A Hollow US Military

Right Side News ^ | 10 January 2012 | J. D. Longstreet

[IbJensen]

Using the military as a sort of laboratory for experimentation by inserting homosexuals and lesbians into the ranks is a sinful act that cries to heaven for vengeance!

Pedestalizing the perverts of America as a sort of 'protected class' is as evil and stupid as it can be!

Keep it up, central socialist government and you'll be extinct! Making DC look like 1936 Madrid is a huge mistake and don't try wrapping your putrid bodies in the Constitution. You've used it as toilet paper and thanks to your ignorance you've made it irrelevant.

Bring on a Francisco Franco or an Augusto Pinochet!

[IbJensen]

The elite political class, as I have stated, has used the Constitution as toilet paper, removed God from everything they can in order to elevate Islam and the homosexual agenda. They’ve used the military as a sort of laboratory to shove homosexuals and other privileged perverts into the ranks and, in general, have destroyed America.

The only thing that can save this nation from peril is to roll back everything that has been enacted since 1913 and proceed from that point.

I had an entirely different slate for the nation come January, 2013, but it will never come to pass: Jim Demint for president, Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary, Joe Apaio for AG and I haven’t made up my mind who should be appointed Secretary of State.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Bring on a Francisco Franco or an Augusto Pinochet!

Care to clarify?

[NoKoolAidforMe]

John Bolton would be a fabulous SoS.

[Timber Rattler]

After Truman demilitarized after World War II, the new USAF lost a tremendous amount of combat experience, especially for its bombing units. There were a number of training exercises in which the remnant of the bomber fleet made mock runs over American cities, and the results were nothing short of a debacle. Curtis LeMay was brought in to fix it, and ended up creating SAC.

But the lesson is that we're on that same bitter path right now.

[Paul46360]

The after affects of this will be similar to when I was in during the Carter regime...WHICH I might add I deserve a ribbon for.
THIS "peace-nick" of a President has to GO!!!!

[oh8eleven]

Rather than cutting the US military, the US “standing Army” should be doubled. Our Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corp also need to be doubled in strength.
No, it should be cut and the troops we have in garrison all over the world should be brought home.
The smaller the military, the bigger the chance we won't send them to any and every $hithole country that can't defend the latest "uprising."
I'm sick and tired of Americans dying or coming home maimed for life, because the "natives" can't - or won't - fight for themselves.

[Paul46360]

SAC motto.."Peace is our Profession...war is just a hobby".
I agree 100%.

[ScottinVA]

That sad part is... most Americans have no clue as to why hollowing out our military is a bad thing. God help us if China decides to make an aggressive move in Asia.

[piytar]

The author appears to think that obama and our other “leaders” are being short sighted here.

They are NOT.

The dire consequences that the author describes are EXACTLY what these scum WANT!!!

[Lucky9teen]

The Federal Government was designed in fact by the Framers only as a central authority with limited power whose main responsibility was to protect the nation by providing for its defense, institute a nationally regulated form of law and justice so that every citizen would be allowed the same rights and privileges throughout the land, establish commerce between states and foreign nations and also establish diplomatic relations, commerce, trade and treaties with foreign powers.

Does our Constitution even mean anything any more?

[IbJensen]

Agree!

We are incapable of protecting our own country thanks to the current central socialist government, which includes not only the 850 occupants of the White Hut, but the complicit Congress and their staffers as well!

Get the queers out of the military and fire all the political generals. Promote to the general staff from the lower ranks provided they are true to the Constitution and will honor their oath of office which many in the military and government fail to do!

Only use uniformed military personnel to staff all offices in the Pentagon and all branches of the military and put the women where they belong: either in administrative or medical positions. Any nation that puts its women (lesbian or not) into combat situations isn’t fit to be defended!

Until America gets back to pre-1913 size and scope and the military cleanses itself of corrupt political officers and muslims lurking in the ranks this nation will not be fit to live in.

[GraceG]

[ That sad part is... most Americans have no clue as to why hollowing out our military is a bad thing. God help us if China decides to make an aggressive move in Asia. ]

A Hollow Millitary? Well they are pretty scary:

They are a pretty mean looking bunch....

Oh, they mean Hollowing out the Millitary.... To heck with that.

[IbJensen]

And yet another thing:

Unknown to most Americans is that at present there are 95 plots of land located in the CONUS that are being, or are to be used, as basic training camps for islamic terrorists. The poor, pathetic excuse we have for AG no doubt is aware of this, but as a eunuch serving a a bi-sexual muslim he no doubt sees nothing wrong with this.

Get rid of these rats before they get rid of a lot of us!

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Realistically speaking, the US military in its current form is a fluke, and one that is unsustainably expensive. But the illusion that size equates to capability is a 19th-20th Century fallacy. Here are some military facts: 1) Combat support and combat service support personnel outnumber combat forces by a ratio of about 15:1. While some of these are mission essential, a great number are not. The future for much of this is by subcontracting many of these functions to private companies. 2) The US currently deploys personnel to 100 countries, while "serious", militarily important deployments are in about a dozen. The other 88 should be evaluated with an eye to being discontinued as frivolous. 3) It is egregiously expensive to encourage or permit military families to accompany personnel in foreign deployments. This anchor also makes them less mission flexible, and less able for those forces to end those deployments. 4) The US military had an effective "frequent transfer and 'up or out'" policy during the Cold War, that enabled the creation of an enormous inactive reserve component. However, 'remain in regiment' military career tracks are far less expensive, and in some ways result in more effective unit function. 5) Using highly trained and expensively equipped US forces for unimportant, low intensity, "guard duty" missions is not cost effective. Again, while technically 'combat' operations, so little fighting happens that these missions, as well as humanitarian aid missions, can and should be subcontracted. 6) Military technology has progressed so far as to result in imbalance in the prerogative of "quality vs. quantity", which, in either direction, creates vulnerability. That is, one extremely expensive, high tech aircraft cannot beat 100 inexpensive, lower tech aircraft in a fight. It just can't. The same rule applies to ships and boats. The current budget Components--Funding--Change, 2009 to 2010 Ops & Maint--$283.3 billion-- +4.2% Personnel--$154.2 billion-- +5.0% Procurement--$140.1 billion-- −1.8% R&D, Test&Eval--$79.1 billion-- +1.3% Mil Construction--$23.9 billion-- +19.0% Family Housing--$3.1 billion-- −20.2% Total Spending--$683.7 billion-- +3.0%

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

(eek! Something fouled up my formatting!)

Realistically speaking, the US military in its current form is a fluke, and one that is unsustainably expensive.

But the illusion that size equates to capability is a 19th-20th Century fallacy. Here are some military facts:

1) Combat support and combat service support personnel outnumber combat forces by a ratio of about 15:1. While some of these are mission essential, a great number are not. The future for much of this is by subcontracting many of these functions to private companies.

2) The US currently deploys personnel to 100 countries, while "serious", militarily important deployments are in about a dozen. The other 88 should be evaluated with an eye to being discontinued as frivolous.

3) It is egregiously expensive to encourage or permit military families to accompany personnel in foreign deployments. This anchor also makes them less mission flexible, and less able for those forces to end those deployments.

4) The US military had an effective "frequent transfer and 'up or out'" policy during the Cold War, that enabled the creation of an enormous inactive reserve component. However, 'remain in regiment' military career tracks are far less expensive, and in some ways result in more effective unit function.

5) Using highly trained and expensively equipped US forces for unimportant, low intensity, "guard duty" missions is not cost effective. Again, while technically 'combat' operations, so little fighting happens that these missions, as well as humanitarian aid missions, can and should be subcontracted.

6) Military technology has progressed so far as to result in imbalance in the prerogative of "quality vs. quantity", which, in either direction, creates vulnerability. That is, one extremely expensive, high tech aircraft cannot beat 100 inexpensive, lower tech aircraft in a fight. It just can't. The same rule applies to ships and boats.

The current budget

Components--Funding--Change, 2009 to 2010

Ops & Maint--$283.3 billion-- +4.2% Personnel--$154.2 billion-- +5.0% Procurement--$140.1 billion-- −1.8% R&D, Test&Eval--$79.1 billion-- +1.3% Mil Construction--$23.9 billion-- +19.0% Family Housing--$3.1 billion-- −20.2%

Total Spending--$683.7 billion-- +3.0%

[Cyber Liberty]

This is not possible. Just the other day, Obama promised we would not repeat the post-war mistakes of the past. He is much, much smarter than that! (Do I HAVE to “/s?”)

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

(eek! Something fouled up my formatting!)

(One more time, for the table only)

Components--Funding--Change, 2009 to 2010

Ops & Maint--$283.3 billion-- +4.2%

Personnel--$154.2 billion-- +5.0%

Procurement--$140.1 billion-- −1.8%

R&D, Test&Eval--$79.1 billion-- +1.3%

Mil Construction--$23.9 billion-- +19.0%

Family Housing--$3.1 billion-- −20.2%

Total Spending--$683.7 billion-- +3.0%

[oh8eleven]

God help us if China decides to make an aggressive move in Asia.
So you think after Korea and Vietnam, the US should send troops into yet another land war in Asia?

[ScottinVA]

So you think after Korea and Vietnam, the US should send troops into yet another land war in Asia?

We should have enough on the ground to deter it in the first place. You OK with surrendering the whole of Asia to the PLA?