Posted on 02/25/2014 3:26:45 PM PST by neverdem
Why not go back to post WWI levels, so we’re totally unprepared as we were then?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Someone on Chris Plante (WMAL AM630 WASHDC) suggested this AM that the R’s should say ‘that pre WWII Military would work as long as we were Pre WWII size of Government, with the same Departments’ -
Of course they would be cutting their own source of funds so that will never happen.
Plante made it a point to play BO’s blurb about a ‘standing civilian Army’ and mentioned NO ONE has the gonads to ask BO what he meant by it.
Understand(from same show) that Oreilly did ask him what he meant about ‘the transformation of America’ and the question get ‘swatted aside’...
I think he knows the people who joined the military would balk, but the ATF and DHS would be all in. That is why I think he wants to downsize the military including the National Guard.
It is NOT consistent with our needs.
We need to separate our needs from those of our current allies. George Washington warned us about the danger of permanent entangling alliances. I’m afraid too many of our political elite are heartbroken and feel left out when there’s a war on the other side of the globe and Americans aren’t dying in it.
I have a feeling about the whole defense cut issue as presented. I think the reduction in forces is something the left really wants. I believe the reduction in benefits for active duty and future recruits is something the left really wants. They will get both with help from the RINOs. The RINOs will be thinking they look like heros by agreeing to it. Why do they think that? Because I also think the reductions in benefits to veterans is a smoke screen Boehner and McConnell asked for and will get. The RINOs will be outraged by the whole thing but the left will concede to the RINOs on the veterans issues and the RINOs will declare it a victory. Then the RINOs will support and pass immigration reform. The Dems will gain full control of congress in the 2014 mid-terms and a Dem will win the White House in 2016. The fix is in. We will be the diminished nation that Barry’s daddy dreamed of.
So many aspects of this, I’ll try to keep my comments to just a few.
I do agree with Cheney on the hypocrisy of Obama’s actions, and with the knowledge that the defense budget is only a teeny percent of overall spending on “entitlements” of every kind.
However, lots of advancement in technology makes it possible for us to send a clear message without involving boots on the ground - but any any cuts in defense personnel “NOW” are no good unless we are training replacements right away, because it’s not easy or fast to ramp up defense.
The problem is that we’ll have to regard who’s left as Obama tools on domestic soil, rather than as -beloved- veterans who know how to manage conflicts and defeat an enemy - foreign or domestic.
And it is true that there are modern weapons now that were not available in past centuries, but we also have modern means of defense not available in the past. Large armies are for the purpose of invading other countries. With our blessings of geography, we do not have to invade other countries to defend our land.
“We need to separate our needs from those of our current allies.”
lol yeah right. Current allies indeed. Perhaps you think we should work more closely with countries like Iran.
Undeclared wars and use of American troops for ‘police actions’ are an entirely different issue then the preparedness to fight a war for survival.
Thanks neverdem.
Could Russia Send Troops to the Crimea?
The Interpreter | February 24, 2014 | Oleg Kashin (Translated by Catherine A. Fitzpatrick)
Posted on 2/25/2014 6:12:17 PM by No One Special
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3126975/posts
Following the ways of the UK.
I wrote earlier today on a prior thread herein, but I obviously must reiterate.
An observer of US history will note that the tragic consequences of such unpreparedness is that the time lag required to bring the armed forces up to a fighting posture when needed has always been paid for in the blood of young Americans and at exorbitant costs. If you think that is okay, I recommend that you see if you can find a survivor of the early period of the Korean war and inquire. There may still be a few of those heroes around, but very few. You perhaps can still find a WWII survivor and inquire as to how it felt to go up a German 88 with the weapons you had available. If you note, our forces were behind the power curve on the ground and in the air. Personally, I think it is criminal to knowingly put our forces in that position again.
The powers that be have thought this way before. After WWII and with the advent of nuclear weapons, boots on the ground were to be an antiquated ancient means of warfare. Then came Korea and Task Force Smith. Mutual Assured Destruction not withstanding, we have bled on the ground in numerous places anyway. The reason we now have young sergeants with 10 - 12 deployments was the Clinton reduction of the Army from a 16 to a 10 division force, his “peace dividend”, which necessitated more frequent tours. So we have increased rates of PTSD, suicide, and divorce for soldiers due to the stresses of back to back combat tours.
If one did not mind kicking over a few rice bowls to get there, completely restructuring the Armed Forces to look more like the USMC would provide huge cost savings. An organization where each deployable unit has its own air support, fire support, air and sea transportation assets, and a sustainable ground force. Get pilots out of aircraft, so the aircraft cost less. Eliminate the roles and missions arguments over rotary wing versus fixed wing aircraft and buy the most suitable aircraft for the job without it necessarily being one of two shades of blue or green.
Given the recognition of the realities of today’s politics, I can just pray the future price our young must pay in blood for Hagel’s plans can be minimized.
kennedy was taken out for a lot less. just noting history.
funsa
Well, normally I’d be outraged and infuriated by this.
But when I think about it...
Considering that commanding officers have been replaced by Obama’s chosen and the rank and file are a large number of homosexuals, and considering that perhaps a reduced military might prevent idiot politicians from entering wars they have no intention of winning or no idea of how to win...
And further considering that I have read reports that our military is being instructed that those of us who love the constitution are the enemy...
Maybe it isn’t such bad thing.
A lot of the messages our large army sends are in the form of tripwires, detachments of soldiers not numerous enough to defend themselves but large enough to draw us into the fight for whichever precious ally they are stationed in. Not only is this the ultimate entangling alliance and loss of national freedom of decision, but it puts our soldiers into an initial fight that is stacked against them. The ultimate example of this type of losing deployment was the Philippines in 1941.
don’t confuse vindication with happiness.
Well, sure. He knows food stamps are a vote-buying scam favoring Democrats so he believes the military is a vote-buying scam favoring Republicans.
I don’t think Korea should be relevant to the American future because permanent foreign deployments should be a thing of the past now that the special case of the Cold War ended. Our nation never lost soldiers in early war overseas battles til we started electing progressive self-appointed world messiahs like Wilson, FDR, and LBJ.
You are correct with your analysis. One day, the name of Chuck Hagel will be uttered among Americans with contempt. He will go down in history as the worst SECDEF of all time.
What a sad chart you posted. It is as if we are on The Road To Ruin.
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.