Why Does Military Suffer These Budget Cuts
Feb 24, 2014 Military
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has recommended cutting the military from 520,000 to 450,000. He has also recommended closing some bases in the US and reducing benefits for military members.
Hagel said that after the prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the planners are not planning on conducting long and large stability operations. Basically, there are no plans to have a big, drawn out conflict.
I hope America’s enemies got this memo because they will not hesitate to fight a long and drawn out war.
Why is it that government, when run by Democrats, cuts the military to solve money problems? Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama cut our forces. It looks great on paper but when the stuff hits the fan we need boots on the ground. Former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was blasted when he said you go to war with the military you have but that is true. It is also true that the military we had when he said it was given to us by Clinton.
How will America respond when some big military event takes place (like say WWIII) and we have to have a draft to get enough people to fight the long protracted war the planners are not planning to conduct?
Why are member of the military having their benefits cut when this nation has many multiples of our military strength on welfare? Why do we not talk about cutting welfare and other social programs? Hell, they could probably make up the defense budget shortfall by getting rid of the Obamaphone program.
If our planners are not planning on a big long war why do we need to cut military bases in the US? We have plenty of military bases in other nations that we can close and save a ton of money. We really don’t need to project our strength forward if we are not going to have big long wars. We can respond to hotspots from bases in the US.
Hagel said the focus will be on protecting the homeland so let’s do it by keeping the bases in our homeland open and closing those bases in other nations.
Let’s cut welfare and ensure our warriors get the benefits they deserve, they earned and that we promised to them.
I agree with the plan to phase out older equipment but when we get rid of aging equipment we need to replace it with modern stuff or we will be severely behind the power curve. When the day comes that we need to go big it will be too late to start modernizing our armed forces.
The military is a necessary part of our country. It is there to protect us and keep us free. Part of that is being big enough and lethal enough to deter those who would attack us. The recommendations of Secretary Hagel weaken us as a nation and that is a position that we cannot and should not tolerate.
Yes, the military is an expensive part of government but it is a small part of the pie. Social welfare programs and unfunded liabilities are multiples of the Defense budget. We get the best bang for our buck (pun intended) with a strong well funded military.
It is much more valuable to the nation than welfare programs and spending programs that are not called for in our Constitution and are not helpful to the nation.
I hope that Congress makes the right decisions or one day in the future we will regret these cuts.
Source:
AFP
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: cuts, defense budget, weakness, welfare
Obama’s Defense Budget Increase
Apr 2, 2009 Political
I wrote recently that Obama was cutting the military budget and the lefties out there informed me that programs were being cut, not the operational budget which Obama has actually increased. We do not know if he has increased it because the people in the Department of Defense (DOD) had to sign non disclosure statements. The public report was a 4% increase but how do we really know this is the case if people were sworn to secrecy? It seems strange to me that the most transparent administration in history (just ask them) would do something like this.
Let us assume there was an increase and that it was 4%. It is now clear why that increase was needed and it is clear that it was not for military operations. An increase was needed so that Obama could use military aircraft to ferry around his 500 person entourage. The Washington Times reports that Obama’s trip to Europe has strained the Air Force because more aircraft were needed to fly all the additional people to Europe. It has so taxed the Air Force that the service had to use private contractors to accomplish its mission to resupply our forces in Afghanistan.
The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials.
The Air Mobility Command, part of the U.S. Transportation Command, was ordered to provide airlift for the president’s entourage of nearly 500 people, including senior officials, staff, support personnel, news reporters and some 200 Secret Service agents for the European visit, which began Tuesday in London.
Airlift for the traveling entourage also was used to move the president’s new heavy-armored limousine and several presidential helicopters used for short transits.
To make up for the shortfall, the Air Force had to increase the number of Eastern European air transport contractors hired to fly Il-76 and An-124 transport jets into Afghanistan loaded with troop supplies, the two officials said.
The airlift crunch comes at a particularly difficult time, as the military is stepping up deliveries of supplies in advance of a surge of 21,000 U.S. troops.
Couple this with Nancy Pelosi’s demands on the Air Force and her use of it as a personal airline and it is no wonder that the budget would need to be increased.
Why did he need 500 people with him? Why was it necessary to take resources away from our war fighters in order to send him and this huge contingent to Europe?
For you liberals who make claims about the military budget and how Obama is so supportive, keep this in mind before you make any claims:
One official said the problem was not only the vehicles and helicopters that were needed for presidential security, but also the unusually large number of people traveling with the president. The official said U.S. taxpayers are paying twice for airlift, once for Air Force jets that are not available for a war zone and again for foreign contractor aircraft that are. [emphasis mine]
No wonder Obama would need to increase the military budget. Taxpayers now have to pay two times for the Air Force to accomplish its mission.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: air force, defense budget, europe, Military, Obama, waste