View Full Version : cutting military spending
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/keller-honey-i-shrunk-the-pentagon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&smid=fb-share
It can be done. And should be done. Sometimes I wonder if we should just go over the cliff, so to speak. Well, maybe not completely, but if we stand very very close to the edge and look down, maybe that will scare us into actually doing something.
I do understand the military mindset, and I know these folks won't do this on their own, but need to be forced. We need to trim, and resume the rounds of base closings. And I don't think we really need 4 branches of military. Of course these guys would never willingly give up their territory, but maybe it's time we make them play together.
But, I'm afraid it will never happen. In fact, I'm pretty sure the 'big deal', whatever form it takes, won't have very many cuts to the military at all. The generals, and some congress persons, will start with the fear mongering and saber rattling to protect their territory. Toss grandma under the bus if you must, but protect the military industrial complex at all costs!
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
One of the most prescient comments of the entire 20th century, from career soldier Dwight Eisenhower. Too bad his successors have mostly ignored him.
iris lily
11-19-12, 11:15am
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/keller-honey-i-shrunk-the-pentagon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&smid=fb-share
It can be done. And should be done. Sometimes I wonder if we should just go over the cliff, so to speak. ...
Over the weekend a strange phenomena took over the soul of Iris and peggy and merged us into one.
This morning I had exactly the same thought--just let the "fiscal cliff" happen. It trims $1 trillion from all US programs, defense and domestic. Get on with it.
rodeosweetheart
11-19-12, 11:25am
Over the weekend a strange phenomena took over the soul of Iris and peggy and merged us into one.
This morning I had exactly the same thought--just let the "fiscal cliff" happen. It trims $1 trillion from all US programs, defense and domestic. Get on with it.
Maybe so. I mistrust anything with a soundbite name like "fiscal cliff"--they drum it into our heads, get us to buy into it--when this is happening I always feel we are being deliberately misled--like a magic trick.
Over the weekend a strange phenomena took over the soul of Iris and peggy and merged us into one.
First twinkies and now this. Maybe the Mayans were right.
Maybe so. I mistrust anything with a soundbite name like "fiscal cliff"--they drum it into our heads, get us to buy into it--when this is happening I always feel we are being deliberately misled--like a magic trick.
Exactly my thoughts as well, rodeosweetheart. Once some government spin doctor assigns a kichy moniker like “fiscal cliff” to an action like this you can rest assured there is exactly zero chance anything will ever actually happen. As much as I would love to believe Washington's hand could be forced, I think in reality we should prepare for a decade or so of one band aid on top of another with no real healing in sight.
iris lily
11-19-12, 12:09pm
First twinkies and now this. Maybe the Mayans were right.
Oh the Mayans. gulp, that's it! haha
ApatheticNoMore
11-19-12, 12:26pm
I have had the thought that the fiscal cliff is going to be better than any deal we get. I absolutely don't trust the politicians making the deal. Heck they might even drag Social Security into it which by the way is not part of the fiscal cliff itself AT ALL. So if they do, if you actually care about maintaing social programs, that is your clear signal that you are getting a WORSE deal that the fiscal cliff IMO.
OTOH if austerity was the answer, well how's that working out in Europe? Basically if you cut govenrment and the economy contracts because of it, your debt might not decrease at all (not just as a percentage of GDP, but reduced tax revenues, increased use of unemployment etc.).
Exactly my thoughts as well, rodeosweetheart. Once some government spin doctor assigns a kichy moniker like “fiscal cliff” to an action like this you can rest assured there is exactly zero chance anything will ever actually happen. As much as I would love to believe Washington's hand could be forced, I think in reality we should prepare for a decade or so of one band aid on top of another with no real healing in sight.
Yes, that's the whole reason it got dubbed the fiscal cliff, to scare people with imminent doom. That way politicians that stop it from happening and backtrack from its goal can tout themselves as "saving us from the fiscal cliff." Yet, these are the same politicians that created the fiscal cliff in the first place to "save us from runaway budget deficits".
Like others here I would just as soon see us go over it. A lot of the spending that would get whacked is military, and anything that will get that cut is a good thing in my opinion. There's simply no reason we need to spend more on defense then every other country combined. No one can convince me that the world is THAT dangerous of a place.
I have had the thought that the fiscal cliff is going to be better than any deal we get. I absolutely don't trust the politicians making the deal. Heck they might even drag Social Security into it which by the way is not part of the fiscal cliff itself AT ALL. So if they do, if you actually care about maintaing social programs, that is your clear signal that you are getting a WORSE deal that the fiscal cliff IMO.
OTOH if austerity was the answer, well how's that working out in Europe? Basically if you cut govenrment and the economy contracts because of it, your debt might not decrease at all (not just as a percentage of GDP, but reduced tax revenues, increased use of unemployment etc.).
I definitely think we're going to get an 11th hour deal, with lots of "we don't like this but we don't have time to fix it" speeches, when in reality I expect they mostly know and agree on what's going to happen already - they're just waiting until the last minute to announce. Kind of like how the NDAA happened - no one will admit to liking it, but I don't remember anyone fighting it, either.
The Storyteller
11-19-12, 1:49pm
Recession and nigh 10% unemployment if we go over the cliff (or curb or slope, as some call it), so they say. Are y'all ready for that?
There's simply no reason we need to spend more on defense then every other country combined. No one can convince me that the world is THAT dangerous of a place.
It is and its not. The only reason we need to spend that much is because we police the rest of the world. Some of that makes sense, but we should charge more for the service when we do it. Otherwise I'm pretty much ok with letting the rest of the world settle their own differences and watching to see where the dust settles.
Recession and nigh 10% unemployment if we go over the cliff (or curb or slope, as some call it), so they say. Are y'all ready for that?
Anything that includes sizeably cutting deficit spending is going to do that. That's the part they are going to whack (gracefully postpone) to avoid the cliff.
ApatheticNoMore
11-19-12, 2:19pm
Recession and nigh 10% unemployment if we go over the cliff (or curb or slope, as some call it), so they say. Are y'all ready for that?
I think I've BEEN READY. Unemployment has NEVER dipped below 10% in California since the recession started. It's over 10% now. 10% around here would lead to headlines like: "California economy shows strong signs of improvement, unemployment continues to drop". I've made certain economic discisions precisely in light of how bad things are.
I'd be perfectly happy if Obama, on the first day of his new term, announced we were cutting US military spending 50% over the next year. Then 5% a year thereafter, until we reach some sane spending level.
It is not our job to be world policeman, a job which we seem spectacularly bad at considering how much we throw at the problem. It is time for other nations to step up and take care of their own problems and regions.
I'd be perfectly happy if Obama, on the first day of his new term, announced we were cutting US military spending 50% over the next year. Then 5% a year thereafter, until we reach some sane spending level.
It is not our job to be world policeman, a job which we seem spectacularly bad at considering how much we throw at the problem. It is time for other nations to step up and take care of their own problems and regions.
I will second Bae on this. Fighter jets that costs 100 of millions each used to fly in air shows. What a waste.
I'd be perfectly happy if Obama, on the first day of his new term, announced we were cutting US military spending 50% over the next year. Then 5% a year thereafter, until we reach some sane spending level.
It is not our job to be world policeman, a job which we seem spectacularly bad at considering how much we throw at the problem. It is time for other nations to step up and take care of their own problems and regions.
Here here.
Over the weekend a strange phenomena took over the soul of Iris and peggy and merged us into one.
By the way, I was ROFL (with puppy) over this. And then it was scary.
I'd be perfectly happy if Obama, on the first day of his new term, announced we were cutting US military spending 50% over the next year. Then 5% a year thereafter, until we reach some sane spending level.
I'd be pretty happy with that, too. Unfortunately our military is not only the largest in the world, but also one of the largest employers in the world. Cutting military spending and improving employment at the same time seem to me to be a little in conflict unless some other concessions are added?
I actually suspect Romney's mysterious proposed increase in military spending was some sort of Romney stimulus package.
We could keep the jobs by using some of the saved money to improve the infrastructure in the US. This would help to keep people employed in a useful task instead of building WMDs.
I'd be pretty happy with that, too. Unfortunately our military is not only the largest in the world, but also one of the largest employers in the world. Cutting military spending and improving employment at the same time seem to me to be a little in conflict unless some other concessions are added?
This "waste endless quantities of money and lives on the military to provide employment " always strikes me as fundamentally wasteful, and downright evil. If we decide we *can* actually afford that level of spending, I'd rather see hospitals, schools, railroad lines, bridges, ports, gardens, affordable housing, and a hundred other things built with the money.
But we can't afford that level of spending. It's just a house of cards. Keeping it going "to maintain employment" is ludicrous.
ApatheticNoMore
11-19-12, 4:50pm
What if, the more military you have, the more you want to use? How many people are going to be drone bombed for that "jobs program" today? As a means to create jobs, if we were a very peaceful nation, um it would be extremely wasteful, dig a hole - fill it up again - dig another - fill it up, that's about what you could say for it. But given the actual reality is that the U.S. government is an extreme warmonger that is what makes it outright immoral to encourage more military = more wars = more deaths.
Also supposedly the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of oil in the world. Now given this, if the military takes steps to go green (and it seems to be to some degree),those steps have huge reverberations. But um, the single largest oil consumer in the world. What is the oil use cost per military job? Anyone got those stats? The money should go into switching off of fossil fuels instead.
I think Rogar and Bae both have it pretty much right. The military is a massive jobs program and a corporate welfare program for the defense industry. If we think we can afford to spend the kind of money that it costs then we should be spending it on something productive, not destructive.
But we can't afford that level of spending. It's just a house of cards. Keeping it going "to maintain employment" is ludicrous.
The little bit of internet browsing I did on the subject claims that the same amount of dollars spent in another sector would actually be more productive in terms of jobs. As you might suppose, military spending is not only huge, but also wasteful.
Point being, though, that slashing military spending as a stand alone item will have some consequences in the job market.
Public radio had an interesting feature on the increase of U.S. oil production. We are anticipated to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia in the near future and are increasingly less dependent on foreign oil imports. "If" there was ever a real or perceived need to protect mid-east oil supplies as a matter of national security, that need and the need of military might in the mid-east is less than it has been, and just another reason to cut back on military spending.
Public radio had an interesting feature on the increase of U.S. oil production. We are anticipated to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia in the near future and are increasingly less dependent on foreign oil imports.
Its a lie covered up by a statistical shell game. The only reason our actual oil production will ever approach the Saudi's is because theirs is declining (that's bad for us, too). The newest petro gem we have, the Bakken formation in North Dakota, is producing about 610,000 barrels per day. The US consumption, as of 2010 (deeper in the recession) was 19.15 million barrels per day. We can beat the pants off the House of Saud in total energy production because of all the things everybody here likes to poo-poo. We can start celebrating today as long as no one minds more coal, more fracking, more nukes, more off shore drilling... The other thing to keep in mind is productivity and depletion figures. The last report I read estimated 40% of the wells in the Bakken were depleted within a year and the productivity of new wells has declined by over 25% as the best reservoirs are tapped out. Simply put, we still need Saudi oil. In a big way. However, a little creative rearranging on the global markets would put the price of a bushel of wheat exactly where the price of a barrel of oil is. We can bring the troops home when that happens.
I'm also perfectly happy burning cheap Saudi oil now, in exchange for pretty pieces of paper with pictures of George Washington, while keeping our oil carefully reserved in the ground for the moment. When we get to the Mad Max part of the script, we'll still have local oil...
ApatheticNoMore
11-19-12, 8:37pm
Public radio had an interesting feature on the increase of U.S. oil production. We are anticipated to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia in the near future and are increasingly less dependent on foreign oil imports.
Shocking to hear it, yes. So we are becoming a Petro state, those who said so were right. Hard not to be revulsed at that revelation (I realize there is some controversy about the claim, but the IEA is not nothing).
All Obama's environmental cred (as if he should have much), all a distraction to the fact a petro state is being built and hiding in plain sight. And that maybe that is precisely the plan, with all the environmental damage that entails. What did you think they are building our future (though it may be a very short term one) on a knowledge economy, on science, on technology, on etc.? What if they aren't? What if they've long since given up trying for that (so why even fund education really? geologists? yea ok ..). What if it's only far dirtier jobs they have in mind (not manufacturing either, you can actually acheive pretty broad prosperity wtih that, but rather a resource extraction economy plain and simple).
Pop quiz time: Q: Who has the biggest air force in the world?
A: Why, the U.S. of course!
Q: Who has the 2nd biggest air force in the world?
A: Why, the U.S. Navy of course!
It's the ridiculous redundancy that gets to me.
Wasn't it Winona LaDuke who said: "We don't want a bigger piece of the pie, we want a different pie!"
Also I wish they'd stop calling Social Security and Medicare "Entitlement Programs" They are INSURANCE programs.
You pay into them all you working life so you can have some security in old age. If the gov't would stop dipping into them they'd be fine. Further more Social Security would get a big boost and be much more fair if it had a floor instead of a ceiling. On the first few thousand per person in your home you pay nothing, this could be the poverty level or whatever, fairly low. But once you pass that level you pay on every dollar no matter how high your income goes. The way it is now is totally regressive.
Just ask me I got all the answers:laff:
I'm also perfectly happy burning cheap Saudi oil now, in exchange for pretty pieces of paper with pictures of George Washington, while keeping our oil carefully reserved in the ground for the moment. When we get to the Mad Max part of the script, we'll still have local oil...
It's not that we have a realistic choice anyway, but I agree with you bae. Of course our subsidizing of the Kingdom's lifestyle is part of what keeps the spot price artificially cheap, but I digress...
It's not that we have a realistic choice anyway, but I agree with you bae. Of course our subsidizing of the Kingdom's lifestyle is part of what keeps the spot price artificially cheap, but I digress...
One of my geology friends pretty agrees with what Gregg was getting at for domestic production. Since exploration and technology is still developing, actual reserves are unknown. But areas using extraction through new technologies seem to be playing out pretty quickly. I guess there are the tar sands.
Maybe peak oil and the tipping point for climate change will occur simultaneously.
Maybe peak oil and the tipping point for climate change will occur simultaneously.
Maybe they already have.
ApatheticNoMore
11-20-12, 12:30pm
A pity, the hope was that peak oil would prevent catastrophe but it will come too late.
The Storyteller
11-20-12, 12:35pm
Living in oil country, we have noticed most of the wells are idle most of the time. The only time they are active is when the price of oil goes up enough to make it worth while to pump. It is apparently cheaper to import, most of the time.
Not sure how that works, exactly. But when there is a price spike, we see the little dinosaurs bobbing up and down everywhere. Price drops, they go back into hibernation.
For the longest time, I thought they were broken or oiled out.
There are multiple wells on my Grandparent's land in NW Oklahoma. Most were drilled in the 70's and early 80's. They are VERY good wells. Nice reservoirs of light, sweet (actually blue colored) crude. Texaco, who owns the wells, has not taken a single drop of oil from them since the mid-1980's. My mom and her siblings get small monthly checks from the natural gas that is merely bled off to control pressure. That's it.
As bae stated above, imported oil is cheap. The oil companies know full well that their industry is heavily subsidized right now, militarily and otherwise, but there is no absolute guarantee that will continue forever. They are also acutely aware of a diminishing supply worldwide. From the business perspective how comforting do you think it is to be able to look at domestic reserves that are actually growing thanks to recovery technologies? The day will come when those reserves are easier, cheaper and safer to bring to market than foreign oil. The odds are very good that the price at that time will be exceptionally high because either foreign supplies have been depleted or there is geopolitical conflict in producing regions or both. No industry in the world is better at long term strategic planning than big oil. Exxon Mobile won’t be the first trillion dollar company because they got lucky.
The Storyteller
11-20-12, 7:24pm
I haven't bothered to read the entire thread, mainly because it is a waste of time, but I thought I would throw out a somewhat contrarian opinion from some of the anti-military posts I have read.
While I do think our military could use some streamlining and downsizing (we certainly don't need to have the firepower to overwhelm our nearest competitor three times over), I do like having a powerful military. I like even more that we are on the absolute cutting edge on pretty much everything militarily. While we have all these gnats (read: terrorists) all over the place that are basically an irritant, there is no country in the world that would even think of taking us on. Ever. That makes me feel safe.
I also don't bemoan the roll of world's policeman. I'm not too keen on throwing our weight around to protect corporate interests, but I love the idea of being able to occasionally help the little guy. Particularly during genocides.
I'm surprised I don't see more conservatives objecting to all of this. Allan is surprisingly silent, for instance, and I know Yossarian has a different point of view. Or is it that it is a Democrat who is the Commander in Chief?
I am curious how many of you anti-military types ever served, yourself. I know Free did, but I'm thinking there aren't many more. And no, Peggy. Military brats don't count as serving in the military. ;)
Maybe some of you would have a different point of view had you actually served.
The Storyteller
11-20-12, 7:28pm
I think I've BEEN READY. Unemployment has NEVER dipped below 10% in California since the recession started.
I take you are gainfully employed. :)
If we allow everything in this cliff to kick in, that 10% will go even higher.
We do not need 100 million dollar stealth fighters to attack almost cave men armed with an AK47. We also do not need a Air Force, Navy Air Force, and a Marine Air Force.
I just read that 70% of retired 3 & 4 star generals go to work for the military industrial complex after retirement.
I haven't bothered to read the entire thread, mainly because it is a waste of time, but I thought I would throw out a somewhat contrarian opinion from some of the anti-military posts I have read.
While I do think our military could use some streamlining and downsizing (we certainly don't need to have the firepower to overwhelm our nearest competitor three times over), I do like having a powerful military. I like even more that we are on the absolute cutting edge on pretty much everything militarily. While we have all these gnats (read: terrorists) all over the place that are basically an irritant, there is no country in the world that would even think of taking us on. Ever. That makes me feel safe.
I also don't bemoan the roll of world's policeman. I'm not too keen on throwing our weight around to protect corporate interests, but I love the idea of being able to occasionally help the little guy. Particularly during genocides.
I'm surprised I don't see more conservatives objecting to all of this. Allan is surprisingly silent, for instance, and I know Yossarian has a different point of view. Or is it that it is a Democrat who is the Commander in Chief?
I am curious how many of you anti-military types ever served, yourself. I know Free did, but I'm thinking there aren't many more. And no, Peggy. Military brats don't count as serving in the military. ;)
Maybe you would have a different point of view had you actually served.
NO, not a brat. And by the way, I have always hated that expression. My kids are NOT brats, thank you very much.
My husband served for 30 years,(including Iraq) which, if anyone is familiar with military service, means I served for 30 years. I served, without pay, at every base we were stationed at. It is expected of the spouse, especially as the military member climbs in rank. I've done everything from pitching mail at Christmas to welcoming on the tarmac, and settling new families to Japan, to meeting and processing pregnant women with young children in the middle of the night, in Germany, when a forward base needed to be evacuated, quickly. Sat on countless committees, attended countless meetings, comforted families and took care of kids while parents were out of the country.
All this has absolutely nothing to do with the realities of streamlining the military. We don't need 4 branches of military, especially as each and every one is huge by world standards in their own right. The military is redundant. Processes are redundant. Most are in place to provide jobs for higher ups and contractors. Ask the leaders. Every one will say yeah, it's redundant and we don't need those people over there. Not a one will say, 'and my job is unnecessary' although chances are it is.
When congress persons stand and start the fear mongering, all you need to do is follow the money. Dollars to donuts he/she has a shipyard, or aircraft maker, or some such in their district/state. Base closings are torturous affairs. Not because of 'readiness' but because the congressperson has that base in their district. Period. They are all for base closings. Just not in their backyard.
Sure, we need a strong military. We do. But we can trim a great deal and still be quite strong. Some here have suggested using the suddenly out of work military to rebuild our infrastructure. I think that's a capitol idea! Same expenditure, or actually less, and more benefit for us here at home. A little nation building here at home. If they must they can call it home force, or something like that, and gradually move the active duty military over to this 'new army'. And, just to make the neocons a little more comfortable, this new 'home force' could be called up to defend our shores, if necessary. But their primary duty would be shoring up us. Actually, I think it's a splendid idea! An active training program that gets stuff done and sends young people out there with maybe some skills besides killing people and breaking their stuff.
So, did you serve time in the military? How much? I just want to know from where you are coming.
The Storyteller
11-20-12, 9:34pm
All this has absolutely nothing to do with the realities of streamlining the military. We don't need 4 branches of military,
I agree. All we need are the Marines. And the Navy to ferry them around. :)
JaneV2.0
11-20-12, 10:00pm
"Maybe some of you would have a different point of view had you actually served."
As far as I know, though most of the men in my family served in the military, few of the women have. The Marines wanted me, but I demurred. My father served in the Pacific Theater (New Guinea, The Philippines) as an infantry captain, saw a lot of action, was shot and injured falling off a cliff. He was no fan of military adventurism, and reliably voted for Oregon's anti-war senators Hatfield and Packwood. He's not here anymore, so I took it upon myself to speak for him.
Most of my family is military -- both of my grandfathers and several of my cousins (apparently skips a generation). Most of them support getting rid of the idea of military interventionism as a policy.
I agree. All we need are the Marines. And the Navy to ferry them around. :)
Ah ha! You were a marine. No wonder! All you muscle men want to do is fight fight fight! But you aren't squat without the Air Force plowing the way first!;)
I'm not anti-military. Not at all. I can just see so many ways to streamline and save tons of money, and still have the biggest, baddest military in the world. We have gotten so bloated we aren't even competing with the world anymore, but with ourselves. Each branch plays the 'if he gets that then I get this' game, and we all pay for for this internal arms race. Enough is enough!
But I don't think you will find a single republican who will admit we need to do this, even if he/she believes we do simply because that is supposedly their 'thing' and their base will drag them down to it.
Unfortunately I don't think the democrats have the stomach for it either because of the not-in-my-backyard protectionism.
The Storyteller
11-21-12, 11:38am
Ah ha! You were a marine. No wonder! All you muscle men want to do is fight fight fight! But you aren't squat without the Air Force plowing the way first!;)
We don't need the civilian branch of the US armed forces. We have our own air force.
I don't think everyone here is anti-military just because they want to trim it, but there are strains here and there in this discussion that I do consider anti-military. Since my service was during Vietnam and I well remember the disdain and outright hatred by some "anti-war" folks for those of us who served, that doesn't sit well with me.
There is a difference between anti-war, and anti-military.
Like so many discussions here, though, the question is pretty much moot. Democrats are no more likely to tackle this than they are gun control because of the political price they would pay, and as you hint, any Republican who touches it will be pilloried by the wing nuts. But it would take a Republican to do it, just as it took a Democratic president to bring about welfare reform. With the political climate as it now appears, there is no way that is going to happen.
The Storyteller
11-21-12, 11:47am
I also question the reasoning for fewer branches. Which one would you eliminate? Thinking we could do without any of them betrays a profound lack of understanding of the very different rolls each branch plays. If you eliminated a branch, you would have to shift the duties and focus of that branch to one of the others, with a commensurate swelling of the ranks to off set, and it wouldn't be done nearly as well. The Marines are not very good at the long, slow slog, and the army isn't very good as a spearhead force that penetrates deep and fast... the latter of which the Iraq invasion so amply demonstrated.
I also question the reasoning for fewer branches. Which one would you eliminate? Thinking we could do without any of them betrays a profound lack of understanding of the very different rolls each branch plays. If you eliminated a branch, you would have to shift the duties and focus of that branch to one of the others, with a commensurate swelling of the ranks to off set, and it wouldn't be done nearly as well.
Agreed. To me changing the expectations would have to come first. Changing to a decidedly domestic policy rather than international cop to be precise. And I am, in fact, very much pro-military. I just think it should be much, much smaller, but still the best equipped most highly trained force we can muster.
Gregg, I agree with you. Our focus seems to be war making, not peace making...but no member of the military should ever have to go in harm's way without the very best equipment and training. We're happy to let the Pentagon redecorate offices...but not necessarily take care of those who are in battle.
I also question the reasoning for fewer branches. Which one would you eliminate? Thinking we could do without any of them betrays a profound lack of understanding of the very different rolls each branch plays. If you eliminated a branch, you would have to shift the duties and focus of that branch to one of the others, with a commensurate swelling of the ranks to off set, and it wouldn't be done nearly as well. The Marines are not very good at the long, slow slog, and the army isn't very good as a spearhead force that penetrates deep and fast... the latter of which the Iraq invasion so amply demonstrated.
I don't mean to just eliminate it whole cloth, but integrate one into the other. We don't need 3 air forces, for instance, just one. So maybe the mission changes a bit and gets tweaked here and there to fit the new combined forces. Maybe even separate missions within one Air Force, but without redundancy. You could give air support to one force, and combine ground forces into another. And actually, the air support could be combined with the naval forces as that is a huge tasking of the navy. Sure, the ground force branch would be bigger than the army or marines alone, but smaller than the two combined as it would be a leaner, meaner branch. Same with the navy/air force branch. I would leave the coast guard as it is now as they serve a totally different tasking vital to all other maritime duties of our country not war related.
Things change, and war, and how we conduct war, has changed. We need to change with that. We can do it, but there is just too much protectionism going on.
The Storyteller
11-21-12, 6:34pm
Well, since the Marine Corps is actually already integrated into and part of the Navy, there are technically only two air forces. And they have very different roles. I don't see USAF taking off of aircraft carriers. The planes on those ships need to be under command of the admiral in charge so there is a clear chain of command. And while wars change, geography does not. Just because we are fighting a desert war now does not mean we will in the future. There will always be beachheads and oceans. Granted, we are so much more powerful than other countries now it is unlikely we will fight a straight up war with anyone any time soon. It will be skirmishes here and there with rag tag terrorists. But it is possible. And we should be ready for the possible.
And there is already a leaner, meaner branch of ground forces. It's called the United States Marine Corps. Seriously. When Rumsfeld started talking that nonsense about a leaner meaner force, he started describe what is and always has been the Marines. That showed his ignorance right off the bat, so I was not surprised when he made such SNAFU out of the Iraq invasion. Sure enough, he took the army in running all over itself into Bagdad and failed to sweep up behind it, leaving a complete mess in its wake.
I share y'all's view that we can do better and be more efficient, but eliminating branches of service or major components of them is not the best way to go about it.
. We don't need 4 branches of military
That's five - can't forget the bastard, forgotten step-child of the armed forces - the coast guard :-) who actually do go to war too (and who lifted the ban on women in combat back in the '70's and the female rescue swimmers can even serve on other military special forces units - and do!) and I served with many, many guys who did long tours in Vietnam on patrol boats and every other war before and since. They just paint their white boats Navy Battleship Gray and fall under Navy command in times of war - including the current ones.
I completely agree with storyteller about needing a strong and sophisticated military - abeit one that is much more streamlined and utilized in a more conservative and financially sound manner. While I do see alot of redundancy, I don't think there should be a combining of the services. Each one has a mission that requires seperate airforces or ships or boots-on-the-ground fighting units for them to be effective. The armed forces is also not only a huge employer for the defense industry, but it is often the ONLY option many people have at decent paid on-the-job training in a technical field as well as a way to pay for college once out of the service. It is one of the largest social job programs for low income, often impoverished, kids just out of high school who have no hopes of going to college or a trade school. Who's only opportunities in life may be flipping burgers for minimum wage at Mickey D's for life. Going into the service also offers people who may be discriminated against based on race or gender in the civilian workforce a place to have much greater opportunities. I know that as a female getting out of high school in 1975 there was absolutely NOTHING for me out in the civilian world except traditional female jobs like typing or nurse. I didn't have money for college or trade school so it would have been flipping burgers or cleaning bedpans. Going into the service allowed me an opportunity to do things I never would have been able to do in civilian life - things that as a female were not even open to me. Plus I had job training in a technical skill as well as was able to go to college after I got out. So reducing the military also reduces those opportunities for young people.
A photo for Storyteller: And the cg cutter Mellon during the vietnam war. I was stationed on it afterwards.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1065&d=1354139088http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1066&d=1354139874
That's five - can't forget the bastard, forgotten step-child of the armed forces - the coast guard :-) who actually do go to war too (and who lifted the ban on women in combat back in the '70's and the female rescue swimmers can even serve on other military special forces units - and do!) and I served with many, many guys who did long tours in Vietnam on patrol boats and every other war before and since. They just paint their white boats Navy Battleship Gray and fall under Navy command in times of war - including the current ones.
I completely agree with storyteller about needing a strong and sophisticated military - abeit one that is much more streamlined and utilized in a more conservative and financially sound manner. While I do see alot of redundancy, I don't think there should be a combining of the services. Each one has a mission that requires seperate airforces or ships or boots-on-the-ground fighting units for them to be effective. The armed forces is also not only a huge employer for the defense industry, but it is often the ONLY option many people have at decent paid on-the-job training in a technical field as well as a way to pay for college once out of the service. It is one of the largest social job programs for low income, often impoverished, kids just out of high school who have no hopes of going to college or a trade school. Who's only opportunities in life may be flipping burgers for minimum wage at Mickey D's for life. Going into the service also offers people who may be discriminated against based on race or gender in the civilian workforce a place to have much greater opportunities. I know that as a female getting out of high school in 1975 there was absolutely NOTHING for me out in the civilian world except traditional female jobs like typing or nurse. I didn't have money for college or trade school so it would have been flipping burgers or cleaning bedpans. Going into the service allowed me an opportunity to do things I never would have been able to do in civilian life - things that as a female were not even open to me. Plus I had job training in a technical skill as well as was able to go to college after I got out. So reducing the military also reduces those opportunities for young people.
A photo for Storyteller: And the cg cutter Mellon during the vietnam war. I was stationed on it afterwards.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1065&d=1354139088http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1066&d=1354139874
Spartana, if you would read just two posts up, number 47 I think, you would see that I didn't forget the Coast Guard. In fact, I recommend not touching it at all, as it serves a vital non-war function for us all along our vast shoreline. so, don't think we forgot you...
As far as eliminating some services, again, if y'all would re-read what I wrote, I said I wouldn't just eliminate whole cloth but integrate.
So, the captain of the ship needs to be in control of the planes on his ship. I agree. Just as each base commander needs to be in charge of his planes and pilots. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a leaner, combined force. There is more than one ship as there is more than one base, but the commanders of both have control. That's why they get the big bucks! ;)
You all who are familiar with the military know there is an internal arms race. For money and 'toys' in the form of equipment and manpower, although the mechanical 'toys' always wins out. And he who gets the most funding wins... It needs to stop. If we are to move forward in a reasonable way, as a nation, it needs to stop.
Using the military as a jobs training program is a non starter in my book. Why not take that same commitment, and training, and obligation, and apply it to infrastructure in OUR country? The funding would be the same, but the benefit to US would be tremendous! And something everyone would see and appreciate. Create a real jobs corps that demanded the same type of commitment as the military, but with an inward vision. Think of what we could accomplish! Think of the grand advances we could make in our own country! We could win the 'race' by simply applying a third of what we use now for redundancy to us!
Don't you think that would be a good use of government? Actually using it as the tool that it is? For all of us.:)
Well I was just joking about including the coast guard - although we have been known to brave the ocean deeps and get our knees a bit wet :-)! And even in peacetime they go all over the world from the arctic to the antarctic, Japan to Africa and everywhere in between doing law enforcement of various kinds - especially in Asia and off the coasts of south and central america. And of course it is funded differently from Homeland Security money rather then the defense dept money.
I understand what you are saying and to some extent agree, but from my view the Navy aviation (and coast guard and marine aviation divisions too) serve a different function then say the airforce. . Many of the airforce fighter jets, as well as all the big bombers and recon planes, they have function very differently from the Navy (Alan, who was airforce, can probably explain the difference better). So I feel that each service should remain seperate. I agree that each service can become much leaner too, and think they can and yet still retain their individual missions and structure.
As for job training with the military, one problem with having government pay for infrastructure programs for job training in our country is that you have other employers in the private sector - and especially unionized jobs - that really scream bloody hell if they are not awared the contracts that will be given to public sector employees instead. Giving trade jobs or even high-tech training jobs to low cost government training-employees takes the money (and food and shelter) away from already trained and experienced private sector workers - those same workers who are paying taxes to fund those work training jobs. It's the same reasons the trade unions get all over the prision systems when they try to use cheap or free inmate labor - you are taking their jobs away from them when you use inmate labor. And what about all the high tech jobs? The military trains people for of the highest of high tech jobs on the planet - jobs that take years of of on-the-job military training to achieve (and lets not forget pilots too). Those who currently hold those kind of jobs in the private sector (often former military) will be displaced by the lower wage, less experienced government trainee. So I'm not saying it can't be done, just that there are far reaching consequenses to having a governement, taxpayer supported mass training and employment program to take over the jobs that are currently held by others.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.