[jolepp]

BBC News - Obama unveils new strategy for 'leaner' US military

from the side pane:

President Obama has lent his personal authority to a whole new vision of American defence. The future will see fewer counter-insurgency battles in distant lands. It will focus much more on the capacity of America's air and naval forces to balance a competitor like China or face down an antagonist like Iran. And it will scale back America's much-heralded ability to fight two wars at once.

But there's another imperative at work here. Times are tough. America spends a trillion dollars a year on defence-related activities. Congress has mandated defence cuts. In the coming months we will learn details: how many troops will be cut, how many arms programmes scrapped, and what the implications may be for US allies like the UK, and for firms that rely on US defence spending.

This is an election year in America. The Republican presidential candidates will no doubt accuse Mr Obama of weakening the military. It remains to be seen if that accusation will resonate with a war-weary American electorate.

[Jasvox]

In my opinion, this is a good idea and one, for the time being at least, is inevitable in order to prevent the military from being spread too thin and basically ineffective.

Jason

[jolepp]

A CBC piece on the subject: ANALYSIS | Will America take the knife to military spending? - World - CBC News

...
But these efforts are based on a stark realization that even America can no longer afford a military budget that has shot up 73 per cent more than it was in 2001 in real terms, and which consumes a full 20 per cent of U.S. federal spending.
...
At this juncture, the term "runaway spending" is entirely justified. The U.S. today is laying out roughly $100 billion a year more in real, inflation-adjusted dollars on defence than it did even at the scariest heights of the Cold War.
...

Sounds pricey (then again one might expect that pulling out of Iraq alone would save a pretty penny?).

[GeneV]

I am not expert enough to know exactly what is or isn't necessary, but I find it healthy that we may finally have a sane discussion of this topic. On another board, I mentioned that Pres. Clinton had pared back the military expenses, and the military seems to have done its job just fine even when President Bush called upon it unnecessarily. One conservative poster with close connections to the military responded indignantly that Clinton's cuts meant that more soldiers in Iraq died than necessary.

A total of some 4,404 American soldiers died in that conflict over the last 8 years, and that is tragic (as is the far greater Iraqi death toll), and it is unfortunate if some more could have been spared. However, somehow it is lost on many that other cuts in government services cost lives as well--and often in far greater numbers. With over 4 million births, every single point of difference in the infant mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 live births) between the U.S. and the other western industrialized countries reflects as many American deaths each year as the total lost in Iraq. BTW, our rate is 3 points worse than France and Germany and 4 points behind Sweden and Japan. We are 34th in infant mortality, but drop even lower to 50 in life expectancy. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html How many more deaths does that represent?

---

Last edited by GeneV; 01-06-2012 at 07:17 AM.

[jeffkrol]

I am not expert enough to know exactly what is or isn't necessary, but I find it healthy that we may finally have a sane discussion of this topic. On another board, I mentioned that Pres. Clinton had pared back the military expenses, and the military seems to have done its job just fine even when President Bush called upon it unnecessarily. One conservative poster with close connections to the military responded indignantly that Clinton's cuts meant that more soldiers in Iraq died than necessary.

A total of some 4,404 American soldiers died in that conflict over the last 8 years, and that is tragic (as is the far greater Iraqi death toll), and it is unfortunate if some more could have been spared. However, somehow it is lost on many that other cuts in government services cost lives as well--and often in far greater numbers. With over 4 million births, every single point of difference in the infant mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 live births) between the U.S. and the other western industrialized countries reflects as many American deaths each year as the total lost in Iraq. BTW, our rate is 3 points worse than France and Germany and 4 points behind Sweden and Japan. We are 34th in infant mortality, but drop even lower to 50 in life expectancy. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html How many more deaths does that represent?

And do they mention the "Rumsfeld" thing????
Recruiting Lies vs. Military Reality

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., attached a provision to last year's defense authorization bill authorizing 'but not requiring' the Defense Department to reimburse troops up to $1,100 for the expense of body armor and other protective gear and health and safety equipment not provided by the military.
The Pentagon has never paid a dime.
"Rumsfeld is violating the law," Dodd said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's been sitting on the books for over a year. They were opposed to it. It was insulting to them. I'm sorry that's how they felt."
At a Thursday news conference, Dodd said he is not sure why it is taking so long and wonders whether the Pentagon intends to actually reimburse anyone.
"The administration is either showing complete incompetence or utter indifference," he said. "It feels as if I am getting a rope-a-dope with them, hoping I would go away."

This devastating report proved conclusively what many had been saying for years: Army and DOD test procedures were flawed and overwhelmingly skewed in favor of contractors rather than our brave young men and women serving in combat areas. Read senior investigative reporter Roger Charles’ insightful analysis of the GAO report on body armor on the Soldiers for The Truth.

http://sftt.org/tag/secretary-rumsfeld/

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10119.pdf

[GeneV]

I don't think that body armor was an area where cuts were made, either. It was mostly in systems designed for defense against the "Eastern Block."

[jeffkrol]

I don't think that body armor was an area where cuts were made, either. It was mostly in systems designed for defense against the "Eastern Block."

Starting points........

This simple statement strips away the Pentagon spin and exposes this ugly truth: All the crocodile tears Bob Gates can blubber while signing condolence letters will not wash away the reality that Gates, like his predecessor Don Rumsfeld, protected the players in the corrupt acquisition system whose criminal malfeasance routinely sent inferior, sub-standard body armor to our frontline troops.

Yes, it’s just that simple. Gates and Rumsfeld paid a lot of lip service to caring for our dedicated warriors, but when it came to seeing to it that something as important as protective ballistic plates were thoroughly tested before being issued to combat theaters, well, they just couldn’t be bothered.

And the congressional enablers have supported this sad state of affairs. Such stalwarts of the Military Industrial Complex as Carl Levin, John Warner, Buck McKeon, “Uncle” Ike Skelton, and Duncan Hunter (both Sr. and Jr.) should have to answer for their shameless failure to ensure proper testing of body armor before it was shipped to the bloody killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is appropriate to acknowledge the singular contribution of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter who kicked off this series of investigations after reading the 2006 NYT article citing SFTT’s report on Marine casualties due to lack of side-protective plates. (The plates were sitting in warehouses in the U.S. until the NY Times article was published.)

This pathetic situation has been common knowledge inside the industry. Here’s the full quote from this most knowledgeable source cited above:

“If the defective protocol applies to the FAT (First Article Acceptance) then all subsequent production based on such a FAT is also deficient to the extent of the protocol. If this defective production lot is submitted for acceptance, any deficiency adds to the already embedded defects. There is no way to reconstitute a particular production lot once it has been issued and the product undergoes “use” stress. To certify what is now issued is to evaluate each plate physically to a non-destructive test [i.e., the vaunted field x-raying of plates by both the Army and the Marine Corps]. This accomplishes nothing. What we have now is ‘reality testing’ where a failure is no longer a statistic, but a real live warrior. “

This longtime insider is pointing out that by failing to properly test the plates during the acquisition process, the “reality test” is performed in combat on the plate of a “real live warrior” by the bullets of an equally live enemy combatant.

And how does the Army choose to respond to its indefensible conduct on the issue of flawed or non-existent testing that results in issuing sub-standard, inferior protective plates? In the NY Times article of August 17, 2011, they’ve “doubled down.”

I need to look into the whole thing a bit more......

[Wheatfield]

I am not expert enough to know exactly what is or isn't necessary, but I find it healthy that we may finally have a sane discussion of this topic. On another board, I mentioned that Pres. Clinton had pared back the military expenses, and the military seems to have done its job just fine even when President Bush called upon it unnecessarily. One conservative poster with close connections to the military responded indignantly that Clinton's cuts meant that more soldiers in Iraq died than necessary.

Personally (and this is NOT an anti American rant), I don't think enough soldiers died in Iraq. If more soldiers had died, or if the threat of more soldiers dying had existed, it is more likely that the war would have been either shorter, or not fought at all.
If the cost in American lives had been fourty thousand rather than 4 thousand, perhaps the war drums would be silenced for the moment, rather than now being pounded for Iran.
It is very easy to go to war when the possibility of surviving it is relatively assured. When the possibility of being killed is greater, the tendency is to be a bit more thoughtful about how necessary the war is, and there is more possibility of exploring peace options.
If your military decides that Iran is the next target, I truly hope it gets it's nose well and truly bloodied. The loss of a few capital ships, perhaps losing an aircraft carrier, some battleships and all the thousands of lives that go along with it would make you people realize that war really is hell. Right now, you've managed to sanitize it so much for your side that no one in America really sees war for what it is.
What your country needs is fifty thousand soldiers to come home in body bags from one short action, and videos of a burning American fleet in the Persian gulf to wake you up again to the realities of war.
It might make you people think a little bit about the morality of what you are doing in the Middle East.

[audiobomber]

I bet Iraqi soldiers didn't have ballistic plates.

I am disappointed that neither the British nor Canadian news articles linked above quoted Obama's most shocking statistic: The US spends as much on its military as the next 10 countries combined (I don't have time to find the actual quote, but I heard him say it).

Does the US spend too much on its armed forces? How is that even a serious question? Stop trying to rule the world, everyone will be better off, even America.

[Nesster]

I am disappointed that neither the British nor Canadian news articles linked above quoted Obama's most shocking statistic: The US spends as much on its military as the next 10 countries combined (I don't have time to find the actual quote, but I heard him say it).

Interestingly, this particular distortion of the free market by government doesn't get the free marketers' ire up.

[GeneV]

Personally (and this is NOT an anti American rant), I don't think enough soldiers died in Iraq. If more soldiers had died, or if the threat of more soldiers dying had existed, it is more likely that the war would have been either shorter, or not fought at all.

I don't think that more soldiers dying is the answer, but more concern about the other lives affected by war. Estimates of Iraqi losses--mostly civilian--go into seven figures.Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is time our leaders start to value the lives of citizens in other countries.

[Wheatfield]

I don't think that more soldiers dying is the answer, but more concern about the other lives affected by war. Estimates of Iraqi losses--mostly civilian--go into seven figures.Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is time our leaders start to value the lives of citizens in other countries.

I agree with you in principle, but I am not so naive as to see it as a possibility. Your leaders are very good at demonizing whoever they want to spend some bullets on, and stirring up your citizens with fear and hate. As your politicians are very much owned by corporate America, and IIRC, your country spends something like 20% of it's budget on the military, one would be safe to presume that a significant part of the owners of your government are very much in favour of sending the machinery of death to foreign lands.
It's good for their bottom line, and in corporate America, that is all there is room for.
I think the only way to get them to start valuing human life in general is to have to suffer the loss of a significant number of their own. The ones overseas will not ever matter as much as the dollar.
But maybe if enough of your young people start coming home in body bags, your population will wake up and start to question why so many of their husbands, wives, sons and daughters are being killed.
I believe it wasn't until lots of your soldiers started dying in Vietnam that the protests started. I expect that is what it will take to wake your population up again.
They won't care about a hundred thousand rag heads, but they will surely care about the same number of their own people.
And they might actually start to question the wisdom of these petty aggressive actions that corner other countries into wars that they don't necessarily want either.
You won't start to see the horror of war until it comes to your doorstep. 9/11 wasn't enough to do it, perhaps if the deaths close to home are increased by a factor of 10 or a hundred, your country might change.

[Wheatfield]

Interestingly, this particular distortion of the free market by government doesn't get the free marketers' ire up.

The free market makes a huge amount of money off this distortion. The free market only cares when distortions cost them, not when it profits them.

[séamuis]

that no one in America really sees war for what it is.

dont mistake the entire population for those that actually beat the war drum. many, many people understand all too well and see's it for what it is. it is unfortunate that not enough people have opened their eyes, but don't dare paint the entire population as ignorant, because we aren't and that only makes your statements seem bigoted and foolish. its not that I don't for the most part agree with you, but you should never paint the entire population under one brush, and no 'the majority' argument won't work here because; one, your likely view of 'majority' is one painted by the media and not something you have seen with your own eyes and two, the use of the description 'no one' is just dead wrong. period. a case of 'its easy to assume and judge, from a distance.' you always seem to blame the entire population and never take into account that there are people here that do not think or act the way you paint all of us to think and act. there are people who ar against this and are actively speaking out, but you never seem to acknowledge that when making your statements. so I would consider that statement to be (despite your description of being not) very anti-american instead of anti-war, anti-ignorance, etc. because you can't seem to separate America the people from what the nations leaders do in their name.

[GeneV]

dont mistake the entire population for those that actually beat the war drum. many, many people understand all too well and see's it for what it is.....

Absolutely true. The Iraq war got me reactivated in politics, and I knew several business leaders who switched parties over the cavalier entry into an endeavor that was sure to kill thousands. It was still not enough to get a change, though. Once a battle begins and soldiers die, it is far more difficult to end involvement.