Obama decided to inform the Defense Department that they needed to make $400 Billion in cuts by announcing this is in a speech without even mentioning it to his Defense Secretary. Therefore it is unsurprising that the NY Times would take this opportunity to anounce their cunning plan to screw the troops and crush our expeditionary fighting capability. I guess this requires at least a partial Fisking.
We in no way minimize the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform.
Yeah right. Wait for it......
But after years of lagging far behind, military pay is now more than $5,000 a year higher than comparable civilian employment, more than $10,000 a year higher when special allowances and benefits are counted. Freezing noncombat pay for three years would save $3 billion per year. The formula for future increases should be adjusted to incorporate allowances and benefits, saving an additional $5 billion a year.
Another $4 billion to $6 billion annually could be saved by reasonable increases in annual health insurance premiums for military retirees of working age. Those premiums — currently $460 per family — have been frozen for the past 15 years while health care costs soared.
All told, these changes would save about $20 billion annually or more than $200 billion over the next 12 years.
Just exactly what comparable civilian employment are they using for this? Are there civilian jobs that cause multiple overseas deployments to combat zones with the realistic proposition that you could be killed or maimed? Or to be away from your family more often than not, while they check the news each day hoping there were no IED blasts or other casualties? I kinda doubt it. So comparing the pay of a clerk in the civilian world to a clerk deployed w/ an Infantry unit to a Forward Operating Base in Afghanistan is stupid and insulting. Now that the left is hell bent on giving every American free health care, they want to go ahead and add fees to the military community. Hey guys, you really need to head over to the nearest organic, free range, shade grown, union labor picked, coffee shop and order a Venti cup of STFU!
The Pentagon took too long to recognize that today’s wars make more intensive demands on the Army and Marines and less on the Navy and Air Force.
The Pentagon took too long to recognize this? Gimme a freakin' break. The Pentagon can shift mission faster than any organization on the face of the Earth, it just can't do so under the loving bureaucracy placed on them by Congress.
Ground forces have been increased, but that needs to be paid for by corresponding reductions at sea and in the air. That shift has already begun but needs to go further. Another $1 billion to $2 billion a year could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft carrier groups from 11 to 10 and associated air wings from 10 to 9.
Because the Chinese and Russians are busy mothballing their strategic forces, right? Oh wait, they are both building more and fancier toys which arehardly defensive in nature. We have seen in Libya how we have no ability to count on any of our allies in any meaningful fashion and yet the NYT can just write of 10% of our force projection capability as a change in the type of missions we will be doing for the foreseeable future. Well that's just it, we don't get to pick the missions we have to pull. The bad guys and other players have a say in that and they may not decide to have a nice little insurgency that calls for light COIN troops. We may need to roll tanks in Georgia if Putin decides to push the envelope, and just how the Hell do the smarty pants military experts at the Times think our troops will get to the combat zones and be protected absent a strong Navy and Air Force, are they gonna fly Southwest, and will all of their deployment bags fly free?
Twenty years after the cold war’s end, the Pentagon is addicted to hugely expensive weapons systems that are poorly suited to current and future military needs.
Really? According to whom? The current military need to dominate the skies seems fairly well-suited for the F-22, oh wait we killed that, I mean the F-35 even though it is not designed as an air superiority bird. But hey, owning the air space over our forces is obviously over-rated or the Times would not be treating it so cavalierly.
Eliminating the Marine Corps’ costly and accident-prone V-22 Osprey vertical take off and landing aircraft would save another $10 billion to $12 billion.
It has been more than a decade since it was even fair to call the Osprey accident prone, but again facts are not to get in the way of the Times' abiltiy to slash and burn and the Marines can swim or walk to wherever they need to go.
For too long America’s military spending decisions have been insulated from serious scrutiny or discipline.
So the $400 B that Gates cut already was not seriously scrutinized? BS. The Times doesn't give a rat's ass about our actual capabilities. They simply assume, like most of the left, that if we need to use force we will go to war with whatever military we have, not the military we want. And then they will write stories complaining that we deployed them without all the gear they need. Thanks to the New York Times editorial board for a useless and stunningly naive look at how not to operate one of the only legitimate core functions of our national government.com