Military’s top general offers grim outlook on nation’s defense

McClatchy DC ^ | 4 March 2014 | James Rosen

[SkyPilot]

The nation’s top military commander painted a dark picture Tuesday of future U.S. defense capabilities clouded by shrinking Pentagon budgets and adversaries’ technological advances that he said would erode American battlefield superiority.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided his sobering views as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated evaluation of U.S. military strength issued every four years.

Dempsey predicted that it would become increasingly difficult to balance the competing demands of protecting allies abroad, securing Americans at home and deterring future wars.

“The smaller and less capable military outlined in the QDR makes meeting these obligations more difficult,” he said. “Most of our platforms and equipment will be older, and our advantages in some domains will have eroded. Our loss of depth across the force could reduce our ability to intimidate opponents from escalating conflicts.”

Dempsey added: “Moreover, many of our most capable allies will lose key capabilities. The situation will be exacerbated given our current readiness concerns, which will worsen over the next three or four years.”

Dempsey’s perspective was more pessimistic than that of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

“As we move off the longest continuous war footing in our nation’s history, this QDR explains how we will adapt, reshape and rebalance our military for the challenges and opportunities of the future,” Hagel said in a statement.

Dempsey issued his warnings as President Barack Obama sent Congress a 2015 budget for the entire government on Tuesday that provides the Pentagon just over $600 billion.

That’s $13 billion less than current funding, but $26 billion more than provided in a budget deal that Congress approved in December by large bipartisan majorities.

[USAF80]

Israel, Japan and S Korea are quite capable. We refused to sell them up to date fighters like the F22. They could have kept the line open and lower our overall cost plus serve as a buffer if anything jumps off in their region.

[RFEngineer]

“You have all the answers, you tell me.”

I already did. $600B is enough.

So you just want to bitch about it, like a classic bureaucrat, you only know you want more, but you have no idea why.

So why post this thread at all if you have no idea?

“DoD spending should never fall below 5% GDP.”

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[DBeers]

And hope like hell we don’t get attacked here.

I prefer the conservative policy of talk softly & carry a big stick rather than the leftist policy of nuance loudly and hope like hell.

[kabar]

Dempsey is more concerned about gay rights than operational effectiveness. He is an Obama toady.

[SkyPilot]

I already did. $600B is enough.

Oh really? What did you base that on? What is the correct force structure with that figure? Should the Army decrease down to 420,000? Should be go down to 11 carriers, or even 8? Or less?

Your $600B figure includes the OCO as well above the baseline. Should that go up, or down? How much? Is that figure just for this Fiscal Year, or is it through Sequestration for the next 9 years? What if world fuel prices go up? How does that affect the O&M costs? What if the Pentagon has to shift some fighters to the Baltics this week as the White House wants. How much does that cost in total, including the air refueling package?

None of that really matters to you: it is just "enough" because you are pissed off and arrogant. I get that.

I know you vastly dislike charts and graphs (all that "misleading don'tchaknow), but here is one to ponder with my answer of 5% GDP being a proper approach to our defense posture:

While you are at it, you might want to read this:

The Biggest Threat to the Pentagon’s Budget Is Entitlement Spending

[devolve]

- brag loudly and keep a tiny putter in your Mom Jeans

[kabar]

Right on. These money comparisons are useless. It is capability that counts and we are reducing ours while they are increasing theirs.

[kabar]

I recall Dempsey calling a preacher who was threatening to burn the Koran and Dempsey pleading that he not do it because it endangered our troops. So much for free speech and freedom.

[Personal Responsibility]

The one thing we can do is spend other countries into oblivion. Being the fiat currency gives us this ability. We are already 16 TRILLION in debt. As horrible as that is, let me ask this question:

What is the functional difference of being 16 trillion in debt or 17? Or 18 trillion? Is there one, other than the obvious?

Ideally, we’d cut the wasted spending to pay for defense but that doesn’t look likely to happen.

[kabar]

The baseline budget is much lower than $600 billion, The chart below breaks down the baseline costs and the Overseas Contingency Operations (Afghanistan and previously Iraq) costs. We should not be structuring our military on the basis of costs. First, we need to do a threat assessment based on current and potential foes, then develop the force to deal with it. Trade-offs will have to made in terms of costs and risks, but we should not try to start with a specific dollar figure and then develop a force based on that budget number.

[kabar]

It’s way past time for Europe, Israel, Japan and S. Korea to man up and defend themselves.

Would you ask them to develop their own nuclear deterrent rather than depend on our nuclear umbrella?

[CorporateStepsister]

” Republicans get voted back in en masse and fix lots of things and the country booms. “

This is the very reason that the best possible people for the job are no longer signing up; the smart ones see how it’s done and they don’t want to fix things, only to have all their work thrown back in their faces by ungrateful sh*ts like the brats that booed Bush after he was leaving in 2009.

“I have the satisfying thoughts that cities will crumble first, happy LIV suburbia’s next “

Yup; all those Obama voting soccer moms will no longer be able to feed their fat brats who are budding DemCrap voters. No more mounds of junk and no more farmers working like fiends only to be taxed to pay for the fashionable causes spouted off by those very suburban sows.

[CorporateStepsister]

Frankly I think a smaller military is a blessing; right now, we have a huge military with troops that aren’t as trained or treated as well as they should be. With a smaller and more specialized fighting force I am certain that we’ll be a lot better off.

Besides, we’re armed country and isn’t it better than most other countries with an unarmed populace.

[RFEngineer]

“First, we need to do a threat assessment based on current and potential foes, then develop the force to deal with it. “

Thank you. Actually the step before that is more mission/doctrine. If we dispense with “Make country X a democracy” and stuff like that - focusing on actual threats to the United States and our direct interests you exclude a number threat scenarios.

We might be surprised at the number we got from this exercise.

[daniel1212]

All I am saying to you is it is not a one-to-one comparison....

That is what is left out. The amount spent by China, etc. buys much more i am sure.

[daniel1212]

what are getting for the $600 billion? If spending that much money represents pre WWII levels what are we paying for.

By its own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along with the 4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories. http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like

[RFEngineer]

“because you are pissed off and arrogant.”

LOL....yes, I arrogantly want to keep my own money as much as is possible, just like the Constitution arrogantly states I should be able to.

I want to do it by reducing government dramatically.

Sure it’s not likely but arrogant? Spoken like a true government elitist worried about his budget.

[RFEngineer]

“I know you vastly dislike charts and graphs (all that “misleading don’tchaknow), but here is one to ponder with my answer of 5% GDP being a proper approach to our defense posture:”

Now plot absolute DoD budgets over the same timeline. Ah! it looks different!

That’s why you don’t use percentages on any meaningful chart.

[Jet Jaguar]

Active Duty ping.

[ConorMacNessa]

"I recall Dempsey calling a preacher who was threatening to burn the Koran and Dempsey pleading that he not do it because it endangered our troops."

Our troops are in danger more from the draconian ROE's imposed on them by this benighted regime than they are by some preacher burning a Koran. The jihadists are coming after us whether we beard them in their den or appease them. I prefer to beard them and pay the freight than to submit to dhimmitude and consign my descendants to lives in thralldom.

America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

O stranger, tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here, obedient to their command.

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)