White House threatens veto over defense systems in budget
posted at 12:14 pm on June 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
While Congress and the White House throw trillions of dollars away on failed stimulus packages and massive overhauls of the health and energy sectors, one billion dollars in defense spending has drawn the first Obama veto threat. Jake Tapper reports that the inclusion of money for the F-22 and an alternative engine for its competitor F-35 fighters may get a presidential bounce for the entire defense budget:
Congress and the White House appear headed for a collision. The White House this week threatened to veto a defense bill if it includes military spending that Defense Secretary Gates outlined as wasteful and unnecessary. The House passed the $680 billion bill with those provisions Thursday, by a vote of 389-22.
Specifically, President Obama opposes the inclusion of $369 million in the bill for more F-22 fighter jets and $603 million for development and procurement of the alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program.
If the final bill presented to the president contains either of those provision, a White House statement released Wednesday threatened, “the president’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.”
Um, seriously? For the record, the combined total of these two programs amounts to:
- 0.13% of Porkulus
- 0.14% of the defense bill
- 0.0972% of what Obama claims ObamaCare will cost
- 0.075% of what the CBO claims ObamaCare will cost
- 0.024% of what ObamaCare will actually cost
Bear in mind that Porkulus (mostly) and ObamaCare (entirely) don’t concern themselves with responsibilities given to the federal government by the Constitution. National security, however, is the federal government’s primary responsibility. Robert Gibbs says that these and other projects in the defense appropriation are not “necessary spending,” which is why the bill will draw Obama’s first veto — as well as giving Obama an opportunity to posture at the expense of Congress.
If Obama wants to start saving billions of dollars, let’s cut the spending on programs which the federal government has no business funding in the first place, and then get rid of the pork-barrel projects in Porkulus that will damage our economy with burdensome debt. When we’re done shedding all of those, then we can start looking at national defense.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
If you look at the demographics, there are not enough young Men in our country, at historical recruitment levels, to man the new 3-6 divisions you and chemman request. The bodies are not here without tremendously expensive incentives to increase the size of the Army and the rest of the military. This was recognized in 1990 and the Navy’s Personal Excellence program was a result. We spent inordinate amounts of time and effort to make sure young folks in schools and communities recognized military folks as friendly and honorable professions to live. The leftist rants against “babykillers” after VietNam had done enormous harm to the military’s image and we had to rehabilitate it. (The Left almost destroyed our country then).
And your postulation that airpower never won any wars, whether it be World War II or Iraq and Afghanistan belies the fact that Air Power (and the close air support enabled only by air superiority) has stopped innumerable attacks by much larger forces (which the Chinese and Russians and almost every other Third World military would apply, since all they have is a surplus of bodies and not material and technologically superior equipment), against our admittedly numerically inferior forces. We are commonly outnumbered from 2-1 to 6-1 (and 6-1 historically throughout modern warfare leads to annihilation of the defenders) in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we still come out on top in the end. Mainly because of air superiority allowing close air support to stop enemy attacks which our outnumbered troops are unable to eliminate with their already superior firepower per uniformed soldier. And the vast majority of that Close Air Support comes from F-16s, F-15s and F-18s which are “air superiority fighters”. So much for not needing them and their only being useful as fighters and interceptors which have no place in ground combat. (Do you seriously imagine yourself a student of history and military affairs… and I don’t care which branch you served in, which theater, or how high your rank was… when you ignore commonly known military facts)
Any argument which says we don’t need air superiority in EVERY possible conflict simply enhances the chances that our attacks and counterattacks against ANY enemies will be stopped in their tracks. And that will lead to using the bodies of our Men to make our goals, to rescue our forces in trouble, or stop an enemy’s advances, including insurgencies. Once we settle for a War of Attrition, our technological superiority means zip. Our Men will start dying at 3 times then 6 times then ten times the current rate because we cannot outbreed the rest of the world.
Our military needs to be funded at the levels they need to fight at least two major regional wars at once. Because that should be large enough to handle China or Russia one at a time, and allow us to stop Kim Jong Il and ImaNutJob at the same time, even if we have to be in IQ and AFG. I firmly believe we need 6 more Army divisions, 3 more carrier battlegroups, and all the F-22s and F-35s AND submarines the USAF and USN say they need. The Marine Corps needs to be funded enough to stop having to depend on the Army’s castoffs and sloppy seconds and we need to stop tying our Men’s hands with stupid training requirements that don’t include warfighting (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or some other racial or gender sensitivity crap). If we can afford a stimulus package that is twice the size of the DoD budget, and a BUDGET of 2 Trillion dollars for one year (something that is 4 times the size of the DoD budget…. why not just buy four US militaries if you want jobs, dude?), then we can surely afford to fully fund our military needs and quit pissing and moaning about whether we need 40 more or less F-22s!!!!)
But it won’t happen. Because we are too lazy to fight the Porkulus, or the President’s bailouts, or the stupid health care and energy cap and trade BS Congress doesn’t have the sack to stop. Science and the Laws of Physics mean nothing to the American Public anymore……..
………until our Young Men start dying in droves (and I don’t mean 4400 in 6 years, I mean 4400+ in a month in a war we became unprepared for because some Dhimmicrat assh*le thought it wasn’t a good enough jobs program to pursue and instead wanted TRILLIONS of dollars in corruption and welfare.
Buy the F-22s and knock off the amateur strategy sessions and journalistic second guessing. If I wanted someone with the intelligence and professionalism of a journalist to run my military, I’d hire Bozo the Clown instead.
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Actually the debate these days is over CAPABILITIES not platforms. If a spiffy new plane doesn’t add the capability that is considered most essential it should be cut. There is also the trade off about how much risk to take. For example, if we don’t see ourselves in a massive air war, it might be acceptable to take a greater risk in the number of fighters purchased if it frees up some of the budget to pay for an authorized program to provide a new type of body armor to ground troops in combat zones.
That being said, of course politics comes into play. The Navy got more FFG-7 class ships than they wanted because they were relatively inexpensive to build and were being produced in multiple Congressional districts on all three coasts. Those Bush-bashing generals that John Kerry kept trotting out were mostly not so much against the war but disgruntled that their signature pet projects were cut by Rumsfeld.
highhopes on June 26, 2009 at 2:30 PM
And thanks for risking your butt for us! I remember a very clever acronym post Gulf 1 that was used to grade our militaries performance, we ACED it.
Assess – Commit – Execute – Dominate
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Damn Subsunk, you threw it down!
+10,000
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 2:34 PM
One point you missed was that the pool of individuals qualified for military service boils down to something like 30% of the population when you factor out those ineligible due to obesity, drug usage, etc.
highhopes on June 26, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Absolutely. I’m studying Chinese now.
Daggett on June 26, 2009 at 2:36 PM
By the way, Subsunk is a Blackfive contributor, so he’s good at this stuff!
Listen up!
Thanks Subsunk for your service, and your great stuff on a great milblog.
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I don’t know where you get you facts from but go to the US Census site and you will see that there are enough to do so. We supported over 100 divisions in WWII with a much smaller population base.
Seems to be a silly argument. I say on its own it never won wars you come back with that I am wrong because it helped. I don’t argue that it helped I argue that it was not decisive on its own.
I do, and whenever someone goes to the “commonly know military facts” argument I know that you do not know what you are talking about. There is a distinct difference between CAS and Air superiority. I have fought in the ME and I know firsthand what proportion of Air Power is used in the fight.
I agree with some of you other points, but I don’t understand about the need to make these arguments personal. Probably the anonymity of the web encourages people to be a little more lippy then if they were face to face with someone.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 2:45 PM
BTW. I retired as an O3 11A with two tours in the ME, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I am not a journalist and just because you are loud does not make you right.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Maybe, but that’s not why the F-22 has thrust vectoring. If dogfighting was a priority for the aircraft, it would be wired for AIM-9X and a helmet cueing system, neither of which it supports–and there are no plans to change this anytime soon (not just thanks to congress, but because the USAF itself does not consider it a priority).
F-22 has thrust vectoring to enhance maneuverability, rather, at supersonic speeds at very high altitudes, where the ability of conventional control surfaces to change the plane’s heading are diminished due to thin atmosphere. The intention is that the F-22 dashes into an area, releases its missiles at supersonic speed–in the process violating stealth–then changes its heading so rapidly without an appreciable loss in velocity that, by the time the enemy can exploit the stealth breech caused by weapon release, the plane is no longer in the vicinity anyway.
As the Su-37 has both thrust vectoring, forward canard control to augment high AoA maneuvers, and a very effective off-boresight missile w/ helmet cueing, it is still probably more agile than F-22, and given equivalent pilots would still probably prevail in a visual-range dogfight. That’s a small part as to why core F-22 tactics are based around avoiding the dogfight altogether (and, thankfully, there are few Su-37 pilots who are equivalent to their American counterparts–at least so long as funds to allow for training remain in Democrat budgets).
Blacklake on June 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Hahahahahahahahaha
Subsunk is a retired US Navy Submarine Officer what does he know about fighting a land war to start with. It’s always the retired meteorologist from the Air Force and Navy guys spouting off with indignity about any military topic.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Yes, that is right. The point is, how would an F-15 do against the SU-37? There was an excercise with the Indian Air Force a few years back that woke some people up. The Flankers beat the world’s best pilots in their Eagles, more than once.
Training is critical also. Most other countries can’t train their pilots anywhere nearly as thoroughly as we do, given reasonably equal hardware.
In the Eagle, the USAF lost to the IAF. That was alarming to a lot of folks, from what I read.
I have read and heard about 2 F-22′s against a dozen or more Eagles in Red Flag exercises, and the Raptors consistently won. That is a big upgrade, no?
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Thank you for your service also of course. It’s obvious you are a little offended here, and I respect both of your opinions. I don’t want to get in the middle of this one!
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 3:07 PM
And there is always some Army guy who acts as if the other branches of service aren’t necessary or play a role in a “land war.”
highhopes on June 26, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I thought the Goldwater-Nichols Act was supposed to cure all these rivalries. /sarc
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 3:12 PM
They all play a role but the US Army Infantry and Marines are the tip of the spear and do moist of the fighting and dying.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 3:14 PM
It seems you don’t know a lot of things. Have you even given a passing thought to the cultural changes we’ve gone through since then? The fitness and drug tests alone now exclude so many Americans it’s downright frightening…and that’s after desperate recruiters got the standards lowered! And not just once either!
http://www.slate.com/id/2182752/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197832/
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1259
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89702118
And this is, of course, completely ignoring the slanderous attitude toward those in uniform perpetuated by all manner of ‘news’people and celebrities and those in the public ‘education’ system.
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Obama and the Democraps
Spend
Hundreds of millions of dollars
for Condoms
Mosques
Acorn (voter fraud)
Communists groups
they WASTED BILLIONS sending our money overseas to build hostpitals in bangladesh and schools for muslim terrorists..
BUT..
But ohh he will STOP
the entire Defense Budget
DURING A TIME OF WAR…
all because of a request for NEW engines..
Im sorry
Is Obama WORKING FOR THE ENEMY???
Are ALL DEMOCRATS ON osama bin ladens payroll???
I have had it with these traitors..
veteranoutrage on June 26, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I won’t argue that the infantry do most of the dying, but aren’t the pilots and the cruse missile launchers the first to actually do damage? The tip of the spear?
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Studying Chinese what?
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Tip of the spear obviously also indicates the proximity of the enemy. It’s a common term in the military to indicate those who are furthest out front and indicates the fighting troops. Amount of damage inflicted on the enemy has nothing to do with it.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 3:30 PM
It seems you don’t know a lot of things. Have you even given a passing thought to the cultural changes we’ve gone through since then? The fitness and drug tests alone now exclude so many Americans it’s downright frightening…and that’s after desperate recruiters got the standards lowered! And not just once either!
http://www.slate.com/id/2182752/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197832/
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1259
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89702118
And this is, of course, completely ignoring the slanderous attitude toward those in uniform perpetuated by all manner of ‘news’people and celebrities and those ‘working’ in the public ‘education’ system.
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 3:33 PM
The message is clear. If Republicans threaten to–somehow, some way–seriously impede the Stimulus, ObamaCare and cap-and-trade boondoggles, essential national defense spending will go under the axe. Even now, with Obama in the White House and Democrats preeminent in the legislative branch, they continue to use the same extortion strategy employed with some effect during the Bush years: ‘Either do what we want or we’ll cripple national defense.’ Democratic Party leadership holds the safety of the country hostage in order to strongarm its domestic political opponents. That our foreign enemies might gain and take advantage doesn’t seem to occur to them. Further, that such a naked display of cynical power-mongering in pursuit of an idiotically socialist agenda doesn’t so much as detract a point from Obama’s popularity simply baffles me. Are my fellow countrymen living in some kind of fantasy dream world, all sunshine and rainbows, where the pretty flowers pick themselves? The day will come when those aircraft might make the difference in a close contest with any one of our potential enemies–or some or all of them together. I’m just an ordinary guy who watches the news and follows the logic, and I see the danger. Why can’t our government?
troyriser_gopftw on June 26, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Barry is using the same cost cutting routine regarding weapons systems that FDR used. On Dec 8th 1941 the Marines were flying Brewster Buffalos and refitting PIG boats from WWI. The P40 Warhawk and F4F were our state of the art (for 1930). 1st Maine Division was issued bolt action rifles and Dauntless pilots had to carry towels in the cockpits to wipe off the condensation on their windscreens during bombing dives. The Mark 14 torpedo had NEVER been fired in live fire exercises to save cost. They ran dummies up until Pearl Harbor. The P39 Aricoba had a ceiling of 9,000 ft. Our military was asked to ‘make do’. They tried. We all know how much 1942 cost us.
Way to go, Barry. You coat and ties really know how to keep the military from wasting our money. Scrap the SSNs. Scrap the missle defenses. Scrap space based weapons. Scrap MAD deterents. Scrap the two ocean Navy. Scrap the very front line fighter defense that our dumbed down troops on the ground will need to hold back an attack. You go, Barry. Show us how to protect America.
Limerick on June 26, 2009 at 3:48 PM
I admire the guys who stuck it out in the military between the wars (WWI and WWII) –what a thankless job they had. Without them we would not even had had a cadre to build the army on.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I guess I need another lecture from Ed that 0 is just mis-guided and has faulty judgment. That he truly cares for America. I have never been one to support conspiracy theories … before 0 entered the scene. If he isn’t trying to destroy America, he sure is putting up a good show of same.
Oleta on June 26, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I am not a military historian, but in addition to cutting funds, cutting bodies, didn’t our wonderful Congress Critters deny that the next war could be different than the previous war, that tactics used by the enemy as well as weapons could change and therefore reduced R + D ?
Duncan Khuver on June 26, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Now you are going for it, I still don’t understand the incessant need to go after people personally when they have a different opinion.
OK, my argument is obviously based on numbers but you choose to refute it by saying whatever – young people today are not fit enough. My point was that if we pay more and treat them better we can recruit more young people and that there are enough to recruit from.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Glad to see that all you care about is getting more bucks for the Army. Next time you want to go to Iraq and take Baghdad, try doing it with A-10s only. See how much you like it when the bombs from the French Mirage F-1s and Russian Attack aircraft rain on your parade by column.
I do not change my argument, and you have missed it because you don’t like my lip. Fine. I’ll say it again, slower. We need all of these weapons to be successful against the hordes arrayed against us in the world today. Iraq and Afghanistan are Army and Marine Corps wars. All my service can do is provide air support. I doubt the vast majority of the air support in Iraq in 2003-2007 was UAVs. I’m sure there were way more F-18s and F-16s and Apaches and Cobras involved than you are implying are involved now. I view that as a good thing. Use the tool which suits the situation best. Good on you.
I’m glad you were “at the tip of the spear” so recently. Where were you in 1985 when I was at the tip of the spear? Where were you in 1990 when others where the tip of the spear? Where were you before those days when others were on watch and in harms way? I don’t denigrate your courage and bravado. I am belittling your supposition that we don’t need all these tools in our arsenal. And if you think that the pointy end of the spear will always be the Armored Cav unit in front, or the Marine AAV carrying the rifle platoon, then I urge you to join them in their drive under hostile fire, from Seoul to the NK border, to stem a NoKo invasion, without air cover, under fierce artillery fire, outnumbered 6 to 1, and without anything except your rifle and your wits to keep you alive. Air support ain’t coming. That incoming artillery ain’t going away and there’s nowhere to hide either. All because you don’t think Air Superiority is important enough to buy an F-22 today.
You have the typical Marine mentality that says “I can get by with less because I always have”. I have the attitude that says why should you take a chance of dying when I can certainly afford to give you an F-22 for cover if the country can afford to waste 2 Trillion dollars IN ONE YEAR (three times the previous year’s budget in our government) on a budget that won’t save jobs, won’t provide free health care and improve our life expectancies in our country.
You look at the issue and say Why? I look at it and say, Why Not? The only thing at stake, is your life, the lives of thousands of US servicemen, and the continued existence of Freedom in the United States of America. Why gamble? The only thing you have to lose….. is your Life…. and the lives of your buddies…… and the lives of your countrymen…….
Support the right thing and quit trying to always do more with less. That gets Americans killed. Use the right tool for the right job. Now let go of your parochiality and analyze the situation with reason. And have a nice day, son.
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM
And you need to put 2 and 2 together. The military pays like crap, the job is dangerous, and don’t even think about having a family. With those benefits it’s no wonder they have to lower standards since most kids would not join under those circumstances.
Now prove to me that better pay would not increase recruitment.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Never mind. Have you done your biology homework?
Loxodonta on June 26, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I’m sure your dismissing their service is greatly appreciated (which I hope was unintended or I’m misreading you).
Keep in mind submariners are heavily involved with covert ops when it comes to sending in Navy SEALs, electronic intell. gathering, and land attack with cruise missiles. Hell, it was a submariner who came up with the Doolittle Raid IIRC so if there’s one thing about submariners is that they often think outside the box and know how to improvise.
Yakko77 on June 26, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I can’t believe you pulled out the “son”. LOL. And BTW – A10s are Air Force not Army.
I agree we need everything we can, BUT we spend too much money on the air force and navy and not enough on the army and the marines. Especially the Marines as you should full well know as a navy guy. That gets soldiers killed.
But CAS is really only something that the marines use well because they train with their air all the time. There are severe restrictions on when it can be used safely. Most of the fratricide in the invasion of Iraq was from CAS. When the enemy is 100 meter away you can’t call in CAS. If they are 2 miles away you have to have eyes on to bring them in otherwise they never hit their target. So having lots of air available does you no good if the conditions are generally unfavorable for its use.
With the fact being that we have a limited military budget the apportionment needs to be redone to ensure that ground forces also get their slice of the pie and not just left over’s. There is no multibillion dollar contract to be had producing better boots for the troops and that’s why there is no congressman fighting to make it happen. That is sad to me and seeing my friends die because of it makes me angry. If we had decent body armor we can save lives now – having another F22 parking at home does nothing for me.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Everyone’s service is appreciated but don’t use your prior military service as a hammer to smack down everyone else. I reacted to this in his post.
We all have different viewpoints in this but all agree that we need more for the military – there is no need to get personal.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Yes, all of it. and yours too.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 4:27 PM
No kidding! But then the One et al are doing their best to make sure we’ll have less than 10 measly overstretched Army combat divisions.
Friendly21 on June 26, 2009 at 4:37 PM
You are welcome.
Friendly21 on June 26, 2009 at 4:38 PM
We should have never cut the military after we won WWII. Fixed
Not to mention the aircraft carriers China is building for its newly minted blue water navy.
Friendly21 on June 26, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Well know fact – You cannot win a war without occupying the ground. But you cannot control the ground without air support. End of decision. Back to retirement. Talk amongst yourselves.
… .–. .. ..-. ..-. … . -. -.. …
.-. . –. .- .-. -.. …
Ha ha any Hogs or “R” branchers out there?
SPIFF1669 on June 26, 2009 at 4:49 PM
I guess all those wars won before the airplane were just a fluke then?
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
If we had decent body armor……
Where do you suppose there is better body armor to be had, boy???? Are you claiming every single person in Iraq on and off the FOB has insufficient body armor for his purposes? Pray tell, where is BETTER body armor to be found? In China? In France?? In Zimbabwe??? The Army currently claims it has the best body armor available in any military in the world. Any claims to the contrary, and you must have some “Dragon Skin” stock in your portfolio.
As for hitting targets 2 miles away requiring “eyes on”, it ain’t CLOSE air support if its 2 miles away, boy. And a miss is better than not hitting it at all, as long as there is no collateral damage. If you need it and you can’t get away without it, I’m pretty sure a lot of folks have called in CAS, whether it be F-4s in VietNam, Cobras in Iraq, Apaches in Afghanistan, on insurgents as close as 100Ms if death is the sure result of not doing so. Danger close, hunker down. Many citations for bravery read exactly that way.
But it is good that you are so confident in your own invincibility, boy. You are also smart enough to recognize that those A-10s didn’t come from all those billions of bucks you want the Army to have. Because Lord knows, those 33 Apaches shot up by Saddam’s GROUND forces on the way to Baghdad, in one night engagement, causing the loss of two airframes, ending up with all 33 aircraft non mission ready for at least 48 hrs, and giving two POWs to Saddam for propaganda did such a bang up job for the Army that night, didn’t they? Sure could’ve used some carpet bombing from B-52s before sending in those Apaches, couldn’t they? Most of the fratricide you claim is so prevalent came from using the only big hammer at hand, aviation, because artillery and ground weapons had already been found to be insufficient to the task, or the Men on the ground wouldn’t have called for CAS, now would they?
And all those casualties your friends suffered because they didn’t have sufficient BOOTS just tears me up inside too. How many combat deaths have we had because a guys boots had holes in them?
I’ll agree that the Navy’s budget is bigger than the Army’s. Paying for those ships and planes is more expensive, I’ll agree, than paying for people and trucks and boots. But companies don’t build these things just to gouge the country and steal our money. They have to live here too. They provide a product we need, and it sure as Hell doesn’t require a billion dollars to provide boots for every swinging dick in the Army (for 600,000 pairs of boots that would be over $1600.00 per pair each year… I know you march on your feet, but have you ever heard the complaint about the $400 hammer or $600 toilet seats from DoD?), but it does require a billion dollars to build a submarine or a destroyer. The world is 3/4 ocean and you’d better make sure you can fight there too. And getting your HMMVWs and M1A2s to Kuwait took command of the high seas which doesn’t exist in the Pacific without the US Navy providing it.
So while I sympathize with you that you feel the Army is being robbed to keep the Navy and Air Force afloat, I have to ask why, in this land war intensive day, your Army leadership isn’t asking for more and getting more? The Navy and Air Force funding requests are sucking hind tit on this, boy. They are routinely denied. The Army and Marine requests are not denied nearly as often.
Perhaps it is because land warfare is a lower tech fight, and the investment is in people and lots of them, instead of one single submarine a year or 40 more planes a year.
Again, all you give a damn about is your service, and nothing about what anybody else does, although in 10 yrs, the Army may have NO wars to fight, and the Navy has all the work to do (as it did during the Cold War, when the Army trained and watched, and the Navy did the confrontations with the Soviets, out of sight and out of mind of the rest of the world). Budgets are about planning. Right now, you are executing the plan. If you don’t have enough, it is because your bosses didn’t ask for it. There’s the blame. I have watched the Navy shrink from almost 600 ships to 315 and still going down. We are constantly doing more with less, and numerous requirements of the Unified Commanders are unmet because there aren’t enough ships. But that is OK. We didn’t have enough money, so we downsized to give you boys in green what you needed. Now you want it all.
Try fighting the pirates in your water wings next time…. boy.
Until you stop being parochial and start thinking about what is best for your ENTIRE country, you’ll just be a kid to me.
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Can’t argue with genius
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 5:13 PM
You are a patronizing a$$. If you really think that you were “fighting” for your country sitting on your butt in a tube of metal then you are a bigger fool than you already are making yourself out to be. Did you get all your facts from watching movies, how do you know how close CAS is called in, you were neither in Vietnam, Korea, or anywhere else calling in CAS you were sitting on your ass somewhere talking tough. Using B52’s to clear the way for the Apache’s – great idea. Hope you applied a little more brain when you were in the sub. I am sure you hope for the return of the good old time when you were sitting on you’re a$$ in uniform rather than just sitting on you’re a$$ in front of a computer. Have you ever worn any body armor (other than on your a$$), no, so you would know that it is not the best that money can buy regardless what the Army brass says. The reason CAS gets called at all is because often times artillery is not available because the battery troops are manning checkpoint someone because there are not enough troops to do all the jobs we have to do on the ground.
You speak with strong convictions but without any practical knowledge to back it up – keep wielding the keyboard as your only weapon impressing the masses.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Spiff,
… .- — . – — -.– — ..-
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Gentlemen, how about we make it a budgetary priority to provide the best for all branches of our military and severely limit the rest of the federal government. Agreed?
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Yes, I am a patronizing ass. You so clearly know better than your superiors in the Army that you question their decisions to give you any body armor at all (since Iraq was the first war we fought with real body armor for ground pounders, I’m feeling pretty good that you got better than what you had before. VietNam our guys had flak vests which were not anywhere near designed for real body armor, but it was better than nothing, and yours was better than the Iraqis had.)
While I was “sitting on my butt”, doing my duty, I guess you were silently storming into some Soviet installations and blowing stuff up, eh? Nice work. Never heard a thing about it…. And you never heard a thing about my comrades either. Let’s keep it that way.
The only practical points I am making to you, which you continue to miss, is that your argument is the Army doesn’t have enough and the Navy needs to give it up. The point of this thread was, if we have enough to spend 2 Trillion dollars on a waste of the country’s money, why the Hell can’t we both have what we need? But since you are still too pissed off to understand that point, I’ll have to leave you with this. I did my duty. You did yours. The fact that you didn’t get shot in the 80s and 90s is partially because I did my duty. The fact that I don’t have to worry about getting blown up at home is partially (and only partially) because you did your duty. I’m glad you know so damned much about the Army. But you clearly don’t know jack about the Air Force. So until you are a Colonel in the Air Force in charge of requirements, I’d shut up and let the guy who gets paid (a pittance, I agree) to do that job.
Otherwise, you are just as big an insufferable ass as I am. Only my ass is bigger, so I outrank you. (And since we are comparing asses and penises, child, my Dad had a saying that fits here. Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk. His is always bigger).
Now go play in the yard, boy. You bother me. You sound like an IVAW wannabe.
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM
My point exactly. Perhaps I need an English refresher course. You say it so succintly.
LOL.
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM
You are not just patronizing but you are also naïve. Since when does rank bestow intelligence or anything else? You already mentioned Dragon Armor so why do I have to explain to you the reality gap between what the army is saying and what is true. I am glad that you feel pretty good that the body armor we have is better than the grunt in Vietnam had but your butt is not relying on it so it is pretty easy to have that sentiment in the comfort of your home.
I never claimed to have “fought” in the 80s or 90s, but neither did you. You undoubtedly were under great stress and pressure but you never actually fought – or is there some super secret war the navy fought with the Russians someone where actual bullet were flying? Didn’t think so.
We agree that we should spend more money in total on the military especially in light of what we are spending on socially engineering the country to death. But I never said to take it from the Navy. My sub point is that if we can’t have unlimited budgets to give everyone everything they want then the Air Force needs to cough up some of their budget. I also agree that if the Army is lacking then it is because the leadership of the Army is not fighting hard enough to get the funds, but I also understand that there is easier to get approval for the huge Air Force contracts from the politicians in whose state these will be filled. It’s just another form of pork.
The Air Force has been trying to ditch the A10 for many years because they believe that CAS is not really a good mission for them. The fighter jocks are still thinking in terms of major dog fights with large conventional air forces instead of providing fire SUPPORT to the army. While I am not in charge of anything in the Air Force I would be a fool to believe that what the Air Force says would not have a good amount of self interest at its core.
You go out and compare whatever body parts you want. You started this with your condescending attitude. I generally don’t start fights but I don’t ever back down from one either.
Anyway – I need to go out and run so I can do well on my next PT test.
I respect your service and I respect you – do the same in return and we can work together for the troops.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 6:13 PM
The Cope India joint exercises are a gaming team building venue and not a no holds bared demonstration of capability. The strike scenarios depict regional threats where role-play is used to hone tactics and skills. Rest assured, we can penetrate and violate anyone’s airspace with relative impunity. (hint: the B2 is the ultimate wild weasle)
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Then I guess you really don’t know what Men who came before your time did for the country. And I won’t be enlightening you either. There are several books in print about the things the Air Force and Navy did to confront the Soviets from the 50s thru the 80s. You should educate yourself someday. Not all warfighting involves shooting. There’s plenty to go bump in the night though. There is quite a bit of danger in being on the “pointy end of the spear”, I agree. It wasn’t the Army in the 1980s.
One can safely assume this comment and the previous one mean you think the Navy and Air Force need to give up money and give it to the Army. A fact which occurred in 2002 forward already. Feel free to look it up. The Army gets everything (almost) that it asked for from 2002 to 2008. If you didn’t get it, you didn’t ask hard enough. If Dragon Skin is so much better, then why can’t you get the Army to use it instead of Interceptor? Feel free to use your vast experience to get the brass to change their mind. I’m sure a couple of billion dollars would change out every single vest in the inventory and you’d be a hero instead of a grouch. A pittance from the Porkulus. Your Congressman would love to make that name for himself, I’m sure.
And my primary point is, and still remains, as the common points of this entire thread also suggest, is that we should be able to afford it all if we are going to waste our money on crap that won’t create jobs or fund better health care anyway. Why do you insist on missing that salient point of the entire discussion? I agree that if budgets must be tight, then the pain must be felt by the services not under fire to give the Army and Marine Corps the upper hand. And they have been given that. Compare the budgets percentagewise from the 90s with the 2000s to confirm it.
I started it when I saw someone who insisted on disparaging the Air Force and their requirements in favor of his own service. When you started pissing in somebody else’s cornflakes, you better be ready to take it when they defend themselves, or somebody calls you on the facts. The fact you got upset at being called out for what you said that is incorrect or you cannot prove against other facts discussed here and at Blackfive just means you don’t have the military’s best interests at heart, only the Army’s. You respect no one’s experience more than your own. And you have no respect for their work or their mission either.
I admire someone who feels pride in his service and pride in his profession. But you ain’t just in the Army, kid. You belong to the Armed Forces of the United States. Demeaning the service of others who served before your time, and under circumstances you cannot possibly know of, is like claiming Iraq is a hundred times more dangerous than Omaha Beach. That’s stupid, and inaccurate. Just because you happen to be getting shot at right now (and you likely aren’t any more, I might add, since things have quieted down so much in Iraq, and our enemies are getting their asses handed to them in Afghanistan and Pakistan now) garners you only the benefit of first dibs on whatever you need most from the motor pool and the chow line. But the rest of the Forces have basic and non negotiable needs also. My sailors are back to living 12-16 hr non-duty days with no time off as well. On duty days they are already 24 hrs a day on the ship, and in the Submarine Force that means you only get one or two out of every four days off your entire tour on the ship. Over 50% of your entire waking Life and your kids’ lives are spent doing work for the US of A. That hasn’t happened since Jimmy Carter screwed up the military so badly there were riots on ships trying to get underway, and drug problems were rampant. We robbed ships in port just to get deployed vessels underway fully manned all. the. time…..
So give it a rest when you claim honored or aggrieved status at the head of the line. Real heroes don’t ask for favors. They earn them. And defending any Man in uniform is my goal in Life. But I won’t zip it when I hear something I am sure is wrong also, even if it comes from someone on the front lines.
Now you do what you have to do. And think what you want to about my service. I don’t need your approval. I did my duty. No one expected less of me. And the country got more than they paid for. You can quote me on that. And that is me not backing down. Son.
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 26, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Well, on the demographics issues, we do have enough manpower for more divisions. The question isn’t how many young men there are but how much are we willing to pay and how low we want the standards. I served in the army and the current standards have to be about as severe as any nation has used since you had to be a nobleman to be a warrior.
As for straight demographics, around 2000 the recruits came from the period when births fell to 2.7 millionish. Now though recruits are coming from birth cohorts of 4 millionish. In about 10 years they will be coming from 4.3 millionish.
The question as I already mentioned is whether we are willing to pay the price to attract enough recruits for a given number of soldiers at a given recruitment standard. It’s not a question of whether we have enough manpower (at least not until we get to much larger numbers).
jarodea on June 27, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Actually, I suppose the Versailles limited Reichswehr probably had higher standards. Though I would consider that an anomaly due to the “Versaille limited” part.
jarodea on June 27, 2009 at 2:25 AM
But it is 10 times the famous Obama budget cuts.
{+_+}
herself on June 27, 2009 at 4:22 AM
I guess all those wars won before the airplane were just a fluke then?
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Well lets see, what did all those wars we won before we had an Air Corp/Air Force have in common? Could it be that neither side had airplanes?
My point was this – each of the three Departments of Defense, i.e., Army, Navy, and Air Force, have their roles in the defense of the nation. One cannot do the job alone.
Grow up or wise up.
Got to cut the grass.
Subsunk –
_ _
_ _ _
. _ .
_ .
..
_ .
_ _ .
SPIFF1669 on June 27, 2009 at 8:54 AM
SPIFF
. …- . -. .. -. –.
.. –
… .-.. — .–
Have a Great Day
Subsunk
Subsunk on June 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3