The Fewer, The Proud, The Marines—Budget Cuts Toll

Investor's Busines Daily ^ | January 30, 2013 | IBD EDITORIALS

[raptor22]

Defense: Plans to reduce our most effective fighting force by 20,000 will leave it unable to meet all its global commitments or respond to spontaneous threats from the shores of Tripoli to anywhere else.

There is no greater symbol of America's apologetic retreat from world leadership under President Obama than the planned reductions in the size of the Marine Corps, cuts that were in the works even before sequestration mandated under the Budget Control Act threatened to cut even deeper.

The Marines are on course to cut around 4,000 positions a year through 2017, decreasing the total number of Marines to 182,100 from its peak last year of 202,100, according to a major drawdown order that was quietly issued last year.

"The effect will be that there will not be sufficient Marines available to both be 'America's 911 force' and to be ready for sustained ground combat," says the Heritage Foundation's Steven Bucci, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under Donald Rumsfeld, warning that the decreased number of Marines will leave the force overstretched.

"Right now, the Marines are trying to go back to the role of floating about on the three-ship Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) missions forward deployed around the world," Bucci said, referring to a joint Navy and Marine unit that performs sea-to-shore missions. "There was no ARG available to respond to Benghazi (terror attacks) because the Marines have had so many combat units fighting elsewhere."

Not only will the Marines be hard-pressed to complete their own missions, but they also will be required to pick up the slack as a result of cuts in Army troop levels and assume roles they were never intended to perform, according to Thomas Donnelly, a former policy group director for the House Armed Services Committee.

[longfellow]

SO WE WANT TO KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE ON THE SCHOOLYARDS BUT NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD?

You retarded liberals.

[Art in Idaho]

20,000 more Oath Keepers.

[freebilly]

Cut 20,000 Marines, but make sure unqualified women are allowed to become part of the Corps. Semper Fiona....

[bicyclerepair]

SCREW the “global” commitments !

Our forces are NOT for GLOBAL good, but for American good.

Bring em all home. Put em on the border scrutinizing immigrants.

[Chainmail]

"SCREW the “global” commitments !"

Ah, another Ron Paul devotee that somehow missed serving his country! If you had been somewhere else guarding our country, you would have known that stopping them out there reduces the chances that we have to fight them here. Thought we had that one figured out after we sat out Japan's attacks on Manchuria and China and Mussolini's invasion of Libya. Maybe you missed that in your history classes.

[KantianBurke]

So much irony you can cut it with a knife. Prior to the surge in Iraq, the Bush Administration was adamantly AGAINST increasing the size of the Army and Marines!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/washington/20bush.html?_r=0

“Coming the day after Mr. Gates was sworn in as defense secretary, Mr. Bush’s comments indicated that the administration was breaking abruptly with the stance taken by Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former Pentagon chief, who championed the view that better intelligence and technological advancements could substitute for a bigger military.”

And now that we’ve left Iraq and are drawing down in Afghanistan i.e. the very reasons the size of the military was increased in the first place, the GOP wants to keep the increased size? Good luck explaining that to Grandma when she’s told that’s the reason for cuts to her entitlements.

[Gaffer]

On a historical basis and for most all of the potential hotspots in the world where it is conceivable some measurable effect on this country might be seen, I’d agree with most all you say. However, I see some very disturbing trends and news of future actions that I’d say we should have nothing to do with.

An example is Obama’s recent deployments and plans for more troops in countries of AFRICA. We have no business there, unless we all make a decision to finally go into Nigeria and wipeout all those frigging email scammers. Another example was Obama’s “lead from behind war” on Libya where we now have a complete clusterf@ck.

[Chainmail]

Not positive this is a bad thing in itself: the 180K numbers were what the Corps had prior to the ramp up for the Iraq War. Still enough to field the Amphibious Readiness Groups that we have ships to carry. More to the point is that this idiotic government is cutting funding for Operations and Maintenance for the training of troops and the replacement of worn out equipment. That will have a devastating effect on all of the services.

Very much like the Carter Years when the "two subjects a naval officer had to learn were Russian and lifeboat drill". Forcing the Corps to take open homosexuals and young ladies into combat units isn't exactly a "combat multiplier" either.

[Chainmail]

I have no idea why we’d have any focus on Africa either, unless there was some sort of al Qaeda facility. Unfortunately we have Barack and Hillary running the show.

[exit82]

We have no business there, unless we all make a decision to finally go into Nigeria and wipeout all those frigging email scammers.

First belly laugh of the day. Thanks!!