Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army to shrink to smallest size since Boer war
guardian ^

Posted on 07/18/2011 6:01:45 AM PDT by moshiach

Army to shrink to smallest size since Boer war while reservists' role bolstered • Regulars to fall from 100,000 to 84,000 after 2014

Under reforms to the Ministry of Defence published last month, senior members of the military will lose their jobs if they let costs get out of control and fail to manage budgets. The heads of the army, Royal Navy and RAF will be held accountable as never before, and responsible for cutting the number of officers.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: and; lean; mean
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
That is smart, US should follow suit.

Preferably with an active army of 100,000 that can be rapidly deployed. Boots on the ground to hold that front line.

One thing that (joke) of a rebel war in Libya has made me aware of is, it does not take that many boots on the ground to hold ground and advance. When you have sea superiority to launch 24/7 air attacks to establish air superiority.

1 posted on 07/18/2011 6:01:55 AM PDT by moshiach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moshiach

Well, they don’t have the Boers to kick around anymore.


2 posted on 07/18/2011 6:04:01 AM PDT by Rudder (The Main Stream Media is Our Enemy---get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach
I'm not totally convinced, but I do see some advantage to having a very small army.

Yes, we can still go in quickly, in a small way, to do small jobs.
Other than that, unfortunately, if you annoy us, we'll have to nuke you.

So don't p*ss us off.

3 posted on 07/18/2011 6:07:11 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach

“One thing that (joke) of a rebel war in Libya has made me aware of is, it does not take that many boots on the ground to hold ground and advance. When you have sea superiority to launch 24/7 air attacks to establish air superiority.”

I believe they’re giving up sea superiority and air superiority as well. They’re bowing out of the international arena so they can service their failing socialist agendas at home. It’s guns or butter. Or, in this case, guns or free education, food, lodging and whathaveyou for Muslims.


4 posted on 07/18/2011 6:09:12 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach
That is smart, US should follow suit.

No, the US shouldn't follow the UK's lead in this. They have a different situation than we do, starting with the fact that one of the very few things that our Constitution actually explicitly names as being a responsibility of Congress to fund is the military. I know that you're a single issue voter with the debt being your main concern, but cutting the military is not the way to go about reducing the debt.

Bluntly put, if you want to cut the debt, start with Social Security and Medicare. Neither are Constitutional and both are draining us dry. I feel for those people, like myself, who have paid into these two systems all of their working life, but they were a scam to begin with and they remain a scam so why should these people expect to get their money back when a scam is finally ended? We did fine without them for years, so why can't we do without them now? Cut them, along with everything else that isn't named in the Constitution, out of the budget.

If the people want these kinds of things, then let them vote on it at the State level and implement it there. I shouldn't have to pay for some yahoo in New York or California to be able to live without working at anything when I live and work in West Virginia.

5 posted on 07/18/2011 6:17:40 AM PDT by paladin1_dcs (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach

Having a military is like having an insurance policy—its a costly burden when things are fine, but worth every penny when you really need it. Most of Europe has concluded they don’t need a military given nearly 70 years of relative peace + the demise of the Soviet threat. But, when militaries get small enough and societies are defenseless, oportunistic threats may start to come out of the woodwork.

The way the UK is going, pretty soon their “military” is going to be capable of ceremonial duties only.


6 posted on 07/18/2011 6:18:35 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach

Any remember when ALL of Europe could stop two/three small balkin counties from killing each other? And came crying to America?

Paper Tigers. But at least they will now have more money for free health care and housing for illegal immigrants...


7 posted on 07/18/2011 6:22:49 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach

Have been told that 1/3 of U.S. Marines have been retired. Anybody else heard this?


8 posted on 07/18/2011 6:31:41 AM PDT by cblue55 (IT'S EITHER OBAMA OR AMERICA. THERE CANNOT BE BOTH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach
That is smart, US should follow suit

It's always bothered me when citizens of this country crow about defense spending. One clearly and definitively spelled out role of the Federal government in the United States is "to provide for the common defense."

Unless DC is going to remove every gun-ban and anti-Second Amendment law on the books and allow the citizenry to provide for the full common defense, then they only reasonable role for the Federal government is to defend this country. If that means stockpiling weapons and upgrading our arsenals, then Dammit, that's what we do! Dominance through overwhelming strength!

The US Federal government is a bloated, pock-marked pig roasted in an Indian summer Mississippi fenwallow. It needs to be cut back to the Constitutionally-appropriated size and the citizenry needs to be less concerned about American Idol and more concerned about their freedom!

9 posted on 07/18/2011 6:31:51 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach
1 posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 8:01:55 AM by moshiach: “That is smart, US should follow suit. Preferably with an active army of 100,000 that can be rapidly deployed. Boots on the ground to hold that front line. One thing that (joke) of a rebel war in Libya has made me aware of is, it does not take that many boots on the ground to hold ground and advance. When you have sea superiority to launch 24/7 air attacks to establish air superiority.”

This isn't smart; this is crazy (at least when applied to the United States).

Britain may have decided that it doesn't need to protect itself anymore and can rely on the United States for its protection. Considering that most of the rest of NATO has long since decided to mooch off the United States, I can't really blame the British parliament for deciding to follow the lead of the rest of our allies.

However, the only reason NATO members can cut their militaries down to levels below what's necessary to defend themselves is because the United States is doing the defending for them.

Make no mistake: I'm all in favor of quick-strike forces. I strongly support the National Guard and our various Reserve forces. I understand the role of the Air Force and the Marine Corps and of various elite troops within the Army and the Navy in working as force multipliers.

However, a certain amount of critical mass is necessary to occupy and hold territory, as we're finding out the hard way in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a limit to how effective local troops are without decades of training, and when we essentially bribe local forces to do work for us, we run the risk of creating well-armed (if not well-trained) troops with only ephemeral loyalty to the goals and mission of the United States.

Some people think large armies are obsolete. Go tell that to the South Koreans who are facing the threat of North Korea, and behind them, China.

My brother-in-law was in the South Korean Special Forces. I may know more than a little bit about the benefit of highly-trained elite troops and of airpower to deter and if necessary to defeat a large traditional army such as that of North Korea. But anyone who thinks that an active duty American Army of 100,000 personnel can work needs to realize that isn't even enough troops to deal with the North Koreans, let alone a concerted attack by China or one of the other second-tier powers in the world which would be greatly emboldened by an evisceration of the United States military.

Some people will say an active duty army of 100,000 could work if coupled with a strong National Guard and reserve units, as well as a smaller but armed-to-the-teeth Air Force and Marine Corps. If we could follow the Israeli model of rapidly mobilizing huge reserve units to supplement a smaller active duty force, it might work. But we'd have to prove it by totally destroying an enemy who decided our smaller active-duty military wasn't an effective deterrent and decided to try their luck. I don't want to see something like that happen if Iran, North Korea, or even some tinpot dictator in Latin America decided the American military was no longer an effective deterrent to their ambitions.

10 posted on 07/18/2011 6:32:03 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
Bluntly put, if you want to cut the debt, start with Social Security and Medicare.

Bluntly put, the military has become an operating subsidy for investors overseas, and a disproportionate burden on the American taxpayer. Put them on the borders to defend this country, thank you. That IS what the Constitution says they are for.

11 posted on 07/18/2011 6:34:38 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina; moshiach
You're exactly right, military weakness only invites war. Every time that a major power has reduced it's military, either voluntarily or involuntarily, it has led to war, without fail.

Right now, we're still a major power but if we reduce our military, it wouldn't be long before someone else would come calling with the idea of taking what is ours since we can't defend it any longer. Think that's not the case? Go back and look at what caused the second World War. Hitler sensed weakness in Britain and France and pounced on the chance to expand. That's the best known case of this idea that military weakness, even if it's just a perception, invites war, but it's a well known maxim and has been proven time and time again.

We don't have the guts to use nukes now, so we have to have a large conventional military. That's just the way the world works.

12 posted on 07/18/2011 6:41:19 AM PDT by paladin1_dcs (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: moshiach
“That is smart, US should follow suit. “

Only if we want to join once mighty Britain as a 3rd rate power.
And cede the Pacific to China among other things.

13 posted on 07/18/2011 6:44:55 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (I love how the FR spellchecker doesn't recognize the word "Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
11 posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 8:34:38 AM by Carry_Okie “Bluntly put, the military has become an operating subsidy for investors overseas, and a disproportionate burden on the American taxpayer. Put them on the borders to defend this country, thank you. That IS what the Constitution says they are for.”

Would you rather fight our enemies on their soil or ours?

We've had one too many 9/11s. I don't want another one.

Fortress America worked in the days that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were an effective barrier to foreign attack. They no longer are, and haven't been since at least a few years after the end of World War II, and quite probably since 1941. (Granted, we never had a Japanese invasion of California, but if Midway and a few other battles had gone the other way, we could easily have found out whether the Japanese were capable of mounting an invasion. Full Japanese control of Indonesian oil, Philippine food, a network of Pacific island bases, and the resources of Australia could have made an invasion very difficult to repel.)

Today, with asymmetrical warfare capabilities, the only way to stop a serious terrorist attack in the United States is to keep rogue states afraid of mounting such an attack. That requires the ability to project power far beyond our shores. Hopefully that power will rarely be used, but if it's not present, we'll rapidly wish we had it.

14 posted on 07/18/2011 6:48:21 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Bluntly put, the military has become an operating subsidy for investors overseas, and a disproportionate burden on the American taxpayer. Put them on the borders to defend this country, thank you. That IS what the Constitution says they are for.

I agree completely, bring all of our troops home and let the rest of the world worry about it's own defense for once, but I'll fight against any defense spending cuts tooth and nail if we do that. That kind of action, while correct, would lead to us either standing aside while the rest of the world goes to war (and I don't see us standing aside for long) or we're going to have to finally deal with the fact that all cultures are not equal and some do not deserve to survive. I'd love to see us finally come to grips with this idea again and rid ourselves of this notion that diversity is the same thing as righteousness, but at this point I don't see it happening unless we bleed for it.

15 posted on 07/18/2011 6:55:24 AM PDT by paladin1_dcs (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Hahaha Like the way you think.


16 posted on 07/18/2011 7:03:46 AM PDT by guardian_of_liberty (We must bind the Government with the Chains of the Constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
Would you rather fight our enemies on their soil or ours?

Theirs. Which is why we need to get the Muslims out of the country. That is a domestic problem.

We've had one too many 9/11s. I don't want another one.

Then you have the wrong strategy. Despite spending TRILIONS on our military, they couldn't shoot down two unarmed subsonic planes within US airspace with nearly an hour's notice, something that could have been handled by a couple of guys with Stingers. 9-11 was not due to our lack of foreign intervention, but was due to a failure of emphasis upon the militia-based system our founders intended. Were every American male trained in military service, armed, equipped with communications, and empowered to make an arrest, 9-11 could never have happened. Without the FAA socializing the risk of crappy cockpit doors and unarmed pilots with their approval and disallowing armed citizens as passengers, taking over those planes would have been dicey.

You are dead wrong about 9-11.

I would MUCH rather put my money into Standard missiles, lasers, and other SDI assets than carriers, tanks, and heavy airlift capacity. I would also love to see proper inspection of container ships. Make them build a floating port and offload at sea for all I care. I'm NOT paying to defend the rest of the whole damned planet.

17 posted on 07/18/2011 7:05:48 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
See 17. The whole approach needs to be rethought.
18 posted on 07/18/2011 7:06:52 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
Bluntly put, if you want to cut the debt, start with Social Security and Medicare.

Fully agree. Cut this, cut the EPA, reduce the salaries of all congressmen, senators, the president, state senators etc. by 25% to 50% and we'll save a bundle straight away.

19 posted on 07/18/2011 7:12:13 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: moshiach
It's NOT the total size of the army, it's the number of ground troops that can be rapidly deployed, and sustained, in a combat operation. Today, the RA could not do anywheres near what it accomplished, less than a decade ago, in Iraq.

That changes everything..

Acceptible "Tooth to tail" ratio varies, depending on type of operation, and logistical requirements. OTOH, the assumption is that we'll never see another operation like Iraq again.

Just hope the Chicoms read the same manual..

20 posted on 07/18/2011 7:18:38 AM PDT by ken5050 (Save the earth..it's the ONLY planet with CHOCOLATE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
" Every time that a major power has reduced it's military, either voluntarily or involuntarily, it has led to war, without fail."

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a correct answer. Yes, we have some bloated beauracracy in the defense. Let's work on getting rid of that and pouring that money back into upgrading our equipment and weapons for our troops. This move by Britian alone does not disturb me. Believe it or not, they have historically had a small Army. However, they have also cut back on the RAF and Royal Navy. Especially the Royal Navy should have an increase in size, not a decrease.

I am not for decreasing our defense spending, but re focusing it. Similarily, we need to focus all of our efforts away from Europe (Keep Air Force bases there, thats about it) and focus all of our force strategy and effort towards the Middle East and Pacific. That is where our National Defense priorities lie. If England, France and Germany want to whittle away their militaries to nothing, fine. Let them. We just are tired of defending them. The next Napolean/Hitler to come along will finish them off most likely. And he'll most likely have an arabic name.
21 posted on 07/18/2011 7:32:07 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Click the Pic

These lions can't figure out why you haven't donated yet.

Give what you can
Or better yet, donate monthly
A sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

22 posted on 07/18/2011 7:48:16 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

It depends. I could get rid of a lot of useful units and add some very useful ones around the army.

Reductions for sake of reduction is wrong.


23 posted on 07/18/2011 8:03:18 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

It depends. I meant to say... I could get rid of a lot of USELESS welfare back adminstrative support units and add some very useful “on the beat” ones around the army. I am tired of seeing “leaders” who never carry a rifle, were never deployed or just go to those Support Units to move up administratively before sidestepping to front line units and acting like they always were Pattons from the get go.

Reductions for sake of reduction is wrong.


24 posted on 07/18/2011 8:05:32 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You sir are a “terrorist” symp, we need to spend a trillion tax dollars to chase about some hell hole a few dozen illiterates with 70s era Soviet cast off weapons. We lose AfPak this country is going down, and if I could I would spend two trillion to chase about some hell hole a few human rats with AKs. I am a freedom loving patriot over and out.


25 posted on 07/18/2011 8:10:43 AM PDT by junta ("Peace is a racket", testimony from crime boss Barrack Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

There are two reasons why we “couldn’t shoot down” those airliners on 9-11.

1. Our eyes were pointed outward for enemies, not inward
2. Our Air Defense forces had been cut down to SEVEN bases around the entire country, from the “peace dividend” after the fall of the Soviet bloc

So, we weren’t looking in the right places and when they did finally figure it out, we didn’t have the proper assets to deal with it.

Cut the military again? We’ll get more of the same.


26 posted on 07/18/2011 8:20:12 AM PDT by ODC-GIRL (We live in interesting times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: moshiach

I read recently that Sweden has an army of 5,000.
Meanwhile, Sweden’s second largest city (Malmo) is on track to become majority Muslim. Already police fear to enter many parts of the city.
They had better train their small army for “civil defense.”


27 posted on 07/18/2011 8:27:13 AM PDT by Malesherbes (- Sauve qui peut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moshiach

Thats ok. Pretty soon it will have to go over a million again. Just to get the young men off the streets. Worked in 1940—it will work now.


28 posted on 07/18/2011 8:31:58 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ODC-GIRL
Cut the military again? We’ll get more of the same.

As far as I am concerned, this isn't about the amount of money, although if you knew of the massive waste in procurement you would know that we could EASILY cut hardware costs by a third and never miss it. I've never added up the bill for an adequate homeland and civil defense system, but it won't be cheap. I just think we've totally misallocated our priorities, and that has NOT been fixed since 9-11.

29 posted on 07/18/2011 8:32:36 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: junta
I am a freedom loving patriot over and out.

LOL, that would be a Fed-loving patriot, and you can bank on it.

30 posted on 07/18/2011 8:34:34 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I absolutely agree that we need to rethink what we're spending and how we're spending it, but I disagree that there needs to be cuts. In fact, I'd say that there needs to be additional defense spending but only after we eliminate the inefficiency that is in the US Military now. Now, I'm not sure how to go about doing something like that, but it needs to be done and done quickly.

One thing that I do know though is that we need to rebuild our bases and defenses here on the continental US. Like others have stated, let Europe handle their own problems for once, we need to see to our own house and our own needs now.

31 posted on 07/18/2011 8:59:39 AM PDT by paladin1_dcs (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

And don’t you dare touch those 150k a year DOD jobs in Iraq or AfPak (I know a guy who made 165k tax free for a year in the green zone and now he is raking it in in Kandahar), we need those lowly paid freedom defenders to keep defending our freedom from the gun grabbing medicare hating Taliban.


32 posted on 07/18/2011 9:16:13 AM PDT by junta ("Peace is a racket", testimony from crime boss Barrack Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
Now, I'm not sure how to go about doing something like that, but it needs to be done and done quickly.

Easy. Tort reform. One can then dump much of the "high-rel" traceability and bogus paperwork requirements. Procure off the shelf as much as possible. You see, it really does cost $250 to sell a hammer to the military. I know, I've been a manufacturing engineer in a MIL-Spec facility.

I'd also dump a lot of the hermeticity requirements in electronics manufacturing. I don't care if it's sealed, just make them guarantee it will work with their butts on the line. Hell, the qualification for automobile production is tougher in some respects.

I probably just whacked a couple of hundred billion right there. Seriously.

33 posted on 07/18/2011 9:37:04 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Easy. Tort reform. One can then dump much of the "high-rel" traceability and bogus paperwork requirements. Procure off the shelf as much as possible. You see, it really does cost $250 to sell a hammer to the military. I know, I've been a manufacturing engineer in a MIL-Spec facility. I'd also dump a lot of the hermeticity requirements in electronics manufacturing. I don't care if it's sealed, just make them guarantee it will work with their butts on the line. Hell, the qualification for automobile production is tougher in some respects. I probably just whacked a couple of hundred billion right there. Seriously.

Maybe I'm just dense, but how would tort reform help the procurement process? I'm not making the connection here.

As for the rest of it, I'd let the military determine what they need and how it should be built, but while I have no problem with procuring off shelf stuff as much as possible, it's with the caveat that the provider must be an American company and must undergo strict Military Security screening to ensure that we're not opening ourselves up to sabotage. In short, I don't want a Stuxnet style attack on our systems to be possible because one of the vendors decided to use cut-rate hardware or software from China, such as has happened before.

Now, with that said, bring on the reform!

34 posted on 07/18/2011 9:54:08 AM PDT by paladin1_dcs (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
Maybe I'm just dense, but how would tort reform help the procurement process? I'm not making the connection here.

'Make it to spec and provide the paperwork to prove it with every bolt, nut, and drop of paint,' as opposed to 'make it work and guarantee it' protects the manufacturer from liability for the quality of the product. Effectively, the way it is now, we have government in the manufacturing business, with armies of bureaucrats generating paperwork.

As for the rest of it, I'd let the military determine what they need and how it should be built,

No way, they're just as deep in bed with the contractors as the lobbyists are. There is no substitute for political appointees with manufacturing experience.

35 posted on 07/18/2011 10:00:10 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Good grief, do you know anything about Britain?.

The govt in the UK is a conservative-heavy coalition with a conservative as Prime Minister. The govt is having to make cuts (as essentially a Tory govt) because of the massive debt left to us by Labour 1997-2010 (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown).


36 posted on 07/18/2011 11:13:58 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

‘Britain may have decided that it doesn’t need to protect itself anymore and can rely on the United States for its protection. Considering that most of the rest of NATO has long since decided to mooch off the United States, I can’t really blame the British parliament for deciding to follow the lead of the rest of our allies.’

Bollocks. We havent, we dont, and wont need to mooch of you.


37 posted on 07/18/2011 11:20:26 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

You havent needed to defend us thank you. I think we British have done our share of defending ourselves.

And you were kicked out of France in 1966.


38 posted on 07/18/2011 11:22:11 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs; All
We can debate military waste until the cows come home. I live outside Fort Leonard Wood, which was the original target of the Truman Commission on war profiteering and abuse back during World War II. This is no longer a basic training post; it's the home of the Army Engineer School, Chemical (CBRN) School, and Military Police School. It's also the primary home of training for military truck driving and convoys. Think of the fight to deal with IEDs, (the main killer of our soldiers), the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, and the efforts to train our prison guards to prevent another Abu Ghraib, and then combine that with the role of truck convoys and their protection, and you get an idea of the huge amount of money and military materiel that we deal with in this rural Ozarks community.

I see stuff going on all the time that is a perfect example of why centralized planning doesn't work; our defense procurement, payment, and troop housing systems have created perverse incentives that cause major problems in the civilian off-post economy without doing much to benefit the troops.

Fixing those problems is a whole different story. It's sort of like the “marriage penalty” — yes, it's often true that a married couple with similar middle-to-upper-middle-class incomes will pay more taxes than they would if they were an unmarried cohabiting couple. However, the system was originally intended to give a tax break to traditional married families with the father earning substantially more than his wife, who might work part-time or at a low-paying job or stay home with the children. A system originally intended to reward traditional families has become a perverse incentive to live together without marriage.

You'll get no disagreement with me that there's major waste in the military. I could easily list a dozen major issues that are creating serious problems in our civilian economy and making the military pay far more than it should, starting with the prevailing wage for civilian contractors being pegged to St. Louis instead of real-life wages in the rural Ozarks and the role of BAH (basic allowance for housing) skyrocketing civilian housing costs far beyond the ability of lower-to-middle-class civilians to pay for local apartments.

Then there's the issue of GS (civil service) pay scales that are far above comparable off-post jobs — for what good reason do we have pay scales that lead to police officers jumping at the chance to become gate guards for far higher pay, or cause people with BAs or even MBAs to take jobs in housekeeping or secretarial work to get “in the door” at a job for which they are grossly overqualified because once they're in the civil service, they can eventually transfer to a job for which they're actually qualified based on education and experience.

Those are perfect examples of the military paying much more than it should be paying for civilian support jobs. But what's the alternative? Do we want to go back to the way things were during Korea and Vietnam when we had poorly paid draftee soldiers doing jobs they didn't want to do, and ever more poorly paid civilian workers who did a shoddy job building stuff that fell apart after a few years? Or do we want to have such radical regional differences in civilian DOD payscales that nobody wants to work at civilian jobs at military installations in rural areas? We already have that problem with professional positions at the upper end of the payscales — it is all but impossible to recruit medical doctors and comparable professionals to Fort Leonard Wood unless they're spouses of senior officers or they have a connection to the local area.

My point is that it's easy to identify problems. Fixing them is a much more difficult issue. We have our current military procurement and personnel payment systems for a reason — fixing past problems with poor performance or political influence in hiring — and getting rid of the problems of the current system could very easily re-create much worse problems that our current system was designed to eliminate.

39 posted on 07/18/2011 11:35:59 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
"You havent needed to defend us thank you. I think we British have done our share of defending ourselves.

And you were kicked out of France in 1966."


I just love when people bash me for something I never said. Can you please show me where I ever said that we have a base in France? You keep believing that you can defend yourself there sparky. You and the rest of Europe are really doing a bang up job in Libya, aren't you? Now all of your leaders are buying weapons off us because you're running out!!! On top of it, your leaders are getting pissed at us because we're not committing more munitions to your cause. At least we in America don't decry your "Wars for Oil". We just don't want to spill our blood and treasure for them, that's all...
40 posted on 07/18/2011 11:41:34 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

The military bloated beauracracy is a perfect example of (as you said) why centralized planning doesn’t work. The difference between the military and say the Social Security Administration is that one is tasked by the constitution as a job of the federal government. The other was a re-election give away by FDR.

I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of the waste, fraud and abuse in the military. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work at it. Just means we have to have realistic expectations. It’s sort of the necessary evil to put up with the national defense of our country. There’s no reason to put up with it at the department of education. Something we don’t need at the federal level...


41 posted on 07/18/2011 11:47:08 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
DTM wrote: “Britain may have decided that it doesn’t need to protect itself anymore and can rely on the United States for its protection. Considering that most of the rest of NATO has long since decided to mooch off the United States, I can’t really blame the British parliament for deciding to follow the lead of the rest of our allies.”

Scotsman wrote: “Bollocks. We havent, we dont, and wont need to mooch of you.”

Scotsman, please note the key word “may.”

My understanding is that the Guardian is a left-leaning newspaper and I don't trust their analysis of the British defense moves until I see more data. My guess is they're highlighting defense cuts because they know that cutting defense will antagonize at least some conservatives, while cutting social programs will get a rousing “huzzah” from many in the current parliamentary leadership.

I also agree that in the past Britian has not been mooching off the United States. That's unlike much of the rest of NATO. You are right that you “haven't... need(ed) to mooch” off the United States, if by that you mean the past tense.

I'm not so sure about the present tense given your planned defense cutbacks, but I'm open to being shown otherwise.

As for the future... well... I hope that Britain doesn't go the way of most of the rest of Europe.

You no longer have an active Northern Ireland problem, though it's in the background, and that always was primarily a policing and civilian issue, not a traditional military problem. You no longer have a Soviet threat. You're nowhere near the Balkans. You no longer have very many colonies you need to protect. Your only value in having a strong military is to support a Western vision of freedom and democracy in the world, a vision currently supported (from a military perspective) mostly by the United States.

How long will the British Parliament want to spend money to do that? I don't know the answer, but I do think it's pretty clear that most of Europe decided long ago that in the absence of a Soviet threat there wasn't a good reason to have a strong military, and with the rise of Islam in Europe, I'm not at all sure that strong majorities in European governments are even interested in promoting traditional Western values, let alone spending the large amounts of money needed to do so through armed force.

42 posted on 07/18/2011 11:51:18 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

1—You mentioned France, so I thought I’d remind you you havent defended it for 45 years. I am never sure of some FR’s knowledge of Europe and history, so I play safe.

2—Britain is the one US ally in Europe (along with France) that dosent need the US. Your presence in the UK has been redundant since 1991 if we are being frank. If you really think Britain cannot defend itself, then the ignorance of our military capabilities is yours. We still have a sizeable armed force, are one of the five major nuclear powers and are one of the few countries outwith the US who can conduct world operations.

3—Yes, the British and French have done a bang up job in Libya. Its others who arent up to scratch. As I keep pointing out, the UK and France have and are reinforcing air and sea power all the time. We just sent more planes last week for example.

4—Running out?. Britain and France have and are supplying the rebels from our own stocks.

5—No, you will happily spill blood for your own bullsh*t wars for oil. Like 2003.


43 posted on 07/18/2011 12:06:39 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Teufel Hunden, we're on the same page, I think, about the primary duty of the government being the defense of its people. Government waste is unavoidable because the government doesn't work in a capitalist free market economy once it becomes enough of a player in the economy to dominate significant sectors of the economy.

If we want modern examples of free enterprise and capitalism in the economy, look at al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar insurgent movements. Even our contractor operations — Blackwater, for example — really look more like an Obamacare single-payer medical system than like a free enterprise system. (That's not an attack on Blackwater, by the way, just pointing out that anytime government creates specifications and asks companies to bid on the specs, government is so big that it not only writes the specs but in doing so changes the entire rules of the game.)

But what's the alternative? Mercenary armies selling themselves to the highest bidder? We saw the devastation that created around the end of the Middle Ages and the early part of the Reformation era, and there's no way in the world we want true free enterprise in the military. It works better, which is why the terrorists can accomplish a great deal with minimal resources against a bloated and overgrown American military, just like many small companies can outperform large corporations. However, it is far too dangerous to have large armies selling their services to the highest bidder.

One more thing — I said in a previous post that Fort Leonard Wood is no longer a basic training installation. Anyone who knows FLW will realize what I meant to say was it's no longer “ONLY” a basic training installation. We make a big point in this area of emphasizing the upper-level TRADOC mission of FLW as well as our increasing number of FORSCOM units, but obviously FLW still does a lot of basic training. That's no longer the post's primary mission, however.

44 posted on 07/18/2011 12:08:09 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
" so I play safe."

So playing it safe means covering your posterior after reading something into my statement? Call it what it is, you were wrong and have a reading comprehension problem apparently.

"If you really think Britain cannot defend itself, then the ignorance of our military capabilities is yours."

By all accounts, this Libya operation has been cluster f@#!@#. I have no wish to see Gadaffi on this side of the sod and I hope that whoever takes over is not going to install a caliphate. Your military capability along with the rest of NATO has been on display and quite frankly it's lacking. You now have no aircraft carrier, are in process of getting one online in 2018 and are going to freakin' sell the other one you have planned to build. Yeah, I'm aware of your military and it's being sold off to the highest bidder so everyone can have "free" healthcare. Oh, there was a time when England would not have needed anyone else to do a bang up job in Libya. They would have been able to topple Gadaffi themselves.

"No, you will happily spill blood for your own bullsh*t wars for oil. Like 2003."

You claim my ignorance of your military capabilities. Yet, you are the one showing ignorance. Do you know how much oil we get from Iraq? Very little. We get the vast amount of our oil imports from Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. No American companies got special treatments for those oil contracts. They were put up for bidding on the open market. According to this article, BP won a huge oil contract in 2009 from Iraq: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963093615637434.html

So I guess when they're not polluting up our Gulf Coast region your oil company is benefitting in the oil for blood scheme.
45 posted on 07/18/2011 12:37:58 PM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

1—We have three aircraft carriers.

2—We have had free healthcare since 1948.

3—My oil remark was a sarcastic one regarding the fact that Republicans/conservatives Stateside are bashing Obama for a pointless war of oil, but were quite happy to support Bush in 2003 in a war that frankly wasnt necessary. My remark is sarcasm about the justifications for 2003, I am well aware of America’s actual oil intake.

4—BP is half-American. Oh, and its not owned by the Queen either.


46 posted on 07/18/2011 1:14:37 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Addendum:

The last post should read:

‘1—We had three aircraft carriers, we now have one. Not zero, as you suggest’

(last posted posted without finishing change to first line. Typed a line, deleted and posted without reinserting.)


47 posted on 07/18/2011 1:20:23 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

It is clear that US companies in general got favourable treatment in Iraq. So much so its known that Blair talked to Bush about it circa 2004-05 because of complaints from UK companies that US companies were getting preferential treatment to a ridiculous degree.


48 posted on 07/18/2011 1:23:37 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

You said, as an American, that you are tired of America defending England, France and Germany.

So what exactly was I supposed to read into that?.


49 posted on 07/18/2011 1:25:57 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Germany defending itself has not usually been a problem. The problem is they want to defend themselves from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Give them ten years, and they will be causing trouble again.


50 posted on 07/18/2011 1:40:09 PM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson