Sorry, I meant the Secretary of Defense, not the top general. As they say, who's really the boss?BDKJMU wrote:
Wrong. Article out yesterday:
"Military’s top general offers grim outlook on nation’s defense
WASHINGTON — 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 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.
Dempsey lashed out at Congress for slashing defense funding over the last three years while preventing the Pentagon from shuttering unneeded military bases, retiring outdated weapons systems and taking other steps to save money.
“I urge Congress - again - to move quickly to implement difficult decisions and to remove limitations on our ability to make hard choices within the Department of Defense,” he said. “The changes required for institutional reform are unpleasant and unpopular, but we need our elected leaders to work with us to reduce excess infrastructure, slow the growth of military pay and compensation, and retire equipment that we do not need.”
The back and forth among the Pentagon, Obama and Congress extends a blame game over defense funding reductions that most outside analysts say are inevitable.
The budget cuts follow a decade-long spending binge triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as Pentagon funding reached record highs to pay for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and broader anti-terror initiatives.
Hagel’s criticism of the defense spending reductions over the last three years was more muted than that of Dempsey.
“These continued fiscal constraints cannot be ignored,” the defense secretary said. “It would be dishonest and irresponsible to present a QDR articulating a strategy disconnected from the reality of resource constraints. A strategy must have the resources for its implementation.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/04/2 ... -grim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
However, your article doesn't support not cutting the budget. The general himself says we need to close uneeded (his words) bases, excess infrastructure (his words) and get rid of outdated programs. Hint: when you cut bases, are you not going to cut staff?
He is also saying that if we are to maintain our overspread list of duties, some of our capabilities will be eroded. Duh. But what you are NOT reading is the clear message that we have some old bases and old programs (both of which include people to support such things) that need to be axed.
Tanks and large masses of troops aren't going to roll across the landscapes anymore...they are sitting ducks. You are funding and manning the last war.
