs for a desk, computer, phone, plus the company overhead for people that aren't directly on the contract; payroll, contractsl/egal, and upper management. So if you look at it its actually three-four paychecks per contract man-year. Now you're on the same pay level as a mid-career E-5, but he would also be getting housing, possible education payouts, and health care. We're doing basically the same job but he's being pulled off for military training, retirement ceremonies, guard duty, and all the other piddly BS all Services task people with outside their regular job. I am only tasked with fixing stuff and not a whole lot else. I have to pay into my retirement and health care. My house and utilities aren't paid for (although Service memebers on bases in HI are starting to get utility bills). Are there civilains and contactors that are "less than stellar" performers that could really use to be sent to somewhere else, sure. Like I said before there are a lot of jobs that military members cannot and should not be responsible for. I don't think it is a good use of taxpayer dollars to send a Service member to handle Foriegn Military Sales, Contract/Financial Management, and Depot level work. They are better utilized at the unit level. There is also something to be said for contiuity. Every two-four years all of the "corprate knowledge" of a command has turned over and has to be retaught. The civilian personnel, here at least may move around a little but there is always a direct line to "that guy" that designed/built it first.
Should contractors or civilians be taking overseas billets or large portions of the Shore/stateside billets mid-career, junior Service members could fill, no. Johny Blackwater has no reason to be in Iraq/Afghanistan instead of Joe Grunt. The whole reason companies like that exhist is we've cut our forces to the point they can't get the job done on their own. A lot of the mid-career members that are leaving would have left anyway, they just have a more compelling reason since they can be a contractor. They quickly find out that the 2-3 times the pay really isn't that much take-home after taxes, benefits and living expenses are factored in. My pay today is double my base pay as an E-6 ten years ago, but the actual in-the-bank paycheck is only $500 more a month.
-
The J-20 goes back to one of the original posts. We've totally forgotten the fact that we aren't the big, all-powerful, defender of freedom we used to be. We're planning and fighting the last and current war without looking at what the next one might be. We're spending BILLIONS on counter-IED devices that less than half actually work, and all are obsolete as soon as they get turned on. Our current enemy is smart and adaptable. We built a counter device, they counter the counter. Problem is our next big fight, be it China, Russia, or North Korea, don't use IEDs all that much.
F-22, to expensive, we won't build as many as we said we need.
F-35, to expensive, we should cancel it.
V-22, to expensive, maybe we can cut the number and keep pulling rusting hulks of H-53s out of the desert instead.
P-8, takes to long to build, we can keep re-winging P-3s that are older than their crews.
on and on and on...
-
I do not disagee with you on the need. I am stating there is no money in the bank.
We are on the verge of some real economic problems with major defaults and no where to go get more.
-
I do not disagee with you on the need. I am stating there is no money in the bank.
We are on the verge of some real economic problems with major defaults and no where to go get more.
You and JNevis are educating me on an aspect of military spending I had never thought about.
That being said I have 2 comments. First, it does seem that a larger portion of the "Uniformed Services" should actually be in uniform.
Secondly the lack of money is easily answered by cutting "entitlement programs". These were traditionally the business of the Churches (charity ) and the only argument I can think of for their tax exempt status.
But no politician would ever consider such an outrageous concept. :(
-
The leadership is trying to stem the flood and repair the damage:
Navy Times is reporting that ADM Roughead, CNO, stated in June that policy independant reviews have determined that crew reductions and other policy changes have made training and proper maintenance difficult and plans to add 4500 Sailors to the Surface Fleet and 2000 Shore billets.
-
The leadership is trying to stem the flood and repair the damage:
Navy Times is reporting that ADM Roughead, CNO, stated in June that policy independant reviews have determined that crew reductions and other policy changes have made training and proper maintenance difficult and plans to add 4500 Sailors to the Surface Fleet and 2000 Shore billets.
Admiral Roughead? Sweet lord, the title makes up for all the crap he must have gotten in his younger days. Admiral Roughead CNO. That's a name to make you take a step back and salute if you don't want to be keelhauled. ;D
FQ13 who ranks it right up there with the late shuttle pilot, Willy McCool. I mean honest to god, being able to walk into a bar and say to a group of women "I'm Commander Willy McCool, and I fly the space shuttle"? That's just an unfair advatage. ;)
-
Admiral Roughead? Sweet lord, the title makes up for all the crap he must have gotten in his younger days. Admiral Roughead CNO. That's a name to make you take a step back and salute if you don't want to be keelhauled. ;D
FQ13 who ranks it right up there with the late shuttle pilot, Willy McCool. I mean honest to god, being able to walk into a bar and say to a group of women "I'm Commander Willy McCool, and I fly the space shuttle"? That's just an unfair advatage. ;)
Nothing beats the former Aircrew Detailer on the West Coast. Detailers are the people that you "negotiate" for your next assignment, AW1 Dickover. Brings new meaning to being d1(ked over for orders.
-
Nothing beats the former Aircrew Detailer on the West Coast. Detailers are the people that you "negotiate" for your next assignment, AW1 Dickover. Brings new meaning to being d1(ked over for orders.
FQ's a ROTC boy jnevis! He don't know "detailer" from "shineola"....
I think every detailer I had was named "dick" something or other! Of course, I didn't stay in long enough for it to really make a difference and most of my duty stations were like a Norwegian Cruise lines itinerary anyway...
-
The Marine Corps simply bought the Washington Monument and coated it with Green teflon so it would slide easier. ;D
-
Somebody's listening
PoliticsDaily.com
December 27, 2010
Analysis
Busy With Afghanistan, The U.S. Military Has No Time To Train For Big Wars
By David Wood
We have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are seldom the wars we planned.-- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Feb. 1, 2010
Just after a cold, rainy dawn, a U.S. Army battalion under the command of Lt. Col. Charles B. Smith took up positions along a low Korean ridgeline with orders to stop the enemy tank columns racing toward them. The Americans were lightly armed draftees assigned to peacetime occupation duties in Japan. They'd never trained for major combat. But they wore the uniform of the most powerful nation on earth.
They expected a short skirmish: When the enemy saw who they were dealing with, the soldiers told themselves, they'd turn tail and flee. But the North Koreans who came lunging at them were not deterred that July morning in 1950. The GIs held out valiantly but finally shattered, stumbling into a retreat so hasty that they left their dead and wounded behind.
The painful story of Task Force Smith is once again being told amid growing anxiety that the United States is so focused on today's missions that it has neglected to prepare for what may come next.
The risk of being unready for major combat operations is partly a matter of choice: Defense Secretary Robert Gates has directed the military to focus its time, resources and energy on winning the counterinsurgency struggle in Afghanistan. That's the kind of conflict the United States is likely to be entangled in for the foreseeable future, according to current Defense Department plans.
It is also true, senior officials acknowledge, that the armed forces lack the time to train for and equipment to fight a major conflict that might ignite from friction with Iran, say, or China, or deal with a completely unanticipated crisis that requires American forces to quickly intervene -- like Korea, 1950.
"There's a belief that the president of the United States can pick up the red phone and order forcible entry operations'' like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, said Army Maj. Gen. Dan Bolger, who commands the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana. "But that takes practice, and we don't get a lot of practice.''
Since 2003, the Army and Marines have focused almost exclusively on learning and conducting counterinsurgency operations, which rely heavily on language and cultural knowledge and the ability to work with local police and tribal elders. But commanders have increasingly fretted that their troops have lost skills that the military used to practice all the time: fast-paced "kick-in-the-door'' attacks across a border, with armor columns, intelligence and logistics support coordinated with artillery and air strikes.
With the drawdown of troops in Iraq, the Pentagon finally is able to begin rebuilding its strategic reserve, the battalions and brigades and equipment normally kept on standby for sudden crises. But the continuing demands in Afghanistan, where the Pentagon is sending 25,000 fresh troops in the coming months, leaves virtually no time for anything but Afghanistan-focused training.
Moreover, the two wars have seriously depleted stockpiles of combat-ready vehicles, weapons, communications equipment and other gear. So, even if troops had time to practice big-war operations, they don't have the stuff to do it with.
"At a certain point,'' said a frustrated Bolger, "you can't do more with less.''
In the past year, for instance, only one unit, the 3rd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, was able to break from counterinsurgency to practice an air assault to seize an airfield, a critical maneuver that would come at the start of a major combat operation. "It was a new set of challenges,'' the division commander, Maj. Gen. James Huggins, said in an interview.
Before 2001, dozens of Army and Marine Corps battalions cycled each year through the three major ground combat training centers, mastering high-intensity maneuvers with tank and armor formations, artillery, attack helicopters and fighter-bombers in grueling battles that went on day and night for weeks.
But with Iraq and Afghanistan demanding different kinds of skills, the training centers were converted into mock villages of Iraqis or Afghans, where troops could practice searching cars at checkpoints, chatting with the local "mayor,'' and walking foot patrols with native troops.
That only one unit was able to break away from this counterinsurgency training "gives you an idea of how close to the margin we are,'' said Bolger.
The Army training centers at Fort Polk and Fort Irwin, Calif., each have one exercise scheduled for 2011 to train troops in what the Army calls "full-spectrum operations."
"We are trying to get back to full-spectrum operations,'' Army Secretary John McHugh said in an interview. "That is difficult given the high operational tempo we continue to face. ... We are rapidly deploying troops to Afghanistan and even the troops in the [reserve] pool are scheduled to go.''
The Marine Corps is in a similar predicament. Senior Marine officers often lament that a decade into counterinsurgency operations, the Corps has midcareer officers and non-commissioned officers who have never been on a ship, let alone learned the complex art of amphibious operations, the Marines' central mission.
In an attempt to correct that shortcoming, the Marine Corps just completed its first major amphibious exercise in a decade -- by simulation. An exercise involving real Marines and actual weapons and ships is planned for 2012.
A shortage of equipment is as big a problem as shortage of time. A decade of combat operations has worn down tanks, Humvees, radios, aircraft engines and almost every other piece of gear. The Marines think it will cost $8 billion just to fix its equipment. So much of the Corps' equipment is in Afghanistan that what it has on hand for training and any crises is "seriously deficient,'' the then-commandant, Gen. James Conway, told Congress last spring. The bill to fix the Army's equipment may reach $36 billion, according to Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the service's vice chief of staff.
The Air Force is short about $2 billion a year to fix its combat aircraft, a deficit that is building year after year and significantly shrinking the pool of planes not already committed in Afghanistan that could be sent into a come-as-you-are war.
Ironically, the problem will get worse if U.S. troops and equipment begin pouring back from Afghanistan to be fixed. For instance, the Pentagon has sent 15,000 heavy-armored MRAP vehicles to Afghanistan, and an additional 10,600 are being built and rushed there to protect troops against IEDs.
All those vehicles will have to be overhauled when they return, a daunting task for Mark Sheffield, a senior official at the Letterkenny Army Depot in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, where much of the work will be done. "We have no history of what parts will be needed'' for these relatively new vehicles, Sheffield said in an interview. "The big question is whether the supply chain will give us the parts.''
All these problems are reason for a decisive shift at the Pentagon, according to an outside bipartisan task force chartered by Congress to challenge current Defense Department planning. The group, co-chaired by William Perry, who was defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser to President George W. Bush, said in a report issued earlier this year that Gates had "focused too greatly on the short-term'' threats and not enough on big-war challenges.
Those challenges could come, their report said, from the rise of new global superpowers in Asia -- India and China -- and the continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East. But it documented "a significant and growing gap'' between the U.S. military's current capabilities and "the missions it will be called upon to perform in the future'' and warned that a failure to correct these problems is "not acceptable.''
Aside from new thinking at the Pentagon, what is needed is more money, the independent task force concluded, an urgent recommendation not likely to be welcomed next month by a new Congress elected to slash, not increase, federal spending. But fixing war-damaged equipment and modernizing ships, aircraft and vehicles can't be done simply with the budget efficiencies Gates has ordered, the report said. It will require "immediate and long-term'' investment.
"The potential consequences for the United States of a business as usual attitude ... are not acceptable,'' the task force said. "We are confident that the trend lines can be reversed, but it will require an ongoing, bipartisan concentration of political will in support of decisive action.''
-
In fact DOD spending is 4.7% of GDP. Not much compared to during the Vietnam era of 8.8% or Korea or WWII.
Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%
Program 2011 Budget request[11] Change, 2010 to 2011
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%
Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%
Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%
Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%
DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%
P–8A Poseidon $2.9 billion −1.6%
V-22 Osprey $2.8 billion −6.5%
Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%
F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%
Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%
Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%
CVN Refueling and Complex Overhaul $1.7 billion −6.0%
Chemical Demilitarization $1.6 billion −7.0%
RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%
Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%
-
I think we need to divide responsibilities. As an off the cuff example use the more lightly armed Air mobile Army forces in the counter insurgency role while the Heavier armored forces are dedicated to conventional operations.
One problem is the mobility issue, an armored division is nothing but Infantry till their vehicles arrive.
Perhaps use the Marine Corps units afloat to slow down an attack until regular forces can deploy ?