# Gutting the military budget



## Manolito (Jan 11, 2012)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287713/gutting-defense-budget-jim-lacey
I would like to hear from all about their thoughts on this article and the road ahead.
Thanks
Bill


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 11, 2012)

Very interesting article, thank you for posting it.


----------



## Etype (Jan 11, 2012)

Cutting military spending should start with the elimination of 4th BDEs and 4th Bns. Then a PT test to see who gets to stay in the remaining 3.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jan 11, 2012)

I think it is important that our military is subservient to civilian authority.   I just wished the civilians were not politicians.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 12, 2012)

Interesting article and I agree with a lot of points, but goddamn some of those comments are bad.  Especially that incredibly misogynist comment second from the top.  Good show, fella.


----------



## AWP (Jan 12, 2012)

I would be more accepting of these cuts if I didn't work at Bagram and saw the amount of waste occurring. We capped our forces in country and commanders complained, but did they do? They brought fobbits. We also have Guard units on the books that frankly should go. People bitch about contractors but without them Bagram alone would increase by 10k if we left and were replaced by servicemembers.

What I fear is that we'll just say "Cut 15 brigades" instead of "What units do we need? What personnel do we need? Based on what we've learned after 10 years at war, can we restructure the TO&E of these units?"

I've read too much US history to have a positive view of these cuts because we've never learned and we've been caught unprepared for the next war. If you want peace, sort of, kind of, well, it would be nice if you could train for war with broomsticks and flour bombs.


----------



## pardus (Jan 12, 2012)

Whenever I think of Military budget cuts now, two things come to my mind.
One, NTC, the former servicemen amputees who were hired to help train medics. Contract not renewed due to budget cuts, and an extremely valuable training tool for medics preparing to go to war is gone.
Two, the Army spending 10 million dollars to develop with a new woodland, desert and multi-terrain cammoflage because we don't already have any of that right?


----------



## reed11b (Jan 12, 2012)

Fix how we do manning and readiness. Constant PCS moves are expensive in many ways, such as moving costs, re-training costs, recruiting costs, family services costs. Many of the MWR and expensive recruitment goodies and bonuses are because of the disruptive lifestyle of the Army. Let folks stabilize and you won't need a lot of those services.  Flatten the command structure and that will save operating costs. Make training unit focused and use more MTT's and less individual and school house focused. Focus on core and deployable units and rotate them trough readiness and you can be more effective with less brigades and need a much smaller pool of expensive specialized brigades. Focus on war fighting and less on stabilization. Use NG and Reserves heavily for stabilization Finally make the NG light infantry focused(not airborne either, unfortunately). The main cost of mechanized units is maintenance and certification. NG units have similar costs in these areas. I could keep going but I think I'll save that paper for the small wars journal.

Reed


----------



## Etype (Jan 12, 2012)

Reed, so do you believe in having a military larger than we would ever realistically need? Our do you have a problem passing pt tests, as a good portion of the army does?


----------



## pardus (Jan 12, 2012)

Etype said:


> Reed, so do you believe in having a military larger than we would ever realistically need? Our do you have a problem passing pt tests, as a good portion of the army does?


 
You think the Military is too big now? Seemed like we were barely maintaining our optempo a couple of years ago. I think we'll need every swinging dick if we ever have to take on Iran, Nth Korea or China, and them some.

That's not to say there isn't fat that needs trimming.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 12, 2012)

Etype said:


> Reed, so do you believe in having a military larger than we would ever realistically need? Our do you have a problem passing pt tests, as a good portion of the army does?


I'm fine on PT tests and think the standard should be raised for Infantry in particular. I'm not advocating increasing the military, I'm advocating for reducing in an intelligent manner. Rotational readiness does not mean more brigades. Aslo by reducing costs elsewhere we can reduce the AMOUNT of cuts we need to make. I'm curious at how you came to your PT conclusion.
Reed


----------



## reed11b (Jan 12, 2012)

Nevermind, you were responding to me disagreeing with your post. Gotcha. I think having 3 manuever battalions and RSTA is a good idea. I would rather see larger brigades, but fewer of them. Like the SBCT format instead of the ICBT format. Thats all.
Reed


----------



## Etype (Jan 12, 2012)

4th BDEs and Bns were a result of Bush and Rumsfeld's love and gross misunderstanding of the military. They worked out decently in our "world police" operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but lets be realistic- a company or battalion size element chasing around a handful of criminals (or in the worst case, nation building) is a waste in their battle space, and it degrades from our ability to fight a real war.

Here's my three step plan-

1. Eliminate 4th BDEs and Bns
2. Get back to doing what the military is intended for, fighting _WARS_
_ - _Infantryman improve their BMQ and ruckmarch times, focus on platoon level fire and maneuver (I worked with infantrymen in Afghanistan that struggled to zero their weapons, and I KNOW a good portion of them couldn't pass a PT test. How often do units operate above squad level in Afghanistan? Not much)
- Tankers improve their gunnery (I had an E4 tanker attachment that hadn't been in a tank since AIT)
- Artillerymen touch their guns and do some CFFs (I tried to let a 13F give a class, he couldn't logically explain hasty bracketing)
- Engineers, do some real combat engineering- route clearance doesn't count
- MPs, go to hell
- CA, stay in Afghanistan, we're going to be home getting ready to fight the real war
- SF, focus on Anything other than FID- get back to UW and SR

You see where I'm going with this? If we trained and truly prepared ourselves for a real combined arms _war_, N Korea and China wouldn't be a legitimate concern- sure, we would take losses, but they wouldn't really stand a chance. Our focus is disgustingly skewed- the military as a whole practices hostage rescue style room clearing as a result of our 'overseas contingency operations'. We are taking sloths and criminals into our ranks because we think we need to fill homes in over inflated MTOEs. We are telling infantry that they can't carry machine guns into combat because of this new collateral damage craze. Does anyone think that a single infantryman during the Korean War though he was causing too much damage?

We have the tools, and cutting numbers through payroll and other upkeep costs that go along with a force that is too large would ensure that the remainder was properly trained.

As for RSTA, I still don't understand its signficance. Bn scouts can handle tactical level recons- hell, area/zone/route recons are tasks any rifle platoon should be able to accomplish. LRS, SF, and ISR can handle the strategic level reconnaissance. I don't see a deficiency that is being filled by a fancy acronym. If equipment makes the difference, anyone could be trained on the SOTV kit and Vector, Viper, LRSSS, whatever.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 12, 2012)

reed11b said:


> Fix how we do manning and readiness. Constant PCS moves are expensive in many ways, such as moving costs, re-training costs, recruiting costs, family services costs. Many of the MWR and expensive recruitment goodies and bonuses are because of the disruptive lifestyle of the Army. Let folks stabilize and you won't need a lot of those services. Flatten the command structure and that will save operating costs. Make training unit focused and use more MTT's and less individual and school house focused. Focus on core and deployable units and rotate them trough readiness and you can be more effective with less brigades and need a much smaller pool of expensive specialized brigades. Focus on war fighting and less on stabilization. Use NG and Reserves heavily for stabilization Finally make the NG light infantry focused(not airborne either, unfortunately). The main cost of mechanized units is maintenance and certification. NG units have similar costs in these areas. I could keep going but *I think I'll save that paper for the small wars journal*.
> 
> Reed


 
If you like, you can post it here first and ask for comment.  I almost always do that before I send stuff out for publication.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 13, 2012)

Etype said:


> - Engineers, do some real combat engineering- route clearance doesn't count


 
Wish we could...


----------



## reed11b (Jan 13, 2012)

Etype said:


> 4th BDEs and Bns were a result of Bush and Rumsfeld's love and gross misunderstanding of the military. They worked out decently in our "world police" operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but lets be realistic- a company or battalion size element chasing around a handful of criminals (or in the worst case, nation building) is a waste in their battle space, and it degrades from our ability to fight a real war.
> 
> Here's my three step plan-
> 
> ...


 
Sounds like we are arguing on how much we agree with each other. Especially on war fighting and physical fitness.
Reed


----------



## Etype (Jan 13, 2012)

One of my old first sergeants (Panama, Grenada guy) had a good analogy, it went something like, "thinking that the more you fight, the better the military gets, is like thinking that the more you drive a car, the better it will run- and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is like driving off-road and uphill."


----------

