Skip to comments.Military’s top general offers grim outlook on nation’s defense
Posted on 03/05/2014 3:32:19 PM PST by SkyPilot
click here to read article
Yes, that’s why I posted a chart with percentage change since 2011 in the title at the top of the chart, to mislead.
Amen. It is horrific that the Pentagon’s focus was diverting millions to housing and health care benefits for “same sex” playthings while the rest of the force was manipulated like a kite. But that is the price we pay for very poor choices by the American voter.
“Yes, thats why I posted a chart with percentage change since 2011 in the title at the top of the chart, to mislead.”
That’s exactly what that chart does - mislead. If you posted one of absolute budgets, it would look very different, it wouldn’t give the appearance of “we’ve got to catch up” that bureaucrats such as yourself like to portray.
It's a conspiracy, but we are not supposed to tell you.
Yeah understand and its helpful for what you stated. But that’s a different analysis and has nothing to do with comparing our strength vs china.
A lot of times it takes a war to determine how effective different weapons systems are and how well trained and led an army might be.
With a smaller military maybe we’ll mind our own business. And hope like hell we don’t get attacked here. We’re broke yet going around bailing other countries out of their mess. Why is it always us that has to do something? Plus, I’m tired of Americans dieing in wars that they fight with at least one hand tied behind their backs.
“Yes, everyone is “misleading” you.”
As you know charting percentage changes is designed to mislead the reader by depriving them of context from which to judge the overall picture.
It creates hysteria where there should be none.
The US military budget exceeds $600B. How much bigger does it need to be? $700B $1T?
I submit that $600B ought to be enough to fund our nations defense for a year. If it’s not enough, why not?
Will you give a straight answer, or will you post more pictures?
It’s way past time for Europe, Israel, Japan and S. Korea to man up and defend themselves.
You have all the answers, you tell me. $100 billion? $0.5 billion? $300 billion. What’s that? Oh, it’s a pretty complex question? You bet it is. That is why we have budgets, hearings, and expert testimony. I’ll give you my opinion: DoD spending should never fall below 5% GDP.
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.
“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.
I prefer the conservative policy of talk softly & carry a big stick rather than the leftist policy of nuance loudly and hope like hell.
Dempsey is more concerned about gay rights than operational effectiveness. He is an Obama toady.
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:
- brag loudly and keep a tiny putter in your Mom Jeans
Right on. These money comparisons are useless. It is capability that counts and we are reducing ours while they are increasing theirs.
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.
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.
Would you ask them to develop their own nuclear deterrent rather than depend on our nuclear umbrella?
” 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.
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.
“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.
That is what is left out. The amount spent by China, etc. buys much more i am sure.
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
“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.
“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.
Active Duty ping.
America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!
We have no such mission/doctrine. We do have treaty obligations--bilateral and multilateral.
You need to define facility and base. The Base Structure Report (BSR) lists real property assets. These so-called bases are buildings and other real property.
Display Criteria : To qualify for individual entry in the BSR, a DoD site located in the United States must be larger than 10 acres AND have a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) greater than $10 million. If the site is located in a foreign country, it must be large r t han 10 acres OR have a PRV greater than $10 million to be shown as a separate entry. Sites that do not meet these criteria are aggregated as an Other location within each state or country. Since Army National Guard State sites tend to be smaller, the c riteria were adjusted so that sites larger than five acres AND have a PRV greater than $5 million are shown. Army National Guard sites not meeting this criteria are aggregated as Other for each state.
"The DoD manages a worldwide real property portfolio that spans all 50 states, seven U.S. territories, and 40 foreign countrie s. The majority of the foreign sites are located in Germany (179 sites), Japan (109 sites), and South Korea (83 sites).
Exactly. IMO, many countries will develop nuclear deterrents even if not presently threatened by nukes themselves, but by powerful “conventional” forces that are deterred by OUR conventional forces. It’s Pandora’s box...
Oh, good grief. Most times, that's just political fluff to convince some fence sitters. The fundamentals do not change.
“The fundamentals do not change. “
They most certainly do. The fundamental concept of “Victory” was tossed out the window for Iraq and Afghanistan.
You can’t get much more fundamental than that.
“We have no such mission/doctrine. “
Of course we do. The Monroe Doctrine is one.
It’s the deployments that suffer a lack of mission/doctrine that really cost a lot of money.
IMHO, it is one thing for granny to collect the SS she and/or grandpa paid into, another for Don' Juan Nojob to slip across the border and cash in.
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
We did not defeat the Germans in WWII because we had superior equipment or “platforms”. The Germans and the Japanese had excellent war equipment. We defeated them because we fought to win. We had leaders both Political and Military that made the hard decisions and did what was necessary to win. We do not have any leaders like that anymore...........
I absolutely agree. There are earned, and there are UNearned entitlements. Someone who paid their Social Security payroll taxes for 55 years is not akin to the Somali or Mexican illegal who has been here 4 months and is collecting from seven to ten welfare programs. Nearly $900 Billion a year spent on "poverty prevention" programs, and they are exploding under Obama.
I am looking for Jesus return and feel bad for those who don't want Jesus on the throne of their life. Their loss and our gain.
Gonna get real interesting when Putin and the Gang of Chinese lay aside their age old differences and form the next big co-prosperity sphere.
Would it help if we paid our soldiers in bitcoins?
That’s budget growth. Let’s wring out the waste in our military. We’re being played by the MI Complex.
LOL. I think you need to get better informed about the Monroe Doctrine.
We do have basic foreign policy principles as embodied in the Department of State's Mission statement
Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.
American diplomacy in the 21st century is based on fundamental beliefs: our freedom is best protected by ensuring that others are free; our prosperity depends on the prosperity of others; and our security relies on a global effort to secure the rights of all. The history of the American people is the chronicle of our efforts to live up to our ideals. In this moment in history, we recognize that the United States has an immense responsibility to use its power constructively to advance security, democracy, and prosperity around the globe. We will pursue these interests and remain faithful to our beliefs.
Globalization is compressing distances and creating new opportunities for economic growth. It is expanding the exchange of ideas, providing an impetus for political freedoms. Millions of the world's poor, however, have not yet benefited from globalization, increasing their risk of alienation. Furthermore, transnational threats have emerged from globalization, enabling the creation of deadly global terror networks, spurring crime that reaches beyond borders, and spreading disease via the most mobile population in history. The spread of unconventional weapon technology risks giving tyrants and terrorists unprecedented power to harm the United States, our allies, and our friends. At the same time, famines and civil conflicts have erupted in countries steeped in poverty or constrained by autocratic rulers, creating waves of refugees and swelling the ranks of internally displaced populations. Traditional conflicts between and within states harm the innocent, with regional instabilities transmitting shock waves throughout our interconnected world.
In the coming years, the principal aims of the Department of State and USAID are clear. These aims are anchored in the President's National Security Strategy and its three underlying and interdependent components - diplomacy, development, and defense.
First, we will strive to build and maintain strong bilateral and multilateral relationships in pursuit of our mission. There is the prospect for a durable peace among the great powers based on alignment against common threats. We will strive to strengthen traditional alliances and build new relationships to achieve a peace that brings security, but when necessary, we will act alone to face the challenges, provide assistance, and seize the opportunities of this era. U.S. leadership is essential for promoting this vision, but others must share the responsibility. The history of American foreign policy suggests that we will increase our chances of success abroad by exerting principled leadership while seeking to work with others to achieve our goals.
Second, we must protect our nation, our allies, and our friends against the transnational dangers and enduring threats arising from tyranny, poverty, and disease. Global terrorism, international crime, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are new challenges born of traditional ambitions. Urban and rural poverty reflects the failure of statist policies, an absence of the rule of law, and poor governance. Radical ideologies are nurtured in societies deprived of the legitimate means of dissent, free markets, economic opportunity, and the free flow of ideas. A world in which half of humanity lives on less than $2 per day is neither just nor stable. HIV/AIDS is not simply a health issue. This pandemic is destroying precious lives, undermining economies, and threatening to destabilize entire regions. Environmental degradation and deforestation threaten human health and sustainable development. Confronting these threats effectively is beyond the means of any one country, and calls for principled American leadership aimed at achieving effective coalitions that magnify our efforts to respond to these critical challenges.
Third, in confronting the intersection of traditional and transnational challenges, we will combine our diplomatic skills and development assistance to act boldly to foster a more democratic and prosperous world integrated into the global economy. We will not waver in our belief that all human beings deserve lives of dignity and the opportunity to achieve their aspirations. We will promote freedom of speech, conscience, and religion, the rule of law, and economic freedom. In concert with civil society organizations, we will speak out against human rights abuses and the trafficking of human beings.
Amen. America the stupid. Americans are not going to vote for defense if it means cutting all those free checks while abled bodied men sit on their collective butts at home watching reality TV, smoking dope, drinking booze, etc. They want free stuff. Screw he rest of the world. We stay home. I get my free checks. Protect Israel???? Are you crazy??? I need my free check to buy my drugs. Yup. That is what Amerika wants. Land of the Free has gone to “the Land of Sit on Butt Lazy.”
Right, right, right!