via Early Warning Blog.
Arguably, the single worst national security decision of the Obama presidency, at least so far, is to protect the personnel portion of the defense budget from the automatic cuts mandated by sequestration. The President protected the personnel accounts in FY2013, forcing procurement and operations and maintenance to absorb virtually the entire $37 billion reduction. Now, it is reported that he will again exempt personnel from its share of the $52 billion that must be taken from the proposed FY2014 defense budget. This means that once again procurement and O&M will take the additional hit of approximately $13 billion.The battle lines are drawn.
The requirement to absorb a reduction of about 15 percent of procurement and operating funds would, to employ that overused word, be catastrophic for any federal department, much less one still fighting a war. Even a proportional cut of $37 billion to procurement and O&M will likely necessitate breaking contracts for most weapons systems, grounding hundreds of Air Force aircraft, tying up dozens of Navy ships at the docks and a curtailing of Army and Marine Corps training. Add $13 billion on top of that and it is possible that the military will not just bend but break.
In addition, this decision sets the stage for continual growth in personnel costs. On its current trajectory, personnel costs will consume the entire defense budget by the late-2020s. Thus, protecting personnel spending means setting the stage for a hollow military down the road. This is a horrible legacy for any president. A bad decision, Mr. President; in fact, your worst in the national security arena so far.
It troops against tech and since this is Lexington Institute, you can break it down even further to Neo-Cons vs plain cost cutters.
This will bear watching because it takes it to another place no one wants to admit. Its combat experienced troops vs. gear that is in some cases unneeded. When the troops, vets, retirees and others finally wake up to the fact that the weapon systems that they're being pushed to support are the same systems that will cut hard earned benefits it will be a sight to behold.
The US military is one occupation where 20 years of service (albeit in certain career fields) can leave a person that appears 40 to actually be 60 internally (work with me, you know what I mean).
Of course there is waste and fraud in the benefits system, but if any of our so called social programs are actually earned then the ones paid to Vets and Retirees should be at the top of the list.
Fireworks ahead and for those paying attention, Obama might end up being a hero on this issue. We'll see.
Whats point of keeping pilots on the payroll but denying them flying hours?
ReplyDeleteWhats the point of keeping riflemen on the payroll but denying them ammunition to train with?
A small, well trained, well equipped army beats a large, poorly trained ill equipped rabble every time. I'd be interested in any example of the contrary.
An army with more soldiers than rifles isnt an army, its a disaster waiting to happen.
Cutting tomorrows procurement to fund todays wage bill is essentially a deeply dangerous method of borrowing.
you just laid out the most simplistic example possible to illustrate your point. the reality is something else entirely.
Deletedo you need to fly to different US cities to conduct MOUT training or can you do it at a military base using the MOUT facilities that were built at great cost?
do you need to fly your infantry to Arkansas to attend a shooting class put on by contractors or can you get some guys from the fleet with combat experience to teach the latest and greatest?
the point is understood that their is necessary training that must be done, but the US military has been wasting money in this arena too. the idea that the US could possibly end up with more troops than rifles is pure fantasy bordering on idiocy.
The Germans had a superior tank in Tiger, yet we still beat them with Shermans (in the west that is, in the east was the T-34). Quantity is a quality of its own.
DeleteShades of Jimmy Carter. Hollow military in the 70s thank to that idiot. What do you expect from a lefty community organizer?
ReplyDeleteHaving 11 CVN carriers/battle groups compared to everyone else's 1-2 substandard carrier per country? Excessive, no?
ReplyDeleteBillions wasted on corrupt Hailburton/Irak/Stan 'contractors'? Obama was right to get out of that steaming pile...
Not enough B-2s/F22s/F-35s/CICBMs/hypersonic missles to negate the swarms of J-20s, PAK-FAs, CICBMs coming our way. (The enemy supposedly have our defence secrets right? So keep on spending on cybersecurity..)
These are not much use in 'deterring' the taliban/AQ scum..
Sounds like choice is going to be between the military and the military industrial complex that sustains it.
ReplyDeleteGuess which one has a bigger lobbying budget? They're going to keep building expensive toys, just to put them in mothballs as soon as they come off the assembly line.
i think its going to be worse than that.
Deletei think the Pentagon is going to try and cut personnel, the President will reluctantly go for it and then he'll force them to cut procurement so they won't have personnel or toys.
the worst thing of all is that the JCS is talking about COIN being the fight of the future but instead of keeping INfantry Battalions around to fight it they're going to cut those in favor of aviation which is only a supporting arm in that fight.