Thoughts on military budget cuts

[CLARENCE 2015!]

A post in the Fantasy election got me thinking and I wanted to put this into words for you all… I believe that the national defense is the one thing every one in America agree s should be the perview  of the federal govt- which is why I wonder why liberals and libertarians always pop a hard one for cutting it. But the reality is it will be cut and here is what I believe can be cut…

OVERLAP!!! For this discussion I will not include Coast Guard as a branch since it is under DHS not DoD…so we have Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps. In each branch we have aviators- if budget cuts are extensive only the Air Force should have aviators, both combat and noncombat operators. To give you an idea- the Marine Corps has 9 MOS’s (military occupational specialities) just for aviation alone… Each branch has intelligence- and let me tell you that this causes major issues when branches don’t share information. I propose you give intelligence to one branch- probably Air Force… same thing for HR and Finance and Admin- which if the military is being cut should be handed by civilians in the Pentagon. Ther e are many examples of analogous corps in each branch

I believe the DoD should reaffirm the basic role of each force-
Army- to win our nation’s ground wars
Navy/Marine Corps- force projection
Air Force- dominance in the air and space and on the web

The Army is self explanatory but for the Navy and Marine Corps first- the Marine Corps should remain under the Navy Dept and I think the Commandant should report to the Chief of Naval Ops… my Marine buddies would kill me for saying so but here is why… the Marines CAN NOT become a second Army- their missions are becoming too linked- the Marines are an expeditionary force. They should be the rapid-response arm of the Navy. The Navy can be every where in the world, with Marines on every ship to invade if necessary- but the Marines should be nothing more then the first men in who make way for the Army  to get there, which takes them years it seems. The Marines have this critical role and cant get bogged down being traffic cops in Kabul

The Air Force should be the tech force- any thing web related, electronic intelligence, space, etc should be handled with them. An airman cant fight worth sh**t but he is smart and it is best to have them use their brains… but as with the other branches the Air Force needs special operators- combat pilots and drone operators who can handle aerial warfare

This is very basic bt I believe separating the missions of the branches would go a long way to organization and cost cutting while leaving administrative duties to the 40-hour work week folks at the Pentagon

My 2 cents
clarence

[Jacobtm]

I believe that the national defense is the one thing every one in America agree s should be the perview  of the federal govt- which is why I wonder why liberals and libertarians always pop a hard one for cutting it.

It's because we should stop terrorizing the world with it. One thing about having all those weapons, it's awful tempting to find an excuse to use them.

Of course, no cuts will ever harm our ''defense'' capabilities. No one will invade the U.S. No one can militarily harm us. Yet no amount of planes, bombs, submarines and troops can stop a terrorist attack.

Our military is a force for empire, not defense, and our empire is growing thin and going to run itself into the ground.

[patrick1]

Clarence, Im not crazy about the USAF landing on carriers and stuff.  Marine Corps and Naval Aviation have proved themselves quite capable and I think this really isn't an area with potentially large savings potential.  I also think there could be detrimental effect on espirit de corps and communication. 

The big area of savings from my view is always procurement.  I think there have been improvements in multi service programs (eg. UH60) but cutting un-necessary pet programs and really de-politicizing the bidding process will save money.  We also have to cut our commitments and bases overseas.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Patrick1- those are interesting comments... as a Navy veteran I can tell you that there are no better aviators in the world then Navy pilots. My thoughts come from some lectures I have heard and a few articles from after 9/11 where folks were arguing the most successful military model is one where you have separate air,s ea, and ground forces that are distinct and tha to me makes sense
About politicizing the process- this where I think separation helps. I have friends who tell me that in intelligence there is as much competition as between the FBI and CIA...espirit de corps can become a problem if it becomes more then just a sibling rivalry

[patrick1]

I can see your points. Streamlining certain things can certainly have good benefits. However, I think cross service coordination works better than full compartmentalization. From everything I have read and talking to active duty people, I think the various regional (i.e. CENTCOM) or mission capable specific (SOCOM) commands have been excellent and the various services work well together.  The full compartmentalization can also lead to problems and rivalries-some services can become too powerful.  This happened after WWII when the USAF basically wanted to gut the Navy and the Marine Corps had to fight for its life.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

One of my dearest friends passed on in December... his favorite quote was from Patton I believe and was to the extent "after the flag was raised at Iwo Jima the Marines will be around for a thousand years"
Nowadays it seems that the USMC isnt fighting for extinction but rather for its identity...it should not be another Army. If anything it is analogous to the Army Rangers...elite infantry but not necessarily special operators. But the Army isknown for bloat while the Marines make much more with much less

Don't get me wrong- I owe my life to the US Army, but we don't need two of them

[patrick1]

I think the quote was from Secretary Forrestal.  The sentiment didnt last that long though because they did have to raise hell in Congress after WWII to avoid chopping block.

I think the USMC offers a unique mix of skill sets under one branch. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Air-Ground_Task_Force

They are still much more deployable and nimble than the Army but you are correct though that some of the less kinetic actions simply did not call for the USMC.  A lot of missions in Iraq called for Army MP's but we were there so long that they had to be rotated in into a role they werent best equipped for.  Im admittedly a dilettante in the field though so Ill leave it at that for now.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Agree that the Marines role is unique- I think you and I agree that it would be a shame to cut anything...and also I would go a step further and there were roles in Iraq no US service member should have been doing... the traffic cop one being my example

[dead0man]

Bring troops home from places that don't need them (Europe) and we need a couple of divisions from the Army turned into a "Police Force" since we seem to be doing that a lot.  We could probably cut 5-20% of the manpower from each branch as well.

[Link]

A post in the Fantasy election got me thinking and I wanted to put this into words for you all… I believe that the national defense is the one thing every one in America agree s should be the perview  of the federal govt- which is why I wonder why liberals and libertarians always pop a hard one for cutting it.

As usual you open your thread by alienating the majority of the forum.  Plus the military is not the "ONE thing every one in America agree s should be the perview  of the federal govt."  Obviously everyone who has bothered to read the Constitution knows that the Post Office is one of the only institutions specifically mentioned.  I forgot about the section that mentions the Air Force.  Which section was that again?

As to the rest of it who knows.  Much smarter and more experienced people than you are working on the problem.  The simple fix is to stop starting pointless drawn out wars.  The next thing is to stop preparing for an invasion.  No one is going to invade us.  China is not going to drag their sorry @$$ across the Pacific to invade us and I think with the eye in the sky we will see them coming.

We need to get out of this cold war posture.  It's going to be hard for a certain subset of the population.  I can tell by the number of times they call people communists when they start losing an arguement.

Pet projects are another huge problem.  The Pentagon has turned down multiple vehicles but Congress keeps approving them and forcing them on the miitary because they are built in some Congressman's district.  That BS has to go.

They've got to slash the number of generals.  It is ridiculous.

And the biggie that you did not touch that contributes to a huge chunk of our military expenditure is health care.  Landing Air Force planes on a carrier ain't gonna solve that my friend.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Much smarter and more experienced people than you are working on the problem. 

In a post where most of what you say is part of an interesting debate you as usual have to throw some bullsh**t line in there like this… I don’t think you understand what “my 2 cents” means- I am not claiming to be an expert even though I know a thing or two about the millitary- I am simply putting ideas forward to discuss. There are many many people I have disagreed with here on more divisive issues who have shown respect and the debate has actually made us friends on the board…not so with you.

I looked at your posting to make sure it was you I was thinking of and here are some others examples-

No offense but I would listen to them before I listened to you.

A minute ago you hadn't even heard of the disease and now you are an expert?  Give us a break.

So if you are a Republican do you just not give a flying  about anyone other than white males?

Let us know when you wish to rejoin the rest of us on planet earth.

Get a dictionary and a clue.


And that was in the first page of your postings. Ever heard the phras you can disagree with out being disagreeable? And consider this- no one posting on a web board is going to be an expert I’m guessing…if we are discussing the issues on here and not in the halls of Congress or in the Pentagon or somewhere like that we are not the most knowledgelbe or experienced- so those attacks don’t work because- guess what- neither are you!

[Mr. Taft Republican]

You're right they do all have aviators, and a lot of the same jobs, abolish the USAF in my opinion, it can go back to being the Army Air Corps or something but its pretty useless, I knew 7 kids in high school who joined it, 3 for the Army, and 1 for the Marines, so I think it may just be a cop-out for tards. Also, would we want to leave Human Resources to the guys who not only embarrased themselves making fun of dead heroes coming home, but also DUMPED how many of them into a LANDFILL? No, I don't trust the flyboys to look after my body or my money, within a few years there would be a Madoff like scandal from military men getting their pensions stolen from.

As for the Commandant of the Marine Corps being subordinated to the Chief of Naval Ops...no. It's a seperate branch and should continue to report to the Secretary, I don't see how that would really save money, the Marines are leading the way in that department.

The first paragraph didn't mean to come off as offensive towards you, just the flyboys, apologies.

[Torie]

The first step is to decide just what we want our military to be capable of. If it is fighting two rather substantial ground wars at once, you get a very different answer, from an approach that we are not interested in doing that anymore, and our killing machine will be less labor intensive, and use drones and so forth. And then there is the issue of the free loading Europeans and Japanese for whom, to put it rather hyperbolically, we serve as mercenaries, yet even though our hosts can afford to pay us for it, they don't by and large. What do we propose to do about that? I mean can we afford to both subsidize the drug research for the planet, paid for by American "ethical" drug consumers, who just pay more, and also serve as unpaid mercenaries at the same time, while also having a majority of the population taking more from government in direct subsidies than they put in? Just how does that pencil, with going down the road to Greece?

What is the end game?  In a weird way, the Iraq and Afghan wars taught us a valuable lesson, about thinking through the end game (have we inserted ourselves between the blue and gray coats shooting at each other, trying to keep them from killing each other, as both try to kill us), just what we have bought into after we break into the china shop, and the consequences of mission creep by default. And that is just for starters.

I know when I am considering litigation for a client, I try to think these things through very carefully, and then think again, and again. For me, that is my equivalent of deciding to go to war. And if I tell a client, that they should not go to war, I mean it, because if they insist, they will need to find another general. And 95% of the time they listen to me. I am pretty insistent. Both war and litigation are hell. Hell had better be worth it.

[Link]

I looked at your posting to make sure it was you I was thinking of and here are some others examples-

which is why I wonder why liberals and libertarians always pop a hard one for cutting it.

I see what you mean.

Ever heard the phras you can disagree with out being disagreeable?

Thanks for the advice.  I will emulate you in the future.

It's a forum dude.  Considering how you opened this thread I didn't realize you were so sensitive.  Okay in the future I will take your insults and not say anything in my defense so I don't offend you.

Just a word of advice if you want a nice kumbaya thread it might help if you don't open up with a low brow insult of the majority of forum members.

Now as far as this...

As to the rest of it who knows.  Much smarter and more experienced people than you are working on the problem.

First of all quote me in context going forward.  It doesn't prove anything if you only quote one side of a converstation.  You aren't convincing anyone.  Seconldy that may have been a poor choice of words on my part.  I didn't really mean that as something specific to you.  I meant if for just about every posting on this forum.  If our problems were easy to fix I would have come up with a solution long time ago.  Having read some articles about the military budget I noticed in your "solution" you left out medical costs.  That is going to be a big driver of costs going forward.  And Bush starting up a totally unecessary war with hundreds of thousands of new vetarens did not help that situation at all.  As I said landing Air Force jets on carriers ain't gonna solve that problem.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The military needs to shrink.  Bases need to be closed.  Keeping a base open because it helps the local economy of some small city in Germany is ridiculous.  Let the Germans repurpose the station for their own military if they think it's taht important.

I agree that research and development should remain a priority for the military... but that if large sums of money are going to be spent developing a project... it should have a good cost/benefit ratio for defensive purposes.... or it should have a widespread civilian use as well.  (Like the internet, for example)

[Cincinnatus]

Clarence, Im not crazy about the USAF landing on carriers and stuff.  Marine Corps and Naval Aviation have proved themselves quite capable and I think this really isn't an area with potentially large savings potential.  I also think there could be detrimental effect on espirit de corps and communication. 

The big area of savings from my view is always procurement.  I think there have been improvements in multi service programs (eg. UH60) but cutting un-necessary pet programs and really de-politicizing the bidding process will save money.  We also have to cut our commitments and bases overseas.

It can be argued all day which pilot is better, but take a random Air Force pilot, put them in an F-18 and tell them to land on a moving carrier.  Needless to say, you have reason not to be crazy about the idea. 

[dead0man]

So you're saying a guy that has been trained to land on a carrier is going to be better at it than a guy that wasn't.  WEIRD!


Anybody that says "US Navy pilots are better than US Air Force pilots" have no idea what they are talking about and probably watched Top Gun a few too many times as a kid.  And no, I'm not saying USAF pilots are better, I'm saying they are basically the same.

[Free Palestine]

Cut ALL the military budget!

[CelticHoosier1993]

It is certainly one of the first places I'd like to see spending cuts in.

[Franzl]

One of the best things (even if it could be even better) that has happened during the Obama administration.