Rumsfeld mulls cut in military personnel

AP ^ | Dec 14 2005 | Lolita C. Baldor,

[jmc1969]

WASHINGTON --Hampered by an increasingly combative relationship with Congress, the Pentagon is expected to seek savings from its payroll rather than making deep cuts in major weapons programs in its next long-range plan.

The blueprint for military restructuring that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is to release early next year -- an exercise the Pentagon undertakes every four years -- is the first one fully conceived since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The review is expected to confirm Rumsfeld's views that the military must be lighter, more agile and better equipped to fight terrorism and confront weapons of mass destruction.

Officials said Rumsfeld is considering several options for cutting personnel costs, including:

-- Eliminating 40,000 Air Force jobs over the next six years, including active duty, civilian and reserves.

-- Cutting up to three National Guard brigades, each of which generally has about 3,500 troops.

-- Scaling back plans to increase active Army forces.

"All proposals for cutting weapons systems have, one by one, been shot down, so in the end the savings are achieved by minor cuts in many places, rather than big decisions," said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank in Arlington, Va.

The Army is looking at cutting National Guard brigades to find savings that will enable it to keep weapons programs on track, according to Thompson and a military official and a second defense analyst, both of whom did not want to be identified because decisions have not been announced.

[kingu]

I know quite a few folks in the Admiralty offices who would deeply love to see the end of this ship and restoration of their training budgets. Upon first viewing the plans for this strange dump for taxpayer funds, a question floated across the table - 'But if you put the missiles on the side, wouldn't that make a Cole style attack all the worse?'

Another idly wondered if the Air Force was going to start making X-Wing fighters just in case a laser weapon system might be developed.

For my family, the cutting of personnel vs weapons systems will end up being a plus - a couple private contractors are in a bidding war over my brother.

[america-rules]

Don't trust any crap from the MSM.

Back in the 80's the A1 Tank was a dog, waste of money and a huge boondoggle that congress tried to cut really bad !

We now know the A1 Abrams Tank was one of the best investments ever !

[dsc]

Good idea. I love it when my country is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Is there anybody in this bloody country who has ever cracked a history book?

On December 6, 1941, we had a whole fleet of battleships, cruisers, carriers...state of the art hardware.

And there were fewer men in the Marine Corps than in the New York City police force. The only thing that gave us breathing room was the sheer size of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It took us almost nine months to get squared away enough for the invasion of Guadalcanal, and that was a shoestring operation. The Marines on the Canal were eating captured Japanese food and using captured Japanese equipment to prepare runways.

Then, just five years after that war, the commies attacked in Korea. The First Marine Division was at *less*than*half*strength. Truman wanted to send troops to Korea, but he had nothing but his crank in his hand because he'd let his secretary of war "cut to the bone."

The Army troops garrisoned in Japan weren't fit to play slappy face with girl scouts, because there had been no money for training. Truman had to recall WWII vets just to find trigger pullers, and that took so long that we nearly got pushed into the sea at Pusan. Hadn't been for the Marines, we would have been.

Any war we get into, we're going to need trigger pullers. Lots of them.

We need to amend the constitution to require that whatever living man has the most days of combat as a grunt is automatically secdef.

[familyop]

"...the Pentagon is expected to seek savings from its payroll rather than making deep cuts in major weapons programs in its next long-range plan."

A lot of people won't like it, but it's the way to go. New and prior personnel can be quickly trained again if need be. The time to get new ordnance into production and for some awesome new weapons developments has arrived. Those cannot wait.

But more revenues would be nice. That requires convincing voting neighbors, ditching weak-on-defense RINOs and holding the majority in Congress.

[familyop]

"Another idly wondered if the Air Force was going to start making X-Wing fighters just in case a laser weapon system might be developed."

They're about to fly it.

Airborne Laser Completes Laser Ground Tests
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1539125/posts

But that's not what's really big in R&D now. Some of the recent nanotech discoveries are somethin' else--seemingly unearthly potential for quite a few fields. ...some really weird but great probabilities quickly on the way.

[cva66snipe]

One thing is for certain. The last great Sec of Defense was Caspar Weinberger. He at least seemed to have a clue as to what national defense meant and what was needed to provide for it. Since post-Reagan it's been pathetic decisions all the way around. Sec of Def Cheney cost us the Navy's greatest fighter program ever and still is for that matter. It wasn't enough to simply end the project production but rather the tooling was destroyed as well. Dumb move Cheney.

Smart money should have went into the F-14's avionics upgrades as the airframe itself was tops. As well we lost our second newest conventional powered carrier. Three other conventionals it's senior were kept in service as well as ENTERPRISE a nuke carrier. Two carriers from it's same class. Our second newest conventional powered air craft carrier now lies over 15,000 feet under the sea.

Despite all the problems of post 9-11 readiness in the Navy only two mid level officers {Ships Captains } were relieved of duty and I doubt any one can name me an Admiral who was punished over the USS JOHN F KENNEDY & KITTY HAWK readiness problems. These were not command issues. These were issues decided at the Pentagon level as to what ships get what repairs in the yards.

Under Clintons watch who's stars came off for ordering the USS COLE into a known hazard for a refueling that should have been done at sea. Where was the rest of the fleet? Two days out!!!! The COLE was alone. Who paid?

We don't need cuts in defense we need cuts in bureaucrats who have made these flawed policies and decisions. Why can anyone tell me are we at war yet operating under Bill Clintons 1996 End Troop Strength levels? These are serious issues. Had End troop strength levels been raised immediately post 9/11/01 that would now put the first class of recruits getting close to re-up time. Instead we are still overtaxing such services as the state National Guards. Our disasters of this past summer and fall showed us their value at home when disasters strike.

There is no excuse for us not having raised the Active Duty End Troop Strength Levels especially for the active duty Army. The current policies of deployment of state guards into foreign combat missions will spell the programs demise if left uncorrected. I could understand their use until more troops were trained but that was not what happened. Defense wise the GOP needs to get it's act together and stop acting like the minority party. I'm pro-defense 100% and I expect no less from our elected to fulfill it's number one function of national government which is providing for the common defense of the nation.

[quietolong]

"

[quietolong]

The new look look of the low cost pc Navy

USS William Jefferson Clinton CVS1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510710/posts

[Steel Wolf]

A lot of people won't like it, but it's the way to go. New and prior personnel can be quickly trained again if need be. The time to get new ordnance into production and for some awesome new weapons developments has arrived. Those cannot wait.

Keeping a base of trained personnel is more important than new weapons systems. The more complicated and whiz-bang the toys get, the longer you can expect the troops to require training for them. These days, the training of military personnel to an effective level of competence is measured in years. Trained personnel with good military equipment are far, far more effective than insufficient troops with excellent equipment. It's easy to get fixated on nice toys, but the real power behind any military is the hands on the trigger.

[armydawg1]

I have had problems with Rumsfeld for some time, believing he is on the same level as Robert McNamara, the Arcitect of Defeat in Vietnam.

The Army is getting burnt out now because of low numbers requiring constant rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan. MORE, not less, are needed!

[T-Bird45]

I'm pro-defense 100% and I expect no less from our elected to fulfill it's number one function of national government which is providing for the common defense of the nation.

Ditto and a hearty BTTT!!!

[cynicom]

Rumsfeld wants to cut?? I know the perfect place to start and no one would ever miss the departing slugs.

Start in his own house, the Pentagon. Transfer ten per cent of all military personnel to active units per year for three years. Send the same number of civilian people packing for three years.

As always it is the grunts that get eliminated, never the Generals.

[cynicom]

On Dec 7, 1941, the island of Guam had 128 Marines with one 50 cal machine gun, rifles and sidearms, to protect the island against 5000 invading Japanese.

[libertylover]

I'll take Rumsfeld's thoughts over New York Times' rants any day.

[em2vn]

Rumsfeld=McNamara! You are perfectly correct.

[Redleg Duke]

How about another round of tax cuts to boost the tax revenues?

[familyop]

Smart balance between ground personnel and newer naval/air force weapons strength depends a lot on the probable kinds of situations we might get into in the near future. Senior officers know what they're doing, even when they are cornered by lack of funding into changing that balance as needed. They are advised of developments (including technological developments) that the rest of us know little or nothing about.

One likely scenario will be fights against enemies who will want and have the capability to destroy large forces (and/or civilian populations) on the ground with no immediate desire to own that ground.

But far more serious threats than that exist in research and development being done now by likely future enemies. Neglecting to stay way ahead of them is not an option.

Many said that we couldn't accomplish one-round-one-hit efficiency against missile attacks, and they were wrong. And that's nothing compared to what's on the way. Our ingenuity has been our greatest assets. A standard refusal to underestimate enemies with assumptions would be another good asset.

[familyop]

I'll freepmail a few items to you.

[dakine]

-- Eliminating 40,000 Air Force jobs over the next six years,

Damn, I better start looking for work....