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 ...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?.
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.
“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. “
In the U.S. the traditional(Pre-world war 2) way we did the military is similar to that.
Constitutionally the only standing army’s of theses United States is the various militia(or National Guard) and importantly their traning and officers are suppose to be conducted and appointed by the 50 States.
This is for the explicit propose, as explained the Federalist papers, of maintaining their first loyalty to the States and 2nd loyalty to the Federation.
To that end the natural disposition of the U.S. army & air-force, is to have a small officer core(the part able to deploy on a moments notice), and a comparatively massive militia(currently called the National Guard).
In this way we will have a small professional force of Federals which will serve 2 proposes:
1: Provide that instance response capability.
2: Organize and pull together the militia(national Guards) of the various states into a large army quickly, should a large army & air-force be required.
You do realize that state senators are paid by the state governments, don’t you?
And I think that if you were to reduce the salaries of the congressmen, U.S. senators, the president, etc., I think you would come up with a very small number in relationship to the overall budget.
Obama lied, and Citizens DIED!!
it might be small, but its a start. if the top guys don’t cut their salaries, they have no moral authority to ask the bureaucrats to do so — the Irish premier etc took a cut voluntarily first. i’m not saying it will solve all our problems — its just a first step. THEN, cut the rest that paladin talked about
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.