Video: Why does our military need the best, really?

posted at 12:41 pm on May 3, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

President Obama certainly likes to talk a big game about “investing” in our national future, but, in his infinite magnanimousness, he seems more inclined toward a particular type of government “investment.” The green jobs, bailouts, and food stamps that he supports (on behalf of Americans’ welfare, of course!) are more high-risk political gambles on the taxpayer dime than safe bets with reliable returns. Conspicuously absent from the president’s “winning the future” rhetoric is our military — at least, in the context of funneling them free money on behalf of special interests. Instead, the President has decided that a ‘leaner, more efficient, more agile’ military is in the United States’ best interests… rather than, you know, a leaner, more efficient Department of Agriculture or Education or Energy, because heaven knows there’s no waste, fraud, nor abuse to be had in those departments, right?

While total defense spending has been steadily increasing for over a decade, defense spending as a portion of the federal budget and as a percentage of GDP has been buried under the ongoing explosion of entitlement spending. But, of course, instead of bravely confronting the incoming debt crisis by attacking the core problem–by reforming the entitlement and welfare programs that consume that vast majority of our budget–defense spending instead became a political football subject to Congressional whimsy, and those “automatic cuts” are already taking place:

The Defense Department’s core fiscal 2013 budget at $525.4 billion reflects the already announced one percent reduction from the current year, which comes from reducing Army and Marine personnel and ending or limiting purchases of expensive new equipment. It spells out in more detail the how the administration plans to cut future expenses related to the personnel reductions, by establishing commissions to take on the controversial tasks of reducing or closing military bases and updating military retirement programs.

One percent might not seem like much, but, in the first of a three-part video series, the Heritage Foundation provides an eye-opening, technical lesson as to why it would be a wise move for the government to focus a little more of its “investing” prowess into maintaining and bettering the most elite fighting force in the world. Our troops face real, evolving challenges every day, and unlike Congress, terrorists don’t mess around:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Obama will do everything in his power to destroy the military as a world force. He wishes it to sort of a large national guard. He is a fool.

pat on May 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Video: Why does our military need the best, really?

Because they ALL volunteered to keep us safe, they ARE the reason America is strong, and they DESERVE our endless appreciation, gratitude, respect, and prayers.

They earn this 24/7/365.

God bless our military.

Roy Rogers on May 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

The worst will fit well into Barry’s Civilian Defense Force. Coming to a street corner near you…soon!

Dack Thrombosis on May 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Are we spending too much on national defense?

Perhaps the bigger question is how much are we wasting on national defense?

Giving our military the best that is available, to keep them several notches ahead of any foe in any land…not such a bad idea at all.

And unlike spending billions and billions on green energy and stuff…national defense is an federal obligation under the Constitution.

No penumbras or emanations…straight up Constitutional obligation.

There are better ways to deliver on time and well under budget, and there has been a distinct movement to do exactly this over recent years.

But, let us not blind ourselves to the fact that we can and should exercise a lot better oversight as to how our dollars are spent to provide for the common defense.

Honestly, we can do better.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I want our men to have the safest, best, most technology advanced equipment to keep them alive and victorous.
JugEars is only concerned with getting Mooch the best beef and shrimp, and his friends loans from the taxpayers whose business somehow goes bankrupt and the money has dissappeared.

KOOLAID2 on May 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Can’t all problems be solved with a good old fashioned Chicago hit?

rhombus on May 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

That video literally makes me ill. Why isn’t this being seen by everyone?!?
This is what happens when politicians run the wars….especially when your CIC has no military experience, actually loathes your troops and truly believes that everyone is playing by the same rules.
Between this and the ROE our troops are doomed and one of THE main reasons Obama has to go.

tencole on May 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Perhaps the bigger question is how much are we wasting on national defense?

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Well there aren’t that many defense contractors any more. In the 90s someone thought it was a good idea and it would be cheaper if they all merged into just a couple of companies. Now we have long term weapon systems that need to be modernized and there’s only one contractor who has the knowledge, skills and abilities to do it. Who ya gonna call?

rhombus on May 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Damn straight, I drove over the Iraq border in a truck that wouldn’t look out of place on any street in America. The only “armor” it had was a slab of steel that had been cut with a torch to be about the same size as the door and bolted on. Think of the most hack-ish “good enough” work you have ever seen and you’ll be close. That was in 2005. It took years and tens of thousands of casualties for decent armored vehicles to get there.

I certainly don’t envy the guys who got there first. My truck would have been a tank compared to what they had to use.

Mord on May 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Perhaps Americans would show (even) more respect to their Army if the politicians would stop knob-jobbing the pink-glassed P.C. crowd and let the Army unleash its full power against our enemies. We waste billions designing and manufacturing all kinds of “smart” weaponry that kills as few enemies as possible. I’d like to remind that it used to be the other way around…

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

“…the President has decided that a ‘leaner, more efficient, more agile’ military is in the United States’ best interests… rather than, you know, a leaner, more efficient Department of Agriculture or Education or Energy…”

This really chaps my @$$! The ONLY parts of the government that EVER get cuts seem to be those preserving national security: the Military, the Intelligence Community, Border Patrol, NASA, etc.

I’m not a huge Romney fan, but I would love for the President to be a CEO that tells his department heads (Cabinet Secretaries) “Your budgets for next year are all cut 10%. Deal with it.”

That would be a good start.

Dexter_Alarius on May 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Oh, except for Defense. THAT’S at least Constitutional.

Dexter_Alarius on May 3, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I served during the Carter years when we had to buy our own pens and paper if we wanted to get the job done.The Clinton years were nearly as bad.

docflash on May 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Perhaps the Obamas would be more interested in the military if somebody points out to them it is the Marines that fly the helos that get them to Air Force One- the party plane the Air Force operates for their vacation and fundraising pleasure.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM

That would be a good start.

Dexter_Alarius on May 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I like your plan, but it doesn’t even need to be that “extreme”. “you only get a 2% increase” would solve our problem and allow us to grow out of our problem.

The problem is, a 2% cap on spending increases annually would effectively end the funding mechanism for the Democrat party and they will fight to the death to stop it.

Mord on May 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

There is a book I would suggest people read. It is called “Keep From All Thoughtful Men: How U.S. Economists Won World War II”

Civilian economists working for the government KNEW before Pearl Harbor was even attacked that the US would not have sufficient war materiel to begin a major offensive on the European mainland (i.e. Normandy invasion) until mid-1944 despite the pumping of sunshine up Marshall’s butt by subordinates that it would be possible in 1943.

The ramping up of production to war footing started before Pearl Harbor and took three YEARS to complete. It wasn’t until 1944 that the US could equip and supply enough divisions to invade Europe. Everything you think you might know about Major Albert Wedemeyer’s “Victory Plan” is wrong. That story was a complete fabrication by Wedemeyer and is inserted into the history books due to relentless self-promotion by Wedemeyer.

In a future war we will not have three years. It will be a “come as you are” war and we are going to need to make sure we have something to wear.

crosspatch on May 3, 2012 at 1:22 PM

N is for Never Quit

Steven McGregor on May 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Mord on May 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Was issued an M37 3/4 ton once, that was built on my birthday. My actual birthday…was as old as I was..and at the time it was considered fairly “new.”

I would like to believe that at some point there would be a priority set that funded those programs that are Constitutionally mandated first…and the rest, if they are gone, so what?

Seems the words of Charles C. Pinckney have long been forgotten. Something about millions for defense not one cent for tribute.

Been paying a lot of tribute for a bit of a time now…to China, most recently to the Palestinian Authority…

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

The Clinton years were nearly as bad.

docflash on May 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

HAHA! I remember hearing “do more with less” so many times.

Mord on May 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Pay them more……..I want my taxes to go towards the military, not killing basbies in the womb or furthering the cycle of keeping minorities down…pay the military more….

crosshugger on May 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

So our guys don’t have to fight with these deathtraps anymore.

Rebar on May 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Why can’t this administration, in their constant hunt for “job creation”, employ thousands of Americans in 44 states building the F-22 Raptor.

This is real economic stimulus, real high paying good jobs, and tangible results both economically and for the effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I mean ALL of our Armed Forces, because the operational doctrines of the US Army and Marines on the ground are completely dependent on the US Air Force dominating the airspace first.

It is the same basic principle that protected the UK from Hitler, and conversely ensured the success of the D-Day invasion.

Germany could not get across the English Channel with an invasion force, because the RAF did not crumble under the Blitz, but held firm and fought off the Luftwaffe. Thus, Operation Sea Lion was abandoned.

The D-Day landings would not have been successful if the Luftwaffe had been able to mount a serious air offensive against the fleet offshore, and the troops on the beaches.

Air dominance is critical to allow the other forces to advance and destroy the enemy.

Brian1972 on May 3, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I’ve never understood the people who say you can make the military more agile by cutting the budget.
More agile means better equipment and better training and better logistical support. It costs money.

Mahna Mahna on May 3, 2012 at 1:46 PM

For all of you who have served under previous Democrat administrations:

It’s even worse than that. Not sure what the next two videos will show, but I can tell you that there has been a year in my husband’s short military career where they got no funding thanks to a mis-categorization into an area that was getting axed.

Don’t get me started on current military cuts, I descend into cursing incoherence.

pookysgirl on May 3, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I’ve never understood the people who say you can make the military more agile by cutting the budget.
More agile means better equipment and better training and better logistical support. It costs money.

Mahna Mahna on May 3, 2012 at 1:46 PM

That phrase “more agile” means different things depending on the political persuasion of the people saying it.

Donald Rumsfeld was trying for a more “agile” military force just before 9-11. What he meant was quicker to deploy and respond, in comparison to the build up in Desert Shield/Storm.

Heavy armor units operating the M1 Abrams tank, Bradley APC have to be sent overseas by ship, which takes a week or two from the USA to the mid-east. The M1 weighs around 70 tons, and is too heavy for any practical airlift. One tank per plane is not very efficient.

This idea led to the Army’s Stryker family of combat vehicles to fill the gap between heavy armor and light armored cavalry/scout units.

When liberals say it, it is code for “shrinkage” across the board.

Brian1972 on May 3, 2012 at 1:55 PM

But, let us not blind ourselves to the fact that we can and should exercise a lot better oversight as to how our dollars are spent to provide for the common defense.

Honestly, we can do better.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Yes indeed, but we mustn’t allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking it’s 1940 anymore either. Today’s weapons systems and armor are literally 1000 times as complex and difficult to build as those used in WWII or Vietnam.

Yes, I used to work in the Aerospace/Defense Industry. (Making Predator’s) Armor that will reliably and consistently stop 7.62 x39 rounds isn’t cheap or easy to make. Nor is the armor that will protect a vehicle from a 1000lbs roadside bomb.

Just as an example, Kevlar of armor grade (modulus of 1500 denier) cost around $50.00 per pound. A level 3A vest weighs about 8 pounds, that’s $400.00 in Kevlar alone, not counting the cost of assembling the vest.

SWalker on May 3, 2012 at 2:07 PM

SWalker on May 3, 2012 at 2:07 PM

That money is better spent on mobile needle exchange trucks and self esteem reinforcement through subsidized sex change operations.

lol

Brian1972 on May 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM

That money is better spent on mobile needle exchange trucks and self esteem reinforcement through subsidized sex change operations.

lol

Brian1972 on May 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Sadly that is the mindset of most liberals.

SWalker on May 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Damn straight, I drove over the Iraq border in a truck that wouldn’t look out of place on any street in America. The only “armor” it had was a slab of steel that had been cut with a torch to be about the same size as the door and bolted on. Think of the most hack-ish “good enough” work you have ever seen and you’ll be close. That was in 2005. It took years and tens of thousands of casualties for decent armored vehicles to get there.

I certainly don’t envy the guys who got there first. My truck would have been a tank compared to what they had to use.

Mord on May 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

This was my experience but one year earlier in early 2004. The one thing you forgot was the filled sandbags on the floorboards to “absorb the blast” and on the hood to “suck up the bullets”.

We spent 3 weeks in the desert of Kuwait making our Mad Max vehicles with torches and soft plate steel that AK rounds burned right through without even a pause. Good times.

thomashton on May 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I remember artillery training under the Clinton administration.

The best artillery ammo we could get for annual certifications was Korean War vintage stock that was otherwise going for general disposal.

We spent half our training time shorting through the unusable rounds, ammo, and fuses to find enough to pass minimum competency certification.

Very frustrating.

Lawrence on May 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Lawrence on May 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM

At the end of the Carter years, the piece of combat equipment most sought after were tow chains and tow bars for our 113′s/577′s. If we could keep a couple running, we could drag the rest out to the EG border.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

The Clinton years were nearly as bad.

docflash on May 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

HAHA! I remember hearing “do more with less” so many times.

Mord on May 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM

LOL- I remember my husband taking toilet paper from home to the unit during those years. Apparently it wasn’t in their limited budget.

melle1228 on May 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Just recently General Martin Dempsey ordered all military schools to purge themselves of all “anti-Islamic themes” in training courses. and to stop all instructors from “advocating ideas, beliefs and actions that are disrespectful of the Islamic religion”. This man is in violation of his unambiguous sworn oath to the United States Constitution and is a traitor to America and he is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What does this make our military? Pretty damn sick if you ask me. Our military is now lead by the worst generals by far in all our history. The best you say? You must be kidding me. They are damn traitors and Patton would have them all shot.

VorDaj on May 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

In the ’70s and ’80s the American people decided to pledge their wealth and assets to provide the very best chance for their sons (and daughters) to survive a war situation. We decided that if our children had to go to war, we would provide them the very best we could, give them the best chance for survival, whether we could afford it not withstanding. When we had to fall back onto our future generations to keep casualties as low as possible, all we got was bitching from those we made safe that we were spending their money.

I am about at the point where I think we should bring back the draft and give them bows and arrows. Our forefathers bought their own weapons. This is not about the great volunteers of today, but the non-volunteer gripers about military spending.

Old Country Boy on May 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

VorDaj on May 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

In today’s environment General Patton, would be doing time at Leavenworth for his offensive language in describing those poor victimized Germans who just wanted to be left alone and understood…or Nimitz the same on the other side of the world.

It isn’t Jehovah’s Witnesses that have been killing Americans for over a decade.

Anti-Islamic themes? Such as not refuting Koranic exhortations as “Death to the Infidels!!” or “By the Sword we Must Cleanse the Earth!!” among others?

Not to be disrespectful General Dempsey…but are you truly that stupid and how are you fit to lead???

Close with the Enemy and Destroy them. The most basic tenet of warfare.

Now it seems we have to “engage with the enemy and learn from them so we all can move forward and find those Skittle-crapping unicorns together.”

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 3:59 PM

BTW…boycott Spirit Airlines.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM

“Well colonel, saw your little video,….. BUT we have to be realistic. Under our wonderful Obama administration it is necessary, first and foremost, to fully fund union pay/benefits, including full annual pay raises, teachers unions fully funded, special interest group payoffs, fund various anit US hate groups, and reward all our friends….hey this is important stuff and it comes first !!! In these austere times colonel, there just may not be enough money left over to get you what you need on the battlefield. We try, but it’s Bush’s fault”

BigSven on May 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Why do they need the best?

It’s called “Peace Through Superior Firepower.”

CurtZHP on May 3, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Air dominance is critical to allow the other forces to advance and destroy the enemy.

Brian1972 on May 3, 2012 at 1:45 PM

The next big one will require the easy access to space, and Obama has slammed the door on that one big time. Anyone who can shoot down sats and jam GPS will have a horrible advantage. Seriously.

Space is everything.

Bulletchaser on May 3, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I personally would be fine with cutting the military budget in half. Which would still leave plenty of money to fight terrorists with. It’s sad that there such an obvious solution to our deficient problem but Obama and Romney don’t have the courage to confront our enormous military industrial complex.

Ric on May 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM

The President has had exactly one – one! – policy success. It was the military who delivered that to him.

The President has exactly one – one! – department that was expressly ordered to cut spending. He delivered that order to the military.

I lack the words to express the full depth of my utter contempt…no, I have to stop now before I get banned.

ss396 on May 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Obama’s attitude about the military…his deep rooted attitude about the military…can be summed up by Valerie Jarret.

Remember this little gem from the long long ago times?

The military and the Secret Service are mere house servants and facilitators for “El Jefe Obama” to live out his Indonesia days fantasies about being President.

Putz.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Some of you may be bewildered by this campaign and may be wondering, in good faith, what errors you committed to bring it about. If so, it is urgently important for you to understand the nature of the enemy. You are attacked, not for any errors or flaws, but for your virtues. You are denounced, not for any weaknesses, but for your strength and your competence. You are penalized for being the protectors of the United States. On a lower level of the same issue, a similar kind of campaign is conducted against the police force. Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it — intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved — as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but hatred for America. Why hatred? Because America is the living refutation of a Kantian universe.

Ayn Rand’s speech to the graduating class of West Point 1974

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

Cleombrotus on May 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Our military deserves the very best we can give them, that micosecond better could save his life and yours too. I remember the rifles that jammed, misfired, and failed do you really question this? Do you want to protect our men with seconds or thirds?

mixplix on May 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

This is how we rolled in 2003 as engineers, although we had humvees, they didn’t have armor and the soft nylon doors were a liability, so we took them off. We got very good at driving fast and loose, and it worked. One year and no losses, while moving outside the wire almost every day.

Durka-Durka on May 3, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Two words – “To Win”

MSGTAS on May 4, 2012 at 9:32 AM

To answer the question posed in the headline: because victory is the mission and because the lives of our finest are at risk.

Phil Byler on May 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM