My decades of being a staunch Independent are history
-
Fixed it for ya. Always fun to watch cal twist off. De Nile is strong with this one.? Good work Tour & hoorta.?
Trump really showed his Christianity in the prayer breakfast. He has no clue what motivates a real Christian like Romney. Then he went out and fired a twin brother just for being a twin.? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!?
LOL...wasn't a real Christian like Mitt Romney cowardly using a phony twitter name "Pierre Delecto" to attack Trump...yeah that was profiles in courage Mitt
LOL...wasn't a real Christian like Mitt Romney cowardly using a phony twitter name "Pierre Delecto" to attack Trump...yeah that was profiles in courage Mitt
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
-
LOL! I bet you bought his car too snce you are buying his BS.?
-
LOL...wasn't a real Christian like Mitt Romney cowardly using a phony twitter name "Pierre Delecto" to attack Trump...yeah that was profiles in courage Mitt
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
You are the one putting Romney on a moral character pedestal. I have never done that with Trump. My support for Trump has always been for his policies such as pro life and religious freedoms. His economic policies have been good and our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.He has been good on veterans issues and made our country energy independent. Under his watch all the territory ISIS had taken over was taken back. He has an amazing list of achievements in a little over 3 years.
The same hypocritical lefties who are praising Romney today for his "moral courage" are the ones who called him a racist, tax cheater, woman hater and animal abuser when he ran for president.
Mitt Romney is not ‘principled’ — and he never has been
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mitt-romney-is-not-principled-and-he-never-has-been
-
Romney is a Mormon, hardly a christian.
Well then he has something in common with the anti-Christ in charge.??
EDIT: Hmmm, I wonder why this is here then.
Moroni 10:32, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God."
Well then he has something in common with the anti-Christ in charge.??
EDIT: Hmmm, I wonder why this is here then.
Moroni 10:32, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God."
Who is Moroni?
-
You mean kind of like John Miller? LOLOLOLOL!?
You are the one putting Romney on a moral character pedestal. I have never done that with Trump. My support for Trump has always been for his policies such as pro life and religious freedoms. His economic policies have been good and our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.He has been good on veterans issues and made our country energy independent. Under his watch all the territory ISIS had taken over was taken back. He has an amazing list of achievements in a little over 3 years.
The same hypocritical lefties who are praising Romney today for his "moral courage" are the ones who called him a racist, tax cheater, woman hater and animal abuser when he ran for president.
Mitt Romney is not ‘principled’ — and he never has been
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mitt-romney-is-not-principled-and-he-never-has-been
our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
edit: Be willing to bet that I could find thousands of "we have the greatest military evvvaaaa" posts on this board if I went back through the last decade of history as well.
-
our military needed to be rebuilt after being decimated under Obama.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
edit: Be willing to bet that I could find thousands of "we have the greatest military evvvaaaa" posts on this board if I went back through the last decade of history as well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
-
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/
Military budget year by year. Increased 3 years running Obama's first term, then declined in correlation with ending mass operations in Iraq (A topic in and of itself for another time) Only to plateau and, predictably, begin climbing again under Trump.
Worth noting the increase in budget, adjusted for inflation I believe, from the troop surge of 2003 in comparison to now in 2018.
As with anything, you're within your right to say it. But that's doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
edit: Worth noting, the budget was still high despite the bi-partisan Congressional support for Military Pension cuts that began to be outlined in 2013.Patriots all around, indeed.
-
don't be like woody, give us one example of how he is not being a Real American promise keeping president.
(and look at the tens of thousands who go to his rallies....)
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
He's a great American slimeball who added another trillion to the deficit. And stole from money allocated to the military to build his pet wall that a lot of AMERICANS think is a waste of money.
The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion ... “Sending the world's leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash or Tumps wall?
-
U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/us-military-decimated-under-obama-only-marginally-/
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
edit: Worth noting, the budget was still high despite the bi-partisan Congressional support for Military Pension cuts that began to be outlined in 2013.Patriots all around, indeed.
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
-
From your article
In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.
This is rather the ideal streamlined and efficient military composition that ideally fluctuates between cost v use, no? Facts remain, the military budget was still significantly more collectively under Obama than his predecessor when adjusted for inflation. So this would beg the question, if the U.S. military was as "decimated" as you may claim, then why such costs to maintain that which we don't have? May that point out some serious budget bleeds and unnecessary spending ? (for those of us who believe to use every tax dollar with a bit of wisdom)
Also speaks to the idea paying attention to what the frame-workers of the Constitution believed having a massive, central military consistently funded against having clear military goals and/or needs.
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
-
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
-
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now. Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.
I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars. I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare. The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia. The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed. And that is my key point, *needed*.
My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously. Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some. "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape". You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.
-
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now. Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.
I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars. I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare. The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia. The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed. And that is my key point, *needed*.
My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously. Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some. "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape". You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.
Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now. Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.
I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars. I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare. The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia. The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed. And that is my key point, *needed*.
My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously. Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some. "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape". You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.
Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it
-
Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now. Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.
I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars. I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare. The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia. The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed. And that is my key point, *needed*.
My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously. Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some. "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape". You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.
Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it
Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it
And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.
China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now. What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent. Fortunately for many, China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy. This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.
Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity. Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might. Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well. If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it?
This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO. I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China. They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.
-
"Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play"
Sorry Tiam I don't play the "gotcha game".
You say our goal should not be the ability to fight two wars at once. Other military experts would disagree with you.
Putting pressure on NATO alliies to pay their fair share only makes sense to me.
The world is as dangerous as it has ever been all over the world. I personally don't disagree with the United States having the ability to fight more than one war.
If under the Obama administration they were claiming they had the capabilities to fight more than one war at once then the article I posted clearly stated there were valid reasons to believe that claim was not true due to lack of funding.
Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now. Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.
I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars. I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare. The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia. The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed. And that is my key point, *needed*.
My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously. Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some. "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape". You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.
Then your article has to consider that multiple years of the Obama administration that had higher funding than some years under Trump now. Thus indicating we maintained the ability to fight "two wars" at once for half of that administration.
I never said our goal shouldn't be the "ability" to fight two wars. I question the sense of maintaining the complete readiness despite the lack of such events over the last 50 years of the advancing days in modern warfare. The last time an aggressor tried a two front war was, well, when Hitler forgot to pack some winter clothes for Mother Russia. The US will always have the ability between the funding and it's peoples to be present where-ever needed. And that is my key point, *needed*.
My goal would never be to *fight* two wars simultaneously. Again, history shows how poorly that works out for some. "If you chase two rabbits, both will escape". You can either fight two wars, or swiftly and decisively win one and move onto the next.
Tiam -
We MUST have a goal of being able to fight two wars simultaneously. The world is a far, far more dangerous place than ever before - NK is on the fringes of trying to get/extort money out of us again, or, to somehow go to war over S. Korea.
China is maneuvering to establish a power base that would exclude us out of the Phillipines/Japanese areas/S. Korea presence -
Russia is going to be getting very impatient with wanting to re-establish control over several Baltic states, and all of the Ukraine.
China is establishing a presence in S. America. and, the Middle East is due for a war - with obaMao's help - the gigantic influx of cash and gold to a rogue dangerous terrorist government. 1.6 ? BILLION ? WTF ?
Consider an article just from 2015:
https://taskandpurpose.com/a-look-at-military-spending-under-the-obama-administration
Keeping in mind that obaMao's presidency started in 2009:
"In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%."
"Between the rise of the Islamic State, Russia’s proxy war in Ukraine, and tensions in the South China Sea, national security and military spending is shaping up to be a key issue in the 2016 presidential election.On Dec. 15, PolitiFact published a fact sheet answering five common questions concerning military spending. The article, written by Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman, looks at the state of the defense budget, America’s nuclear arsenal, Navy fleet size, Army manpower cuts, and equipment, and ranks the accuracy of statements made by leading Republican presidential candidates and the Obama administration in these areas."
**********************************
"Defense spending
National security spending includes the Pentagon’s budget as well as spending by other agencies, like the Department of Energy’s work on nuclear weapons. On the whole, spending increased in 2010 and 2011, but decreased every year for four straight years by a cumulative 15%, write Jacobson and Sherman.
In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%.
The reason for this is two-fold. The Obama administration's decision to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan caused defense spending to drop. The second reason has to do with sequestration, which refers to the automatic across-the-board cuts to both military and nonmilitary spending that was originally designed to force bipartisan negotiations in Congress. It didn’t work and when negotiators failed to strike a deal in 2011 the cuts went into effect in 2013."
**************************************
"Army force strength and Navy fleet size
The Army had roughly 570,000 soldiers in 2012, but reductions over the years have reduced that size to roughly 490,000. The Army announced in July that it intends to cut its force size down by an additional 40,000 soldiers by fiscal year 2018. The cuts are expected to save roughly $7 billion.
The U.S. Navy’s fleet size peaked during World War II when it had 6,768 ships under its command. Afterward, the number dwindled to where it is today, with 272 active ships.
The Navy’s goal is to expand its fleet size to 308 ships. Given the current shipbuilding schedule, that goal won’t be met until 2022, and it depends heavily on repealing sequestration."
*****************************************
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/01/23/barack-obama-military-administration/
Obama has done lasting damage to the military
"As the Trump transition team looks to roll back Barack Obama’s second-term tsunami of executive orders and regulations, and Republican leaders in Congress prepare to repeal Obamacare, the outgoing president’s legacy seems to shrink daily. But one effect of eight years of Obama won’t soon vanish: He’s done more damage to American military power than his successor can repair. It’s not simply that Obama tried to end U.S. involvement in the Middle East by unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq, conducting a phony surge in Afghanistan, and failing to respond to the civil war in Syria. It’s not just that Obama did little beyond telling Vladimir Putin to “cut it out” after Russia annexed Crimea and after Putin otherwise exploited whatever opportunity arose to unravel the post–Cold War peace of Europe, or that Obama neglected to back up the promise of a “Pacific pivot” as the Chinese dredged their way (island-making instead of island-hopping) across the South China Sea. Retreats can be reversed, even if the price of victory rises when it has to be won twice (or three or four times, in the case of Iraq)."
********************************************************
"The consistency of the Obama disarmament is reflected in defense-spending arithmetic — federal budgets are long-term strategy. There are several ways to reckon this. The simplest is to compare the current five-year defense plan with the five-year defense plan Obama inherited from the Bush administration. By that comparison, the Pentagon has lost more than $250 billion in purchasing power. While that’s a pretty big number, it doesn’t begin to tell the whole tale, because it looks at the problem only in five-year increments. Obama has always had a longer-term outlook. "
************************************************************
"In 2009, during his first year in office, Obama directed then–defense secretary Robert Gates to cut about $300 billion from Pentagon programs, which had the effect of eliminating several of the major weapons-acquisitions projects that had survived Donald Rumsfeld’s attempt to “transform” the force by “skipping a generation of weapons systems.” The poster child for this round of cuts was the F-22 fighter. It was the first substantial attempt to deploy stealth and other technologies meant to ensure American air superiority for decades to come. Gates terminated the F-22 at just 187 planes instead of the 750 originally planned by the Air Force. "
***************************************************
"A second, smaller set of reductions came the following year. Gates, seeing which way the wind was blowing, sought to get ahead of the White House by offering $80 billion worth of “reforms” and other changes on the condition that the administration shift the spending to other defense investments. Obama gratefully took the windfall — and more — to pay for the one-time cost of his Afghanistan surge and other, non-defense priorities. Gates got played."
************************************************
(even worse, Tiam:)
"But not as badly as he did in 2011. In April of that year, when a new tea-party coalition was flexing its muscles in the House of Representatives, Obama decided on another $400 billion in defense reductions. He did not inform Gates of the intended cuts before delivering the speech in which he announced them. Gates resigned. But the speech was a brilliant political gambit that gave the White House the initiative by framing the terms for the subsequent negotiations that led to the Budget Control Act (BCA). That law achieved two Democratic priorities: It jettisoned any attempt to limit federal spending in entitlement programs, and it capped defense spending for a decade. It’s hard to fully estimate the effect of these reductions; there have been two one-time exceptions to the defense-spending caps, but they were very small, approximately $30 billion over two budget years. A good guess, though, is that long-term spending on defense programs has been reduced by close to $1 trillion in fiscal years 2009 to 2023."
*******************************************************************************
"A subtler but more profound effect of the BCA was to make the Republican congressional leadership a party to the Obama military drawdown. This inspired the small-government, libertarian Freedom Caucus in the House to take former speaker John Boehner hostage repeatedly, such as when it led the charge to shut down the government in 2013, a move that probably contributed to Boehner’s eventual resignation. Boehner was no defense-spending enthusiast (Senator Mitch McConnell hasn’t been, either, since Republicans took back the Senate), but the BCA favored a more extreme course and had assumed a totem-like status for younger Republicans, who became the Obama White House’s unlikely bedfellows on the issue."
*****************************************************************************
"The BCA’s “sequestration” provision further limited Pentagon accounts. It stipulated that if Congress failed to adhere to the specified annual spending caps, or if it failed to pass appropriations bills before the fiscal year began, automatic cuts to military spending would kick in. Sequestration reinforced the far-left–far-right alliance and meant that extremists could simply withhold their support for any budget deal and follow their own priorities, regardless of their negative impact on the military. With entitlements protected, the Obama administration and out-of-power Democrats on Capitol Hill could sit back and watch Republicans stake out positions that were popular in their districts but that made compromise and governing impossible. Then, at election time, Democrats would simply aim to beat a “do-nothing Congress.”
**************************************************************************
"A final budget whammy has completed the perfect financial storm for the armed forces: the continued reliance on extraordinary “supplemental” appropriations for “overseas contingency operations.” Reasonably enough, the Bush administration argued that these appropriations were necessary to pay for unanticipated war costs. But as the situation in Iraq degenerated, the Bush team found itself boxed in. When it at last reversed course and embraced a counterinsurgency strategy and the idea of a surge of troops to carry it out, it found itself forced to ask not only for extra money for gas, beans, and bullets but also for the funds to increase the size of the military and particularly the active-duty Army, which it had been in the process of shrinking."
***********************************************************************
"The practice of supplemental appropriations has carried over through the Obama years, and though it has masked some of the worst consequences of the defense-budget cuts, it has also used limited resources inefficiently. More money is good, but planned-for money is much better. The military has been fighting the same war over and over. In a reasonable world, funding could be planned in advance and would not need to be justified on an “emergency” basis. Instead, for political reasons, we are financing the war one year — or less — at a time.
Thus, 15 years after 9/11 and after eight years of Obama, the military is something like a racehorse — once sleek, powerful, and fit — put too long to the plow and desperately in need of rest, recovery, and refitting. The size of the force (the Army in particular) has ballooned and shrunk like a fad dieter. On September 11, 2001, we had about 485,000 soldiers in uniform. Donald Rumsfeld approved an additional 30,000 — not to fight the war, but to undertake a “transformational” redesign of the military. In other words, the service grew bigger in preparation for getting smaller. Of course, this too was paid for with supplemental funding. This contraption limped along through 2006 and into 2007, when President Bush agreed to establish a crash program to get to 560,000 troops in a timely way. Obama has reduced the Army total to about 475,000 today, and it’s on a slope to 450,000 or fewer.
The Marines have suffered a similar personnel problem, while the Navy and the Air Force, by nature more-technological services, have shed ships and planes without receiving replacements. For example, the Defense Department built a facility to manufacture 300 F-35 fighters a year, intending to replace the current lightweight fighters in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. But in recent years, production of the F-35 has rarely exceeded one-tenth of that capacity.
The smaller force is also a much less ready force. During the Cold War, the units of the Army and Air Force were always about 90 percent ready in terms of personnel, equipment, and training. The sea services, reflecting the predictable maintenance cycle of ships, could anticipate deployment schedules years in advance. Since 9/11, the entire military has been subjected to a just-in-time, by-the-seat-of-the-pants approach necessitated by a surfeit of missions and a lack of resources of all kinds. The result is that units, when not deployed, are only about 60 percent ready or less. This also means that the military’s ability to do anything more challenging than routine operations, such as keeping sea lanes open, is severely limited. It is no coincidence that in his 2012 “defense guidance,” Obama lowered the standard by which we determine the optimal size of our forces. Since the years prior to World War II, and as befits a global power, we have maintained the capacity to conduct two large-scale campaigns at once. Obama lowered the bar to just one war at a time."
**********************************************************
"Finally, the Obama years have seen a degeneration in civil–military relations. It’s not simply that Obama and his White House team have squabbled with their field commanders, though there’s been plenty of that. Far worse is the social distance that’s arisen between soldiers and the rest of us. Recently, YouGov and the Hoover Institution sponsored the first large-scale survey of public attitudes on military affairs since 9/11. The most startling statistic was that nearly 80 percent of Americans, regardless of party, ideology, wealth, or any other demographic attribute, regard military service of any sort — not just combat — as dehumanizing and psychologically damaging. This is partly a reflection of our increasingly narcissistic and therapeutic culture, but Obama has always been in sync with the times: He has turned heroes into victims. His will not be a martial legacy.
– Mr. Donnelly is a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and the director of its Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies."
-
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
-
"In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state."
And the main point of the article was that we could not do the above because of lack of funding for the military^^^^^^^
If the goal of our military is to have the ability of fighting two wars at once we were not adequately funding the military to do it.
Good, I'm glad I dragged you into that response. I'm slightly disappointed you glossed over my comment on the frame-workers, I was hoping you'd fall into that slow play.
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
The goal of our military, our leaders and our people shouldn't be to fight two wars at all unless absolutely necessary to the defense of this country. Hence my "streamlined" comment. See - WWII. Since that point, when has the USA ever been in a necessary conflict with that many theaters which requires constant preparation? If the President is so hell-bent on forcing NATO to step up their contributions, that should immediately lower the need for the US to have such a sole response ready for any Russian aggression sans our Western Coasts.
If you're saying the military wasn't properly funded under Obama, you might want to take a peek back and see how far those budgets go at lesser levels. Are you prepared to make the argument than previous Presidents haven't been prepared for that for the better part of 30 years?
just completely wrong. I've shown it to be. And I never even mentioned that I was selected to be a part of a huge Inspector General Readiness Task Force - an assignment that lasted several weeks. I typed up readiness reports, higher up reports - had to have my usual security clearance upped ahead of time - (never knew it til I was part of it) - referring to military strategy and readiness/support studies. I was in SAC.
-
Fortunately for the world Hitler made the mistake of starting a war on two fronts. You would never want to be in two wars at once but I'm thinking of the possibility of being forced to fight two wars at once. I believe in the principle there is only peace through strength. China right now is investing heavily in their military and we should be concerned about it
And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.
China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now. What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent. Fortunately for many, China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy. This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.
Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity. Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might. Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well. If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it?
This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO. I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China. They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.
And you're a Jesus following Christian which makes the black and white nature of this comment a bit more absurd.
China has been a cleverly used boogeyman for nearly 20 years now. What scares nations, such as China, is nuclear deterrent. Fortunately for many, China, similar to the US, has a no-first-use policy. This should be something the US continues to lead the way in.
Simply attempting to match them dollar for dollar, man for man in military force and then watching each country raise the bar only to spend itself into a military stock-pile that 99% will never be used isn't a strategy for longevity. Strength is an admirable trait, but that doesn't mean simple might. Strength also means engaging ones neighbors to see how we might peaceably continue to co-exist as well. If my neighbor's house is on fire, loaning him a gun won't be as beneficial as a water hose, will it?
This is an area where our diplomatic and economic relations have seen a short-fall in the last 10 years IMHO. I say that because the company I work for has various products we ship to China. They are an economic companion and both countries would do well to continue viewing each other as such.
Even apart from my faith the concept of peace through strength is a well established principle
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/peace-through-strength
-
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
btw, Hitler did not have the tech to fight two wars, he spread his troops far, far too thin. He might have succeeded even then,
except America finally stepped in, after the war exploded in size, and made the difference.
Hitler had already won the war for western Europe and did not have a two war front when Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. By the time America came ashore at Normandy, the Germans had already lost the key Battle for Stalingrad over a year earlier and were on the run back where they started. They're underestimation of Russia's ability to take a blow and key up their war machine was a far greater factor. Hitler thought he could win it well before America was attacked by Japan causing the US to enter the war.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login