As U.S. faces new threats, Pentagon seeks bigger defense budget

AWP

SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
18,940
Location
Florida
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

(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.
 
...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...

Your entire assessment seems spot on, but this really struck a chord. Post-Vietnam was probably one of the most glaring examples of the erosion process you describe. It was an exodus. Squad and platoon-level leadership was gutted of combat-experienced NCOs and Os. They couldn't get out the door fast enough. (I think one of the reasons I was able to get waivers to stay on AD was because of this.) And I was an 0331 banging out DD214's on an IBM Selectric faster than the XO could get them out of the safe.

As far as the Pentagon wanting to curb military pay and benefits, that's a good way to see your most valuable resource go out the door.
 
Rant switch: ON

I get irritated at arm chair warriors (who wear stars) forgetting that bennies went up because the Army could not attract enough people to fight in two wars.
Same people like to 'run around and talk about their SINGLE deployment somewhere.
We are in our SECOND stealth war, and it's obvious POTUS is using the Clinton/Cheney play book to keep deployments out of sight, out of mind.
Guys (gals) are tired of being thrown under the bus by Self-serving Officers (and NCO's). The only thing saving our ass is a crappy economy.
A robust economy will see a flood of non-US citizens joining as a fast track to citizenship, with questionable loyalties (see fall of Rome). The same self-serving bastards will then decry a lack of willingness to sign up (see "anti-recruiters, Clinton era).
Pols (on both sides) can not have it both ways, throwing money at us during wartime, then throwing us under the bus in peacetime no longer works. Pick a road to travel and live with the results.

Rant switch: OFF
 
Back
Top