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

Skip to comments.

Defense Sec Proposed Cutting Army
Fox News.com ^ | Feb 24, 2014 | Staff Reports

Posted on 02/24/2014 5:11:07 AM PST by RetiredArmy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last
To: RetiredArmy

If there is one remaining shred of conservatism left in the House of Representatives, this proposed budget would be DOA.


51 posted on 02/24/2014 6:55:20 AM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

It will cost billions to build the military back to an effective level. Money we will not have for a long long time thanks to government greed, graft and corruption.


52 posted on 02/24/2014 6:56:14 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“A forward posture is necessary for our security.”

If it is ‘necessary’ then that means if we don’t do it then we are all doomed. It also means we must force others to take on our military as a necessity to our defense.

I don’t believe for a second that being forward located is a necessity. It is not even great to have.

We placed our forces in Europe and Asia to provide us a quick strike nuclear capability. The F-111s at Lakenheath to the B-52s in Thailand, but we have missiles that can deliver nukes faster and with less risk and cost. The Cold War generals used scare tactics to get any and every nuclear weapon and delivery vehicle they could, with incredible overlap in capabilities. But, we paid for it all. Gotta have the aircraft even though we finally built the missiles that were supposed to replace the aircraft, even though the Navy also built the subs, but, hey, we’ve always had the aircraft so we can’t do without them now. No way, can’t cut the military budget, we might get attacked!

Any ground forces overseas were too few to stop an attack. Hell, every grunt in Germany knew they would be sacrificed only to delay a Soviet ground advance by a few hours or days at best.

Who exactly are these forward bases supposed to be attacking anyway? What enemy is such a threat as to necessitate us maintaining overseas bases? We’ve been in South Korea for 60+ years. Why can’t the South Koreans have built their forces already? 60 years and we are still there. The book 1984, “We’ve always been at war with North Korea.”

We don’t need to waste our money, our labor, our lives on a military past one that can defeat any attacker to our shores.


53 posted on 02/24/2014 7:00:31 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

God forbid the US should maintain global dominance. Everybody knows we’re just a bunch of bullies. /s


54 posted on 02/24/2014 7:01:56 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; ilovesarah2012

“We were “weak” by your standards prior to WWII but we were actually strong because we could assemble to fight and we did.”

We got our butts handed to us in the beginning, and only the grace of God and a lot of US blood got us out of the hole!


55 posted on 02/24/2014 7:02:17 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I agree with your points. Interesting that we even have to debate the merits of a strong military at a site like Free Republic. Without a strong military and a free country itself then none of the other stuff we discuss at this site even matters.


56 posted on 02/24/2014 7:02:20 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

So, D-Day wasn’t necessary to establish a presence on the European mainland?

A forward base is an already established forward fighting position.

You fight your war without one that you have to establish yourself, and I’ll fight my war with forward troops already established, and we’ll see who gets farther, faster, with less loss of life and less delay.

Don’t you think it was beneficial having Kuwait offer itself as a forward staging area rather than having to fight our way onshore?


57 posted on 02/24/2014 7:04:56 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: All

whew.. good thing we didn’t elect Romney...


58 posted on 02/24/2014 7:07:39 AM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Good. The US is not supposed to have a large peacetime standing army. I don’t want a huge standing army here at home waiting fot the order to enforce martial law. Thanks anyway.


59 posted on 02/24/2014 7:21:53 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Yeah, why should their pay be relative to today’s budget? I read somewhere that during our Revolution, soldiers were paid less than $20 per month, and they had to buy all their own weapons, gear, supplies, etc. We should find an authoritative source, and pay them based on that. /s


60 posted on 02/24/2014 7:21:55 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

You want to cede Asia, the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand to the ChiComs. No thanks.


61 posted on 02/24/2014 7:27:54 AM PST by kristinn (Welcome to the Soviet States of Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

OMG. No. Having a strong military does not mean that we have to force others to attack us. And weakening our military will not ensure that others stop attacking us. It doesn’t work that way!


62 posted on 02/24/2014 7:30:52 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

At this time of Worldly chaos I cannot think of a more treasonous move by an administration.

Of course they USE Hagel as the point guy, but we all know it’s the Socialist/Democrat war room pulling the strings of their head marionette repeating dialogue “make it so #1”.


63 posted on 02/24/2014 7:55:47 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

The core of the problem here is that the quality or capability of our entire military will be negatively affected by our leftist leaders actions. In short, China or Russia will be able to whip us.


64 posted on 02/24/2014 8:43:00 AM PST by pleasenotcalifornia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Major General McMaster is on CSAN now

he says that we need land forces...


65 posted on 02/24/2014 8:43:01 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“You want to cede Asia, the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand to the ChiComs. No thanks.”

I never knew those were American territories. If our allies are attacked we can always go and help.


66 posted on 02/24/2014 8:51:36 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“I’ll fight my war with forward troops already established, and we’ll see who gets farther, faster, with less loss of life and less delay.”

If you think we have ever had enough troops to stop an invasion of an ally you don’t know the history of such affairs.


67 posted on 02/24/2014 8:53:20 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Non sequitur. I never said we were bullies nor was that a part of this discussion.

You are attempting to say that anyone not for having troops all over the place is doing so because they think we are bullies. That’s just plain stupid.


68 posted on 02/24/2014 8:54:47 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“A forward base is an already established forward fighting position.”

Which get run over and slaughtered for what reason? We have never had enough troops overseas to stop an invasion and that includes the troops in Germany and South Korea.


69 posted on 02/24/2014 8:55:45 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

” weakening our military “

You are assuming the intended troop strengths are a “weak” military. Again, this is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction by people that think “anything and everything” for the military, versus spending enough to maintain a strong defense.


70 posted on 02/24/2014 8:57:32 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Sigh.

Sorry, he was my local rep for years.


71 posted on 02/24/2014 9:01:17 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

There is serious talks of ending land based nukes. Sub based ones are supposed to be on the block also.


72 posted on 02/24/2014 9:03:02 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Hah. I suppose we fought Japan entirely on our soil? No? Oh, ok. The Barbary Pirates? No? See, in neither of those cases did we go out looking for a potential threat. That’s how we should handle things.


73 posted on 02/24/2014 9:09:06 AM PST by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I am with you. It is unfortunate that there are so many dumb asses who think it is a good idea to shrink our military to pre-WWII levels. We all know that this money saved will be use to fund and advance the terminal spread of socialism/communism in this country. We were lucky in WWII that our enemies did not yet have the technology to cause mass casualties in the heartland. We might not be so lucky next time. I am sure there are plenty around the world who are rejoicing at this news. How can it be a good thing when all those celebrating do not have our best interests in mind (e.g. China, NK, Iran, Al Queda, etc.). I swear some people in this country are too stupid to live.
74 posted on 02/24/2014 9:09:42 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Impeach Obama.


75 posted on 02/24/2014 9:11:44 AM PST by fivecatsandadog (If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Chicken Little is your new FReeper name

If the feathers fit...
76 posted on 02/24/2014 9:17:32 AM PST by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Hello? Joint Chiefs of Staff? Any pushback on this? Any pushback at all, guys? Are you even awake?

GENERAL JAMES MATTOON SCOTT: WHERE ARE YOU NOW THAT WE NEED YOU?

77 posted on 02/24/2014 9:24:15 AM PST by clintonh8r (Don't twerk me, Broi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Look up “weakening” in the dictionary. You are arguing in favor of weakening our military. Please don’t redefine the word.


78 posted on 02/24/2014 9:25:55 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

“There is serious talks of ending land based nukes.”

I know but I highly doubt that will happen. The low cost and the extremely effective deterrent it provides against attack is too significant to do without. Obama may think he will get it but he won’t.


79 posted on 02/24/2014 9:27:12 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

“You are arguing in favor of weakening our military.”

Weakening means first to be weak. The troop strength asked for is not a weak military.


80 posted on 02/24/2014 9:28:03 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Don’t you know China will invade Australia if America’s military isn’t more than the rest of the world combined?


81 posted on 02/24/2014 9:28:26 AM PST by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston

Then I guess Australia should get their act together and build an Army to stop them. Why is it our business to do it if they don’t? That and the Aussies have nukes, so I ain’t worried.


82 posted on 02/24/2014 9:31:28 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“The US is not supposed to have a large peacetime standing army. I don’t want a huge standing army here at home waiting fot the order to enforce martial law. Thanks anyway.”

My thoughts as well. People for a large military fail to realize that military may not stay in the hands of someone not willing to use it against We the People.


83 posted on 02/24/2014 9:32:38 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Your post 39:
“Once again, another self proclaiming patriot that can’t wait until all future wars are fought on our soil.”

Your comments about that are a non sequitur. Reducing our military to that needed to protect our country does not mean that any war must be fought on our soil. Where did you get that from? What is the converse, that we have our military all over the world? That we have global dominance and bully every other nation to allow in our military?

If you are that paranoid about an attack from an army you cannot name then you should just go live in a cave and hide.

You made the stupid comment, insinuating Americans use our strength to bully the rest of the world.

84 posted on 02/24/2014 9:37:26 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Why not?

Honestly, they are expensive, had a lot of bad press recently, and are known targets.

The first two trump it.


85 posted on 02/24/2014 9:42:11 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I repeat, look up “weakening” in the dictionary. If you must invent your own definitions for words, please do not waste FReepers’ time with your inane arguments. Please adhere to the actual definition of the words being used.


86 posted on 02/24/2014 9:43:25 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Get ready to pay a lot more for your boomerangs and kangaroo steaks if that happens!!!!


87 posted on 02/24/2014 9:48:42 AM PST by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

If I were china I would invade california Using container ships and the special ports I have on the west coast in la san fran & Portland. Two to three million troops mostly for garrison duty. Better equipped armoured brigages to hold the pssdes thru the rockies. Next I’d get Jerry Browne to declare Cali independence from the us. The forthright plan to defend the the brave cali freedom fighters. Meanwhile we target the remaining us flattops with our attack subs close Panama Canal. Remember china has a 20 year operating leases at the canal. Think what the prc could do with that advantage.


88 posted on 02/24/2014 9:54:11 AM PST by joegoeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
I really don't like this, and not for the obvious reasons. The difficulty is that I don't get the sense that anyone has sat down and said, "here are our global commitments, here is our strategy, and now we can talk about the sizing of the military that will be tasked with accomplishing our aims." This isn't that, and it ought to be.

It is a truism of planning that you never cut your resources first, although one sees this in staffing all the time in industry and now we see it here. A military sized to pre-WWII status should have pre-WWII commitments FIRST.

That turns out to be strategically difficult (huge discussion number one), but more to the point it is politically difficult, and so what happens in practice is that the pressure is off the politicians who are paid to take the heat and on the troopers who are not, who are faced with impossible expectations. It's a cheat.

89 posted on 02/24/2014 9:58:30 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

This is horrible and also typical of the military hating Obama and his admin.


90 posted on 02/24/2014 9:59:57 AM PST by Katarina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
I wonder if some “smart” MBA’s are instructing Hagel on this?

Or, more likely, they know that the military isn't really on board to go full socialist.

91 posted on 02/24/2014 10:57:40 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

I hope all those who raged against Mitt Romney are happy. /sarcasm>


92 posted on 02/24/2014 11:25:21 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
I wonder if some “smart” MBA’s are instructing Hagel on this?

Yeah, I know what you're really asking. Is this McNamara all over again? I'd love to know.

93 posted on 02/24/2014 11:42:14 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

I can’t stand Hagel, but I don’t really have a problem with reducing the size of the military in the abstract. We don’t need a $700+ billion/year military establishment to protect us from the threats we face globally. We only need that level of spending if we plan to continue pretending that we’re “Team America: World Police” going forward. We can’t reduce “defense” spending and expect to do the whole simultaneous middle eastern occupation thing again.


94 posted on 02/24/2014 1:06:21 PM PST by Blackyce (French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

So what was your opinion of the Balkan “peacekeeping” operations?


95 posted on 02/24/2014 2:27:51 PM PST by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

If the person proposing these cuts was anyone else, I’d probably see some logic in it. But since its dear leader... you can count me out.


96 posted on 02/24/2014 2:59:27 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Liberty in our Lifetime - WWW.FreeStateProject.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; CodeToad
“Our strength is our ability to produce at the time of need. No one is calling for no military, just not a military that is used to fight everyone else’s battles.”

We don't have the capability anymore. . .with reduced acquisitions our productions lines are closing.

“Infrastructure,” a vastly important aspect of the US arms business. At $543 billion, the defense budget falls short by nearly $31 billion in requested military expenditure.

This 9% budget shortfall is significant. Most budget expenditures are for maintenance, modifications, upgrades and personnel. . .not production, especially production of new platforms. Consequently, new product manufacturing and research and development are limited in scope.

This threatens the defense industrial manufacturing base.

A closed complex manufacturing facility such as the Boeing C-17 facility in Long Beach, for example, can’t easily be re-opened and produce kit quickly enough to arm/equip a nation under siege or engaged in a major conflict. Same with other aircraft, tanks, ships, etc. And, by the way, you can't take a washing machine manufacturing factory and re-tool to build a tank or airplane. Well, you can but it would take years and years and cost so much that it would be cheaper to build a new factory than re-tool.

Basically, a defense manufacturing facility simply can’t easily resume production within months, and may possibly takes years to become viable. That is physically, technically and fiscally impossible.

Research and Development (R&D) ensures the US possesses a qualitative edge in technology—and this edge is financed in part, a significant part, through foreign military sales.

FMS ensures R&D continues and the defense industry continues to produce modern, reliable and technologically relevant products. . .but not in any large number and is producing ‘test platforms,” not fully vetted combat-capable warfighting platforms.

So, cuts today have no relevance to pre-WWII manufacturing capability and the nature of the military today does not allow for shut-down/turn-on, re-tooling of a facility.

97 posted on 02/24/2014 3:20:16 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston

No argument but let’s make those cuts across the board and at the same level.


98 posted on 02/24/2014 3:21:11 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Spot on, no way they could build a warship in one month like they did in WW2 or an aircraft in a week or whatever it was.

The way everything is getting networked the training for new soldiers alone would be months and months.


99 posted on 02/24/2014 3:39:54 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

“We don’t have the capability anymore. . .with reduced acquisitions our productions lines are closing.”

So? They weren’t open then, either. We had to create them.


100 posted on 02/24/2014 4:02:19 PM PST by CodeToad (Keeping whites from talking about blacks is verbal segregation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-158 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