Get rid of useless flag officers (about 80% of them) and leave the “troops” benefits alone, but, yes, reducing the number of folks in the standing Army can be reduced by attritian, retaining their “benefits”. After all, even though “his” National Guard was exempt from hazard, he was the first to send in the Guard, and keep sending them back, to HIS little wars, so that he could point to how courageous he was to serve, in Texas, briefly, before deserting after he was trained.
Seems the balance sheet is mightier than the assault rifle.
Just a note, in ‘91 Cheney as Secretary of Defense cut the military by 25% current plan is only 5.9%. What’s disturbing is cutting benefits, keep those, and lower the numbers. Of course cut contracting would save many times more.
How in the world would reducing the size of the accounting department increase unemployment? Yeah, those people would have to find jobs, but considering the salary levels, at least 1 1/2 actual production workers can be hired with the extra funds available for each accountant fired. Imagine how much money in accounting costs would be saved in America if we went to a flat tax and didn’t need tax accountants. The dollar amount is so big it’s hard to even talk about it with a straight face. And yet, we continue to make the tax laws (and now the Obamacare laws) ever more complex thus requiring even more highly paid accountants.
As a career military man, I can say that you can reduce the military, but you had better then expect one heck of a lot less out of them. With fewer bodies you just cannot police as much of the world as before. Constant deployments wreak havoc on the troops and their families.
Even with current technologies, a smaller military means fewer capabilities. Gut the military and without using tactical nuclear weapons it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to fight two major conflicts at once, as we are currently tasked to be ready to accomplish. So if North Korea goes bat crazy at the sane time Japan and China come to blows, then Iran decides to make war on Saudi oil on the other side of the planet, we’re pretty much sunk.
If you demand that the seaways and airways remain open and stop tinpot dictators from closing the sea and airways, you need to be able to bloody their noses for them. You must present a credible threat to their own regime an personal safety to keep them in line. Remember when Libya tried to close their end of the Mediterranean? We sent in a carrier battle group to sail international waters to enforce freedom of the seas, Libyan jets targeted US aircraft and we blew them out of the air. The only way we got Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait was to use troops and tanks and artillery. Bombing alone would never have done it and Saddam would now control over a third of all oil.
The carrier battle groups along with the Marine Expeditionary Units at sea, ready to go, a fleet of long range, stealthy bombers and naval attack aircraft and the XVIII Airborne Corps on notice to deploy, you can present a possible aggressor with so many problems they usually decide it isn’t worth the risk. Which would you rather face – one German Shepherd; or a German Shepherd, a Rottweiler, a Doberman, two Pit Bulls and a gray wolf at the same time? .
Accountability is, very much, important. Limited resources getting as much bang for the buck, and taking the responsibility to account for the assets we have is vital – especially since budgeting is done two fiscal years in advance.
April 12, 2017
May 10, 2018
July 06, 2017
August 01, 2017