Kendall: Sequestration Will Make Hollow Force Inevitable

American Forces Press Service ^ | 7 Nov 13 | Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.

[SkyPilot]

Budget cuts imposed by sequestration will leave the Defense Department with a hollow force and debilitating shortfalls, the Pentagon’s top acquisitions chief said today.

At a conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, outlined the difficultly that the on-going budget sequester is causing in the department’s ability to plan for the future.

“This is probably the worst time I’ve seen … in terms of our ability to do a sound plan and execute it with any kind of confidence at all,” he said. “It is one of the worst environments I’ve ever seen to try to manage in, in the Pentagon.”

Sequestration’s across-the-board cuts, mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, require DOD to make $500 billion in cuts over 10 years in addition to a previously planned $470 billion cut.

“It’s a deep cut,” Kendall said. “We took 10 percent out – we took $50 billion out a couple of years ago per year. Sequestration takes another $50 billion per year -- that’s a large cut below the level we thought we needed to defend the country.”

“So there’s the steepness of the cut which forces some very difficult choices,” he said. “There’s a lack of a ramp … [where] you can gracefully make changes and not do them abruptly,” describing them as almost unmanageable and leading to a force that “you could call hollow.”

The acquisitions chief noted the department will not have enough training, acquisitions or investments.

“So one way or the other, over those next three years, until we can get force structure out, we’re going to have shortfalls that are going to be debilitating to the department,” Kendall said. “There’s no avoiding that … if sequestration stays in place.”

[SkyPilot]

Great job America.

Mark my words, there will be a war in the Middle East soon - possibly within the next year. It will shake the world. Our forces are growing weaker by the day - and we will be totally unprepared for it.

The argument of the month is that Americans sigh that they are "war weary", yet less than 1% of the population of this nation serves. Our forces have been betrayed by both political parties.

Our nation is about to drown because of excessive entitlement spending, not because of defense.

God help us all.

[SkyPilot]

[WilliamIII]

Mark my words, there will be a war in the Middle East soon - possibly within the next year.

There’s already a war in the Middle East - Afghanistan. Did you forget about it? It’s been going for a decade. You now want us to get involved in another one? Haven’t had enough?

You want more Pentagon spending to pay for your next middle east war? Where will the money come from? Higher taxes or more borrowing from China? And how much money will we need?

I’m tired of “small government” conservatives who favor big expensive government in the form of endless foreign wars.

[WilliamIII]

Will you forego your Social Security checks in order to help pay for more wars? Do you think $1 trillion for the Iraq war was worth it?

[rbg81]

It’s all part of Obama’s “plan”.

We won’t be able to defend ourselves, but at least any Third Worlder coming over the border will get welfare, an EBT card, a phone, and free healthcare.

No worries. [/s]

[WilliamIII]

We won’t be able to defend ourselves

According to the chart at the top of this thread, we’re spending $600 billion on defense. You say that spending $600 billion means we can’t defend ourselves? How much do we have to spend to be able to defend ourselves? And where will the money come from? Currently Social Security is in surplus. You want to take money from Social Security to pay for more wars? If you agree not to accept Social Security checks, I’ll listen, but otherwise, not so much.

[Sooth2222]

"We won’t be able to defend ourselves"

Do we really need to be the world's policeman?

[babygene]

Who cares... We don’t have a CIC anyway. The less the muzzie has to wage war on behalf of the Islamic countries the better.

[Pining_4_TX]

The military is just as much a huge bloated bureaucracy as all the rest of this government. How many times have expensive new gizmos been forced on the armed forces because some congressman wants the jobs in his district? Military procurement is a disaster.

[SkyPilot]

As the next war (perhaps it will be Ezekiel 38-39 or the war of Psalm 83) sets fire to the world, I am sure that will not affect us in any way whatsoever (economically or politically).

We can all just sit back, swipe our EBT cards, wait for that Social Security Direct Deposit, and head off to the casinos.

I am glad you mentioned Social Security. That seems to be the only priority for many so-called "small government Conservatives" today.

They would rather see our military taken apart, and the men and women who put up with 5-6 deployments back to back suffer, than forgo even a smaller increase to their COLA increase to their checks.

Did you read that article? It is true, we cut Defense by $487 Billion before the $600 Billion sequestration cuts were levied upon it.

There are few Ronald Reagan Republicans any longer, who understand that our economic stability is directly tied to our world standing and our military strength. Instead, we have become a nation of short sighted Federal check collectors. They will rally with every fiber of their being about the "other" person's entitlement check, and puff themselves blue when it comes to protecting their own.

[trebb]

The argument of the month is that Americans sigh that they are "war weary", yet less than 1% of the population of this nation serves. Our forces have been betrayed by both political parties.

And it continues to get worse with the past 20 years of increasing politicization of the "leadership". They have a "punish severely and reward grudgingly" attitude because all below them are disposable "assets". Those who do the heavy lifting are nothing more than a resource to pad their "leaders" resumes and promotion jackets. It sickens me to watch it happen from "the inside" (24 years in uniform and 15 years civil service).

[SkyPilot]

They have a "punish severely and reward grudgingly" attitude because all below them are disposable "assets". Those who do the heavy lifting are nothing more than a resource to pad their "leaders" resumes and promotion jackets.

That is very true.

Thanks for wearing the uniform of this nation and serving.

The politics are a different poison. Homosexuality, suppression of Christianity, feminism - all of those curses that American society has are levied upon the military in an inordinate way.....because they "can."

That does not mean our military is not incredibly important to the survival of our nation, and what is to come. War is coming to the world, and we cannot pretend we can watch from the sidelines (....that strategy worked so well in 1940).

On the betrayals from our politicians, at least we always knew Democrats were evil slime. It is the betrayal of so-called "Republicans" that cuts the deepest.

The GOP is perfectly content to allow our military to die from deep budget wounds, rather than lift a finger to save it.

Shame on all of them.

[rbg81]

You say that spending $600 billion means we can’t defend ourselves?

---

Basically, a lot of that is being eaten up by personnel costs, both military and civilian. If we can’t do the necessary R&D and produce actual weapons, then yes, we are in big trouble.

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, by our force keeps shrinking and our weapons platforms keep getting older. Its been that way since at least 1987.

The only thing that worked in our favor so far is that all our adversaries have either been tin pot dictators (Sadaam) or lightly armed terrorists (Al Qaeda, Taliban). We have been tailoring our forces to those threats. But the next war is never like the last one. If we went up against a foe with a modernized military (China), we might get a big surprise.

[WilliamIII]

There are few Ronald Reagan Republicans any longer,

That’s for sure. Reagan did not launch wars. How many countries did Ronald Reagan invade? The war-loving hawks in today’s Republican Party are not Reagan Republicans. He never would have invaded Iraq or Iran. (He could have done so - both countries were as bad then as now - but he saw no reason to do so; his philosophy was deterrence and containment). He beat the Soviet Union without going to war. Too bad George Bush wasn’t smart enough to follow Ronald Reagan’s example.

[CodeToad]

We can do without spying on Americans. That’s got to be at least $10 billion each year.

[SkyPilot]

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, by our force keeps shrinking and our weapons platforms keep getting older. Its been that way since at least 1987.

Amen - we have tankers and bombers flying that were built during the Eisenhower Administration.

These aircraft are beyond tired - the maintenance crews could barely keep them airborne, and that was before Sequestration robbed our military so our nation could overdoes on EBT cards, Medicaid, and Medicare.

You are also correct - if we have to go to war with Russia or China, we are going to get creamed. Not because our men and women are not brave enough, but because our politicians sold our military down the river, and the citizens of this nation turned their heads the other way in the hopes that their government check or subsidy would not be affected.

Shame on this nation.

[SkyPilot]

We can do without spying on Americans. That’s got to be at least $10 billion each year.

Agreed - 100%. But the money for the hated NSA is less affected by Sequestration than the DoD. In fact, their budget is cut by almost half of what the DoD must "pay" for Sequestration, the same for the hated TSA.

In FY2014, Defense will bear the brunt (again) of Sequestration.

“A Love Story For The Ages”: Republicans And The Sequester

During the last budget extension, both McConnell and Hatch were bragging about how they stopped a Sequestration replacement, and they know it is devastating the military.

Mitch McConnell Openly Filibusters Sequestration Replacement Bill

Weren't our Republican masters so wonderful for not only agreeing with that forumula for the 2011 BCA, but also for not budging one inch to stop it. Hurray for the GOP! They are now the ones cheering for Sequestration, and doing this to our military. Not only that, they are proud of it!

If this man were still alive, he would be ashamed of them as well.

[rbg81]

I don’t know that we will get creamed, but the constant shrinking, thinning and aging of our forces concerns me. It has been so long since we lost a war, that we take our military superiority (especially air supremacy) for granted. Everyone is concerned with entitlements—almost no one is concerned about military threats anymore. I’m sure Rome had a similar viewpoint in 390 AD.

My original point is that looking at the $$ we spend on defense is a bad metric. The critical thing is what we get for that $$. And I would contend we’re not getting nearly what we should. It could be we have something up our sleeve, but I doubt it. I’m a retired AF officer who has been out of the game for quite a while, so I have no special insight anymore.

[SkyPilot]

I am a retired Air Force officer as well. I was a pilot and an aerospace engineer. I know the present military very, very well. Believe me - if we face the Chinese or the Russians, we will get creamed.

We are now a hollow force, and Congress does not care. Obama never cared.

I am not an eloquent man, I don't know how else to say that. But, it is the truth.

[rbg81]

I hear ya. Congress does not care because the voters no longer care about Military preparedness. They take it for granted. For many, what they can get from Government is more important to them than the security of the nation.

As for Obama. Not only did he never care, but he is probably the first President we elected who is openly hostile to, and contemptuous of, American power.