(02-25-2014 05:27 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  While I don't have a conceptual problem with cutting the budget of the military, it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner, not a political manner.

Historians tell the tale of how the U.S. was caught unprepared for war in at least the two big ones. In the WWII situation, because we had cut so deeply post WWI, it took a few years to 'get up to speed' and readiness. It appears that this is happening again. There IS a lot we could cut but as others have said, the decision makers seem to be on another page altogether.

What I would love to see is us not getting involved in all the neighborhood squabbles around the world. Use our military as PRIMARILY a defense force and that would require that the EU countries depending on us start to pay their own freight. We could still close some of the overseas bases without severely compromising the ability to project power.

I like Owl#'s ideas on more defense for less. It seems doable but I'm sure that certain military types would object.

As for the Chinese, they have been bending the ears of countries that have small militaries (or none), such as New Zealand or Australia. Their suggestions are that those countries ally with them, instead of the U.S. and they have advised that the time for choosing is coming fast. They are suggesting that WE may not be able to help when it is needed (almost like they know something) and who would you rather have as your umbrella - the U.S. or China? They have an ambitious growth of power agenda and we ignore it at our peril.

I'm one of the few that believe that all the assaults on this country from within, and especially from this administration are with one purpose - to weaken us economically, and ultimately, to weaken us militarily. Dear Leader doesn't like that we had/still have some power. He doesn't get that that power can be used for good and not always for war.

In spite of our massive spending we aren't ready for a major war if it started tomorrow. We have a mirage, an expensive mirage.

(02-25-2014 05:27 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  While I don't have a conceptual problem with cutting the budget of the military, it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner, not a political manner.

Historians tell the tale of how the U.S. was caught unprepared for war in at least the two big ones. In the WWII situation, because we had cut so deeply post WWI, it took a few years to 'get up to speed' and readiness. It appears that this is happening again. There IS a lot we could cut but as others have said, the decision makers seem to be on another page altogether.

What I would love to see is us not getting involved in all the neighborhood squabbles around the world. Use our military as PRIMARILY a defense force and that would require that the EU countries depending on us start to pay their own freight. We could still close some of the overseas bases without severely compromising the ability to project power.

I like Owl#'s ideas on more defense for less. It seems doable but I'm sure that certain military types would object.

As for the Chinese, they have been bending the ears of countries that have small militaries (or none), such as New Zealand or Australia. Their suggestions are that those countries ally with them, instead of the U.S. and they have advised that the time for choosing is coming fast. They are suggesting that WE may not be able to help when it is needed (almost like they know something) and who would you rather have as your umbrella - the U.S. or China? They have an ambitious growth of power agenda and we ignore it at our peril.

I'm one of the few that believe that all the assaults on this country from within, and especially from this administration are with one purpose - to weaken us economically, and ultimately, to weaken us militarily. Dear Leader doesn't like that we had/still have some power. He doesn't get that that power can be used for good and not always for war.

Which is why we need to go to a 5% cut across the board. Rather than let politicians decide what needs to be cut. Simply give the Pentagon 5% less and let them figure it out. The result will be a more efficient military.

Flat % cuts across the board is the refuge of those who don't want to do the hard work of thinking and prioritizing. Kind of like yourself.

(02-25-2014 05:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Which is why we need to go to a 5% cut across the board. Rather than let politicians decide what needs to be cut. Simply give the Pentagon 5% less and let them figure it out. The result will be a more efficient military.

No, it won't.

The best way to impose a 5% cost without reducing efficiency or effectiveness would be for the Pentagon to absorb the whole 5% at the top levels. That's not going to happen if you tell the Pentagon to figure out who gets hit with the 5%.

Back when we were closing all the national parks to save money during the sequester, how many top dawgs at Interior do you think furloughed themselves instead of sticking it to the taxpayers? That's the problem with Washington. You could cut the fat and still have at least as much, if not more, productivity, for less cost. But the people deciding what to cut are the fat, so the fat is not what's going to get caught.

(02-25-2014 05:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In spite of our massive spending we aren't ready for a major war if it started tomorrow. We have a mirage, an expensive mirage.

True. BUT most of that is because of fatigue from fighting two wars simultaneously. Fatigue of the men and fatigue of the equipment. Also, recent sequester cuts have hit the men in the field, not those at the top, as Owl has pointed out.

Always so amazing that those on the left, who have always had disdain for our military are acting as if they really care and are sharing their ideas on how to cut it back. It's really a shame that those folks can't experience the ramifications of their convictions without all the rest of us having to do so also.

Kind of like all the 'great' advice to the GOP on how to win elections - be just like the dems. They've already tried that and the people know the difference btw Santa Claus and the mall Santa.

(02-25-2014 05:55 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 05:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In spite of our massive spending we aren't ready for a major war if it started tomorrow. We have a mirage, an expensive mirage.

True. BUT most of that is because of fatigue from fighting two wars simultaneously. Fatigue of the men and fatigue of the equipment. Also, recent sequester cuts have hit the men in the field, not those at the top, as Owl has pointed out.

Always so amazing that those on the left, who have always had disdain for our military are acting as if they really care and are sharing their ideas on how to cut it back. It's really a shame that those folks can't experience the ramifications of their convictions without all the rest of us having to do so also.

Kind of like all the 'great' advice to the GOP on how to win elections - be just like the dems. They've already tried that and the people know the difference btw Santa Claus and the mall Santa.

I think the two reasons you just named are great parts of our problem but there are other reasons we aren't prepare, more fundamental issues.

Our system of leadership is outdated, we have more admirals than boats.
Our support structure is outdated, we have chronic shortages or certain parts and goods.
We expend vast amounts of cash maintains strategically and tactically useless material.
We have massive numbers of overseas bases which are indefensible.
And the list goes on.

We really do have a military machine that is stressed as is, because at a fundamental level it is corrupt and outdated.

I honestly believe we could get a meaner leaner military for a fraction of the price. Atop to bottom audit would be great.

I don't share the let's disdain for the military but I do share their disdain for wasteful wars and overextension.

(02-25-2014 06:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I honestly believe we could get a meaner leaner military for a fraction of the price. Atop to bottom audit would be great.

I think a truly effective military comes at a much bigger fraction of the price than you might expect.

And an audit would do little to nothing. That's not where the problems are. I've got enough time in the military and done enough audits to know the limitations of both, and an audit is not the way to address the problems we have.

(02-25-2014 06:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I honestly believe we could get a meaner leaner military for a fraction of the price. Atop to bottom audit would be great.

I think a truly effective military comes at a much bigger fraction of the price than you might expect.

And an audit would do little to nothing. That's not where the problems are. I've got enough time in the military and done enough audits to know the limitations of both, and an audit is not the way to address the problems we have.

It certainly doesn't come at the cost of a blank check.

These cuts also effectively eliminate 100k jobs. I know they are not counted in the jobs numbers (non-farm civilian) but it will mean 100k less employment opportunities.

(02-25-2014 06:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I honestly believe we could get a meaner leaner military for a fraction of the price. Atop to bottom audit would be great.

I think a truly effective military comes at a much bigger fraction of the price than you might expect.

And an audit would do little to nothing. That's not where the problems are. I've got enough time in the military and done enough audits to know the limitations of both, and an audit is not the way to address the problems we have.

It certainly doesn't come at the cost of a blank check.

No, and there never has been a blank check, and such references are both inaccurate and counterproductive.

We can and should spend less on defense, but cuts need to be made with an eye to reality. What threats do we face, how do we counter them most efficiently and effectively, what mission or missions are appropriate, and for whom? A 5% across the board cut (or any other cuts) made without first answering those questions will bring about more bad than good.

If we are going to have a productive discussion, might be useful to talk about threats and missions.

What threats do we face? China? In what capacity? Russia? In what capacity? Some rogue state? Which one or ones? How, when, where, and why? Terrorists? Who, when, where, how? Any others?

What missions are appropriate?
Global thermonuclear war?
Conventional war versus one or more major powers (China, Russia)?
Conventional warfare versus a major regional power?
Action against a rogue state?
Antiterrorism?
Peacetime presence/visibility/show the flag?
Any others?

(02-25-2014 08:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we are going to have a productive discussion, might be useful to talk about threats and missions.

What threats do we face? China? In what capacity? Russia? In what capacity? Some rogue state? Which one or ones? How, when, where, and why? Terrorists? Who, when, where, how? Any others?

What missions are appropriate?
Global thermonuclear war?
Conventional war versus one or more major powers (China, Russia)?
Conventional warfare versus a major regional power?
Action against a rogue state?
Antiterrorism?
Peacetime presence/visibility/show the flag?
Any others?

With the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan our military is stressed. Unless we are willing to leave the nations and eliminate the bases in those countries and Europe cutting the military by the numbers recommended makes no sense. Since the reduced military would not have sufficient size for long-term occupations we should have no full scale bases outside the US.

(02-25-2014 07:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I honestly believe we could get a meaner leaner military for a fraction of the price. Atop to bottom audit would be great.

I think a truly effective military comes at a much bigger fraction of the price than you might expect.

And an audit would do little to nothing. That's not where the problems are. I've got enough time in the military and done enough audits to know the limitations of both, and an audit is not the way to address the problems we have.

It certainly doesn't come at the cost of a blank check.

No, and there never has been a blank check, and such references are both inaccurate and counterproductive.

We can and should spend less on defense, but cuts need to be made with an eye to reality. What threats do we face, how do we counter them most efficiently and effectively, what mission or missions are appropriate, and for whom? A 5% across the board cut (or any other cuts) made without first answering those questions will bring about more bad than good.

Elastic spending ceilings are real; that is essentially a blank check. That system of appropriations, on top of sealed black box intelligence spending, commands and ensures cost overruns and unnecessary expense.

(02-25-2014 08:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we are going to have a productive discussion, might be useful to talk about threats and missions.

What threats do we face? China? In what capacity? Russia? In what capacity? Some rogue state? Which one or ones? How, when, where, and why? Terrorists? Who, when, where, how? Any others?

What missions are appropriate?
Global thermonuclear war?
Conventional war versus one or more major powers (China, Russia)?
Conventional warfare versus a major regional power?
Action against a rogue state?
Antiterrorism?
Peacetime presence/visibility/show the flag?
Any others?

I was under the impression this was in the context of a war with China/Russia.

Sucks for me. The three branches I wanted to join after I graduate are all downsizing. There goes a lifelong dream right there...should've enlisted at 18.

People are missing the point. this isn't a discussion of military readiness. this is a direct result of the trillion dollar flaccid stimulus. You CANNOT spend a trillion dollars one afternoon, and then continue to have budget options. Especially not when you follow that up with a health care bill that will probably cost trillions, but not even the CBO can tell for sure because he keeps rewriting the legislation during press conferences.

Sooner or later, reality will reassertion itself.

not only did he make most of his future decisions when he signed the stimulus, he made a good portion for his successor, and probably a few for his successor.

(02-25-2014 08:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we are going to have a productive discussion, might be useful to talk about threats and missions.

What threats do we face?
China? In what capacity? Russia?
In what capacity? Some rogue state? Which one or ones? That's the next great question for the IC
Terrorists? Who, Political Extremists, ideological outcasts, targets for recruitment, etc. when? now where? Impoverished states, states that sponsor terrorism, states known to house radicalized individuals, states with weak or no anti-terrorism agencies. how? How what? Organization? Funding? Existence?Any others? Threats from the international IC

What missions are appropriate?
Global thermonuclear war?
Conventional war versus one or more major powers (China, Russia)?
Conventional warfare versus a major regional power?
Action against a rogue state? Coercive Diplomacy, deterrence, sanctions, destruction if terrorists safe havens by commando raids, prohibit access foreign aid. Each situation will requite a different solution.
Antiterrorism? - Anti terrorism is pretty well covered and I doubt the budget cuts will have a huge impact on it. Let the intelligence community do their thing and then take action against rogue states, non-state actors, etc.
Peacetime presence/visibility/show the flag? Not sure I understand the question
Any others? Lots of others! Lots of inappropriate actions too.