The Army, Marines, and Air Force might be getting hammered with the new proposed Pentagon budget, but the Navy avoids the hammer. The Army will cut 80,000 men and the Marines 20,000; the Air Forces is proposing to cut seven squadrons. But the Navy? The U.S. fleet keeps its 11 aircraft carriers as well as its 10 air wings. About a third of the fleet of 22 cruisers — seven ships — will be decommissioned early. A number of shipbuilding programs or hulls will be pushed back, but not — apparently — killed. And there was no mention of reductions in any Navy aviation program.
All in all, as expected, no Navy program suffered a severe blow from the Pentagon’s 2013 budget-cutting ax.
Meanwhile one out of ever 7 Infantrymen is getting the boot. This, after fighting the massive balance of the last ten years of war, while the Navy did comparatively little.
Why? Oh, union contracts of course. You see, union workers build ships and airplanes, we can't fire them. Fire the grunts who do the fighting instead, and let them go back to 22 month deployments.
Of course we need the Navy strong for power projection. But if you look at the recent conflicts–Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Libya, the role of the Navy was relatively limited. It was the Army, Marines, and Air Force that did most of the heavy lifting. It’s great to be able to get somewhere, but what if you don’t have the resources to fight once you arrive?
You can keep a lot of soldiers in the armed services if you retire just one Navy aircraft carrier. A Nimitz aircraft carrier costs $4.5 billion to build, and it requires a mid-life overhaul of $2.3 billion and associated other costs. You basically need an armada of other ships to protect the carrier as well, so there are even more savings with cutting just one of the eleven battle groups. It’s time to give up a carrier. I’d rather give up one carrier and keep a bunch of grunts any day. The grunts have done 90% of the fighting the last ten years, so it only makes sense... unless you're trying to satisfy your union thug bosses that is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
John, your comments are correct, but the reality is that so many ground troops are required because our politicians want to use them as policemen and civil engineers.
With the technology and training available to U.S. troops, they could subdue any opposing force without requiring massive occupation forces. The purpose of warfare should be to cripple the fighting capability of an opponent, not nation building.
Hit them; leave. If they begin to be a problem again, hit them again... and leave. Deploying hundreds of thousands of men to engage small opposing forces is counterproductive... it makes them easy targets and wastes enormous resources.
Unfortunately, our politicians are so sensitive to media criticism that they want war to look like a political debate... testy, but playing by some "ethical" rules. If they don't like messy, don't start wars.
The reality of modern conflict is that of counter insurgency. No Army after the Gulf War will ever face the United States military in open conflict, ever again. It's suicide and they know it.
Therefore, the enemy will use tactics we have seen every day for the last ten years, which have proven effective. That being urban insurgency. This tactic negates a sizable -if not a majority- of our higher tech systems. You can't hit what you can't see because it has blended in with a civilian population. You have to root it out with Infantry. Lots of them. They have to go, stay, and hold ground. This takes a large, well trained and well equipped force of career professional soldiers doing civil engineering and police work. War quite frankly has gone back to the future.
The pbo administration does not plan to win any future wars. They will just surrender.
So, much for nation building, policing, and civil engineering.
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/taliban-ready-to-seize-power-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanPower+%28American+Power%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Looks like after the Taliban retake Afghanistan, the new military strategy of no boots on the ground will allow the Taliban to set themselves up as targets for remote bombing if they decide to operate near the U.S. again.
Putting our troops on the ground in the Middle East is useless. We are infidels whether we help them or not. If they truly threaten us, use the technology we have and don't think twice about it. Start by poisoning their poppy fields.
Aaron Childs sent me this way...interesting blog and I look forward to reading your POV about the military.
Afganistan was always a lost cause and I'm glad Obama is pulling out now. Now he needs the courage to cut off funding as well. Once Karzai said he was willing to encourage the Taliban to "come home" was the second we should have closed the check book and come home. Let the Afgans figure out how to pay for a 120,000 man national army...
Post a Comment