That why you write it down, numbnuts!
Posted on 01/28/2006 1:22:13 AM PST by paulat
Bush to Propose Trimming Army Reserve by LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs.
ADVERTISEMENT
The proposals, likely to face opposition on Capitol Hill, come as the Defense Department struggles to trim personnel costs and other expenses to pay for the war in Iraq and a host of other pricey aircraft and high-tech programs. Bush will send his 2007 budget to Congress on Feb. 6.
The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland.
The Army sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday outlining the plan. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.
Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 — the current number of slots it is allowed — to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.
Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls.
Some in Congress have vowed to fight the National Guard cuts. Its soldiers and resources are controlled by state governors unless Guard units are mobilized by the president for federal duty, as Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"I remain convinced that we do not have a large enough force," Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., said in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Proposals to cut funding in two key jet fighter programs were described by defense analysts and congressional aides, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because the reductions have not been announced.
One plan would eliminate funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the military's next-generation combat plane.
The second would cut money for F-22 fighters during 2007. But it is actually a contract restructuring that would add that money back — and more — over the long run by stretching out the program for an additional two years and buying up to four more planes. The new plan calls for buying 60 aircraft through 2010, rather than 56 in the next two years.
The Joint Strike Fighter engine is being built by General Electric and England-based Rolls Royce, and the plan to dump them as suppliers has triggered intense lobbying, including a handwritten note from British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush.
On the homefront, the close to $2 billion cut would hit General Electric engine plants, and possibly jobs, in Ohio and Massachusetts and a Rolls Royce plant in Indiana.
"This is a big question for GE," said Loren Thompson, military analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank. "They could get shut out of the fighter engine business over the next 10 years."
The proposal would benefit Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney, which got the original contract for the Lockheed Martin aircraft, and delivered its first engine last month.
GE spokesman Dan Meador said the alternate engine program provides competition for Pratt & Whitney, helping to drive down costs while also providing a back-up if problems arise.
"It's very important to GE and Rolls Royce, and we're performing well," he said.
Defense officials, however, said the Pratt & Whitney engine has performed well and within budget, and noted that a number of other jet fighter programs — including the F-22 — have just one engine maker. Pratt & Whitney also makes the engines for the F-22.
___
AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.
Of all the thing to cut in the budget, defense is not one of them.
My gasted is flabbered....what on earth is he thinking?? These folk are VOLUNTEERS, for cripes sake!!
This is the first time I am against W!!!.
I am dreaming? Right?
'fraid not, buddy...breaking news on AP
Maybe he's thinkin Expand the Regular Army.
Since most of the heat he has taken has been due to the extra long deployment of reserves, more than some of the reservists THOUGHT they bargained for, perhaps he's thinking regular army is more bang for the buck.
I say this with no intent to knock the reserves, who have by and large stepped up and performed their job heroically.
Personally I think we need a bigger standing army in these times.
The kind of stuff you would normally expect from clinton. And at a time when we will likely need those troops.
Personally I think we need a bigger standing army in these times.
Excellent point!! However, this strikes me as highly political...not strategic....
Never a dull moment, eh?
I trust The President's and Rumsfield's knowledge of the facts and proper assessment of what the best course of action is, more than I do your analysis. That what I"M THINKING.
Oy!! And I was raised Roman Catholic!!
My sentiments, exactly...'cept I mighta said "WTF" in case children were present....
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060127_4033.html
QDR Provides Vectors for Defense Transformation
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2006 – Plans for transforming the defense structure for the future aren't based on numbers, but rather, capabilities, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told civilian leaders who visited the Pentagon today to hear about the status of the U.S. military and ongoing operations.
Rumsfeld and other military and defense leaders updated alumni of the Joint Civilian Orientation Conference on military missions around the world, including the global war on terror and efforts under way to help transform the military to better confront the challenges it will face in the future.
One major aspect of that transformation, the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review, will provide important vectors that help the Defense Department shape itself for the next four years and into the next decades, the secretary told the group. The report is slated to be delivered to Congress Feb. 6.
In a major shift from traditional thinking, the QDR will focus on capabilities rather than quantities, Rumsfeld said. "We're thinking about the 21st century in a way that's different from the 20th century," he said.
"There's a tendency for us to want to count things," Rumsfeld said. But that tells just part of the story because weapons have become more powerful and precise and the military has adopted new ways of operating that improve efficiency, he added.
Earlier in the day, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, assistant to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the group the QDR will help DoD reorient its capabilities so it can better protect the United States and its interests. "That's what we focus on," Odierno said.
The QDR will also reflect the fact that traditional war models simply don't work when confronting terrorism, Rumsfeld told the group. No longer is the U.S. military facing off against big armies, navies and air forces, but rather, extremists who don't represent any particular nation.
"We are trying to figure out how you conduct a war against something other than a nation-state and how ... you conduct a war in countries that you are not at war with," Rumsfeld said.
Similarly, the QDR will help DoD improve its intelligence capabilities so it's better able to find and capture or kill terrorists plotting to kill Americans and U.S. friends and allies, he said.
While the QDR will reflect different capabilities needed throughout the military to better confront terrorism, Odierno said it will also recognize the need to maintain readiness for a conventional war. "So we have to have what we consider full spectrum," he said. "We have to be able to conduct that major warfare if we have to against a regular conventional army, but we also must be able to defeat these non-state terrorist actors. And so we have to adjust."
These challenges place strong demands on the military, and the QDR will help ensure servicemembers are trained, equipped and prepared at all levels to face them, Odierno said. "We have to be agile. We have to be responsive. We have to be adaptive with our military capabilities," he said. "We have to be able to move quickly and destroy our enemy quickly. And that's where we will focus."
The upcoming QDR will build on recommendations of the past two QDRs, in 1997 and 2001, Odierno told the JCOC participants.
The group members represented a "who's who" of civilian business owners, chief executive officers, educators, local politicians and civic leaders who have participated in Joint Civilian Orientation Conference program. DoD established the program in 1948 to introduce civilian "movers and shakers" with little or no military exposure to the workings of the armed forces so they can share their experiences with their community and business associates.
Re-read it carefully. There are talks of reducing (marginally) both the Reserves and the National Guard. And not by a lot.
The NGuard had too many tasks already. You saw it in Katrina, with the Rats claiming po black people were dying in the super dome because all the guard troops were in Iraq. (yes, lies, but they screamed it anyway).
The article clearly states this is an attempt to come up with a balanced fighting force: the ... cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army.
I see that as a sign of putting more money in the active army (who have not had problems fulfilling recruitment) and taking bodies away from the reserves/guard, where recruitment is less successful. I see it as a way of building the army with fighting troops rather than having a lot of units that take 6 months to get ready to deploy and stir up a lot of whining among family and employers when the weekend warrior suddenly is deployed to active status. Why have these troops (who in most cases are excellent and brave soldiers) if you can't use them without the very fact that you are using them becoming a talking (nagging) point for the Rats.
Anyway, you see my point. Can't say its correct, but seems plausible.
Revising recruiting goals? ..Current expectations unrealistic?
Gotta be 'strategery'.
President Bush may be blind and foolish in a couple of areas, but this isn't (hasn't been before anyway) one of his weak areas.
Since Congress tends to do the opposite of what he requests, maybe he is doing a B'rer Rabbit.
Or like a previous poster said, he wants to reduce this and increase the Regulars. Maybe this is the way to pay for Rummy's new Spec Ops Brigade.
That why you write it down, numbnuts!
Increasing the Army and putting that $4 billion to use....In a possible conflict with Iran?
Rummy gets it! We took Afganistan with less than 2000 guys on the ground and less than 500 guys in the air. (Supported by hundreds of thousands of course). It was an eye opener for the entire world, Agincourt all over again.
You have very interesting points, adamjas...I only hope they are true.
I trust Rumsfeld and his band of cats
This is an AP story? that says a lot
Probably in the back of everyones mind. For that war we will not need the advanced fighters, or large mechanized Armys. You will not see columns of armor heading toward Tehran. It won't be Afghanistan either. It will be something different. You can guess, but don't do it out loud.
Truly not being snotty...how does that help us against low-level insurgent fighting?
The way this reads, he's cutting empty slots. I don't see the point. Cutting an unfilled position doesn't seem to me to be a great way to save money.
They have a limited pot of money, and need to prioritize. I don't know what the priorities are, but probably this is the military's idea to begin with.
You are kidding, right??
We took Kabul, we are still losing troops and we didn't get Osama and his Merry Band of Cavedwellers or Mullah Omar, but other than that it was brilliant.
I hope it's to build up active duty levels. That indeed is more necessary than reserves. The Army's active duty strength levels have not been significantly increased in over a decade while missions and their lengths have increased drastically. We are running the active duty army on 1996 troop levels and trying to fight in three maybe 4 nations. Something has to give.
That added to the fact we have been shown just how valuable & needed our Army National Guard is on a domestic level by the natural disasters of the past year in many states.
If this stops the consistent deployment of NG's going on then great. Using NG's as ready foreign deployable actives as has been the ongoing rule since Gulf War 1 is not good for the reserve program, the states, nor the communities and private sector. Not one single crisis since Gulf War 1 has excluded them.
If a tornado hits it's & does massive damage the NG's that respond with state agencies. When a hurricane hit's same thing. I've even seen them deployed in blizzard conditions. They are part of the backbone for most state and community disaster plans. In some cases especially in rural areas these deployments are taking away vital emergency personnel for up to 16 months or more including pre-deployment workups etc. Also if while our active troops are deployed overseas it is their traditional duty to respond if our nations soil & local communities are attacked. They can not do that deployed 5000 miles away.
On the other hand if this is just another defense cut like the ones Poppy/Cheney started us on in the early 90's well like Hank Jr says it's a family tradition :>{ and not a healthy one for our national defense.
http://www.eucom.mil/english/FullStory.asp?art=814
Army announces latest force changes in Europe
Release Date: 27 Jan 2006
(From a U.S. Army, Europe release)
HEIDELBERG, Germany — This year, U.S. Army, Europe converts, inactivates and returns numerous units to the United States as part of Defense Department transformation efforts.
The transformation plan is projected to increase strategic responsiveness and flexibility in the face of the threats posed by the Global War on Terrorism.
The Army will return the 1st Armored Division Aviation Brigade in Hanau, Germany, to the United States; set the conditions to establish a combat aviation brigade from aviation units stationed in Europe; and conduct other unit actions associated with Army force modernization and bi-annual force structure reviews.
The unit actions affect about 7,200 military, 11,000 family members, 40 U.S. civilian employees and 38 local civilian employees.
1st Armored Division Aviation Brigade
The 1st AD Aviation Brigade departs Europe this year and returns to the United States. This return is at the direction of the Department of the Army as part of the Army’s conversion of aviation assets worldwide into 11 combat aviation brigades. Upon arrival in United States, the brigade’s units will become part of the 1st Infantry Division Combat Aviation Brigade forming at Fort Riley, Kan.
Four units of the 1st AD Aviation Brigade return to the United States in the summer of 2006:
— Headquarters Company, 1st AD Aviation Brigade
— 2nd Battalion, 501st Aviation Regiment
— 127th Aviation Support Battalion
— Company A, 3rd Battalion, 58th Air Traffic Services Regiment
A fifth unit, the 1st Battalion of the 501st Aviation Regiment returned directly from combat to the United States in July 2004.
The return of the 1st AD Aviation Brigade to the United States affects about 1,200 Soldiers, 1,800 family members, and eight U.S. and 13 German civilian employees.
Combat Aviation Brigade
The combat aviation brigade, or CAB, is the standard design for U.S. Army aviation brigades under the modular force plan. Formerly called the multi-functional aviation brigade, the CAB is part of Army transformation.
For the CAB in Europe, the plan is to combine remaining V Corps aviation assets to form a single aviation brigade capable of performing all Army aviation missions. U.S. Army, Europe will accomplish this by maintaining a tailored force with attack and airlift capabilities to conduct early-entry, rapid-reaction, humanitarian-assistance and disaster-relief missions.
In addition to the CAB, theater aircraft and helicopter elements remain to support USAREUR, 7th Army and U.S. European Command commanders in the future.
These unit transformation actions affect about 3,200 Soldiers, 4,800 family members, and 22 U.S. and 20 German civilian employees.
To set the conditions to establish the CAB in Fiscal 2007, which is from October 2006 to September 2007, additional units are affected this year:
snip
well, I don't know about that, but I do know that the President hasn't steered us wrong yet.
We never 'took' Afghanistan. We routed the taliban. That is about it. The country is just as unstable now as ever.
Then why are we in Iraq?
Wrong moves for this country.
"Rummy gets it! We took Afganistan with less than 2000 guys on the ground and less than 500 guys in the air. (Supported by hundreds of thousands of course). It was an eye opener for the entire world, Agincourt all over again."
Except few pay attention to that, or the near-masterpiece of the invasion of Iraq. The conventional wisdom even in the U.S. is that the Iraqi military fairly well just "rolled over" for us, and it's far worse outside our borders where public opinion plays a very influential role. This is one area in which the Pentagon (and the administration) have failed miserably: Upholding the perception of power. It's a similar concept and dynamic seen in the reasons why nations across the globe are treating China as if it's already a superpower, and as if it's already the world's most powerful economy.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.army27jan27,1,362414.story?coll=bal-pe-asection
Army secretary defends plan to restructure National Guard
Harvey says proposed decrease in combat brigades isn't 'budget-driven'
By Tom Bowman
Sun Reporter
Originally published January 27, 2006
WASHINGTON // With political opposition mounting against a Pentagon plan to reduce the size and combat strength of the National Guard, the Army's top official said yesterday that the opponents are ill-informed and that the plan would increase the overall combat power of both the Guard and the active-duty Army.
snip
By demonstrating the power of thinking outside the box.
Can you honestly say the last three-four years of "large army vs insurgent" fighting has been time well spent?
Capabilities is what Rummy wants, and that includes capabilities not event thought up yet.
Take one little item, the still experimental vehicle that detonates roadside bombs from a distance without even knowing exactly where they are. (Its been shown on TV and the Web, google for it). Now imagine future generations of that, mounted on unmanned aircraft flying over vast areas and seeing everything bigger than a shotgun shell exploding in-place with no-one coming near it. Kinda tips the balance away from the insurgent doesn't it.
And for the record, they are terrorists, not insurgents, and most are not even Iraqis.
It takes soldiers on the ground to destroy the enemy. There were a lot more soldiers on the ground in Afganistan than just US.
You Getting bored over at the DU site or what?
We are in Iraq because thats where the terrorists are. Its part of the overall plan that is clearly too complex for your cranial capacity.
You rang? :-)
Either you guys didn't read the article, can't read the article, or just intend to bash Bush and Rumsfield.
The Guard and the reserves are not actually being cut, they are staying at their present strength. They are just eliminating the surplus slots which they haven't been able to fill anyway. Is that disasterous?
As far as the fighter engines, they are eliminating an unecessary program to save money. They have a perfectly good engine that is performing well so why spend money on a backup you will probably never use? In addition, it extends the F-22 program and adds four more planes. Is that a cut?
This is simply eliminating waste and restructuring some programs to reflect reality. No biggy. Yet, like the attempts to close unnecessary military bases, changes always brings out the naysayers. That would be you guys.
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about!
There were a lot more soldiers on the ground AFTER US. Its only been a few years, I can't believe you have forgotten the chain of events already. There were no effective armys on the ground before we arrived with very small teams of Special Forces.
With air power, and SF, we turned a rag tag bunch of corrupt war lords into just enough of a fighting force to push the taliban right out of the country. Nobody came to help in any meaningfull way till it was all done and the fat lady sang.
Pay attention
That's right, it was the war lords and their people that provided the majority of the manpower on the ground.
As you said in an earlier post #16 if this proposal is growing the active army that is very good news. I don't think we have a large enough active military right now.
May not be smart for America; but, it helps the globalist outlook. A strong America is bad for globalists.
So what? It took us 20 years to find and capture Pol Pot after he was dethroned in Cambodia. No biggie.
The important thing is we threw the Taliban out, freed Afghanistan and put Osama on the run. Do you want the military to develop an Osama Finder? I read tonight that we arrested a Nam deserter after thirty something years. Does that make us dolts?
All this gripe about not finding Osama is just Democrat Talking points spouted here on FR.
http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/
Pentagon briefing with Rumsfield
Sounds like privatizing military plan in the works.
Exxon Army reserves, we pay double and free gas!
Maybe he's expecting us to go to war with Iran soon, in which case we'll need a draft anyhow, which will produce all sorts of drama regardless of how limited it is, so he figures it'll just be a lot cheaper to use draftees??
I'm only half-joking!
" And for the record, they are terrorists, not insurgents, and most are not even Iraqis."
Just out of interest, how would you define 'insurgent'?
Seems to me that in Iraq at the moment there are groups that fit the definition of 'terrorists' and groups that fit the definition of 'insurgents'. Probably a lot of people undertaking activities that fall in both boxes, in real life things are rarely clearcut.
A significant number of the 'terrorists' are not Iraqi (although I don't think there is any clear evidence that this constitutes 'most' of them). The vast majority of the insurgents would seem to be Iraqi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.