Scaling back our military needs to be done, but it needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully. The first President Bush cut too deeply after his success in Iraq. Who knew that his son would need the extra 50,000 soldiers( the Surge) that should have been sent in the first place. Had “W” listened to his first generals, he could have closed out the Iraqi campaign and brought the military home before his administration ended. That would have probably cut over a trillion dollars(a conservative estimate) from the cost and made scaling back less urgent. We need to examine which cuts will be most effective for saving money and maintaining a ready military. This means looking closely at each program and not just flailing away at the entire structure. Argument for welfare cuts follows the same argument. It needs done but carefully and effectively.Actually, there is a argument here that applies to our entire government.
Like the Obama administration speaks from experiance? Obama never served. I doubt he could pick an M-16 from an AK 74. Hagel is pick for Secretary of Defense was a sergant in the Air Force.
masterskrain,Yes, I would think that Bush knows the difference, unlike Obama. What that has to do with everything is that Obama is a military illiterate in both technical and strategic knowledge. He knows nothing of foreign policy as applied using military power.True, there was no draft when Obama graduated from high school and, his addmitted drug use may have precluded military service had there been. But, Cheney was never President and is not in public office today so he’s really irrelevant for the most part.Hagel was a junior enlisted. He didn’t deal with officers. He did what the senior NCO’s, ones like me, told him to do. Senior NCO’s know deal with officers and are the technical experts in the military not junior enlisted like Hagel.If you were in the Navy as you imply, you should know that. Some E-1 to 5 doesn’t deal with officers much. The Chief’s do. That’s why they wear Khaki..
It’s notable that our only reliable bomber, the B-52, designed starting in 1947 and first flown in 1953, having to prove it could do the job before being purchased, is still our most reliable. The current “troop cut” cuts benefits and troops, personnel, but barely touches the sacred cow of contracting for more junk that doesn’t work. It’s that spending, not troops, that pushes our REAL “defense budget” to well over a TRILLION DOLLARS a year! Yes let’s get rid of the PX system that allows troops on food stamps to purchase cheaper food and products, but don’t tough Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or tank builders ripping us off through all those civilians and generals in the Pentagon, playing with their very costly “Legos”…
Well said Eisenhower a prescient mind who’s intelligence and informed reasoning has been completely ignored ever since.
One day less of war would pay for your ‘Mt Everest’ of social welfare programs.It is impossible to kill anyone with kindness, but bombs, tanks, drones, machine e guns yeah well we all know what the USA ‘powers that be’ prefer.
Enoki about 10 years ago
And just out of the picture is the Mt. Everest of social welfare spending that dwarfs that…
Duane Ott about 10 years ago
Scaling back our military needs to be done, but it needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully. The first President Bush cut too deeply after his success in Iraq. Who knew that his son would need the extra 50,000 soldiers( the Surge) that should have been sent in the first place. Had “W” listened to his first generals, he could have closed out the Iraqi campaign and brought the military home before his administration ended. That would have probably cut over a trillion dollars(a conservative estimate) from the cost and made scaling back less urgent. We need to examine which cuts will be most effective for saving money and maintaining a ready military. This means looking closely at each program and not just flailing away at the entire structure. Argument for welfare cuts follows the same argument. It needs done but carefully and effectively.Actually, there is a argument here that applies to our entire government.
Enoki about 10 years ago
Like the Obama administration speaks from experiance? Obama never served. I doubt he could pick an M-16 from an AK 74. Hagel is pick for Secretary of Defense was a sergant in the Air Force.
Enoki about 10 years ago
masterskrain,Yes, I would think that Bush knows the difference, unlike Obama. What that has to do with everything is that Obama is a military illiterate in both technical and strategic knowledge. He knows nothing of foreign policy as applied using military power.True, there was no draft when Obama graduated from high school and, his addmitted drug use may have precluded military service had there been. But, Cheney was never President and is not in public office today so he’s really irrelevant for the most part.Hagel was a junior enlisted. He didn’t deal with officers. He did what the senior NCO’s, ones like me, told him to do. Senior NCO’s know deal with officers and are the technical experts in the military not junior enlisted like Hagel.If you were in the Navy as you imply, you should know that. Some E-1 to 5 doesn’t deal with officers much. The Chief’s do. That’s why they wear Khaki..
I Play One On TV about 10 years ago
That Eisenhower; hippie peacenick. Ptoo. No WONDER he was a Democrat.
Dtroutma about 10 years ago
It’s notable that our only reliable bomber, the B-52, designed starting in 1947 and first flown in 1953, having to prove it could do the job before being purchased, is still our most reliable. The current “troop cut” cuts benefits and troops, personnel, but barely touches the sacred cow of contracting for more junk that doesn’t work. It’s that spending, not troops, that pushes our REAL “defense budget” to well over a TRILLION DOLLARS a year! Yes let’s get rid of the PX system that allows troops on food stamps to purchase cheaper food and products, but don’t tough Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or tank builders ripping us off through all those civilians and generals in the Pentagon, playing with their very costly “Legos”…
janenevis80 about 10 years ago
Well said Eisenhower a prescient mind who’s intelligence and informed reasoning has been completely ignored ever since.
One day less of war would pay for your ‘Mt Everest’ of social welfare programs.It is impossible to kill anyone with kindness, but bombs, tanks, drones, machine e guns yeah well we all know what the USA ‘powers that be’ prefer.NoCons about 10 years ago
It’s cute how the Cons have nothing to offer except hateful criticism.