We all know that the Democrat Party doesn't have much use for the military. What's the big deal with running a two-front war, countering the wacko in North Korea, and preparing for messy little contingencies around Iran, anyway?
But when the Appropriations Committee actually reduces the military budget beyond what the (D) President proposed, you have bad judgment on steroids.
The amount to be allocated to the Department of Defense [DoD] cannot be ascertained, because
the DoD is funded by both the Defense and the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs
Subcommittees. But because the allocation to the Defense Subcommittee is $3.5 billion less than
the President’s request (which is assumed in the congressional budget resolution), it can be
surmised that defense grows at a slower rate than the 4.2 percent requested by the President and assumed in the budget resolution, and non-defense discretionary spending grows at a rate faster than the 11 percent in the budget.
Appropriations is run by Dave Obey, the Ultra-Lefty (D) from Wisconsin.
As Mitt Romney mentioned in an article for Human Events, the President's plan maintains the Clinton reduction from 18 Army Divisions to only 10; does not foresee a replacement for the B-52 bomber (now a 50-year-old design), and will bring the Navy fleet down to 240 or less vessels--not even close to the 313 the Navy thinks it needs to carry out potential missions.
Maybe Obama and Obey plan to bring US troops back from Germany, Korea, and Kosovo (not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan.) That would certainly reduce spending requirements.
But they haven't mentioned it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The decimation of the military is utterly inexcusable and we are all guilty of this neglect.
Beginning with Desert Storm in the reign of George I we sent reservists and guardsmen to the front lines -- something unheard of in the Vietnam era.
Our coastal defense network has been evaporated (witness the number of closed military facilities in California) and, as Newt Gingrich aptly pointed out, heaven help us if there is a real attack.
The point is that you don't pay for a military as a luxuty item but rather it's an investment AGAINST having to use them.
As for Dave Obey, I am personally disappointed in him. Dave is supposed to be one of the "brains" on Capitol Hill but this boner is an example of rectal-cranial inversion.
Wonder what Mel Laird would say.
The problem is not necessarily 'coastal defenses;' there's a famous quote from a Japanese military guy to the effect that invading the US would be a suicide mission--after all, most US residents have rifles. (Thank God, so far...)
And it's worse than I posted. Anti-Missle defenses will be cut back, AND R&D of same will be cut back, too.
By the way, you might want to find out exactly who required the USAR/NG forces to go active for Iraq. There are a lot of Reserve/NG staff and general officers who really, really, really wanted actual combat experience for their troops...
Ah, so what.
They can can sh_t-can the whole idea of missile defense while they are at it too.
The idea that Obama is decimating the military because his administration doesn't want to put money into a big, slow airplane designed to drop nukes on the Russians is fine by me. As for our Navy fleet, we have enough firepower in the Pacific to eliminate the entire Chinese fleet in something like a week and a half. I'll hold off on building my bombshelter for now. Most of these "projects" are simply toys for boys.
Now if the administration wants to gut funding for troop protection measures (body armor, Hum-V reinforcement, etc.) that's a different story entirely.
My guess is that the Neo-cons are really gonna have a hard time with these types of military cuts. It really puts the damper on their future plans for steamrolling (liberating) the Iranians, North Koreans, etc.
Strupp, why the hell call it the D of DEFENSE if missile-DEFENSE is not part of the game?
I wouldn't mind losing California and the East Coast to the Norks and Iran (respectively), but some of the residents out there might quibble with that.
And you might re-consider your 'six weeks' yappaflappa when you understand the capabilities of PRC/Russki sea-to-sea missile technology. It's really, really good--there's no US ship-defense tool which works against it.
We CAN agree on foreign adventurism. It's a good way to drain resources. And that's exactly what PRC (et al) want.
The problem that I have with missile defense is that after the ridiculus amount of money and resources we've thrown at the technology, we have exactly jack squat. In other words, it has been a horribly bad investment that I'm not interested in continuing for another 8 years.
Secondly, if we are talking PRC-U.S. conflicts involving sea-to-sea missiles we are talking all-out naval warfare and, most likely, world war. I'm pretty damn sure those sea-to-sea missiles won't be tipped with conventional warheads so the point is rather mute.
This brings up the broader theme. The possibility that nations the size of the U.S. and the PRC would enter into a strictly conventional war is virtually nil. This goes for North Korea and the U.S. as well considering their "sponsor" next door and our Japanese and S. Korean allies.
"Exactly jack-squat."
Wrong. It's been demonstrated to work--three times, IIRC, and they were not "pansy" demonstrations guaranteed to win no matter what.
I don't know that PRC would use theater-nukes on individual ships.
AND, if you grant some large conflict w/PRC, you automatically abrogate your argument against a new B-52 class bomber. You are correct that it will not likely be a conventional war--thus militating for bomber capacity.
Bomber capability isn't necessary in either case, especially in nuclear war. The idea of "tactical nukes" is a joke in and of itself considering you need only a handful of ICBM's to take care of business. A couple of missile silos outside of Fargo, ND. could pretty much ice any country by itself if necessary. I don't think one needs DOD clearance to know that.
As for missile defense.....we've been playing around with that idea for what? How many years now? And you are telling me that 3 tests were successful? That's excellent.
OK, dump the bomber.
But put it INTO defense. The program began IIRC 1984 or so...
So in 20 years, we've learned to get one object traveling at over 2,000 MPH to see and hit another object traveling at over 2,000 MPH, including vectoring, wind drag/adjustments, etc.
Not exactly like shooting at a deer 1000 yards away standing stock-still. Not even like shooting a RUNNING deer at 400 yards.
I should add that those objects began their journeys several thousand miles apart, at different times, and collide at about 15 miles++ above the earth.
Sounds complicated. Prolly gonna take a few trillion dollars over about 20 years to get something even close to working correctly.
Post a Comment