Cutting the Troops

melbedewy

to cut defense in half-and we will still be outspending China 3-1.
Pat Buchanan is right and the neo-cons are wrong. We are a Republic NOT an Empire.

reddog53

What is essential, even for a Republic, is for our nation to be able to freely interact with the rest of the world. As a Republic, we freely project our national interest in peaceful ways all over the globe because it is a necessary pre-condition for peace. It is also a way to support those who share common interest, such as NATO, Australia and South America. George Washington said words to the effect that ‘to secure the peace requires that you prepare for war…’

Navies and armies are sometimes necessary to guarantee that freedom, as well as to honor commitment to allies and project national interest into places like Indonesia after the tsunami.

China has recently released photographs of aircraft carriers and stealth fighters, which is clearly meant to convey the message that they seek to project their national power beyond their own borders. We should not ignore these signals, any more than we should have ignored the conditions in Europe in the 1930s.

Death_of_the_Donkey

The army and marines would be the most likely areas for cuts, as we simply do not (and should not) need massive ground forces unless one plans on invading countries and such. And let us not forget that the Constitution called for the Army to only exist in 2 year increments because the Founders feared that a standing army would both be expensive AND would be more likely to be used to fight wars.

smagar

NeoKong

Which BTW is growing. Not shrinking.
We have more federal employees than we do military personnel.
They earn a much higher salary per capita than the military and the positions are almost always permanent and lifelong.
That means gold plated health care. Vacation and sick days. Holidays. Mandatory pay raises and finally exorbitant pensions.
As the great recession spreads it’s dark pestilence across this country the door jambs of federal agencies have been painted with lamb’s blood.

Washington Post.

Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011.

From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

Excluding Postal Service workers….?
How the hell do you do that ?

So we are cutting down on active duty troops who are probably some of the lowest paid people paid by the govt. but yet we are expanding federal white collar type jobs that come with salaries that are probably30-40% higher than the national average pay scale for private employees with similar type positions.

After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year – up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.

The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.

Peter R. Orszag, Mr. Obama’s budget director, also said more people have been hired to oversee outside contracts

Also you have to wonder how many of these positions will involve joining a public sector union.

Read the whole article.
It will give you a headache.

smagar

You really can’t discharge an aircraft carrier or a line of fighter aircraft (with all its attendant production facilities, civilian workers and their supporting Congressmen). You can discharge thousands of soldiers from active duty, and stop paying their salaries and support costs in one shot.

Also, military units—especially active-duty ones—-don’t have their own voting constituency…aside from the people who live/work at their bases and facilities. (And, as long as you don’t close the base, the locals can be mollified.) Battalions that are about ready to be deactivated don’t hold weekend rallies at people’s houses or form PACs. The people who actually build tanks and ships do. I can’t forget the sight of liberal Congressman Sam Gejedeson arguing passionately for building more nuclear submarines, much to the consternation of his dovish D colleagues. Why? Groton Shipyard was in his district.

What’s really sad here: we have no problem sending inexperienced and inadequately trained troops into battle. I speak from experience. Ever since 9/11, I’ve spent much of my time training troops going to Iraq and Afghanistan. For years, we sent units into combat zones that had just been reorganized, and whose troops had limited training…because we had no choice. We needed more troops than we had on hand, so we overused the ones we had. Units went downrange without enough time to learn to operate the new equipment they’d just received, or fully train their new soldiers fresh from Initial Entry Training—-because we couldn’t afford to give them that time. The troops downrange were worn out and needed help NOW, so we sent who we had, whether they were ready or not.

So, I guess the big thinkers in Washington have reasoned that it’s OK to cut back on the Army and Marines now. If we need to bulk up their ranks in the future, we usually can, with enough recruiting incentives.

Perhaps they’re thinking that, while it takes years to design and build an aircraft carrier or next-generation fighter, you can “build” an infantry Soldier or Marine in less than six months. In a very Machiavelian way, they’re right.

avgjo

on the issue of the standing army, a primary, perhaps principal, concern was that a standing army would be used as a way to threaten the liberty of the people.

It’s the equivalent of putting a gun on the table at a business meeting.

That’s why I AM a proponent of redistribution through government – of force. I believe we should have a Swiss-style militia, where all guys 18-50 serve, and have weapons. Restore full, pre-gun control 2nd amendment rights. That would require something of a cultural, educational and social shift, but it could be accomplished, if enough people were willing to commit to the cause.

smagar

A friend of mine is about to retire after 20 years of federal civil service. His pension is 1% of his base pay for every year he served. Not bad, but not fantastic, either.

The real benefit of federal civil service these days…it’s forever. They won’t fire anyone.

freemanja1991

We can find places to cut in defense with out harming troops. that is a fact.

edintexas

I’m glad you know the amount of the PRC’s annual budget for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA – which includes the naval and air forces). You might even know the income generated by the various businesses owned by the PLA.

I’m glad because you have knowledge which has escaped the ability of the various intelligence agencies around the world to accurately determine.

edintexas

NeoKong asked: “Excluding Postal Service workers?.? How the hell do you do that ?”

For what it is worth to you, here’s the answer:

The USPS is not like the previous US Post Office Department. It is a semi-independent corporation. The employees are not on regular Civil Service status for pay, benefits or retirement. The employees are unionized with the ability to negotiate for pay and benefits, the latter two points are unknown in regular CS jobs.

NeoKong

Thank you.

While the post office does not receive tax money for its operations it still must answer to Congress, which has been reluctant to agree to closing of local post offices and centers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/12/red-ink-post-office-billion-year/#ixzz1AMbxaNQv

edintexas

Gates claims he is acting on the assumption that we will be withdrawing from Iraq in 2011, and turning the war in Afghanistan over to the Afghan Army by 2014. Working on that assumption, Gates finds we can do without the number of troops we currently have. I won’t get into the rationality of cutting based on future needs while still engaged in combat operations.

I don’t have a lot of hope this assumption is more accurate than the assumption that drove the dropping of F-22 acquisition in favor of the less capable, and cheaper, F-35 (with the attendant problems which have cropped up with that program). The base for that assumption was that no nation would be capable of challenging our air supremacy for at least a couple of decades. The disclosure of an alleged advanced stealth fighter aircraft by China may prove that assumption to have been extremely erroneous.

wennejunk

And not affect the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do we really need an American Installation and 1000s of troops in Italy, Spain, France, Germany and the UK?

How about Japan?

However, beyond the troops, which you don’t have to cut are millions of contract personnel doing ??

Rather than saying we need troops cut, or contractors or weapons systems, free the military to cut where they will. Impose a budget cut of 5% and tell the military there will be another in 2 years and another two years after that.

Like all good managers, they will optimize and make the best decisions.

streiff

the Constitution doesn’t allow for the military to be funded for longer than two years at a time, not “exist in 2 year increments.” It is currently funded annually so the Constitution is safe.

I also think the Founders were bright enough to know that the military would be used to fight wars, they feared it would be used as an instrument of oppression.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

It’s because of all of the brutal naval and air wars we are fighting at the moment.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

Find me a PROFITABLE and COMPETITIVE private company that offers anything similar in terms of retirement benefits. Earn 60 years of income for 20 years of work? How does that compute?

Then add on top of that, the insane salaries they get. Seriously . . . . an immediate, across the board slash to federal wages and benefits would go a great way to evening the playing field. Wasn’t civil service supposed to be a sacrifice? Private enterprise more profitable? I’m afraid it’s the other way around, today.

The_Gadfly

I even had a subscription to his newsletter.

And then he fell into the raving loony pit; even running with a self-admitted socialist on his campaign ticket.

Pat’s just plain wrong on this one. The Moat is gone and has been since at least WWII. And his premise that we could have beaten the Germans by staying behind that moat instead of soundly thrashing them around the globe is just as wrong.

I’ll grant he has recovered some, and sometimes makes valid points these days. Unfortunately, A Republic, Not an Empire is not one of those areas.

The_Gadfly

How comforting.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

No, I’m not specifying what he’s wrong on. That would take all ay.

Pat Buchanan is a member of the left, not of the right. He opposes liberty, he supports statism, he wants government to manage the economy and our lives.

I oppose most everything he stands for, and so do most Republicans.

The_Gadfly

actually make up the bulk of the people in the military, they are the most likely to bear the brunt of the cuts.

But you are quite right about the timing of the announcement. I also find the implementation date to be interesting. He’s going to cut the numbers long after he’s left office. And for purposes of that statement, “he” can as easily refer to Gates as The 0ne. Sounds like pure PR ploy, particularly given the caveats on it.

Which to my way of thinking means Republicans should certainly look at the military for fraud and waste cuts, regardless of what “pre-emeptive” actions Gates has announced. But at the same time they need to ensure that the military is structured and staffed correctly for what is likely to be another 100 Years War.

The_Gadfly

I think I’d like to hedge our bets on those two countries for another 50 years, even if that does mean keeping more troops than we otherwise would need to.

The others, not so much.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Oh no, it is TheBoyPresident™. We’ve obviously been through this crap before. And every time it costs American lives.

earlgrey

he seems so comfortable with the MSNBC crowd it instantly turns on my skepticism.

Did he work in Nixon adminisitraiton? For some reason I thought he did. He seems like an old style Republican, and we need to stick with the more conservative types.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

And we know that means nothing. Look at Frum.

The_Gadfly

was a respectable news station. I particularly liked him on Crossfire where he was quick but happy.

Yes, he was in the Nixon administration, a speechwriter as Neil posted. He was paleocon. He wrote mostly good stuff for a while, but he also has a Wilsonian streak for protecting American jobs. Some idiot manager at a plant made the mistake of handing out pink slips to most of his workforce on a day they knew Pat was scheduled to make a campaign stop at the plant. Pat looked at a bunch of guys who were just like him only now they were out of work, with no prospects for equally well paying jobs in the future, and too close to retirement to start over. And he cracked.

Raven

In Field Grade Officers.

I can’t find a link now, but the Army Times reported a year or so ago that we had less than 1,000 soldiers per general. Let alone full colonels.

Who are these people in charge of? What do they do?
Well, they’re carrying out staff duties that used to be done by NCOs and junior officers.

Raven

Dod does Not need cuts in junior officers or enlisted. Though significant and deep cuts (and replacement, in large part by uniforms) in bureaucrats would also be nice.

The_Gadfly

but not always.

I hope and pray he one day returns to our fold. And it was truly fun to watch him machine gun libs on Crossfire back in the day.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

He played the mainstream righty on television in order to keep getting the gigs.

Common_Cents

Geez, the USPS should hire some friggen lobbyists. That’s kinda harsh!

USPS stated they lost over 8billion and are nearly tapped out of cash and borrowing so they would be bailed out by CONgress.

In their defense, they are required to prefund retirement and are now claiming they are 50B overfunded. Gee, must be a rounding error. good enough for quasi government work.

PRC Affirms USPS Overpaid
$50 Billion to Retirement Fund
OPM Must Reconsider Calculations

APWU Web News Article 064-2010, July 2, 2010

The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) released an independent actuarial report [PDF] on June 30 which confirms that the Postal Service was overcharged $50-$55 billion for payments to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) between 1972 and 2009. The report recommended an ?adjustment? of $50-$55 billion in favor of the Postal Service.

The PRC has submitted the report to Congress and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the fund. By law, OPM must reconsider its calculation of the Postal Service’s pension assets in light of the report; make any appropriate adjustments, and submit the results of its reconsideration to the Commission, the Postal Service, and Congress.

?There seems to be agreement that an updated recognition and disposition of any surplus, if it is to take place promptly, will require Congressional action,? the report noted.

The Postal Service is facing severe budget deficits due to a requirement of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) that the USPS must ?pre-fund? future retiree healthcare benefits at a cost of more than $5 billion a year for 10 years. To help restore the Postal Service to financial health, postal unions and other ?stakeholders? have been urging Congress to relieve the USPS of the pre-funding obligation ? a burden that no other government agency or private business bears.

earlgrey

I like him. I don’t always agree with him, but I love what he has done with his career.

Death_of_the_Donkey

by the very next sentence in the Constitution that called for a permanent navy. It is quite clear that the Founders intended for an army to only exist when needed and only for the period needed (hence the two year authorizations).

fpete13527

Buchanan should absolutely be confirmed as a leftist commentator.

Buchanan = 100% loser and disgrace.

fpete13527

…..as are ANY talking head who agrees with it ….like worthless Buchanan.

The military active duty ABSOLUTELY must not get cut, ESPECIALLY ARMY or MARINES – WHO ARE THE ONES DOING THE PREDOMINANT FIGHTING ON THE GROUND, IN A GROUND WAR (and who had the courage to tell Obama he is wrong)

I say there is absolutely no accident that Obama is talking about cutting Army and Marines active duty as punishment for taking the appropriate stand to NOT repeal DADT.

Active duty forces, especially Army and Marines combat forces are the CRITICAL forces that MUST remain at this strength. SOME OF THESE GUYS HAVE DONE EIGHT AND NINE TOURS….and B Hussein wants to cut back???

Clinton drove a TRAIN through cutting the military active duty forces and compounded the cuts with smokescreen numbers that were NOT funded.

ONLY NOW, even after nine years of war, are the ACTIVE DUTY ARMY and MARINE Combat forces getting where they need to be.

If Obama takes this route, then I say the House needs to make it clear to Obama that the de-funding that was initially planned is not even on the scale of what it will be …starting with the electricity going to the White House.

eburke

At one time, Pat Buchanan made sense (cf. “Right From the Beginning” and “Death of the West”), mostly back in the early 90s when he was addressing the moral rot and decay we were/are experiencing and was focusing on the battle for the cultural soul of our country.

But in recent years, as he has descended into the abyss of isolationism and protectionism, he has lost almost all credibility with me as he moves closer and closer to Ron Paul moonbat territory, especially with regard to foreign policy.

There may be a few things (mostly cultural issues) where I might find common ground with Buchanan on these days, but foreign policy ain’t one of ‘em.

Scope

When I saw these headlines glaring me in the face on Drudge this morning, my first thought was the recent revelation of the new Chinese Stealth Bomber, which is reportedly better than anything we currently have. Much of the defense budget for new equipment for our military has been put on the chopping block by Gates. Our equipment is a quarter century old. Between Iraq and Afghanistan mush of the equipment inventory has been depleted, and not replaced. So what do we do, cut the military members so we don’t need all that dang equipment anyway. Lovely. I suggest Ron Paul and his crew, along with the Liberals start building the moat out as far and wide as they can. Then all of them can go and man the watchtowers with their water pistols. On foreign policy, there is a dimes worth of difference between Paul and Obama. They’ve both told the world just how awful the United States really is.

Scope

wouldn’t it be another way of broadcasting to our enemies that if they wait until the troop numbers are cut, that’s when to attack us as we will be far more vulnerable then? I don’t know how any president, and Secretary of Defense, could possibly put this country in any more serious state of suicide.

Reading of all the cuts to the defense budget, including canceling contracts for updated equipment, I am seriously wondering if Obama is not gearing up to turn our national security over to the UN Interpol agency he granted powerful roles to, all done by executive order.

The_Gadfly

In fact, I would say the only area where he is likely to say sensible things is in the hardcore SoCon sphere. Even in the economic sphere his recent writings have been at best questionable.

The_Gadfly

You can’t write what he wrote in the 90s and not believe it.

I understand it. I understand why. I hope you never understand why, because its a bit like being able to see a Thestral in the Harry Potter books.

fpete13527

Everything about this is bad beyond bad and stupid beyond stupid and calculating for socialism beyond calculating for socialism.

Something like this pegs my tolerance meter so fast that I cant think straight.

The thing to remember though is that Obama and the DemComms DONT CARE. They want military trashed, especially Infantry, and they will do ANYTHING to force socialism and statism.

Obama wants the military diminished, especially the parts of it that are the most critical right now.

And yes the telegraphing of this(like he has already done in AFG to the detriment of all)… IS PITIFUL

fpete13527

The_Gadfly

But as I noted above in my refutation of Buchanon’s position on this issue: The Moat is Gone.

In 1967 the Israeli military fought and won a war in 6 days. George H. W. Bush did it in 100 including a full scale deployment to repel invaders when Hussein threatened our vital oil supplies*. It takes more time to train troops than it does to fight a war these days. And I don’t think I can possibly do justice to the thousands of men killed in the first days of war when we were to stupid to keep enough of a standing army to ensure our security.

Some things that exist today our founders couldn’t envision. Maybe we should amend that part of the Constitution. But frankly, what we have now is working within the framework of what they laid down. so I’d rather not open that can of worms.

Of course we aren’t talking about that specific situation, because we’ve chosen to impose a set of restrictions on ourselves that prevent a fast resolution to the current situation. As a result we are faced with quite the opposite problem (even though we still need to be prepared for the other threat): we are looking at a long term fight with an enemy who routinely think in hundreds of years. Which means the kind of short-sightedness displayed in this announcement is at best dangerous, and more likely lethal — for civilians as well as the military.

http://realpolitik-kaiser.blogspot.com/ Patrick

Sea and air are the big winners. Land armies don’t give you as much geopolitical power as the others do. Simple fact. Control the seas, control the world.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

nilram

The Marine corps is the smallest branch of the military. (Excluding the Coast Guard but the Coast Guard isn’t in the DoD) The Army however is the largest.

gpclaw

The only reason we “need” the number of troops we have now is because we insist on rebuilding. This requires greater numbers of troops because we are the ones providing security and maintaining order while the new government tries to get it’s act together.

We rolled through Iraq and Afghanistan with relative ease and a much smaller force. Maybe it’s time for a new “doctrine” when it comes to defending out country. I think our approach should go something like this: Any attack on US soil, no matter how small, will be punished with a disproportionate, overwhelming amount of force. No sticking around, no nation building. We will just simply pound the country of origin into ruin for a defined period of time (60 days?) then pack our bags and head home as quickly as we arrived. Lot’s of ordinance, but not nearly as many troops needed when compared to an occupation.

It may be a bit barbaric, but if we put everyone on notice in advance that acts of terror towards the US will result in the end of existence of the supporting nation, they only have themselves to blame for the result.

smagar

What adjectives would you use for the state employees who retire with much higher percentages of their on-the-job income?

smagar

Not so “simple,” is it?

smagar

“More rubble, less trouble” is the term for that philosophy, IIRC.

Reminds me of a story about the remote areas of the AF/PAK border, where American troops can’t establish a presence. So, they use Predator strikes instead, while the Taliban controls the ground.

As a result, here’s what life is like for Afghans living in those areas: the Taliban oppresses and tortures you daily…and every so often, things explode with no warning (PREDATOR strike).

Now, if we Americans can make sure, 100%, that none of those Afghans can ever, ever get to America, in any way/shape/form, then “more rubble less trouble” can work. But if we can’t, then we should realize that lots of those Afghans will grow up hating America, for making their homes explode every so often. And, if enough of those America-hating Afghans can get explosives and get into America, they may decide to make our shopping malls and church services explode every so often.

There ARE some benefits to nation building—I’ll list two here:

1. People in Third World nations, who’ve been told their whole lives that Americans are mean imperialists, see Americans defending and helping them. One of the favorite toys of Afghan children are toy Chinook helicopters. They remember Chinooks bringing them food during a variety of crises, while the Taliban did nothing for them.
2. If,at some point, you want other nations to be able to help themselves, and perhaps be a stabilizing force in their own regions, sometimes you have to help those nations get going. (That waa a BIG reason we invested so much in Iraq). Otherwise, you can plan on playing cop yourself, forever.

Or, you could just kill everyone.

JSobieski

but that is easier said than done.

I think that if taken on nationbuilding has to be done in one of two ways:

(1) Pick and elevate a leader who you can deal with, and don’t so much worry about the democracy thing. Kind of like how the Shah of Iran got into power. I would suggest that in the Middle East, this is probably the better way to go.

(2) Go all out to build a western-style country—-far more than military force or even building stuff, this requires an ideology/propaganda campaign in which we don’t cater to getting them to like us by having us fit in with them, but rather establishing how western style government of majority rule, minority rights, etc is superior. This is what we did to Germany and Japan. We forced Constitutions on both of these countries that made them successful examples of nation building. Japan is probably the most successful example of nation building in the history of the world in that Japan was not a Western country before WWII, but is now.

Anything between these two points is analogous to standing in the middle of the road as traffic approaches.

Any approach in the ME that does not factor in the growing rise of Islamism and does not even try to counter Islamism as an ideology seems unlikely to succeed in the long term.

Turkey had a home grown reformer who went out of his way to kick out Islamism from power. About a 100 years later, its clear which way Turkey is turning and that Turkey is not unique.

The strong horse in the ME is comprised of people who will only plot for our destruction. I don’t see the US engaged in any kind information or ideological combat against those forces.

http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

Anyone who retires should do so on their own savings. Guaranteeing income for life, unless a strict cap on pension payouts as a percentage of net profits is enforced, is the fastest way to fiscal ruin for either a private company or a government, as has been widely reported here.

Someone who retires earning $150,000 (not uncommon for a 20-year civil servant) will therefore get a yearly payment of $30,000 for the rest of their natural life. That IS insane. 20 years is nothing. Many people put in three 20-year careers.

Lets also not forget all the double-dippers. People who retire, and then are re-hired the next day and earn both their pension and a salary from the same employer on top of it. That is a big problem here in Florida. Then there are those who do 20 years for one government entity, then do another 20 years for another—-and earn two pensions.

The only just and equitable scheme for retirement is for people to save for their own retirement while they are working. This is how most people in the private sector do it, and it should be the rule across the board. ESPECIALLY in government.

http://realpolitik-kaiser.blogspot.com/ Patrick

I like Costner, but man that movie sucked.

http://realpolitik-kaiser.blogspot.com/ Patrick

Yeah, and Somalia’s not a problem either.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Cutting the Troops

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL