I find it interesting the Obama administration wants to increase the spending cap on defense.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/02/us-usa-budget-defense-idUSKBN0L61SU20150202
Of course, buried in the article is this:
We actually have threads on those two issues, but the second is the most alarming. Rising cost of pay and benefits? That is so wrong on so many levels and for so many reasons I won't touch them in this post.
The article also discusses troop levels compared to cuts and things like that, but I think it misses one key point. After every war we've slashed defense spending which leads to a major erosion in capabilities within 3-5 years, an erosion which increases over time. Part of losing our capabilities is because we don't have the funds to reconstitute our forces. In particular, the last 15 years has seen amazing technological changes and beneficial funding, but what are the odds an armored brigade can manuver effectively? That the 82nd can seize an airfield or still conduct brigade level drops? They probably can but are they as good as they should be? Post-war funding should be sustained after the end of hostilities if for no other reason than to "remount and reload" our core competencies. That erosion will also be accelerated by officers and NCO's leaving the service, finding the peacetime military to be too monotonous and full of BS details and tasks. Not only is funding slashed, but our intellectual capital disappears as well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/02/us-usa-budget-defense-idUSKBN0L61SU20150202
(Reuters) - Facing new security challenges in the Middle East and Ukraine, the Obama administration on Monday proposed a $534 billion Pentagon base budget plus $51 billion in war funds as it urged Congress to end spending cuts it says erode U.S. military power.
The proposed base budget exceeded the $499 billion federal spending cap for fiscal year 2016, forcing a debate with Congress over whether to continue deep cuts to federal discretionary spending or to amend the limits set in a 2011 law that sought to narrow the U.S. budget deficit.
Of course, buried in the article is this:
The Pentagon again sought approval for several reforms hotly opposed in Congress, including retirement of the A-10 "Warthog" close-air support aircraft, conducting a new round of U.S. base closures and curbing the rising cost of military pay and benefits.
We actually have threads on those two issues, but the second is the most alarming. Rising cost of pay and benefits? That is so wrong on so many levels and for so many reasons I won't touch them in this post.
The article also discusses troop levels compared to cuts and things like that, but I think it misses one key point. After every war we've slashed defense spending which leads to a major erosion in capabilities within 3-5 years, an erosion which increases over time. Part of losing our capabilities is because we don't have the funds to reconstitute our forces. In particular, the last 15 years has seen amazing technological changes and beneficial funding, but what are the odds an armored brigade can manuver effectively? That the 82nd can seize an airfield or still conduct brigade level drops? They probably can but are they as good as they should be? Post-war funding should be sustained after the end of hostilities if for no other reason than to "remount and reload" our core competencies. That erosion will also be accelerated by officers and NCO's leaving the service, finding the peacetime military to be too monotonous and full of BS details and tasks. Not only is funding slashed, but our intellectual capital disappears as well.