oh good, by dint of presidential fiat my country's military is being gutted today

[raketenjagdpanzer]

(mods wrap an anchor chain around this and toss it off the pier at midnight, would you?)

[Webstral]

Yellow light on politics.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Yellow light on politics.

You're absolutely right and I apologize.

[Webstral]

For anyone who feels unsettled by the military drawdown in the US, I understand completely. It’s possible to discuss the issue from a technical standpoint without bringing politics into it. It’s even possible to mention some of the political pressures on the decision-makers, just as we would in a conversation about any historical event.

[Targan]

Darn, started reading this thread too late to know what the original post said. Can we have an apolitical summary, please? The thread title has picqued my interest.

[B.T.]

I see it very much from Targans point of view. What was this to be all about? And if Webstrals advice is kept in mind, that should not be a problem, right?

Originally Posted by Webstral

It’s possible to discuss the issue from a technical standpoint without bringing politics into it. It’s even possible to mention some of the political pressures on the decision-makers, just as we would in a conversation about any historical event.

[ArmySGT.]

The current Administration announced their plans for reducing the Department of Defense budget now and in the coming years.

Force reduction.

Cutting programs.

The Two theater doctrine is being done away with.

It is being discussed on all the American news networks tonight.

What the Nations UNfriendly to the US just heard was that the DoD is going to be able to fight one War and in one Theater.

Should it all go south in the Middle East and the US goes back, someplace like say North Korea could have a long lead time to prosecute a war strategy.

So our various smaller Allies are wondering... Will the US still help us?

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The current Administration announced their plans for reducing the Department of Defense budget now and in the coming years.

Force reduction.

Cutting programs.

The Two theater doctrine is being done away with.

It is being discussed on all the American news networks tonight.

What the Nations UNfriendly to the US just heard was that the DoD is going to be able to fight one War and in one Theater.

Should it all go south in the Middle East and the US goes back, someplace like say North Korea could have a long lead time to prosecute a war strategy.

So our various smaller Allies are wondering... Will the US still help us?

Unfortunately, this is coming as no surprise, given the current situation.

As for various smaller Allies wondering if the U.S. still will help them if shit hits the fan...I fear in some cases that one famous quote from that game we all know and love may apply:

"Good luck...your on your own..."

[Matt W]

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

It is true that the US Army and US Marines are being decreased in size - but that usually happens at the end of land wars

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_...c_Guidance.pdf

[raketenjagdpanzer]

It's not even necessarily the loss of funds, it's what's going to be done with the reorganized money. My wife works for the Army so this directly impacts me...

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. My worry is when the former servicemembers and their families go looking for jobs, and a lot won't find any. We need to draw down spending, but the people who want to stay should be allowed to. The ones who find no opportunities in the civilian world should be allowed to come back if they wish. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been drawn out far too long, with precious little accomplished (and a nice power vacuum in Iraq). We've been protecting Europe too long, South Korea too long, and we've been the world's policeman too long. Time for the rest of the world to start taking care of themselves for a while,

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. My worry is when the former servicemembers and their families go looking for jobs, and a lot won't find any. We need to draw down spending, but the people who want to stay should be allowed to. The ones who find no opportunities in the civilian world should be allowed to come back if they wish. But Iraq and Afghanistan have been drawn out far too long, with precious little accomplished (and a nice power vacuum in Iraq). We've been protecting Europe too long, South Korea too long, and we've been the world's policeman too long. Time for the rest of the world to start taking care of themselves for a while,

I can see where you're coming from Paul, and I agree wholeheartedly about the veterans.

But, (and I'm going to resist getting into politics here, slippery slope) I think the world, much like the U.S. itself, has a rather mixed record at best when it comes to "looking after itself".

I know, drawing down is inevitable, can only sustain such operations for so long and everyone knows it, just bothers me when I hear more and more isolationist talk these days, as if the "magic cure" to all the world's ills is to go the other extreme and the United STates to go and proverbially stick it's head in the sand.

Okay, definitely getting too much into the political slope, gonna step off the podium and go hibernate again...

[Badbru]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

OK, I'll put one thing in: The level of military spending by our country is unsustainable. We have to draw down. ,

I recall being shocked, no that's too strong, impressed seems too positive, perturbed perhaps, when I saw a stat one day which said that US military spending not only exceeded the sum total of all other nations on this earth, but it exceeded it many times over. Food for thought if accurate.

Further, given the free society claimed in the US, one should feel free to question the moral implications of such a large portion of that nations economy and infrastructure based upon the production of war material. This is undoubtably a hold over from the second world war. I offer no judgement myself as it would be hipocritical given my interest in all things military but feel it is something that all humanity should consider.

[headquarters]

most informative and to the point. It would seem the US will be able to win any military engagement they will get into the next 50 years as they have done the past 50 years. As a long standing ally we have trusted the US to ensure our soverignity since WWII. ( We neighbour Russia and the Nazis invaded us in 1940). After considering the implications of the budget cuts I am not alarmed. The US will still be by far the most powerful military on the planet - several times over compared to the runner ups.

As for what Badbru is writing about the comparrison of military budgets world wide - The US is spending app-. 2 000 000 dollars every minute of the day -365 days a year.

Originally Posted by Matt W

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

It is true that the US Army and US Marines are being decreased in size - but that usually happens at the end of land wars

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_...c_Guidance.pdf

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Matt W

I don't think you should panic

U.S. military budget

2000: $375 billion
2002: $425 billion
2004: $527 billion
2006: $561 billion
2008: $618 billion
2010: $687 billion
2012: $705 billion
2013: $662 billiion

As far as I can work out, the ambition is to cut defence spending back to something like 2004 levels (and hoping to achieve this by 2022)

I think that Matt W has made a very good point here - the reduction in US Military spending is very significant but it is less than the increases that occured a number of years ago and the level it is falling to is still something like 50% higher than when the War on Terror started.

Originally Posted by Matt W

This document outlines the strategy. Basically,

1. There will be no US troops getting blown up in Afghanistan (an unimportant place which is economically worthless to the US).
2. There will be fewer troops in Europe (which - although important - isn't particularly worried about any military threats)
3. There will be more US military personnel doing useful things in Asia/Pacific (which is hugely important to the US economy and includes North Korea and China)

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_...c_Guidance.pdf

Just with regard to point 2 above I actually don't understand why there are still significant numbers of US military personnel in Europe. I can see there would be some to pilot, service and protect aircraft that are based in Europe but what is the need to keep US ground forces in Europe? Is Russia and/or other parts of Eastern Europe still seen as a potential threat?

Likewise the British Army still have a significant number of troops in Germany and with our commitments in Afganistan I can't understand the reason. The government announced in 2010 that these troops would withdraw from Germany by 2020 but I don't understand why there is the delay.

Is there an economic impact here of having US and British troops (and possibly others - I don't really know) stationed in mainland Europe, i.e. those troops spend a lot of money in the local communites they are based in and so the hosting countries would rather they withdraw gradually? Or is that a rediclious suggestion?

[Legbreaker]

Of course the value of the US dollar has tanked somewhat in the last decade, so looking at the raw figures is a little misleading. Even so, it's still a totally unsustainable amount of money and there's no way the US should continue down that slippery slope.

[rcaf_777]

Not sure I agree with the gobal policeman bit there Paul, most of the US operations have been its national intrests the UN has US WAY DOWN list on Peacekeeping,


Second I think the US is doing a slow draw down in Europe to keep troops on gound incase of another crisis who know what will happen in Russian in a year or Libya or Syria and the list gose on

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Not sure I agree with the gobal policeman bit there Paul, most of the US operations have been its national intrests the UN has US WAY DOWN list on Peacekeeping,


Second I think the US is doing a slow draw down in Europe to keep troops on gound incase of another crisis who know what will happen in Russian in a year or Libya or Syria and the list gose on

Who would have predicted deploying into the former Jugoslavia for example?

Anyway nothing will happen about withdrawing from Germany until a tanker of crude oil turns up! :-)

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by James Langham

Who would have predicted deploying into the former Yugoslavia for example?

Anyone who's studied European history, particularly the history of the Balkans. I'm sure that there were quite a few CIA analysts, several War College professors, and plenty of historians both in the U.S. and in Europe who could have told anyone who asked what would happen once Tito's regime fell. That Europe would then fail to act to police the area was equally predictable, given the historical inability of the continental powers to ever collectively agree on anything, least of all anything involving force. Which, of course, leads to most everyone then looking to America to be the police. And why not? It's politically very expedient back home and it shifts costs, as well as blame for anything messy that might happen, somewhere else (to the Americans). It's a win-win for both the Europeans and the Americans. How so? The Europeans get to keep their hands from getting dirty, and the Americans get to once again preen about riding in to save the day. It's almost a cliche. And as I said, all quite predictable.

[Cdnwolf]

All that money spent on the military didn't stop a few fanatics with box-cutters from crashing planes into buildings. Or a nutcase getting into the British subway and killing a few people there. More money will not solve the worlds problems.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Anyone who's studied European history, particularly the history of the Balkans. I'm sure that there were quite a few CIA analysts, several War College professors, and plenty of historians both in the U.S. and in Europe who could have told anyone who asked what would happen once Tito's regime fell. That Europe would then fail to act to police the area was equally predictable, given the historical inability of the continental powers to ever collectively agree on anything, least of all anything involving force. Which, of course, leads to most everyone then looking to America to be the police. And why not? It's politically very expedient back home and it shifts costs, as well as blame for anything messy that might happen, somewhere else (to the Americans). It's a win-win for both the Europeans and the Americans. How so? The Europeans get to keep their hands from getting dirty, and the Americans get to once again preen about riding in to save the day. It's almost a cliche. And as I said, all quite predictable.

Actually American did'nt really get involed till the end of the conflict, and comitted a small ammount of troops given its size at the time, Most of European Nations were there trying to stop the War, but since it was under a UN mandate it was doomed to failure. American bigest move was getting the parties to table and talk and supply the air power to enforce Dayton accord I personally think most american were unware off what there forces did durring the entire period 1995-2001

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Actually American did'nt really get involed till the end of the conflict, and comitted a small ammount of troops given its size at the time, Most of European Nations were there trying to stop the War, but since it was under a UN mandate it was doomed to failure. American bigest move was getting the parties to table and talk and supply the air power to enforce Dayton accord I personally think most american were unware off what there forces did durring the entire period 1995-2001

I was at KFOR Main, Film City, Pristina Kosovo, from 2001 - 2002.

Camp Bondsteel is still open to the best of my knowledge though with significantly less Military and far more contractors.

[Cdnwolf]

The UNPROFOR was composed of nearly 39,000 personnel, 320 of whom were killed on duty. It was composed of troops from Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

[weswood]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

The UNPROFOR was composed of nearly 39,000 personnel, 320 of whom were killed on duty. It was composed of troops from Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Damn those Venezuelans for not coming out to play!

[dragoon500ly]

After watching the latest talking heads and their doom-and-gloom (not to mention cruising some of the right-wing websites) one is left with the impression that our current administration is hellbent for disarmament to pre World War I levels. To be sure, the announced drawdowns are certainly going to fuel some very lively debates once the presidental election starts rolling....its going to be impossible to to discuss the drawndown in calm, reasonable language, especially as the November Follies kick off.

So...whats the reality on the ground?

The defense needs of the US are, to say the least, unique. Our position in North America does not require a large land component. Sorry, but there it is. A Marine Corps of two-division equivalants plus support is more than adequate for its mission of rapid reaction/deployment.

The Army and its move to brigades as the primary combat unit is cutting out a lot of the waste. To be sure, I do not agree in anyway with the decision to become more "Medium" and please! Let's not even get me started on the Stryker Uber Weapons System! But it boils down that the Heavy configuration of the Army just isn't sustainable in this era of "Police Actions". Troops that can be rapidly transported and married up to pre-positioned equipment may be the most efficient use of our manpower.

We need a strong Navy because so much of our economic lifeblood depends on control of the seas. So the current plans to gut the Navy's air, surface, submarine and amphibious capabilities are, at best, the by-products of severe self-medication and at worst a demonstration of extremely piss-poor judgement.

As for the Air Farce, err Force....The needs to control the skies of our nation as well as the skies over our deployed troops should be paramount. They need to have the best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers that they seize and hold control of the air anywhere in the world.

The Department of Defense is not the most efficient organization in the world, we need to streamline and prioritize what our defense budget is spent on. There should be no waste and there should be no cost-overruns!

Just a few thoughts.....

[Webstral]

The US Navy definitely needs to be able to keep open the sea lanes that carry so much of the nation’s economic lifeblood. However, I’d be perfectly happy sharing this job with China. The Chinese Communist leadership has all but abandoned communism in favor of fascism. They recognize that economic well-being for the nation is the best and most cost-effective guarantee of the longevity of the current regime. So long as China continues to move forward economically and scientifically, there’s no real risk of Sino-American conflict. Therefore, they can help keep the sea lanes open. After all, the Chinese are arguably even more dependent upon maritime commerce than the US is.

The Air Force does need a qualitative edge over its most likely rivals. How much of a qualitative edge is necessary is a matter for debate.

The Army… ah, the Army. I believe pre-positioning is wise. Additionally, though, we should eliminate 90% of the combat arms in the National Guard while moving most of non-combat brigades into the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Non-combat jobs are more forgiving of intermittent practice than combat jobs. The trigger pullers (including the tankers and cavalry, artillery, air defense, and combat engineers) need constant practice to stay at the top of their game. Once the balloon goes up, the combat arms brigades deploy with their organic support. Corps, and maybe divisional, support comes out of the reserve force. The reserves, by the way, should be expanded to at least twice their current size. Some support brigades would be earmarked as high-readiness, which would require the brigade to be ready to go in 30 days from mobilization. The line companies would be manned by folks who have a comparable civilian job, or the line companies would have an adjusted training schedule to keep the reservists fresh. High readiness would not be for everyone.

While we’re at it, though, the pay and privileges for the infantry and the infantry alone should be increased significantly. The Army needs to be in a position to refuse applicants for the infantry. Every private should be smart, fit, and motivated. There should be a backlog or waitlist so that any rifleman who can’t cut it or loses his motivation can be sent to another MOS—no harm, no foul. Thanks for trying; we still want you on the big team. Any soldier from another MOS can apply for the infantry at any time, just like Special Forces. Can one imagine what the Army might be able to accomplish if every battalion measured up to the Rhodesian Light Infantry?

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

Of course, with a highly motivated Infantry Branch, the whole commissioning process would have to be reworked. I’ve said plenty about my views on the commissioning process, so I won’t repeat them here. But imagine, if you will, the effect of having second lieutenants who first had to earn their membership in a rifle company as a junior enlisted man and perhaps pass the grade as a team leader before being accepted into an officer training program. There might be a shortage of new lieutenants, but everyone in the platoon would have confidence that their platoon leader was the right man for the job.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

I've never understood that "up or out" policy the US military has. If a soldier is happy in the role they are in and don't want the extra responsibilities associated with gaining rank, why should they be penalised? In the Australian Army there are many, many intelligent, skilled, motivated soldiers who have no interest in going for promotion and are allowed to work in the role they are happy in and suits them, with no predjudice against them for turning down promotion opportunities.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Targan

I've never understood that "up or out" policy the US military has. If a soldier is happy in the role they are in and don't want the extra responsibilities associated with gaining rank, why should they be penalised? In the Australian Army there are many, many intelligent, skilled, motivated soldiers who have no interest in going for promotion and are allowed to work in the role they are happy in and suits them, with no predjudice against them for turning down promotion opportunities.

It was a tool in 1992 when the US Army was drawing down from a Cold War 2 Million to 800,000. In theory it gets rid of the unmotivated, in practice it bashes square pegs into round holes.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

As for the Air Farce, err Force....The needs to control the skies of our nation as well as the skies over our deployed troops should be paramount. They need to have the best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers that they seize and hold control of the air anywhere in the world.

The Department of Defense is not the most efficient organization in the world, we need to streamline and prioritize what our defense budget is spent on. There should be no waste and there should be no cost-overruns!

Just a few thoughts.....

No cost overruns. Nice in theory. Not so easy in practice. What do you do when the unexpected happens? Kill the program(s)? There goes your "best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers" such as the F-35. Killed by a budget axe because it went over-budget. Ditto almost every completely new weapon system. Missile defense? Over-budget. New ships? Over-budget. (Well, most of them. IIRC there's one class that came in under budget.)

Want to cut waste in the DOD? Cut out 99% of the nukes. Damned things are obscenely expensive to build and more so to maintain. We could do just fine with a tiny fraction of the inventory that we have. The hundreds of billions saved could go towards other, better weapon systems. But any time that anyone even hints at reducing the absurdly large stockpile that the U.S. has the right-wingnuts cry that whomever is suggesting it is a commie or some such nonsense.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It was a tool in 1992 when the US Army was drawing down from a Cold War 2 Million to 800,000. In theory it gets rid of the unmotivated, in practice it bashes square pegs into round holes.

"Up or Out" really dates back to the mid-1950s. As the War and Navy Departments were being combined into the new Department of Defense, the civilian leadership of the armed forces begain to be increasingly drawn from corporate America. Part of this was a drive to further educate the military leadership be encouraging more and more college style education. For the most part, this drive for more education in the officer/NCO corps is good. Where it fell apart was the DOD's efforts to insure that ALL NCOs/Officers HAD to have higher education.

As the US begain to become involved in Vietnam, there were several policy changes that were made. First was the one-year tour of duty that was implemented following the unsatisfactory points system of the Korea War. Great for morale, right (only another 127 days and a wakeup!) but utterly destroyed the fighting capability of units as the one year mark approached.

But DOD also implented a policy of posting an officer to a combat unit for six months and then rotating them to a staff position for the remaining six months of their tour. Since Vietnam was a battalion-level war, this put a lot of pressure on the green 2nd Lieutenants, just as the LT was getting experienced enough to become a real leader....POP! He was now a staff weenie back with the REMFs.

As the need for more and more lieutenants became apparant, the decison was made that if officers didn't meet certain performance and education milestones, then they would be RIFe'd (Reducation in Force), "encouraged" to seek positions with the National Guard/Reserves, "retired" to recruiting or ROTC duties or flat out be encouraged to resign.

As the Vietnam War wound down, "up or out" became firmly inbedded in the Armed Forces. Now DOD is willing to lose a combat proven officer because he didn't make his performance metric and get his promotion to major within three years (because he was in the field leading the troops instead of kissing the colonel's ass as a staff weenie). But some jerk-off whose best skill is his ability to kiss ass without wearing knee pads is on the fast track to becoming a general.

Yup, up or out is working so well.....