Say Anything Blog

And was it a self selecting poll, like an Internet poll? The article doesn’t say. Conducted by a recognized polling organization? Or a “think tank”? Can you say “foregone conclusion”?

Beware of polls bearing conclusions!

Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Eighty-eight percent of respondents said the U.S. military had been stretched dangerously thin by Iraq.

I would have said that the U.S. military has been stretched dangerously thin by Clinton.

He’s the one who slashed the military numbers. To hear Democrats bitch about a “stretched” military sounds a bit facetious. They’re the ones who created these conditions.

Gee, a Reuters article...well we can certainly trust them (sarcastic) to report the truth.

Wonder what percentage thought the military was stronger under Clinton.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Military circumcised by Dick with a shaky hand.

Over Cheney’s four years as secretary of defense,....  the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.

Defense Link

I would have said that the U.S. military has been stretched dangerously thin by Clinton.

Interesting Woof,

Two things.

One, are you saying it was Cheneys doing? Not congress?

Secondly. I can’t get the link to work.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

How does one poll 3,400 veterans, most of them officers, and come up with only 10% who have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Short answer: 80% or more retirees or otherwise inactive members / former members.

Absent internals, methodology, and crosstabs, it falls in with “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Worked for me try long form

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm

WOOF - what do you want? Either the sitting President is responsible for what happens on his watch ("Clinton’s economy” when it was really the Republican Congress) or not.

You want it both ways depending on the issue.

Woof,

Thanks.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Around 90 percent were retired officers, a large majority had combat experience and about 10 percent had served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yeah, this is real scientific--ask a bunch of folks that are totally disconnected with the situation to vote in a non-scientific poll.

Over Cheney’s four years as secretary of defense,....  the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.

Not sure if you are aware of the context of the early 1990’s.  Ever heard of the Soviet Union?  They were a whole bunch of bad guys that were in a 40 year long “cold war” with the United States.  We built up a massive military to defeat them.  Once that threat disintegrated, we were forced to streamline and retool our entire military, close bases, realign the branches, eliminate aging and outdated weapons systems… Read up on the BRAC process.

http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/6E0E80715A8427B485256FF7003F5BF7/$File/oct04jobs.pdf

Don’t hurt yourself thinking… I would hate to have you start understanding the military, their roles, their missions, and the transformation that Rummy and Cheney presided over.  Ever wonder why Rummy was kept around for so long?  While Iraq was poorly planned at best, Rummy did preside over a massive transition to a force capable of fighting a 4th Generation War and the retasking and realignment of major military assets.  Did you read about BRAC the last go-round?  When the partisan battles over base closures went on and every Congressman was fighting to keep bases that the military said the didn’t need open?

RBB,

Even if the military is stretched thin, as your “survey” says, what solution have those on your side of the partisan aisle proposed?  Are you offering to
address the problem you cited, or are you merely sniping from the sidelines?

Should we simply stop fighting and go back to the Clintonian “meals-on-wheels” model?

Liberals have a long history of cutting military spending in favor of buying votes with increased domestic spending.  What’s your point now, anyway?

The fact is that the US military has been “stretched thin” in every war we’ve fought.  And aswas pointed out here the other day, despite what the surveyed retired officers say, there is no chorus for a draft from current commanders, officers, or NCOs.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Woof, from your link:

The DoD budget faced Cheney with his most immediate and pressing problem when he came to the Pentagon. President Bush had already said publicly that the proposed FY 1990 Defense budget of more than $300 billion had to be cut immediately by $6.3 billion, and soon after Cheney began work the president increased the amount to $10 billion.

So, Cheney was tasked with cutting the budget by his boss and he did so. That every branch wanted really expensive missles also made his job harder.

You’re not even faithfully recording what your link says.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

How about we pull our combat Brigades and Divisions out of Europe? No war there. 10,000 in Britain, 60,000 in Germany, 10,000 in Italy and another 6,000 in several other countries in the EU. 50,000 in Japan and 30,000 in Korea. ANd just under 1 million in CONUS.

In Combat Deploys we have 195,000. Thin? Or is Rueters/DNC et al lying yet again?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

How about we pull our combat Brigades and Divisions out of Europe? No war there.

2Hotel9,

WHAT???  You would have the European “community” defend itself?

The French can’t manage to keep their own streets safe from rioting invaders, Gibraltar is again at risk from across the Straits in Morocco, and the Balkan states are about to reignite in a Muslim vs. Christian conflagration over Kosovo.

Surely, Sir, you jest!  Europeans responsible for their own self-defense?  What a concept!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

What’s not mentioned is that most of these problems would be solved with a mandate for the military to increase the numbers in their ranks.  The current manpower shortages are a consequence of limits in congressional budgets for manpower.  The idea that a country the size of the US couldn’t field a much larger army is of course laughable.

I don’t think its unfair to place part of the blame, if you will, for the decline in the size of our active military on the current executive branch.  Weren’t they looking to create a smaller, more responsive military?

I don’t think its unfair to place part of the blame, if you will, for the decline in the size of our active military on the current executive branch.  Weren’t they looking to create a smaller, more responsive military?

Most of this was to be achieved by replacing or eliminating unused or outdated weapons systems.  Don’t make the mistake of thinking that an infantryman is the same as a computer technician or an artillery expert.  Force size is not the most important equation.  Force distribution and the ability to achieve individual missions is important.  Raw numbers do not necessarily equate to the ability to perform a mission.

We have already seen that MP’s and policing activities are critical skills to have.  We were short on these skills prior to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.  We did not have enough special forces.  We have weapons systems like the F-14 that had outlasted their useful life and were no longer cost effective or safe to maintain.  So what do you do with all the maintainance folks that are E-6’s and E-7’s trained in fixing F-14s?  Is their skillset transferrable or does it make sense to encourage them to retire since we need more E-4’s and E-5’s that are trained in F-18’s?

Aging weapons systems and aging skillsets need replaced.  Aging bases need eliminated or retasked.  That was Rummy’s job.  He did that very well.  Bush didn’t intend for him to run two wars when he appointed him.  He intended for Rummy to navigate the political waters and streamline the military.  One ought to blame Clinton for failing to take strategic steps to redesign the military during his term since his administration was ambivalent at best towards the military, but more realistically antagonistic towards our men in uniform as evidenced by Hillary’s disdain for her Marine officers stationed to protect her.

Justin, I agree with most of what you are saying, including Clinton’s inaction that led to a decay in our readiness, but clearly you still need boots on the ground.  I just don’t see a more versatile army being a substitute for that. 

The model Rumsfeld had when he was pushing for troop reductions was not one in which we had forces stationed in hostile locations like Iraq long term.  If you assume standing forces in Iraq + another hostile engagement, the only answer to that is more boots.

As to retraining of E6+’s… hell yes you do.  In a more technologically advanced army, the age barrier needs to be moved way up.  I think that should be the case even for regular infantry.  The only argument against it is they cost more, but I can tell you from what I know, these more experienced technicians carry with them an intuition that inexperienced techs lack. 

It is every bit in our advantage to increase the age diversity in the military.

I know, B1! Frightening contemplations to be sure. We currently have over 2 million soldiers, sailors, and airmen under arms, and 186,000 deployed to combat operations. Ponder these numbers for awhile.

Justin, Carrick, very good discussion points from both of you, as usual. Justin, early separation for some tech specialists is a good idea, they can move into civil aviation and the defense industry. Many more can be integrated into updated systems, and others can be cross trained by adding them into current new training cycle, solid NCOs mixed in with newboots and Reservists/NGs is a DAMN good idea. The tunneling on hi-tech weapon systems in the ‘80s and ‘90s was a direct drain against modernizing and expanding ground forces and their support/transport requirements. The APC/ACC and bodyarmor problems were caused directly by this.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Justin, early separation for some tech specialists is a good idea, they can move into civil aviation and the defense industry. Many more can be integrated into updated systems, and others can be cross trained by adding them into current new training cycle, solid NCOs mixed in with newboots and Reservists/NGs is a DAMN good idea.

And that is my experience.  Those separated specialists that have critical skills come back and work as contractors.  Personally, contractors are the best thing the military has going for them.  We can contract out logistics and much of the maintaince work and get it done at much lower cost.  I think military medicine, supply, and much of the maintanance work can be done more efficiently with contractors than with military personnel.

There will always be a need for boots on the ground.  We are not cutting soldiers from infantry positions.  They are mostly specialists in archaic weapons systems.  If we need more “boots”, it doesn’t make sense to try and move a specialist from a technical field into infantry or spec forces or policing where we need him.  Especially an E-6 who is a deeply technical specialist, but often has little leadership experience outside of his specialty.  I have seen it in the Navy first-hand.  Take an E-7 Machinist Mate and send him off to an A School to retrain to be a Corpsman.  Then send him to a ship as an E-7 Corpsman.  He effectively has zero experience in his new rating, but has a technical leadership position demanding it.  If the MM is no longer needed in his specialization, separate him rather than clog up the advancement pipeline for younger soldiers and sailors.  When advancement opportunities are not there, the critical needed skills leave the military.  Why keep an E-7 that lacks the skills, but lose 10 E-5’s that have them but feel they cannot advance?  We need to bonus the shit out of the people with critical skills and make advancement opportunities real for them.  And to do that, we need to weed out folks that do not have critical skills and have ranks that are not in keeping with what they bring to the table.

And keep in mind that it is cheaper to cross train an F-14 pilot to fly an F-18, but it is probably not effective to train a Boatswain’s Mate to be a Cryptotech.  And it is even cheaper to rehire a separated Aircrew E-5 with critical training as a contractor at double the salary because he already has the skills and doesn’t need all the overhead of the military requirements.  Boots on the ground is a good thing.  You always need boots, but with so many new technologies, we are eliminating the costs and manpower needed to maintain our military.  And when designing new weapons systems, manpower and maintainance time is a key piece of the requirements and specs for them.

That was awful pretty. Too bad it means fucking nothing. Technology is totally useless without men to use it. Period. Full stop. And when they are in the middle of a life and death battle and all those pretty toys take a fucking shit exactly what are they supposed to do? Call a time out? Fucking please.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I don’t think we are short on basic infantrymen.  I think we are short on special forces and particullarly in Green Berets that do training for other fighting forces.  Special Forces is our biggest challenge in my mind.  We need twice as many because their mission is so much more expanded in a 4th Generation War.

The majority of our military force are not fighting folks, they are support people.  Medical.  Dental.  Maintainance.  Supply.  Logistics.  Transport.

Look at the maintainance costs of an F-14.

The decision to incorporate the Super Hornet and decommission the F-14 is mainly due to high amount of maintenance required to keep the Tomcats operational. On average, an F-14 requires nearly 50 maintenance hours for every flight hour, while the Super Hornet requires five to 10 maintenance hours for every flight hour.

“I don’t think there is anything better than a Tomcat, but it’s probably a good time for it to go away,” said Senior Chief Aviation Machinist’s Mate (AW) Gene Casterlin, VF-31. “The Navy is getting smaller and more efficient, and it will only get harder to maintain the Tomcat. But no matter what, the Tomcat is the sexiest airplane in the sky.”

So if we cut the maintainance hours by 75-90%, should we not reduce the distribution of aircraft mechanics?  Do we need as many mechanics?  So then what do you do?  You decommission a squadron of F-14’s and add a squadron of F-18’s and then you need 1/4 as many mechanics to perform the maintaince because the machines just work better.  What do we do with the E-7 Chiefs that run the squadron’s mechanics?  The E-6’s.  All the unnecessary other folks?  They no longer have jobs because we have a more efficient weapons system.  Where do we send the mechanics?  It is about to happen to the F-15 and the F-16.  They are approaching the end of their useful life and the new weapons systems will eliminate most of the mechanics. 

You have to see this just the same way Detroit sees it.  Military personnel costs are way too high.  We pay an E-7 that runs a mess hall the same as an E-7 Cryptotech.  We can achieve a much better ability to differentiate skillsets by need by using more and more contractors.  You cannot replace boots on the ground with contractors for the most part.  But that is not where the cuts are.