January 6, 2012

“Obama’s white flag on national security: ‘Yes, our military will be leaner'”

But no worries: should we ever really need to be engaged in two separate theaters at once, we can always just ship over all the new union enforcers and have them set up picket lines — or, in a pinch, let them pull, say, the North Korean president into an alley and truncheon him to death with a blackjack.

Problem solved — and with significant savings that can then be used to build bigger and more robust bureaucratic machinery right here at home!


Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:29pm

Comments (34)

  1. I wonder where Silver Whistle is? I bet these guys could tell us…

  2. Bein’ a progressive internationalist, Obama surely sees only the one theater of battle: the globe.

  3. It’s lucky for us that Obama is doing his damndest to force the Reagan coalition to once again coalesce.

    Since we don’t have another Reagan and the Era of Reagan is over

    and all that.

  4. At least the proggies finally found something that they are actually willing to cut. No slowing the rate of growth nonsense when it comes to national defense.

  5. The scrawny little community organizer somehow has his left hand all over the national defense of the greatest nation on earth.

    And as a country this hardly concerns us.

  6. The military should change its name to “United Fighting Person’s Union.” Then Obama would be writing checks faster than our grandkids could sign ’em. Instead of the 934th Airlift Wing, we’d have Air Logistics Local 934.

    Sure, the Teamsters would have complaints, but I don’t think they’d pull their usual shenanigans this time.

  7. Wasn’t the first shriek, after the Iraq War began, that our soldiers were improperly outfitted? That the vehicles weren’t adequately shielded against IEDs? Wasn’t Clinton responsible for an enormous defunding of the military in the 90s?

    Watch for our troops to suffer greatly in the next theater because of inadequate troops or equipment or ordnance. And watch for the mass amnesia that Obama’s what done it.

  8. Even those who are put off by Glenn Beck’s over-the-top rhetoric have to agree that sometimes “hysteria” is the only appropriate means of expression.

  9. And now we start to learn why Eric Holder is so determined to arm the Mexican drug cartels…

  10. Economic instability in Europe, political instability in the Middle East, expansionist rumblings from Russia and China, and a serial appeaser cutting the military in the White House, what could go wrong?

    I mean we have already had the war to end all wars, right?

  11. Watch for those close to retirement and disgusted with all these changes or threats of same to take an early retirement. Carter 2.0. It will leave us with a depleted number of skilled, seasoned commanders and highly trained personnel.

  12. Well, he is also proposing pay increases for government monkeys, so the savings on the military won’t go to waste!

  13. JD, JHo, you guys know just as perfectly well as I do that when the Government is paying for the things you can and ought to provide for yourself, like retirement and healthcare, there’s simply not going to be enough money to pay for the things that you can’t provide for yourself —aircraft carriers and ballistic missle submarines for instance.

    This has got to be why the IRS and the FDA are arming up. Every Marine bureaucrat a rifleman!

  14. Also, I followed the Heinlein quote link over at Insty and found this gem:

    Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.

    May such men burn in hell as soon as possible.

  15. Chavez and Iran’s Imanutjob are doing their best to try and see that they burn before they get there di.

  16. I wonder where Silver Whistle is? I bet these guys could tell us…

    There hasn’t been much call for CCTV out here in the peat bog, Lee. You want to find me, you’re going to have to put your wellies on and mind the cow pats.

  17. Obama and Panetta say cutting the military will make it stronger. Interesting concept. Perhaps they’d like to apply it to the entitlement programs.

  18. charlesaustin: it will make the military stronger much in the same way I’ve gotten incredibly buff by quitting the gym.

  19. i have no problem cutting the defense budget. but all the cuts would be in the bureaucracy not in the ranks.

  20. i have no problem cutting the defense budget. but all the cuts would be in the bureaucracy not in the ranks.

    Good luck with that. The bureaucracy is unionized.

  21. in the dept. of defense?

  22. in the dept. of defense?

    The gubmint civilians working for DOD are unionized, she said, having worked as a contractor at an Air Force base with gubmint civilians.

    Agreed, cutting the actual boot-people is foolish, but it’s the cleanest way to cut, because those who would defend them don’t fight as dirty as the bureaucrats and their unions. Also, the bureaucracies are hard to untangle, because you’d have to separate essential from non, and only someone intimately familiar with the organization from having worked there would know the difference, and they’re more likely than not to have built up a little fiefdom that would automatically qualify as essential regardless of whether it was.

  23. “The gubmint civilians working for DOD are unionized”

    why do we have civilians working in dod? eliminate their jobs. if you out sourced to civilians it is not essential.

  24. Weapon design and manufacture is pretty essential. As we contract with large unionized workforces (like Boeing) for that, this is probably baked into the cake.

  25. As an active duty guy who worked some of the growth in DoD in the 2006 – 09 timeframe, I’d like to add some perspective – the proposed cuts would bring us down to about the 2001 levels – we’ll have to see what the numbers are when the President’s Budget is released in a few weeks. Note that the Army received an end strength (personnel) increase of about 60K (I’m relying in memory – I’ve got the actual figures at work) and the Marines about 22K as part of the surge, which many of us interpreted as a temporary increase from the start. What we’ll be doing is essentially shedding those gains.

    The real question is: what do we want our military to do on a daily basis, and where, and how much are we willing to spend? DoD budgets have always gone down after major conflicts – this would have happened to some degree regardless who is in the White House. I’m much concerned over what I see as wasteful spending on such things as the Navy’s LCS and that we’re buying (at least for now) 3 different airplanes that are all called “F-35.”

    I’m not quite ready yet to declare doom and gloom on this. And, the Air Force and the Navy should fare well, as the military’s focus turns to “Asia Pacific” – in other words, we’re refocusing on the traditional power projection mission. We’ll have to see what happens to COIN . . .

  26. And… shit. Someone emailed a song I was gonna recommend to you newrouter but now I can’t find it.

  27. ‘preciate the input Fenix. Thanks for the perspective.

  28. how many admirals does the navy need? or generals for the army? i like how the one dept. that is in the constitution is raked over the coals for cost saving. good allan this is the stupid party! yo npr doe epa et al….

  29. newrouter – I hear ya on the admirals and generals – for instance, for some time now the Navy has had more admirals than ships. And one 4 star billet would pay for four or five mid grade enlisted folks. I’m thinking I’d like to have more Sailors or Soldiers, given the choice.

    On your earlier comments on the civilian workforce, if we got rid of them, we’d have to turn most of the billets into uniformed positions, and we really don’t need or want to do that. The truth is our complex military construct requires a lot of support, to include admin, acquisition, R&D, intel, etc. Can some of that be trimmed? No doubt, but some is vital. The hard part is figuring out what to keep and what to discard.

    Ernst – thanks.

  30. have no problem cutting the defense budget. but all the cuts would be in the bureaucracy not in the ranks.

    Good luck with that. The bureaucracy is unionized.

    I keep having this weird thought – in reference to Detroit – where all the services are cut because they’ve got no money, yet the tax dollars are kept flowing to the retirees and the bureaucracy. No one actually doing the “work” for the people, just merely propping up the empty husk with administration and legacy costs.

  31. I have to second Fenix’s comments, especially with regard to civilians. And neither one of us was the first to say it; Heinlein said it in “Starship Troopers”:

    There are any number of vital jobs that don’t involve fighting and can be performed by civilians. Civilians are like beans; you buy them as needed for any job merely requiring skill and savvy. But you can’t buy fighting spirit. It’s scarce stuff. We use all of it, waste none.

    Better to spend the money where it matters.

    And here’s the other thing: ultimately, the way to really save money is to cut people. True anywhere. A machine performs its’ job 24/7. It doesn’t have to be paid, takes less sick time, needs no benefits or (especially) retirement.

  32. Time was, strategic thinking on the order Obama and his team undertake it was known as whistling past the graveyard. The only question now is, who gets buried there tomorrow?

  33. 1 July, and I will just be a sad retiree, instead of a sad LTC…

  34. Having the benefit of a few years and several historical cycles of “peace dividends”, I suspect we will again come to regret this reduction in force. I wonder how many of our dedicated young warriors will be sacrificed before we ramp up for the next go-around.