« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If Elected Rick Perry would Destroy the U.S. Military

By: chrysostom15 (Diary)  |  January 9th, 2012 at 08:55 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Rick Perry talked about moving troops back into Iraq, if elected.  The question I would ask, is with what Army?  Rick Perry’s plans would result in the U.S. Army being unable to support troops in Iraq.

Let me start by briefly explaining what the U.S. did in order to field troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

  • First, troops require food.  Food in Iraq and Afghanistan needs to be contracted for, monitored, and provided.  This is done by government contractors.  Contracts are written and monitored by civilians.  Folks from contracting agencies,  mainly overseas contingency contracting, DCMA, and others write and manage the contracts.  These contracts also needed to be audited by several organizations consisting of more civilians.  It takes several years for a government employee to be trained to manage contracts, several years to be trained to audit, several years to be trained to manage contracts.
  • Second, the troops need body armor, helmets, personal gear.  These are produced by the private sector, but require a large number of civilian government workers to oversea testing, set testing requirements and procedures, determine requirements, and to adjust the gear based on changing conditions.  Body armor is a great example.  A soldier needs armor resistant to armor piercing weapons, and that is tested against — not only current and projected future threats, but that is updated as these threats change.  This requires constant testing, constant management.  And has saved lives.
  • Of course, there are a whole host of base services: Security, energy, waste management, port-a-johns, gravel, etc that need to be built.  And again, these are built by private companies managed by and contracted to by government civilian contractors.
  • At the same time government civilians in the CIA, DII, and even in DOD and other agencies play important roles in any war effort gathering intelligence, planing, organizing, etc.  The Iraq Green zone was filled with a literally a city of U.S. Federal civilian government workers, along with military and contractors.
  • I could actually go on for hours, but the point here is that to manage a war, you actually need civilian federal government workers.
What is Rick Perry’s plan?  Well, he plans to freeze the salaries of these workers — the ones who were in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ones we would need for any military action or war.  For how long?  Until the budget is balanced.  In other words, Perry plans to tell a critical component of our military that he plans to never provide them with a cost-of-living adjustment to balance inflation.
What would be the result?  These folks would leave government.  DOD has already reported that it is facing trouble retaining the talent it needs due to the current salary freeze.  Should the freeze continue, DOD would eventually no longer be able to function.
There are times when everyone needs to take a hit.  Reagan froze federal pay for 1 year to help with that.  However, Perry wants to take things to the point where it would destroy our military, and put our freedom at risk.
It takes advanced degrees and years of experience to be able to conduct body armor testing, and the key folks doing this are already at the top of the legal allowed salaries; do we want to lose them? There are not many civilians willing to risk their lives — and spend 2 – 5 years away from their families to review contracts overseas.  Do went want to lose them?  I could go on, but what Perry is proposing would destroy our Military.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • lizzie

    First, listen carefully to the one minute statement during the debate:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5qZ9GrBf4w&feature=player_embedded#!

    Make sure you hear Perry saying “we need to talk with the Iraqis”

    The US State department has 17,000 mostly civilians and private security contractors in the Green Zone embassy and two consulates in Iraq.

    Might want to re-phrase what is an outrageous diary title.

    As a former certified purchasing manager for a Fortune 50 corporation, if it takes several years to train Pentagon procurement specialists, THAT is a broken system.

    Supply lines to Afghanistan are very difficult.

    Supply lines to Iraq are not. The Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain.

    get a grip…the last American on earth who would never harm the US military is Gov. Rick Perry.

    I do think he needs to explain his Iraq one minute – I assumed he was referring to the deliberate failure to reach a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq for a 10-15,000 US force to 1) assist with training for Iraq’s new Air Force, 2) continue to maintain the peace near Kirkuk, help Iraqi Kurdistan maintain autonomy, and keep Iran ‘contained on a very porous border.

    really, I am a conservative democrat who opposed Bush43′s Iraq war from day 1, but I also strongly supported the surge in order to stabilize what Rumsfeld and Bremner had destroyed.

    And, I still think Halliburton should not have been handed Pentagon logistics contracts as a blank check, another Bush43 legacy, but maybe that has changed.

    get a grip.

  • greyeagle

    Your comments are off. I know what Governor Perry stands for and what he would do. First of all he is ex-military. He has an affinity for military personnel and he and his wife have assisted several wounded Navy Seals. Perry is pro-military and a defense hawk. He would not cut the military like Obama and his minions are doing. Consequently, the military will be far better off with Perry than they are under the Democrats. So your comment that Perry would destroy the Military is over the top and incorrect.

  • texastaxpayer

    There is nothing honest about your post or your title. You are a dumbacrat nothing more or less. The pure BS you try and attribute to a one minute comment from governor Perry is disgusting.

  • chrysostom15

    I agree that Perry supports our military in his heart. That said, strategic planning documents that DOD has, indicate that the pay freeze is already having an impact on our military — especially in the case of hurting the ability to obtain a number of critical skills needed. So, I’m just saying what DOD already has been saying. The military has already said it is having problems with the pay freeze, Perry’s plan to extend it until the budget is balanced would be catastrophic to the military.

    I am sure that Perry just doesn’t know this; however, it does not change the fact that his actually plan is anti-military.

    Of the 683.7 billion spent on DOD for 2010, only $154 billion was on military personnel. The remaining spending is paid to/for civilians in DOD and to contractors and contract items outside DOD.

    There are 3 legs to the DOD stool. 1 Leg is the active/reserve/guard military personnel. Another leg is the civilian workforce. The final leg is government contractors.

    I have no doubt Perry supports the military personnel’s salary adjustments — though Perry has shown little support for the doctors, nurses, phsycologists, physical therapist, and others who treat them at military hospitals. Those folks are civilians, and would go without a cost-of-living adjustment forever according to Perry’s plan.

    I have no doubt that Perry supports government contractors to design and make our weapons systems, body armor, etc. However, the quality of these weapons systems, armor, etc is tested by civilians. Do we really want to freeze pay for the folks — and by the way — nearly all the folks who test body armor are former military personnel — who test military body armor and other equipment? Do we want to freeze the pay for the folks who contract out, audit, the military equipment used by the soldier in the field?

    Perry’s plan would result in the folks who risk their lives for their country no longer receiving top-quality care. Government doctors, researchers, and the folks in the government who support the men and women fighting in battle would lose their cost-of-living adjustements… Many would retire or leave. This would — according to DOD officials — cause major military problems, especially in certain specialties where the government already pays far below the private sector.

    • http://www.RightonMainSt.com rightonmainst

      Governor Perry would not destroy the military- he served, and he understands what it means to go into harm’s way. Perhaps he could have phrased his response better, but he’s right– Obama pulled out the troops simply to appease his liberal base. No other reason. Does that mean we’d need to “re-invade Iraq” if we sent troops back in an advisory capacity? No way.

      Obama just sent marines to Australia. Does that mean we have to invade Australia? I think sooner or later the sectarian violence will escalate and Iraqi leaders will want us to help bail them out. The fact of the matter is that Obama is the one destroying the military- not Rick Perry.

  • Common_Cents

    Perry sealed his fate w/ that debate comment. Even if he is ultimately right. Does he really believe any more than about 20% might even support going back into Iraq at this time? He and his campaign team should know what issues to stress and ones to avoid, in order to win an election.

    Even if he’s right, bringing that out in a crap MSM debate w/ 1 min responses was a poor decision. An in depth discussion format would be needed to even go in that direction.

    He’ll be clobbered with this if he manages some rebound and would be triple clobbered in the general if somehow got the nomination.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …and I’m looking at the creator of this provocative and misleading blog as well as one commenter utterly lacking in common sense. We have plenty of troops in countries without massive war or provocation, and if Iraq genuinely wants to have some American troops in their country as a friendly gesture of support and as a bulwark against Iranian hegemony, I say it’s a great idea. That’s what we do in South Korea and many other countries, after all. There’s nothing remotely destructive about that for the United States memory. Get a clue.

    • znjs

      that would be one thing. However they don’t. We asked them if they would allow troops to remain their past the date negotiated by Bush, and they put requirements they knew we couldn’t agree to as conditions for troops remaining.

      • lineholder

        The information that I’ve read was that the Iraqi’s actually asked us to postpone the withdrawal date, and the Obama admin botched the talks.

        I’d just like to have my facts straight, that’s all.

        • znjs

          As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year. Those efforts had never really gone anywhere; one senior U.S. military official told National Journal last weekend that they were stuck at ?first base? because of Iraqi reluctance to hold substantive talks.
          http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021

          U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
          But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
          http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/index.html

          Nouri al-Maliki said, ?When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible, The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/10/23/u-s-kicked-out-of-iraq/

          One of the sticking points in the negotiations with Iraq was a US demand that American forces remaining in the country after December would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as they do now. The Iraqi government, conscious of public anger over many controversial incidents involving US troops and defence contractors over the last decade, refused….Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis…Obama was ambivalent on the issue, seeing a total withdrawal as a good sell to a US public tired of war. But the Pentagon had wanted the bases, and the president reluctantly sided with the military staff. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases

          As I said, there was 0% chance we would allow our solders to be answerable to (and punishable by) the Iraqi govt or their courts, and Iraqis knew that and insisted on it. It was a polite kicking us out by pretending to be willing to consider letting us stay, but by their actions they did kick us out.

          • lineholder

            is that it comes from the Guardian, which is about as liberal as it gets, unfortunately.

            I do appreciate it, but I’ll keep my eye out for other info as well.

          • znjs

            If you look at the bottom of each paragraph (except my conclusion at the end) there is a different site for each one – national journal, cnn, conservativedailynews, and yes the guardian (what can I say, I’m a sucker for non-us sources for international stories, regardless of leaning).

          • lineholder

            I read down through it rather quickly and just didn’t catch the separate links. Thanks for being so thorough!

            So, that’s that, and the information I had gotten from what I believed to be a reliable source…well, maybe I should question them a bit more, eh?

          • aesthete

            Personally, I’m ambivalent about whether or not to pursue basing rights in Iraq, after all was said and done in OIF. However, I see no reason to bend over backwards to accommodate Iraq, when our staying there would be largely for their benefit and the benefit of our regional allies, rather than for our own benefit. Polls consistently show that Iraqis — by a large majority — favor our departure. This is true for the Kurds, Shi’ites, and Sunni Iraqis alike. IMO, that’s not going to work out so well for them (especially not the Kurds and Sunnis), but that’s their concern. Considering that they’ve been democratically building a tottering Sharia-compliant state, and will probably continue this trend when we leave, I’m not particularly inclined to offer such a government a helping hand when there is no apparent benefit for us.

          • JSobieski

            I think missing out on basing rights is a bad thing, but I wouldn’t compromise on the issue of immunity either.

            If nothing else, conservatism recognizes that man is not infinitely maleable by laws—there is no blank slate to shape.

            Culture is king, and there have been many citations on the site for the principle of democracy and justice are impossible with a fundamentally immoral culture.

          • aesthete

            I see Iraq in its democratic iteration getting much worse before it gets better.

            On a related note, did you hear that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt might end up being the more moderate of the two main parties in Egypt?

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15899539

            (Not one of the articles I originally read, but I’m too lazy to look on Google for long.)

          • JSobieski

            First there was the PLO. They were terrorists. People disliked them.

            Then HAMAS was formed. The PLO looked good by comparison. People stopped hating the PLO. HAMAS…they were terrorists.

            Then Islamic Jihad was formed. The PLO and HAMAS are political parties that people vote on. Islamic Jihad–those guys are the terrorists.

            Same thing is happening in Egypt. There will always be a new more aggressive group ready to show their chops.

          • aesthete

            The bottom of the barrel for Sharia-based systems and political movements is quite far down, indeed. What amazes me is how naive people in influential positions have been to these trends, and to the negative results of democratization. I guess the bottom of the barrel for State Dept and NGO gullibility is quite far down, as well.

            For the record, I still dislike PLO — though I’m not a fan of the ANC in South Africa or Sinn Fein in Ireland, either.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    this whole post must be a joke, the military, Perry will destroy the Washington establishment, he will make it cool to not be a big government Republican like Newt and Santorum again, but as for our military boys, no they are safe under Perry. You got him mixed up with Ron Paul.

    Perry was simply saying he would send troops back to Iraq, which I am telling you right now is going to happen anyways, things are going south there fast. Perry never said he would send an entire army there without funding it, and without weapons, and without support.

    Someone tell me this is a joke, because I don?t want to do the work that it would take to tare this premise apart from limb to limb, this is a joke, right. I do not mean to be condescending.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      ?He has advocated on behalf of veterans and their families as governor of Texas, and I know he will proudly represent me and veterans across the nation when he is president.?

      • chrysostom15

        The military might of the U.S. is more than just the soliders, Marines, Airment, and Sailors in our armed forces. It includes contractors and civilian government workers also. Each has a critical role to play.

        DOD again, and again, has reported that it faces severe shortages if civilians. It has year and year again meet recruiting and retention needs for military officiers and military enlisted for all except for a few specialized fields. It has consistantly been able to contract out for what it needs.

        However, since 2001, DOD has had significant problems hiring and retaining civilians in a number of areas. This is why Bush provided a cost-of-living adjustment every year, and why Bush also implemented NSPS and other hiring authority — to ensure we had the resources we needed to win the wars.

        Obama has played politics with our military his entire adminsitration, including a 2-year pay freeze for many folks in civilian jobs critical to our military.

        Perry plans to do worse for these critical civilian jobs that our military needs. We are talking about the doctors who care for troops who are already being paid $50,000 less than doctors in the private sector. We are talking about many others in the medical field. We are talking about engineers, scientists, folks who test body armor, folks in the acquisition field, and many other folks who are critial to the war effort.

        Perry would freeze the salaries of folks who audit contracts to find fraud — in a time when fraud in contracts overseas has actually resulted in some folks in local Afghanistan towns taking up arms and fighting. Part of the PR war is being lost because of poorly made roads because the US doesn’t have enough qualified and capable contracting officails there in order to make sure roads are built correctly. The Afghan radicals then blame the us for sabatoging their economy and win supporters because of this.

        TROOPS DIE, the DIE because we have been cutting corners during the Obama administration and not paying these civilian federal workers who monitor contracts enough to be able to recruit and retain them.

        I am a social, fiscal, and security conservative. As a national security conservative, I find it very unfortanate that Rick Perry claims to suppor tour troops, but does not. If he did, he would make sure they had the resources they asked for. If he did, he would make sure they had the BEST medical care possible. If he did, he would make sure they had the BEST civilian support possible. He would make sure critical possitions were filled by capable workers. His Pay freeze proposal would destory our military. I stand by that, and find it unfortunate that Perry’s policies would cost troops their lives.

        Folks who do not agree should take at look at what DOD is saying, and what DOD has been reporting for a long time. Namely that DOD continues to have critical shortages for several critical skills and that pay limitation are a major problem for them, as are the pay freezes.

        These civilians risk their lives for their country; Obama and Perry want to freeze their pay, resulting in more and more of them leaving and fewer and fewer capable folks being willing to take their place and do these jobs.

        There is this reality on the one side. On the other it is the side of Rick Perry and Obama who pretend they support the troops, while doctor after doctor quits treating the troops due to low pay, and while other critical civilian workers leave in higher and higher numbers, without qualified staff to replace them due to Obama’s Pay freeze that Perry would continue to the point of destorying our military.

        My opinion is that some people in government are overpaid. Every government agency should do a possition-by-possition review and see what possitions have been over-paid and need to be re-classified as lower-pay. Government should make significant cuts by removing many unneeded possitions, and classifying other possitions as lower-paying. However, we cannot afford to freeze the pay of many critical possitions that are needed for the war effort. Perry plans to do this, and that is unacceptable.

        • gekster

          This comment is idiotic on it’s face.
          I see you have a personal hate of Perry.
          This post would go over big at the HuffPo.
          You should go over there where you will find many friends.
          And so far, nothing you have posted, or this diary for that matter, is founded in any facts whatsoever.

          • tailfins1959

            Just asking.

  • liberty17

    Rick Perry has one of the best records of take care of military. He has shown that he is committed to the strengthening of our defense.
    As the sister of two soldiers, I hope that Gov. Perry becomes president because I know that he will put the safety of our troops first.