Hagel to Call for Shrinking Army to Smallest Size in 75 Years

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


2013-05-16T174638Z_2045279826_TB3E95G1DDKEV_RTRMADP_3_USA-SYRIA-TURKEY

Here is the magic liberal formula in all its tawdry glory; smash the military, expand the welfare state. No guns, just food stamps. No jets, just Green Energy windmills. No soldiers, just welfare cases.

obama anthem

This is Obama’s America being carried out under the supervision of Iran’s Secretary of Defense.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is expected to call Monday for shrinking the U.S. Army to its smallest size since 1940, among other cuts, drawing criticism that the drastic changes will hurt U.S. security.

Maybe by the time Hagel is done, horses and bayonets will be all that’s left.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, warned that the cuts would hurt military readiness. And he said the country is only in this position because the Obama administration and Congress will not seriously take on cuts to entitlements.

“It’s all being sacrificed … on the altar of entitlements. This president cannot take on mandatory spending, so all we’ve done in the Congress — and this president — is basically cut discretionary spending,” he told Fox News.

Specifically on the altars of Green Energy and Welfare.

The New York Times first reported on the proposed cuts. The changes reportedly would leave the military capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Jan. 14 airpower summary: A-10s show force

The A-10s which performed well in Afghanistan will also be trashed for the greater glory of the Welfare State.

Other characteristics of the budget will likely draw further ire from veterans groups and members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Hagel would recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits, less generous housing allowances, and a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass.

Sure, the military tends to vote Republican. Meanwhile Obama’s base of thieves and parasites will be getting more government freebies.

blog_obamaphone_drudge

  • alericKong

    We will not be able to fight China, but we will have universal preschool and paying the unemployed to count weight watchers as job training.

    • BS77

      I am hoping the first to go will be the beltway bureaucrats, the bean counters and desk jockeys….the last to go, our SEALS, Rangers, anti terrorism and military readiness forces….but it could easily be the other way around, unfortunately.

  • Aurelius

    For many years the U.S. military has had the policy of being able to fight wars on three fronts simultaneously. I’m afraid those days are gone. We also have top military generals in key positions mysteriously being fired via Obummer’s orders.

    • DAWNOFNEWDAY

      It takes money and lots of soldiers (with the morale) to keep an empire going. The US has become an empire because we have controlled other countries because we had the money and willing boots on the ground to enforce our will. Those days are gone. Not only are we running out of money to have our military spread all over the world, but there are a lot of military who are just low on morale and don’t see any reason to go to some third-world hellhole and try and Westernize them. That’s what the British, French, and Roman Empires did. Where are they now? Exactly.

  • Chris Gait

    This is the perfect way to get us to WWIII. WWII was FDR’s solution to the incredible destruction his Stalin-inspired economy inflicted on the US economy. Now that we are back in full-on Keynes thrust to keep the economy down the Left will need a war…to lose. By effectively eliminating our nuclear arsenal (allowing the Russian and Chinese warheads to be well tested and more numerous than ours, along with reducing our warheads and platforms), eliminating space exploration and the military use of space (again giving place to Russia and China), and reducing the size and training of the army and navy we will be all set for losing WW III. After that comes revolution, civil war and the dawn of the Lenins and Stalins. Obama is just Kerensky in the piece. He destroys the country, preparing the way for the real scorpions to follow. The Chinese have already developed an anti-ship missile that we are not able to stop. They can take on Taiwan and Japan at their leisure. But America keeps on voting for bread and circuses, and so deserves every bit of the coming history. Stupidity has its rewards.

    • A Z

      I don’t think they can take Japan at their leisure. If Obama gets any more spineless, They maybe able to blackmail them with nukes.

      Taiwan South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Phillipines and India are enough to take on China. But it gets messy. China can bring in Pakistan perhaps and can bring in North Korea.

      Obama’s bowing and scraping is getting us world wide nuclear proliferation. If China’s economy and social unrest do not slow it down or the U.S. does not stand strong against China, Japan will go nuclear.

      • Drakken

        Japan is already has nukes, they saw Obummer and company coming a mile away and acted accordingly, and frankly I don’t blame them one bit.

        • truebearing

          I’m glad they do. South Korea better do the same.

          We used to call the US the melting pot. With the proliferation of nukes, worldwide, the whole planet is going to be a melting pot someday.

          • A Z

            I read a science fiction book about it. in the early 90s. Mankind built a ship to colonize a new planet around some star because scientists and world leaders figured the whole world would go nuclear. No one though enough of the book. It’s name is forgotten. I wish that book was laughable.

        • setiger

          Japan’s military is a self defense operation only. They have no strategic weapons.

          • Drakken

            Would you like to make a bet on that?

    • DAWNOFNEWDAY

      Why don’t we just not get involved with other countries? Why not put our troops on the border here and expel the illegals and fight the gangs and criminals here? We’ve become an empire since WWII and most empires don’t last forever.

      • Chris Gait

        I’m with you to a degree. But I favor a very strong, highly techno military capable of stand off warfare. I don’t want to see any more ‘boots on the ground’. I want to see the enemy’s ground turned in to a parking lot from orbiting stations and subs.

  • john spielman

    I’ve got the perfect soloution. All welfare people to be inducted into US ARMY. That way, their welfare payments can go to pay their military wages (zero sum gain) AND the US ARMY will teach them useful skills and they will lose weight if they’r e over weight.

  • blert

    Since the DoD is the number one route to the middle class for African Americans — this opportunity roll-back is going to terminate many a career before it’s born.

    With friends like this….

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The left isn’t a big of middle classness, as Revered Wright said.

    • DAWNOFNEWDAY

      Yeah, like I want a bunch of African AMericans, who have crime-ridden, dysfunctional communities and who are killing whites (with the media hiding it) to have military power.

  • A Z

    The Quadrennial Defense Review analyzes the threats the U.S. is likely to face as a nation. The force size should be based on it. It should be based on Obma’s prejudices, but on Congressional debate.

    All personnel NOW READ THIS!

    “The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is a legislatively-mandated review of Department of Defense strategy and priorities. The QDR will set a long-term course for DoD as it assesses the threats and challenges that the nation faces and re-balances DoD’s strategies, capabilities, and forces to …”

    http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130714/DEFFEAT05/307140008/2014-QDR-Must-Follow-Congressional-Guidance

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrennial_Defense_Review

  • Lada Belyy

    I don’t have a problem with shrinking the military. We don’t need a military presence in every country of the world. We still have our air force, navy, drones, and enough nukes to burn the planet. Why do we need to permanently fund and maintain an un-Constitutional standing army? Any identifiable enemy would be stupid to attack us and even an army can’t fight an enemy that it can’t identify. Increasing welfare doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing either, if we stop trying to repair the entire world. Let’s focus on US, for a change. Close our sieve-like borders and rebuild our own infrastructure. The rest of the world is capable of fending for itself.

    • A Z

      Nukes win wars? Since when?

      We had nukes during the Vietnam & Korean wars and did not win.

    • A Z

      If we had not joined with Britain, it is entirely conceivable that Germany would have rolled the U.S.

      You would be a lampshade or speaking German.

    • A Z

      “Why do we need to permanently fund and maintain an un-Constitutional standing army?”

      Because the Punic wars, destroyed the yeoman farmer.

    • Drakken

      It is exactly attitudes like yours that we need a military, I would crack open a couple history books if I were you, for when we cut the military to the bone, conflict is always inevitable.

  • Texas Patriot

    I’m a big fan of yours, Daniel, but I think you’re wrong about this one. The era of dominating warfare by the use of massive land armies ended on August 6, 1945. Why put a large land army in the field when it can easily be vaporized by a small spray of tactical nuclear warheads? The wars of the future will be won by a combination of state of the art surveillance and interdiction technologies, a missile shield that is second to none, and precision capability of defanging potential adversaries before they are able to launch their strike.

    • A Z

      Infantry is the queen of battle.

      • Texas Patriot

        Not anymore.

        • A Z

          Someone ends up holding the ground in the end with troops.

          • Texas Patriot

            Holding foreign ground is a losing proposition. Read Sun Tsu. We’ll be doing well to hold onto our own ground for the remainder of this century.

          • A Z

            If they invade an ally, you invade them.

            If you always play defense, expect to lose (But it doesn’t mean pick a fight).

          • Texas Patriot

            AZ: “If they invade an ally, you invade them.”

            That would be a fairly precise statement of conventional military strategy from the time of the Roman empire up until the end of WWII. However, as we learned in Korea, N. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the calculus of warfare has changed completely, and the strategy of sending a land army onto foreign soil is a fool’s errand which carries with it the virtual certainty that we will lose much more than we gain.

            Today, if it is in the national interest of the United States to defend a friend or an ally, we should do it by the quickest and most expedient means available. Fortunately, with advanced surveillance and interdiction technologies, it is now possible to locate the precise position of invading forces and neutralize them by drones, cruise missiles or strategic bombers armed with whatever degree of kinetic energy may be necessary to neutralize and stop the aggression in its tracks.

            This approach is quick, easy, and painless (to Americans), and highly effective for defending our friends and allies from external aggression, and it doesn’t require the unnecessary loss of American blood and treasure or a single pair of American “boots on the ground”. The future of warfare is high technology with a global vision and a global reach, and the practical utility of massive land armies is a thing of the past.

          • A Z

            And if they wage a purely terrorist and guerilla war, what are you going to bomb?

            You need light infantry / leg infantry.

            How are you going to pinpoint stuff if they used couriers and the informal Muslim banking system?

          • Texas Patriot

            That’s going on right now in virtually every nation on earth, and the only defense against it is superior surveillance and interdiction technologies. Basically, every nation is going to have to defend itself against that kind of covert attack, and short of actual invasion of an ally, we’re going to have to pick and choose our battles.

            From my perspective, it seems likely that a majority of Africa is likely to fall into Muslim hands, whereas there is a reasonable likelihood of defending Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Israel is a unique case, and regardless of the legitimacy of their claim to the Promised Land, I think they represent the best hope for long term stability in the Middle East, and I think they deserve our unwavering support.

            Otherwise, it makes sense for the major powers of America, Russia, and China to play a dominant role in the economic development and military defense of their respective regions of the globe, and I think that is a patter we will continue to see in the coming years.

          • Drakken

            To bomb the enemy into the stone age you need airbases, that means you have forward operating units and assets to hold said areas where your airbases are at it.

      • kikorikid

        “…and the female of the species is more deadly than the male.”

        • A Z

          A city is a tank trap.

          In the 1st battle for Grozny, Chechnya, Soviet tank columns just got chewed up. Of course part of the problem is that they were in columns. Russians lost a lot of tanks in Berlin against an army that was all but kaput.

          I use to think males were all that. Ever read the Nibelungenlied? A person might be forgiven to think it is about Siegfried the greatest Germanic Warrior. But actually it is a cat fight between 2 women, the males are used as pawns and every last male dies. Germanic & Celtic women use to line up behind the men and urge them on. On occasion they slaughtered those that retreated. Pre-Islamic Arab women use to urge their men on also in various ways. You really got to wonder who is in control.

          “The US Army Infantry is known as the Queen of Battle.” – http://www.militaryringinfo.com/service-ring/military/416-who-is-the-queen-of-battle/

          “the queen is the most versatile piece on a chess board, and the infantry is the most versatile forces on the battle field. infantry does everything and anything and is also the most dangerous force out there”

          - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090523213328AAPrZFx

          • Drakken

            You know what happened at Grozny once the Russians lost their tanks right? They quit with the subtle tactics and went with the tried and true method, they brought in artillery and used liberallyv and leveled the place, then send Spetnaz to mop up. They did not leave many alive.

          • A Z

            Yes, exactly

            The world wrung their hands once or twice, shut up, and “moved on” to whine about something else.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Weakness is also a strength if you know how to use it.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      No one has been throwing around nuclear weapons since ’45. It would be dangerous to assume that we will never face another war against a major power like Russia or China.

      • Texas Patriot

        I think you’re absolutely correct that we can never rule out the possibility of war with Russia or China. But as the Cold War proved, most advanced nations prefer to avoid the virtual certainty of nuclear annihilation and therefore choose not to engage in thermonuclear warfare. Unfortunately, that assumption may not hold true in the case of rogue states dominated by fatalistic theocracies, e.g., the one in Iran which seems determined to acquire nuclear weapons at all costs. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in 2009, if any of us have ever wondered what it would be like for a madman to acquire nuclear weapons, we’re about to find out what that’s like.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n-STlCzn8s

        • A Z

          “we actually have a lot more in common with Russia and China than ever before because of the mutual threat of global Islamic jihad ”

          I sort of agree.

          But do the Chinese & Russians? If the Islamic threat is so bad, then why is china going after the Senkoku Islands?

          • Drakken

            Power vacuum and a opportunity for the Chins, and if you give them a weak opening, they will take whatever they can get away with.

          • truebearing

            And so will Iran and any tin pot dictator from Africa to South America.

          • Drakken

            Touche, exactly right.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Russia and China aren’t attuned to allying with us globally against Islam.

          It’s still the same game that European powers played with Muslim corsairs, paying protection money so that they will inconvenience their rivals.

          • Texas Patriot

            DG: “It’s still the same game that European powers played with Muslim corsairs, paying protection money so that they will inconvenience their rivals.”

            I think that’s a great point and there’s probably a lot of truth to it, but my take is that the reality of what global Islamic jihad actually means for the world as a whole is slowly sinking into the consciousness of every civilized nation on earth, including Russia and China.

            Living with the reality of Islamic jihad is nothing new for Russia, and I thought this recent interview with Vladimir Putin was interesting in that regard.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU6jaS0jYLU

            And as jihadist attacks on Chinese soil continue to increase, I think there is a reasonable likelihood that China will come around as well.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Putin is still banking on Eurasia. Remember both China and Russia have centuries of controlling Muslim populations within their borders. They consider this the norm. It’s not a new event to them.

          • Drakken

            But the muslims are getting the Russians and Chins extremely nervous, so business as usual is coming to an end.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I’m not so sure it is. Both are following the old paradigms of empire, repress domestic Muslims, use foreign Muslims as weapons against other great powers.

          • Drakken

            The Russian strategy is very simple, use the muslims to spend their money and bodies, when the time comes they will step on them and let allah sort it out. Do you really think the Russians would be pushing us if Reagan, or Bush1-2 were in office like they are treating Obummer? The Russian understand and respect strength, They openly mock and laugh at Obummer and company. Who would have ever in a million years thought the US would be a laughing stock in the eyes of allies and foes alike?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And they didn’t push their own communist deception propaganda about multiculturalism among their own populations since that BS was developed as a weapon against us and “capitalism.” They know better than to drink their own poison.

          • Drakken

            The Russians are not afraid to use whatever means necessary to deal with their muslim problem, they just do it a lot more quietly than they used to, but I assure you, if they want a village pacified, they just get it done, no muss, no fuss and no human rights activists screaming bloody murder. The way the muslims in the eastern provinces are pushing their luck, it is only a matter of time before the Chins get nasty and bloody. We will come to the same conclusion once things get bad enough.

          • Texas Patriot

            I agree that the Putin approach is very effective in controlling Muslim populations existing within the borders of Russia. No doubt China has a similarly effective approach for controlling Muslims within their midst. However, I think it’s fair to say that from a cultural standpoint, it may well be the case that Russia and China have a more tolerant attitude toward totalitarian and suprematist philosophies than generally found in Western nations. My guess is that when the West wakes up to what we have invited into our midst, it is very unlikely that there will be a similar level of tolerance for the idea of a long term presence of Islamic suprematism and jihadism.

          • Drakken

            Don’t make the mistake almost every other westerner makes when it comes to Russia, throughout history, when the muslims got a little uppity, they stomped on them with an iron fist, it goes back to the first Tsars and they are no different today, see, they don’t forget and they never forgive what the muslims did and are currently do. If they have a problem they killem all and let allah sortem out without apologizes or remorse. Trust me when I tell you, the Russians will soon be bring the hammer down on those uppity muslims. We will be doing the same when the time comes, and when it comes, nobody is going to give a rats azz how peaceful some muzzy says he/she is, for the time will come that the only words spoken will be the only good muslim is a dead muslim.

          • DAWNOFNEWDAY

            Greece and Eastern European whites are a different breed than they are here in America or even Western Europe for that matter. They don’t have the white guilt we do, they don’t embrace the perversions and self destructing behavior that white americans and Western Europe has, they don’t have this self-hating white guilt complex that many whites in the US/Western Europe seem to, etc. Like here we have young black males raping white women or punching out lone white people, aka the knockout game. They try that in Greece or Russia, not only are there very few blacks/muslims there, but the ones that do get out of line will be pounded into the pavement real quickly.

            Eastern Europeans and Greeks are like what most White Americans used to be like before liberalism controlled us.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We’re looking for chess partners and the Chinese play differently than that. There’s a reason a Chinese checker board is not square.

      • Drakken

        A war with Russia in the near future is not likely, they aren’t stupid, the Chinese on the other hand is a completely different story, if they perceive weakness on our part, they will push it to the limit, with Obummer at the helm, I am not sure he wouldn’t fold if confronted.

    • Drakken

      No matter how you look at it, the nature of warfare hasn’t changed in 5,000 years, your idea of the use of small tactical nukes isn’t going to fly unless we on the verge of defeat, it just isn’t going to happen. One way or another men make war, not machines.

      • Texas Patriot

        Guess what. We are on the verge of defeat. After 60 years of foolish foreign wars that were hugely expensive and never had any chance of victory in any meaningful sense, we are now $17.2 trillion in debt and borrowing $1.6 billion a day just to stay afloat.. The days of sending expensive land armies overseas to die for nothing in remote areas of the world in conflicts that are not directly related to the national security of the United States are gone forever. From now on, either we win with superior technologies that give us a superior global vision and a superior global reach, or we won’t win at all.

        • DAWNOFNEWDAY

          Maybe it’s time we put our troops on the border here and started drilling for our own resources here. We have a growing police state here at home. Why isn’t out military coming home to fight that?

        • Drakken

          Well until we dust off the old Total War Manuel, and use it with a vengeance, you would be completely correct.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The political factors are real. In a democracy like ours, perception matters a lot. That means we can’t do things with blunt or powerful instruments. We have to do things “fairly” according to the consensus definition.

      I know you also consider that a stupid approach, but that is generally how our citizens expect us to fight these days.

      The way that Israel won the war in June 1967 was brilliant and we should have learned a lot more from the events. But instead we seem more influenced by the political lessons that totally outsmarting your enemy makes you look like a “bully.” That’s just how we’ve raised people to think here in the West and again I think we agree on how that happens.

      • Texas Patriot

        After seeing enormous amounts of American blood and treasure poured into the bottomless pits of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the American people are less likely to be quite so concerned about “looking like a bully” if we begin to defend ourselves and our friends by the most efficient and expedient means available.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          That’s true. But our enemies understand quite well how to positions themselves as victims even before we’ve done anything. As long as they keep their operations modest, they can slowly destroy us without making any big splash that the average leftist would recognize for what it was.

          Basically the left expects us to ignore aggression and then when it’s obvious we have to go out there and set up shop with a big show of force that does no harm but show’s our immense power. That’s basically why we occupy anywhere these days. It’s silly posturing. Because most voters are silly.

        • DAWNOFNEWDAY

          But why don’t we fight the invasion from South of the Border with our military instead of sending them to other third-world dumps?

          • A Z

            You would have to change the law.

            posse comitatus.

  • rick zee

    All the European nations (including Britain) have gutted their militaries to finance their vision of Proletariat-on-the-Dole.

    Without the US to defend the EU, etc, who will?
    Who will defend the United States from those who are stronger?

    • DAWNOFNEWDAY

      Why do we need the EU? When has any country came to our side? We defeated the British Empire when they were more powerful than we were. Ukrainian citizens had toppled their govt without a shot being fired, as many of them are unarmed. Most Americans have guns and ammo. Whoever would try and take us over would have to fight a lot of people that not all the missles, nukes and tanks could stop.

      • A Z

        Ukraine is not over. If you think it is over wait 2 or 3 years. At the very least the eastern half will become part of Russia.

        That is my prediction and my (football type of) handicap. What is yours?

        Over 70 people died and there were many shots fired. Ethnic Russians were disarmed in the Western part of Ukraine by armed Ukrainians. So what were you saying?

      • A Z

        We did not defeat the British Empire. We in conjunction with France & Spain EMPIRE defeated the British Empire.

        The citizens of Havana, Cuba met the payroll of the Continental Army for a one month period of time.

        The French Fleet under De Grasse defeated British fleet off the coast of Virgina. this was made possibly by a Spanish fleet holding the fort for both Spanish and French interests in the Caribbean.

        A Spanish General Bernardo de Gálvez took all British forts along the gulf coast of North America.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Charlotte
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pensacola_(1781)

        The American War of Independence was part of a world War which came about decade after another World War (The seven Years War).

        So let’;s sum this up. Europe has helped the U.S. and we did not defeat the British Empire all by ourselves. The French supplied about 40% of the troops for Yorktown.

      • A Z

        “We defeated the British Empire when they were more powerful than we were.’

        The French supplied 41% to 44% of the troops at Yorktown.

        American troops were mutinous.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown

      • A Z

        “We defeated the British Empire when they were more powerful than we were.’

        I must entreat you,if possible, to procure one month’s pay in specie for the detachment under my command Part of the troops have not been paid anything for a long time past and upon several occasions shown marks of great discontent”
        -George Washington to Robert Morris

        The citizens of Havana, Cuba collected 1 million peso to help pay American troops.

      • A Z

        “We defeated the British Empire when they were more powerful than we were.’

        I should not conceal from you, M. l’Amiral, that these people are at the VERY NED OF THEIR RESOURCES or that Washington will not have at his disposal half the number of troops he counted upon having. While he is secretive on this subject I believe that at present he has not more than 6,000 men all told”

        - Rochambeau

        MHQ Spring 2007 issue
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown

      • Drakken

        Pssst, Europe is most of us and where our ancestors came from. It where western civilization comes from and as we and Canada are of western civilization, don’t you think we should defend it? If Europe falls, guess who is next?

      • hiernonymous

        EDITED TO ADD: I should have kept reading before commenting.
        A Z ninja’d me, but good.

        ” We defeated the British Empire when they were more powerful than we were.”

        Sort of. We managed to stay in the field, which was no small accomplishment, until the second greatest empire decided to lend a hand and bail us out.

        It’s amazing how many Americans believe that we defeated the British Empire single-handed. We were able to defeat Britain’s expeditionary force because the French provided us arms and supplies, provided troops, and, perhaps most importantly, sent a fleet powerful enough to challenge Britain’s command of the sea.

        “When has any country came to our side?”

        There was a reason that Pershing, on arriving in France with the AEF, said “Lafayette, we are here!”

  • GSR

    This is what Leftist/pacifist/naïve faculty lounge Fabians do. Hagel my foot. This is the desire of Barry Soetoro. Weaken the USA and bring it down to the level of most other nations.

    • kikorikid

      Make the US appear so weak, so ill prepared as to
      invite adventurism from its enemies.

  • ping

    You’re getting less return on investment too, between letting unruly gang members, women (even pregnant ones), and homosexuals who need STD medication covered join. At least you got drones!

    • LibertarianToo

      Right . . cause if there’s one thing no heterosexual American soldier ever needed, it’s STD medication.

  • truebearing

    This is right in line with the trajectory of disaster that began the day Obama was elected. He is intentionally weakening the US in anyway he can. He trumped up reasons to fire generals and admirals. Now he is eliminating great weapons like the A-10 — a weapon that terrified Al Queda and the Taliban — probably because the iranians told him to. I’m surprised he didn’t just give them to Iran, or maybe Hezbollah.

    This shrinking of the military isn’t necessarily permanent. Obama has worked overtime to fire generals, destroy morale, and lower benefits for soldiers, but once those patriotic guys all quit in disgust or are fired, he can just as easily recruit anew from his constituency of minorities, gays, Muslims, and leftists. He can suddenly raise the pay, offer new and better benefits, free everything. Then he will have that “civil defense force” he used to talk about. The one that would be armed as well as the military, and now will be ideologically loyal to him. Then we will see how a civil defense force could be as well armed as the military. It will be our military… and we will be the enemy it was “fundamentally transformed” to deal with.

    • Drakken

      It takes years to recruit and train folks to fight wars in todays world, otherwise they will be conscripts thrown into the breach. To undo the damage this idiot in the white house has done and will do, will take years to unf**k. If history is right, as it usually is, we are about to get caught with our pants down AGAIN and everybody will be pointing fingers as to how and why the current crisis was allowed to happen, and then scramble to play catch up.

      • truebearing

        I agree with everything except limiting the description of Obama to mere idiocy. He is evil and this is intentional. We will be fighting in the streets before this is all over.

        • Drakken

          I believe Obummer and his minions are a combination of naïve useless idiots and intentionally undercutting this country to make us some useless socialist utopia. Frankly speaking, I think it is too late and we are past the point of no return, when all things crash, Obummer and company will be extremely surprised as the law of unintended consequences comes to bare with a vengeance. The left are laughing today at the American publics stupidity and fecklessness, tomorrow they won’t be able to flee fast and far enough from a very wrathful public. What we end up with in the end I am afraid is a crap shoot.

          • truebearing

            Obama and the mutants he has in his administration are good at one thing: nihilism. They couldn’t build a dog house, but they can follow instructions on how to destroy things from the leftist braintrust: Soros, Podesta, et al.

            I’m pretty pessimistic too. Once the media is under the control of the coup, it’s hard to get a population with so many self-indulgent fools to wake up and smell the coffee.

            Right now, Americans should be forming small cells that can work together in the event of a collapse. No loner will have a chance in the mayhem. I think ex-military guys could make some money by starting up training camps for worried civilians. Owning a gun doesn’t mean squat if you don’t know how to keep from getting shot. I hope things don’t degenerate to that point, but this country is so ill-prepared for practically any eventuality, it scares me.

            It is going to be below zero for the next 5 nights around here. What would happen if terrorists were to shoot out enough transformers to cut power to millions of people in the Upper-Midwest? Furnaces wouldn’t work, unless you have a generator. At -10 to -20, houses cool fast, then pipes burst. The house is useless, but there would be few places to go with so many needing help. Power stations in California and Tennessee have already been attacked, in what some believe are trial runs. Needless to say, the US isn’t ready to fight sustained asymmetric warfare on its own turf. Many would die from exposure alone.

          • Drakken

            Your from WI, I’m from MN so I know of what you speak, just have a wood burning stove and fireplace and enough wood to tide you over. You are completely correct, if the power failed tomorrow, civil life would get uncivil in a real hurry. Your right the US is completely unprepared for internal terrorist activity, especially if they are from the 3rd world, but, when it comes right down to it, we are tribal by nature and when push comes to shove, no matter how un P it is, we will stick to our own and well the others will be sucking wind.

          • truebearing

            Just imagine all of those Twin City liberals suddenly without power, and no prospects of heat for weeks. Or maybe Madison’s mutant Left, freezing to death because of the Muslims they enabled. They’d still blame us.

            Being out in the intense cold really wakes a person up to one’s mortality. Hypothermia can creep up pretty fast. Yet, we still have an immense number of morons in our two states that will never wake up.

            The funny thing is, while I’m getting sick of the cold we’ve had, and are still getting, I like sitting out by the firepit on a real cold night, maybe -15, burning wood, looking at the stars, and enjoying the quiet. I haven’t been able to do it lately because of this stubborn flu I’ve had for the last two weeks.

    • DAWNOFNEWDAY

      how exactly was our military keeping us safe? We are being invaded here with illegals,our police here are becoming more militarized, our rights are being taken away at home, etc. How is the military keeping us safe? America started losing their freedom around the time of WWI. That’s when we got involved in another country’s war, that’s when we started creating all these big federal alphabet agencies that we have today. We are less free today than we were in 1900, yet we didnt have the military dominance that we have today. Again, how are we freer?

  • DDay

    So Obama is trying to dismantle the 2nd Amendment, increase government dependency, increases aide to Islamists, lifts sanctions on Iran to help them develop nukes, tries to destroy our ally Israel, AND IS SHRINKING OUR MILITARY…

    Well, I guess America was nice while it lasted, nice knowing you.

    • DAWNOFNEWDAY

      But how was the military protecting us from these things that are going on at home right now? How were they keeping us safe by fighting wars in other countries?

      • A Z

        What do you think OTM mean in regards to illegal border crossers? Do you really think OTM is the Mexican spelling of ATM?

        Iraq was a sink hole for jihadis. they came from Libya and many other places to fight. the bulk of them transited through Syria with Assad’s blessing. We had many snipers teams waiting for them as they crossed the border after dark. Those dead jihadis were not available to launch attacks like the 1st World Trade center bombing or the Ohio Mall bombing.

  • hiernonymous

    The article that appears to have you so exercised said this: “Under the Hagel plan, which Congress could change, the active-duty Army would shrink from its current 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000. That would make it the smallest since just before the U.S. entered World War II.”

    I seem to recall, and the Army’s Center for Military History backs me up, that the Army was targeting an end strength of 435,000 during the ’90s post-fall-of-the-wall drawdown – from a strength of 780,000.

    Rather than respond breathlessly to vaguely alarming and alarmingly vague cries of “smallest since 1940!,” why not look at the actual proposal and explain how or why it leaves America inadequately protected? Keep in mind, of course, that this would be 440-450k active duty Army; we’d also have the Marine Corps (over 200,000 strong), the reserves, and a National Guard that is about 470,00 strong (and the Guard is heavily focused on combat formations). That leaves us with a ground fighting capability of about a million. That’s not enough to handle what existential threat to our country?

    Active Army end strength, in 2006, while fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was 496,000. The Army surged to the mid-500s over the next two years to deal with the requirements of the surge strategy – but with that, we had 296,000 troops deployed to the MIddle East (all services, but majority Army). Is there a compelling argument that we need to keep resourcing these two wars after their ends?

    As always, I think it’s important to remember that we won the Cold War by forcing the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion. I suggest we think twice before following them down that hole.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “As always, I think it’s important to remember that we won the Cold War by forcing the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion. I suggest we think twice before following them down that hole.”

      I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said in principal. But I also think that we have a new (well, an old one that is thawing out) cold war that is continuing to this day and I know that you disagree about that.

      We should approach it rationally. But we should also not be in denial about all of the threats to our allies because threats to our allies threaten us just as surely even if people can’t see it. That’s especially true if the welfare programs continue to be treated as sacred. We need free trade with various parts of the world. Isolationism is essentially naive.

      • hiernonymous

        That’s reasonable.

        I agree that isolationism is naive; but so, I think, is volunteering to take on all the security heavy lifting while our ostensible allies dedicate their economic resources to, well, their economies.

        • Drakken

          I agree with your assessment that our allies need to spend more on their military capabilities. It is rather amusing to see our NATO allies cut their military budgets to the bone and can’t even get troops to where they need to go, and the US Air Force has to ferry them to the hot spots, France is the perfect example in Mali. I can’t wait until the Balkans goes hot again and there is no one on the NATO side who will be in a position to do anything about it, the Russians have about 1,800 advisors in the Balkans as we speak and everyone is ignoring it. The Saudi’s, Turks and other oil rich sheikdoms are pouring money, jihadist, and imams into Bosnia and Kosovo for another go round. Frankly when the smoke clears, I do hope that the Croats and Serbs finally deal with the muslim problem and put an end to it.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Well I agree in principal with your sentiments. My observation is that we end up doing the heavy lifting because of political compromises and notions of social justice and so forth.

          Our missions get complicated and by the time the horse trading is complete, we end up with security-welfare programs rather than security with trade agreements.

          I think there are fundamental differences in how various factions approach other nations and what expectations we have.

          I think there are solutions that are more just, and more effective in securing peace among the peaceful people of the world. And they are economically feasible because it allows more flexible productivity arrangements. But how we lead and manage these relationships will make all the difference. We need to more accurately analyze our failures rather than saying we should just shrivel up a bit and allow others to forgive us for our “colonialism” and all of those other embellished grievances.

          Pro-American politicians should be leading the way in reminding people of our side of the story and the benefits in joining us rather than hating us. Getting people to like us by uncritically accepting their hateful narratives about us is counterproductive.

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t disagree with your sentiments, though I’d likely disagree with your assessment of who could fairly be characterized as ‘uncritically’ accepting others’ narrative. Regards!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You might be surprised though.

    • truebearing

      Threats have multiplied since then. China’s military is growing more sophisticated every day. They are threatening everyone in their sphere. Irand will have nukes soon, if they don’t already. The Middle East is exploding into an arms race. Russia has expansion on its mind. Ukraine is a perfect example. Now is not a good time to shrink the Army, if for no other reason than appearnances.

      Not only is Obama shrinking the Army, he already reduced our Navy. He just pulled a carrier out of the Middle East.

      Obama has been purging generals, nixing weapon systems, and is worried more about special rights for gays than military preparedness.

      Obama has also destroyed the faith of our allies in our willingness to honor treaties. He has strangled the economy spent recklessly until we are on the verge of financial ruin. Obama has squandered trillions on nothing instead of maintaining a first rate military. Now we will see our enemies fill the power vacuum.

      Want peace? Prepare for war.

      • hiernonymous

        Our Navy has more full-scale carrier groups than the rest of the world has carriers – full-size and ‘cruiser’ carriers – combined. The size of our active Army is irrelevant in dealing with Iran’s potential nuclear force – that’s a function of our nuclear forces and deterrence. The odds of the U.S. intervening militarily in a conflict between Russia and a former member of the Soviet Union is between slim and none; did you notice our response in Georgia while our military was at what you consider a full capability? That’s basic geopolitics.

        Which leaves China. Our long-term capacity for competing with China militarily depends on our capacity for competing with China economically. China has roughly 4 times our population, access to a plethora of natural resources, and an increasingly sophisticated economy. It’s pure fantasy to imagine that it is not going to be the world’s leading economy at some point, barring factors far beyond our control. Like Britain in the late 19th Century facing the reality of a growing United States, we can’t change that, we can only adapt to it.

        If we attempt to respond to the increasing economic and military power of China through military aggressiveness, we’re going to have to commit and ever-increasing percentage of our GDP to military R&D and production to try to maintain the qualitative edge to offset the numbers. The more we commit to the military, the less our economy is engaged in actual productive endeavors, and the more we undercut our long-term capacity for short-term power. All the Chinese need to do in such an eventuality is wait us out, and they’ll wait us out with ill will.

        Or we can recognize the emerging multi-polar reality, and be as wise as Britain was in trying to shape the international order in such a fashion as will favor us as much as possible when we are no longer the sole superpower.

        “Want peace? Prepare for war.”

        The problem with platitudes is that they tend to mask other realities. One of those is that preparing for war involves a declining return on investment; the 700 billionth dollar spent on defense doesn’t give you the same bang as the 50 billionth. You can spend yourself into impotence just as surely as you can fail to spend enough to be strong. We’re better off maintaining a smaller but still-capable military while addressing our economic problems than we are trying to build a military that can fight every other country simultaneously – for a little while.

        • WhiteHunter

          Your argument seems to be comparable to saying that a town can safely get along with just one fire engine and half a dozen volunteer firemen because it’s been 30 years since the last time the town’s entire business district burned to the ground in a five-alarm fire, and there’s been nothing more than a few small backyard leaf fires after that–so why worry about keeping all this “excess capacity”?

          Think of the important savings–money that could be spent on more important priorities!– of scrapping the other three engines and laying off the other 25 firemen!

          Is that it? Keep in mind that in 1942 it was by no means a sure thing that we’d win World War II, although we did have a big advantage then that we don’t anymore: a country united in the just belief that we were the good guys and the enemy were the bad guys. There were no Michael Moores or Jane Fondas, and no CAIR, on the morning of Monday, December 8, 1941.

          • hiernonymous

            If you want to use that analogy, then the position offered in the article is that of a town, facing a wildfire, that rounds up an extra 100 men to fight the wildfire – and then insists on keeping them on the city payroll for the next 50 years, just in case there’s another wildfire.

            The obvious prudent course for the city would be to staff an active firefighting force to handle probable dangers, and to have a combination of a reserve of trained firefighters and arrangements with nearby towns’ fire departments to deal with unusual circumstances such as your 5-alarm fire. (And, of course, to make sure that the lessons from the last big fire are studied and measures implemented to reduce the likelihood of its recurrence.)

            “There were no Michael Moores or Jane Fondas, and no CAIR, on the morning of Monday, December 8, 1941.”

            Of course, Al Qa’ida is no Imperial Japan, either. The Japanese represented a well-disciplined country that had spent the better part of a century singlemindedly devoting itself to transforming itself into a European-style industrial military power. Japan’s first-rate military machine had meticulously planned the Centrifugal Offensive, awe-inspiring to this day for its boldness and thoroughness. Beginning with Pearl Harbor, the Imperial Army and Navy dealt hammer blow after hammer blow against the might of the U.S. and Europe; striking us first at Pearl Harbor, then smashing stronghold after stronghold – bringing down the pearl of our own Pacific Empire, the Philippines; defeating the British in Malaya with shocking speed; taking the supposedly impregnable fortress at Singapore. For month after month after month, it was an unbroken string of defeats and calamities, of sunken ships, lost islands, and battalion after battalion of our soldiers dead or taken.

            In contrast, al Qa’ida hijacked four civilian airliners, flew three into buildings and knocked them down. It was a vicious, evil, and clever move, but it was a one-off; not the sort of action that could be repeated. We didn’t spend the next half year enduring weekly reports of more buildings falling; we didn’t face newspapers listing the ships, men, and territory we’d lost to al Qa’ida that day.

            The sort of threat represented by terrorist groups was the sort of thing that happened in the safe zones in WWII. Assassinations, bombs planted in vehicles and buildings, etc – that was the sort of thing that happened in the rear areas where troops went to escape real combat. AQ represents a real problem, and one that must be deal with, but to talk about it as if it were an existential threat on par with Hitler’s Germany or Imperial Japan is to hyperventilate.

          • hiernonymous

            *crickets*

        • truebearing

          Obama isn’t trying to build a smaller but still capable military. That is the point. He isn’t trying to improve the economy either. Spending money he borrows from China is hardly a solution, nor is strangling the energy sector.

          China has its own economic issues, but with leadership like Obama’s we’ll never be able to exploit them.

          I am not suggesting spending money needlessly, but Obama is planning to throw away successful weapons like the A-10, which no sane person can agree with. it costs far less to keep current weapons working and available than it does to mothball them, then have to create new ones later, in the middle of a crisis. He has weakened our nuclear capacity, and gutted our missile defense as soon as he was elected. He is exposing our every flank and then turning his back. Food stamps, Commiecare, and Amnesty are Obama’s priorities, and they only make things economically worse. He is the Betrayer-In-Chief. Obama is strategically weakening this country.

          Also, to your comment: “As always, I think it’s important to remember that we won the Cold War by forcing the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion. I suggest we think twice before following them down that hole.”

          Yes, that is a fair consideration, at least on the surface, but only addresses half of the reason the Soviets failed. Their economy was a disaster. They lost the spending war because socialism is a lousy way to create wealth. We had the revenue, they didn’t. The biggest thing we have to fear in trying to compete with China is that Obama is gutting our economy at the same time he is gutting our military. The problem comes back to Obama and his nihilistic agenda.

          • hiernonymous

            “Obama isn’t trying to build a smaller but still capable military. That
            is the point. He isn’t trying to improve the economy either.”

            The proof of both contentions, apparently, being that he isn’t doing things the way you would do them> Last I checked, Obama had spent a considerable amount of effort on trying to improve the economy. The report card, of course, is mixed, but to contend that he’s actually trying to hurt the country is pretty silly.

            “…but Obama is planning to throw away successful weapons like the A-10, which no sane person can agree with. ”

            You apparently don’t spend an awful lot of time reading about the military. The Air Force has repeatedly bruited about the idea of eliminating the A-10. As an Army guy, I’m very fond of the aircraft. It’s very good at ground support. I, personally, like the idea of a dedicated GS aircraft precisely because I know that it won’t be used for something else. As long as A-10s are flying, something in the air will be dedicated to knocking out ground targets instead of gallivanting off to joust with other fighters, perform deep interdiction, etc.

            But those are all reasons the Air Force isn’t terribly enamored of the bird. It’s single-role. It’s not flexible. It’s a tank-killer, and we’re not fighting a lot of big armored forces right now.

            So while I’d hate to see it go, to claim that it’s insane to consider it is more hyperventilating. There’s a sound argument for getting rid of the A-10, though I hope it doesn’t happen.

            “…is that Obama is gutting our economy….”

            The major economic problems facing our country didn’t emerge in the last five years. If you try to sell a narrative of a U.S. economy that was humming along just fine until Obama achieved the position he needed to dismantle the country, it’s very, very hard indeed to take you seriously.

            “The problem comes back to Obama and his nihilistic agenda.”

            That’s simply frothing at the mouth.

          • truebearing

            You opined the other day that Obama’s foreign policy was “competent.” At what? Enabling enemies? Alienating allies? Making a fool of himself and encouraging the rest of the world to distrust us? I guess you don’t have much acumen in foreign policy.

            You damn right Obama isn’t doing things to improve the economy the way I would. Why don’t you list what he has done that has improved the economy. I could use a good laugh.

            He’s gutting the coal industry when we are already suffering from a lack of jobs, not to mention the fact that makes no difference environmentally, given the way India and China are burning it. Alternative energy has failed miserably in Europe, so the options grow thin.

            He’s strangling the oil and gas industry at every opportunity. The Keystone pipeline, drilling in the Gulf, drilling on federal lands…all blocked by Obama’s insidious environmental agenda. He has squandered billions on his “green economy,” all of which has been an abject failure.

            Obamacare is a job destroyer second to none. Even employers who need people won’t hire full-time because they will be penalized. Obama now plans to make them get permission from the government if they want to fire someone. Do you think that helps create jobs?

            Without private sector jobs, there is a steady loss of of revenue for the government, and the more government jobs added, the greater the drain, yet Obama keeps increasing the federal workforce while imposing more taxes on the wealth creators. Do you know who they are? Despite there being far more Americans now than 35 years ago, participation in the work force today is at levels seen 35 years ago. What a rousing success that fact bespeaks.

            Obama thinks unemployment checks and food stamps stimulate the economy. Typical leftist recipe for economic failure. You’d have to be a leftist or a fool to think that formula will ever work. If you think Obama is doing anything but destroying our economy, you either know nothing about what makes an economy strong, or buy into the same failed ideology he does.

            It seems the A-10 performed well in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as both Gulf Wars.The Taliban didn’t have tanks. It is a great aircraft for ground support and it doesn’t cost a king’s ransom like the stuff the Air Force wants. Weren’t you just saying we are in a financial pinch? Why get rid of proven, cost effective weapons?

            Yes, I am aware that the A-10 has been unpopular with some in the military, but the military gets lots of things wrong when it comes to the politicization of weaponry. The A-10 has proven its detractors wrong, decisively. it would be insane to throw away the A-10.

            The economy was humming along a lot better than it is now until the Left managed to destroy it with their sub-prime scheme. After they forced banks to offer sub-prime loans and forced the economy to crash, they bailed the banks out, then blamed them for what they, the Left, clearly initiated. Then the Frank-Dodd Act was imposed as a supposed solution, which froze credit, ran many people out of business, killed new construction, and shut down many small banks. It also contributed to more job loss.

            The economic problems that existed before Obama began his coup where directly attributable to entitlement spending. Obama has simply accelerated entitlement spending in any way possible, and the debt and deficit are irrefutable proof.

            Apparently you are too poorly informed to understand what is happening, or you are a Leftist yourself. Either way, you’re wrong, yet again.

          • hiernonymous

            The A-10 has proven its detractors wrong, decisively.

            That’s an odd conclusion. Its ‘detractors’ never suggested that it was anything but excellent at its role. The argument for its retirement was never rooted in any alleged shortcomings in its tactical performance, but in its inability to perform other roles. The argument was generally that scarce resources were better invested in multi-role aircraft that could perform other functions when ground support wasn’t needed.

            In short, no amount of superb performance by the A-10 decisively proves that those who wish to retire it wrong. I’d argue that it does raise the bar in how well we should demand that any multi-role replacement perform, but that’s another matter. Quite plainly, one might disagree with a recommendation to retire the Thunderbolt, but it’s equally plain that such a recommendation is hardly insane.

            The economy was humming along a lot better than it is now until the Left
            managed to destroy it with their sub-prime scheme. After they forced banks to offer sub-prime loans and forced the economy to crash…

            That’s a curious viewpoint. The mainstream conclusion has been that deregulation led to the securitization of mortgages putting a premium on volume over risk evaluation at the originator level. Put more simply, mortgage originators were able to bundle and sell their mortgages easily. Their association with any risk ended at the point of sale. This meant that there was little incentive for originators to perform due diligence in ensuring that the mortgages could be repaid, and there was very high incentive to drive up volume, as that was where the profit was.

            If you’re looking for the single most significant element in the crisis, I’d suggest that you look at the deregulation that permitted loan originators to divorce themselves from the risk of default. When the entity charged with evaluating the ability of an individual to repay the loan could expect to shift the consequences of such a default to another party, there was no compelling reason to deny any loan. Such a transfer of risk was not possible when Glass-Steagall was fully in effect.

            Actual examination of mortgage data demonstrate that not only were CRA loans a small fraction of the total – but that the CRA loans outperformed the other subprime loans. In other words, as so often, you’ve latched on to an ideologically charged narrative that isn’t supported by the data. Claims by the likes of Paul that pressure by the CRA to provide loans to bad risks simply isn’t borne out by the data.

            I recommend you have a look through this report so that you can better understand the factors that actually contributed to the sub-prime crisis. The Angelides Commission report reaches much the same conclusion, but you might consider that too politically charged, and Mr. Simkovic did an admirable job of actually digging up the data and seeing how well the various narratives were supported.

            The economic problems that existed before Obama began his coup where
            directly attributable to entitlement spending. Obama has simply
            accelerated entitlement spending in any way possible, and the debt and
            deficit are irrefutable proof.

            That sounds like a promising summary of an argument. I’ll read it with interest, should you care to make the argument itself.

            Apparently you are too poorly informed to understand what is happening,
            or you are a Leftist yourself. Either way, you’re wrong, yet again.

            I suppose the obvious question is – how would you know?

          • hiernonymous

            “You opined the other day that Obama’s foreign policy was “competent.” At what?”

            At making generally judicious and reasoned responses to foreign policy challenges.

            I think he’s done a reasonable job of threading the needle in Egypt. His handling of the Libya crisis was pretty good – he managed to shift a significant portion of the combat duties to our allies, avoiding yet another extended ground entanglement for our troops. He’s been properly skeptical of both sides in the Syrian civil war. I think his “red line” rhetoric could have been handled better, but overall, I think he’s kept us where we need to be on Syria. I think that Obama’s recognition that the Pacific requires more foreign policy focus represents a long-overdue change in direction.

            His handling of the wars was okay. He got us out of Iraq as promised, and that was about as gracefully as we were ever going to extract ourselves from that fiasco. His initial approach to Afghanistan impressed me; rather than be steamrolled by those with a dog in the fight, he forced DoD to undertake a careful review with him, and he had the stones to undertake a surge that imposed sufficient order to set conditions for either a withdrawal or a continuation. We’ve opted for withdrawal, and I think that’s a good call. The real U.S. interest in Afghanistan ended in about December 2001 (well, a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit), and he put an end to a decade-long policy of half measures.

            As I noted previously, I don’t think Obama has been inspirational or awe-inspiring, but he’s been competent. I have my complaints as well, but overall, I think he’s been satisfactory.

      • A Z

        You cannot have a carrier ON STATION in each oceanic basin Atlantic & Pacific), unless you have the number of carriers we have now. If a carrier is on station, one is doing work up (passing qualifications), another is in maintenance period either really short or of 6 months, duration, or a major SLEP (service life extension program). You have crew R & R and transit times. Every Carrier has 2 cruisers for AA. There are usually 2 give for take subs acting as point or flankers.

        We also have a training carrier in Florida for training (or we had). You can practice carrier landing on land just like you can practice shooting a rifle without ammo. It only goes so far. A pitching deck is quite another matter.

        We also had a carrier based out of Yokosuka, Japan to show that we mean business.

        Hypersonic missiles which China has and drones might make manned aircraft and carriers obsolete. The president should come out and say it. He had better have a whole bevy of generals and admirals with him who don’t act like bootlickers.
        He also better be prepared to have a debate of 2 to 4 years and not have one of 3 months before petulantly saying the ‘science is settled’.

        We also should be telling NATO allies and Japan that they had better shoulder more of the defense burden. With Japan that might be publicly saying that if they want nukes they have our blessing and our help. It would also include that we think it would be a great ideal if they amend their constitution where it came to defense forces with our blessing and make them the senior partner in the Western Pacific. They are not the same generation as the one that went to war.

        As far as bang for the buck every soldier who get’s paid spends his $ as thoroughly as a person on welfare or unemployment. A very large percentages of cases for NJP are for debts. Princess Pelosi (high oligarch) says unemployment payment s boost the economy. Well so does military payroll.

      • No RNC

        Why would we fight a ground war w/ China? Or in Eastern Europe or even again in the ME? Stop the GD interventions w/ no clue!

  • Merican

    Please don’t be hysterical! The GD Pentagon Princes waste/steal trillions of Tax$’s & yet can’t finish off the mighty Tallybon??? The GD Intell Services steal/waste billions on budget & trillions of Tax/Drug $’s on Black Budgets & could not pre-capture the alleged Chechen Boston Bombers or Coke Snortin’ 767 drivers on 911??? The GD DOD/Intell needs an extreme make-over as does all entitlements!