Obama, Now Biden, Guts the Military

[Ryan Ruck]

Hopes Fade for US Army Armed Aerial Scout

December 5, 2013

The US Army has been trying to build a new, light reconnaissance helicopter since 1982, when it kicked off the Light Helicopter Experimental (LHX) program to replace the Vietnam-era OH-58 Kiowa helicopter.

Nine years after the service began studying the problem of replacing the — even then — aging Kiowa fleet, the program took on new life when it was christened the Comanche, meandering along until 2004 when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finally canceled the faltering program after it chewed its way through about $7 billion worth of investments.

Almost a decade later, the Army is still looking to replace the Kiowa. And with budget cuts looming on the horizon with some hard procurement trade-offs to be made, it doesn’t look like a new bird is coming any time soon.

Several sources have told Defense News that there is talk among Army leadership about canceling the once-promising follow-on to the Comanche, the armed aerial scout (AAS), while mothballing the remaining OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopters filling the armed scout mission and using the service’s existing Apache helicopters to fill the armed scout role.

When asked about the potential of using the Apache in this role, a spokesperson for the Army Aviation office emailed that “from our standpoint, the Army is looking at all options with the entire Army strategy in mind. Army aviation is only a portion of that strategy. We will execute our project management duties and responsibilities in accordance with the guidance we receive.”

Other attempts to obtain comments from the Army about the armed aerial scout, Kiowa, or the Apache were unsuccessful.

Over the past several years it began to look hopeful that after 30 years of trying, the Army would be able to finally upgrade its aerial scout fleet.

Service leadership faced a choice: either begin a service-life extension program for the Bell Helicopter-made Kiowa or run a full and open competition to replace the aircraft with something new.

The defense industry jumped at the chance to build a new bird, and AgustaWestland, Boeing, EADS and Bell Helicopter began readying designs.

During the spring and summer of 2012, the Army conducted a series of what it called “fly-offs,” where Army leaders visited all of the competitors interested in bidding on the work to check in on their progress and their designs.

Initial reports from industry were that the generals liked what they saw, and initial developmental contract awards were expected by December 2012.

But after months of silence and a deepening sense that something was amiss, this May, Lt. Gen. William Phillips, the top acquisition adviser to the Army secretary, claimed that the results of the fly-offs were actually a huge disappointment to the Army.

“We didn’t find a single aircraft that was out there that could meet the Army’s requirements, so if we were to go forward with an armed aerial scout it would essentially be a development program,” he said.

After releasing its original request for information in 2010, the Army said it was looking at an average procurement unit cost of $13 million to $15 million for a new armed aerial scout. But developing a new helicopter with a fielding target of 2022 would cost $4.8 billion to $12.1 billion, contingent on requirements.

In contrast, the Army also said it was considering fielding modernized Kiowas in fiscal 2016 at a cost of $2.98 billion to $4.1 billion.

But budgets being what they are, and with no immediate wartime need for new scout helicopters as the Army shifts its mission in Afghanistan to an advise-and-assist role on its way out the door by December 2014, the need to save money might have altered the 30-year effort to buy a new armed scout helicopter yet again.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Nov. 7, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno explained what the billions in congressionally-mandated sequestration cuts would mean for the service’s acquisition programs.

The Army would have to end or delay over 100 acquisition programs, he said, telling the Senators bluntly that “in our aviation program, we cannot afford to procure a new armed aerial scout program and we will be forced to reduce the production and modernization of 25 helicopters.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Great, they're going to be pressing equipment into roles it wasn't designed for! Apaches and Black Hawks are much bigger birds that aren't nearly as maneuverable and suitable for scouting as the Kiowa.

Army Plans To Scrap Kiowa Helo Fleet

New Missions for Apaches, Black Hawks

December 9, 2013

Army leaders are considering scrapping its entire fleet of Bell Helicopter OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopters, while pulling the National Guard’s Boeing AH-64 Apaches into the active-duty force to fill the scout helicopter role as the Army seeks to fulfill its longer-term requirement of a newly developed armed aerial scout, according to several Army and defense industry sources.

The plan also calls for giving active Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard, while taking half of the Guard’s Lakota fleet, using them as active-duty trainers and scrapping its Jet Rangers.

While a final decision has yet to be made, the industry sources had the impression that the deal was all but done.

The deal would be done in the interest of cutting costs and reducing the number of different helicopter types in the Army, but questions remain about the affordability of using the Apache to fill the scout role. Army leadership had already rejected the idea in the early 1990s in favor of the now-canceled Comanche, and expressed doubts about it in a 2011 analysis of alternatives (AoA) document.

The December 2011 AoA for the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program — which until last year was envisioned as the eventual replacement for the Kiowa — concluded that fielding the AH-64D Block III to the service’s armed reconnaissance squadrons to replace the Kiowa would be “at least 50 percent more expensive than the currently programmed [recon squadrons].”

The Army also concluded that the AH-64 requires “significantly more maintenance personnel than the other mixes analyzed.”

What’s more, a study conducted by the Logistics Management Institute recently estimated that in recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, if the Army used an Apache in the Kiowa scout role, it would have cost an additional $4 billion in fuel, maintenance and operating costs.

Still, “the Army is in a difficult position,” one defense industry source said. The Armed Aerial Scout AoA “said that the most affordable and capable option was Kiowa linked with the Shadow UAV. But the AoA also said that the most capable immediate solution is an Apache, so there’s two sides of this argument. So the Army really is making decisions around cost.”

“This is a budget-driven plan,” said Col. Frank Tate, the Army’s chief of aviation force development. “We are in a fiscally constrained environment, which requires us to make hard choices, but we need to also make smart choices. In developing this plan, everything was on the table.”

Tate added that “if we go with the overall plan, it would save approximately $1 billion a year in direct operating and sustainment cost. However, that does not take into account the savings in the out-years by divesting the OH-58Ds, OH-58A/Cs and TH-67s [trainers] from the Army aviation fleet.”

Once the Army divests itself of its 338 active-duty and 30 National Guard Kiowas and pulls Apaches from the National Guard, the service will then provide the Guard with Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters in order to give the Guard more capability as it conducts its homeland defense and disaster response missions.

The Army has 570 Apaches, while the Guard has 192 and the Army Reserve has 48, according to information provided by the service.

The goal is to have a total of 690 AH-64E Apaches in the Army, officials said, while the Guard and reserve will have no Apaches of any model.

The Guard is also expected to gain 111 Black Hawks from the active duty, while the reserve will receive 48, and the end-state calls for 1,033 Black Hawk helicopters in the active Army, 960 in the Guard and 142 in the reserve.

But the plan isn’t sitting so well with everyone in the Guard.

Col. Tim Marsano, spokesman for the Idaho National Guard, wrote in an email that “losing the Apaches would entail a significant loss of manning, combat capability and a long tradition of combat aviation in the Idaho Army National Guard. We would like to keep this mission.”

Part of the plan also entails retiring the active-duty Bell TH-67 Jet Ranger training helicopters being used at Fort Rucker, Ala., and moving about 100 EADS UH-72 Lakotas from the active Army and 104 of the Guard’s 212 Lakotas to Alabama for this purpose.

The proposed plan gives the Army some flexibility in determining what it can cut and how it can maintain critical aviation capability, Tate said.

The plan “streamlines the fleet by divesting older model airframes,” he added. This will “result in substantial savings over time. Our other option is to just eliminate force structure, which would require us to divest some of our aircraft that we want to keep and result in reduced capability.”

Decades of Trying

The Army has been trying to build a new light reconnaissance helicopter since 1982, when it kicked off the Light Helicopter Experimental program to replace the Vietnam-era Kiowa.

Eventually christened the Comanche in the early 1990s, the program never really found its footing in the halls of the Pentagon, leading then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to finally kill it off in 2004 after it had burned through about $7 billion worth of investments.

Over the past several years it began to look hopeful that after 30 years of trying, the Army would be able to finally upgrade its aerial scout fleet. In 2010, the defense industry jumped at the chance to build a new bird, and AgustaWestland, Boeing, EADS and Bell Helicopter began readying designs for the new armed aerial scout.

During the spring and summer of 2012, the Army conducted a series of what it called “fly-offs,” where Army leaders visited all of the competitors interested in bidding on the work to check in on their progress and their designs.

Nothing much came from the meetings, and by May 2012, Lt. Gen. William Phillips, the top acquisition adviser to the Army secretary, claimed that the results of the industry visits were a disappointment.

“We didn’t find a single aircraft that was out there that could meet the Army’s requirements, so if we were to go forward with an armed aerial scout it would essentially be a development program,” he said.

Asked if the Army has communicated to industry its plans for future development of the AAS requirement, one industry source said that “to my knowledge, we’re nowhere close to that. Sequester hit and the budget drills hit, and there’s been no communication outside of the Army on what their plans for an armed aerial scout may be.”

After releasing its original request for information in 2010, the Army said it was looking at an average procurement unit cost of $13 million to $15 million for a new armed aerial scout. But developing a new helicopter with a fielding target of 2022 would cost about $12 million, contingent on requirements.

That investment spread out over several years “would at least get you to the point where you have actionable data” about what capabilities are viable, one industry source said.

“To move to the Apache in the absence of that information takes options away from the Army that they would ordinarily have,” the source added.

There remains the question of what the Army will do with the more than 300 Kiowa aircraft that it is divesting.

A priority will be put on any needs that the other services may have first, said Col. Jong Lee, of the service’s acquisition, logistics, and technology directorate, followed by the Civil Air Patrol, law enforcement, and then foreign military sales.

Although the Kiowa program kicked off in 1969, the Kiowa Warriors being used today were built from 1985 onward. The entire fleet has been completely reset and remachined over the past decade, with the upgrade program ending in 2011.

[American Patriot]

Hey, I see a bright side to this one.

We can buy one.

I know a couple chopper pilots. lol

Also, they can't use them against US.

[Ryan Ruck]

More from Admiral Locklear besides China's progress on SSBNs...

Pacific Commander: U.S. Lacks Ability To Conduct Successful Amphibious Assaults

March 25, 2014

The head of U.S. Pacific Command believes America does not possess the capacity to conduct amphibious assaults in the wake of a crisis, as it did during World War II.

Adm. Samuel Locklear III, commander of U.S. Pacific Command gave his assessment of the deficiency in readiness on Tuesday, Stars and Stripes reported.

“We have had a good return of our Marines back to the Asia-Pacific, particularly as the activities in the Middle East wind down in Afghanistan. … But the reality is, is that to get Marines around effectively, they require all types of lift. They require the big amphibious ships, but they also require connectors (meaning landing craft and other amphibious vehicles). The lift is the enabler that makes that happen, so we wouldn’t be able to [successfully carry out a contested amphibious assault without additional resources],” Adm. Locklear said, Stars and Stripes reported.

The admiral’s comments come only weeks after Capt. James Fannell, the chief of intelligence of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said that he believes China is training for war with Japan.

“[We] concluded that the PLA has been given the new task to be able to conduct a short sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea following with what can only be expected a seizure of the Senkakus or even a southern Ryukyu [islands] — as some of their academics say,” the captain said in February after witnessing “massive” Chinese military exercises in the Pacific.

During the congressional hearing on Tuesday, Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the commander of U.N. and U.S. forces in Korea, also questioned whether U.S. forces would be able to quickly counter a sudden large-scale offensive by North Korea, Stars and Stripes reported.

“I am concerned about the readiness of the follow-on forces in our theater,” Gen. Scaparrotti said. “Given the indications and warnings and the nature of this theater and the threat that we face, I rely on rapid and ready forces to flow into the peninsula in crisis.”

[American Patriot]

He "believes"?

Given the cuts, the lack of training, and the lack of equipment - there's nothing to believe, it's a fact.

[American Patriot]

“[We] concluded that the PLA has been given the new task to be able to conduct a short sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea following with what can only be expected a seizure of the Senkakus or even a southern Ryukyu [islands] — as some of their academics say,” the captain said in February after witnessing “massive” Chinese military exercises in the Pacific.

THIS is what we've been saying all along. China wants to ruin Japan, quickly. Then on to Taiwan, and America.

[Ryan Ruck]

I know this article is a couple months old but I don't think it was posted...

Warning Sounded on Cuts to Pilot Training

Air Force Responds to Cost Concerns by Reducing Flight Hours to 120 Hours or Less, Fewer Than Those of Allies—and China

December 19, 2014

A decision by Air Force officials to reduce flying time in order to cut costs has meant many U.S. pilots now receive fewer training hours than counterparts among some European allies, India and even China, according to U.S. military officials.

The training cutbacks, ordered as part of a government budget squeeze, are giving rise to concerns about the preparedness of fighter squadrons in some areas, notably South Korea, where tensions with North Korea remain high.

U.S. pilots in South Korea flew only 120 training hours this year, Air Force officials said, and pilots in the U.S. flew on average even fewer hours—far less than a generation ago, when officers logged up to 300 hours yearly.

According to U.S. intelligence assessments, Chinese pilots receive as many as 150 hours of training a year, officials said.

U.S. officials noted China is investing heavily in pilot training and developing a new stealth fighter. "They are making a concerted effort to increase the quantity and quality of their training while we are doing the opposite," said one official. A Chinese embassy representative in Washington didn't respond to a request for comment.

In addition to training cutbacks, the Air Force last year temporarily closed its elite training center in Nevada, the Weapons School, and canceled its top training exercise, known as Red Flag, meant to improve pilots' combat-survivability skills.

The Air Force had planned to spend $4.7 billion this fiscal year on training, but budget cutbacks trimmed that by $434 million.

Some liberals and deficit hawks in Congress argue that Pentagon spending should be curbed even more. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) noted Thursday that the U.S. spends as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.

Military officials counter that spending cuts in the past two years have led to a decline in "readiness"—a euphemism for the likelihood service members can survive a fight and overpower U.S. enemies.

Independent defense analysts said the budget dynamics of recent years have forced many short-term Pentagon fixes—such as grounding planes and cutting flying time—instead of long-term or permanent changes such as reducing the force, closing bases or retiring older planes.

"The strength of the Department of Defense is to think beyond today," said David Berteau, a defense analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. But he said the budget dynamic has inhibited the ability to do that. "The question is do you maintain more airplanes and airmen or do you have a smaller force but a more ready one?" he said. "That is the core trade off; it is capability vs. capacity."

The budget bill cleared Wednesday by the Senate will allow the Air Force to restore some flying hours. But many of the cuts will continue. "Readiness and training problems will persist because the top line is coming down," said Raymond Conley, a defense analyst at Rand Corp., a think tank that does research for the government.

Many lawmakers oppose solutions such as closing bases or retiring older airplanes. "Once you retire a whole air platform, it's not like you can press a button and bring them out of mothballs," said Rep. Rob Wittman (R., Va.), chairman of the readiness subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. "The whole idea of this nation's strategy needs to be driven by where the threats exist, not budgets."

Air Force officials warn that the reductions could have national security implications. "Our training system is still the best in the world," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Burton M. Field, the service's deputy chief of staff for operations. But funding cuts are putting that at risk, he said. "Are we there yet? I don't think so. But I do know we are at a place where we have a lot of squadrons that aren't ready to go to the Korea fight."

The Air Force's budget squeeze is compounded by the bills it faces to modernize its force. To offset purchases and restore training, officials are considering the elimination its KC-10 refueling tankers, A-10 ground attack planes, and MQ-1 Predator drones. But those cuts are unpopular with some lawmakers, who appear likely to block them, officials said.

The training cutbacks have fallen heaviest on younger, more inexperienced pilots. Experienced pilots resumed flying first because they have responsibility for training junior officers. As a result, it takes longer for young pilots to move from wingman to flight lead to instructor pilot, according to the Air Force.

"You know the game chutes and ladders? What we are finding right now is the chutes are longer than the ladders," said Lt. Col Brian Stahl, a F-16 pilot. "We need to get the younger pilots back flying more, and that is what we are having difficulty doing right now."

Air Force officials worry that basic skills have grown rusty. "When pilots don't fly, they make mistakes," Gen. Field said. "In a high-threat environment is when mistakes become deadly."

[American Patriot]

Former Air Force captain sounds alarm on crisis in U.S. military

Posted on June 30, 2014 by StMA | 3 Comments
Michelle Zook served five years in the U.S. Air Force as an Air Battle Manager, attaining the rank of captain.


Below is her op-ed, “Major Crises? Huge Shifts in Military Culture Raise Concerns,” in Clash Daily, June 25, 2014:


As potential foreign policy crises plays out in headline after headline in the United States, there’s an even bigger crisis brewing within the nation’s military. Veterans and military personnel are losing faith in the VA, in military leadership, and in civilian leadership. The military as a whole is experiencing a vast cultural shift—some of it brought on by the ops tempo of the last decade—and many service members feel their pay and benefits are constantly under siege by a Congress (and leadership) constantly eyeing ways to balance the budget without angering more important constituencies or giving up pet projects.


Nowhere has this cultural shift been more apparent—or more troubling—than within an Air Force already experiencing increased scrutiny over sexual harassment and personnel issues. Each military branch possesses its own unique culture, brought about through history and a specific mission set. The Air Force relies more than the others on recruiting high quality personnel and then retaining as many of them as possible throughout a twenty-year career. Its mission inherently demands highly-skilled technicians in sometimes difficult to train career fields, where it would be a poor investment to train someone and then lose them a year (or even five years) later.

Because of this, commanders and senior enlisted made it a point to mentor and foster leadership at all levels, and maintain an open relationship throughout the squadron. No one had to tell them to care for their airmen—and, by extension, their airmen’s families—it just happened, because they knew retaining good people made for a better Air Force. It used to not be out of character for a commander to let their airmen know if they were making a decision that would have a fundamental impact on their lives, whether personally, or just a cursory heads up via executive officer or section commander. Commanders wanted personnel to feel invested and involved within the squadron, not just a necessary means to an end, and to this end, they worked to make sure it happened (I will caveat my criticism here by saying that not all commanders have stopped doing this; this is just to say that many have stopped encouraging it or doing so).


Depending on what career field and who you talk to, you’ll get a different answer on when this cultural shift occurred, when the Air Force decided to wake up one morning and that things were going to fundamentally change. Some will, of course, say it happened in 2001, after 9/11. Others will say it took until Air Force personnel began heavily deploying on ILO (in lieu of) taskings, supporting the Army, and many career fields completely went off track of their AEF [Air and Space Expeditionary Force] bands, while others still seem to operate in a pre-9/11 environment. Some will say it happened when the sexual harassment/assault scandals began seeing the light of day after the USAFA sexual assault allegations in 2003. Others will say 2008. Then, of course, there are the Lackland issues of more recent memory.


Regardless, a shift did happen. In the last year, incident after incident has been compiled—and not all of it is (as some would assume) gratuitous whining. The Air Force has taken a black eye with the FY2014 RIF [Reduction in Force] programs—and as members’ separation dates continue to arbitrarily change due to AFPC’s [Air Force Personnel Center] failure to manage the program appropriately despite [USAF Chief of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Welsh’s stated intent, the hits will keep coming. The release of AFI [Air Force Instruction] 1-2 has caused much eye-rolling, but it has also forced many to wonder what is fundamentally wrong with our Air Force if we have to put down on paper what should be common sense.


The issues at Lackland—whether the aftermath of the sexual assault scandals there or the curious case of former squadron commander Lt. Col. Craig Perry—have further done their damage. There are so many rumors of collective punishments for individual actions that noted Air Force blogger John Q. Public has put out a call for more info so it can be determined if these are isolated incidents or if a pattern is developing (whether or not this is common practice in other branches isn’t the question—this is atypical of Air Force culture, which is why this is noteworthy).


There are many who will say that this is the military, and this is military culture, so what difference does it make? After all, it’s a volunteer military, and if you don’t like it, then you just leave, right? Ignoring the common misconception that once you’re in the military you can just leave (active duty service commitment, anyone?), there’s a bigger problem with this, and that is as we continue to drawdown and lose valuable personnel, we are losing valuable mentors and experience along the way without bothering to ask why.


Secondly, by dismissing it, we fail to see it as a learning point or explore why, precisely, the culture is changing so drastically. It is the utmost in intellectual laziness to shortcut to a blame Obama theme; many of those who have created this environment accessed in the Reagan/Bush 41 years and came up through the ranks during Clinton and Bush 43. That means they were fostered and mentored by those who came through the ranks in the 1970s and 1980s, indicating that this has either been a systemic, underlying problem all along, or that something else has caused a fundamental breakdown in leadership in the last decade. If our Air Force can be so sorely tested to this point by Afghanistan and Iraq, to the point that a toxic environment has possibly been created, what would happen in a protracted war with a major superpower?


Military culture is important to all Americans, regardless of whether or not they have served, because a toxic environment and distrust in leadership creates an inherent weakness in American force projection. It weakens American foreign policy. At a time when Russia is potentially resurging and the Middle East is about to go up in flames, can America really afford to risk that?

[Ryan Ruck]

The hits just keep coming...

Pentagon Gives Pink Slips To Thousands Of Soldiers, Including Active-Duty Officers

July 13, 2014

The Pentagon is laying off thousands of military officers, including those serving or who have recently served in Afghanistan.

Defense Department officials said the reductions are the result of mandatory spending cuts imposed by sequestration and are part of their larger plan to reduce the number of U.S. soldiers from 520,000 to 450,000.

Roughly 2,600 captains and other officers have or will be laid off, with more expected, Fox News learned Friday.

The decision to send pink slips to soldiers overseas on active duty is dangerous and bad for morale, says retired Major Gen. Robert Scales.

“It puts the soldier, the soldier’s family and the men under his command at risk,” said Scales, a Fox News contributor. “Young officers look at each other and wonder who is next.”

He said the Pentagon made a similar move after the Vietnam War.

The Army said the draw-down plan “is a balanced approach that maintains readiness while trying to minimize turbulence within the officer corps.”

On Thursday, Gen. John Campbell told Congress that 1,100 soldiers, including some currently serving in Afghanistan, would receiving pink slips due to sequestration budget cuts to the Defense Department.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in response: “Once again [President Obama] is putting domestic politics ahead of the security of our nation. The Army captains and majors receiving pink slips while on the battlefield is just the latest example.

"My heart goes out to these men and women who are risking their lives and making great sacrifices, yet are now being told they are being separated from the Army and will have no job when they return home to their families.”

Good thing Bowe Bergdahl is back to work.

[American Patriot]

We are getting hit pretty hard here. Peterson AFB, Space Command is being cut by something like 40%. Not sure if my base is getting whacked too.

[vector7]

Obama military downsizing leaves U.S. too weak to counter global threats, panel finds

1569
Size: + / -
Print
| Reprints


President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visit Fort Stewart. (White House photo)

By Rowan Scarborough

-
The Washington Times
Thursday, July 31, 2014

An independent panel appointed by the Pentagon and Congress said Thursday that President Obama’s strategy for sizing the armed services is too weak for today’s global threats.

The National Defense Panel called on the president to dump a major section of his 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and write a broader strategy that requires the military to fight on multiple fronts at once.

It also said the shrinking U.S. armed forces, which are being downsized to fit that strategy and budget cuts, is a “serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States.” The forces’ numbers spelled out in Mr. Obama’s QDR are “inadequate given the future strategic and operational environment.”

The warning comes as Mr. Obama is under criticism from many Republicans and some Democrats for his standoff policy toward Syria and his limited response to a June offensive by an al Qaeda offshoot that has gobbled up swaths of territory in Iraq.

Congress authorized the panel of outside experts to review the QDR, a strategy for shaping the active and reserve force. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel appointed the co-chairmen: former Defense Secretary William Perry, who served under President Bill Clinton, and retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, who ran U.S. Central Command during the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

The panel’s report said the past several years of budget cuts and mandated reduction in personnel and weapons have stirred deep unease among allies who would count on the U.S. in a crisis.

“Not only have they caused significant investment shortfalls in U.S. military readiness and both present and future capabilities, they have prompted our current and potential allies and adversaries to question our commitment and resolve,” the report said. “Unless reversed, these shortfalls will lead to a high-risk force in the near future. That in turn will lead to an America that is not only less secure but also far less prosperous. In this sense, these cuts are ultimately self-defeating.”

It calls the defense cuts “dangerous” as “global threats and challenges are rising.” The experts point to China’s and Russia’s new territorial claims, nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea and al Qaeda’s rapid rise in Iraq.

The panel knocks Mr. Obama’s QDR for reducing the military’s global mission from being able to defeat two enemies nearly simultaneously to defeating one and denying the objectives of a second. The report calls on Mr. Obama to expand this overriding mission statement.

“The international security environment has deteriorated since then,” the report said of the QDR, which was released earlier this year. “In the current threat environment, America could plausibly be called upon to deter or fight in any number of regions in overlapping time frames.”

Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the independent review shows the QDR was more concerned with justifying budget cuts than meeting global security needs.

“It is the same conclusion many Americans have already reached,” Mr. McKeon said. “There is a cost when America does not lead, and there are consequences when America disengages. What the president fails to understand — which the report points out — is that a strong military underwrites all other tools our nation has for global influence.”

On the two-war requirement, the panel said: “We find the logic of the two-war construct to be as powerful as ever and note that the force sizing construct in the 2014 QDR strives to stay within the two-war tradition while using different language. But given the worsening threat environment, we believe a more expansive force sizing construct — one that is different from the two-war construct but no less strong — is appropriate.”

It proposes a new overriding strategy requirement that talks of taking on and stopping adversaries in multiple theaters of war.

The experts said both the Navy and the Air Force are too small.

“The Air Force now fields the smallest and oldest force of combat aircraft in its history yet needs a global surveillance and strike force able to rapidly deploy to theaters of operation to deter, defeat or punish multiple aggressors simultaneously,” the review group said.

Cuts in the numbers of Army soldiers “go too far,” the panel said.

The panel included national security experts who were in the Pentagon when some of the Obama administration budget decisions were being made. They include retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright, former Joint Chiefs vice chairman, and Michele Flournoy, who served as under secretary of defense for policy until 2012.

[American Patriot]

This asshole you mentioned stood there for an HOUR... basically fishing for a "Happy Birthday" from the media.

If someone doesn't think this assclown isn't an egotistical megalomaniac then their heads are also firmly planted up their asses.

[Ryan Ruck]

Army To Force Out 550 Majors; Some In Afghanistan

August 2, 2014

About 550 Army majors, including some serving in Afghanistan, will soon be told they have to leave the service by next spring as part of a budget-driven downsizing of the service.

Gen. John Campbell, the vice chief of the Army, acknowledged Friday that telling troops in a war zone that they're out of a job is a difficult task. But he said some of the soldiers could join the National Guard or the Army Reserve.

The decision to cut Army majors comes on the heels of a move to slash nearly 1,200 captains from the ranks. Army leaders were criticized at the time for giving 48 of them the bad news while they were deployed to Afghanistan.

The Army declined to say how many majors will be notified while they are at the battlefront.

"The ones that are deployed are certainly the hardest," Campbell told reporters. "What we try to do there is, working through the chain of command, minimize the impact to that unit and then maximize the time to provide to that officer to come back and do the proper transition, to take care of himself or herself, and the family."

Campbell said it's difficult to avoid cutting deployed soldiers because of the timing schedules.

All the soldiers being forced to leave have probably already been given a heads-up that they were at risk of the job cut and will meet with a senior officer, according to the Army.

Those who are cut have nine months to leave the Army. And the soldiers who are deployed, including those in Afghanistan, will generally have about a month to move out of that job and go home to begin to transition out of the service.

The cuts have been difficult for many young officers, particularly captains, who tend not to have enough years in service to retire.

To make the cuts, the Army looked at about 8,500 majors who joined the service between 1999 and 2003. Some may have about 15 years of service, depending on all factors that go into credit for years of service, and might be able to retire, but many won't have enough time in the job, Campbell said

Guard and reserve leaders are looking for officers, especially captains, so there could be opportunities for the soldiers to continue to serve, he said.

After 13 years of war that forced a significant and rapid build-up of the Army to about 570,000, the military now has to reduce its combat forces to meet budget cuts.

The Army has close to 514,000 soldiers now, but will have to be down to 510,000 by October, shrink to 490,000 by October 2015 and be down to 450,000 by 2019. In addition, if Congress doesn't act to prevent automatic budget cuts from resuming, the Army may eventually have to get down to 420,000 — a size that that leaders say may not allow them to wage even one major, prolonged military campaign.

The Army tried to avoid some cuts by slowing enlistments and using attrition and some voluntary separations. It also has been combing through files looking for soldiers with disciplinary or other problems in their annual evaluations to weed out lower-performing officers first, officials said.

[vector7]

America: Unprepared for War

August 7, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert 32 Comments



A bipartisan critique of the Obama administration’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) by the National Defense Panel is a devastating takedown of the administration’s determination to reduce America’s military to pre-WWII levels. “Since World War II, no matter which party has controlled the White House or Congress, America’s global military capability and commitment has been the strategic foundation undergirding our global leadership,” the report states. “Given that reality, the defense budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, coupled with the additional cuts and constraints on defense management under the law’s sequestration provision, constitute a serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States.”

The report emphasizes the myriad number of threats of which most Americans are well aware, including “a troubling pattern of assertiveness and regional intimidation on China’s part, the recent aggression of Russia in Ukraine, nuclear proliferation on the part of North Korea and Iran, a serious insurgency in Iraq that both reflects and fuels the broader sectarian conflicts in the region, the civil war in Syria, and civil strife in the larger Middle East and throughout Africa.”

Other threats include the “rapidly expanding availability of lethal technologies to both state and non-state actors; demographic shifts including increasing urbanization; diffusion of power among many nations, particularly rising economic and military powers in Asia; and heated competition to secure access to scarce natural resources.”

It further noted that the shrinkage of U.S. forces, resulting from the severe budget cuts imposed on our fighting forces constitutes a “serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States,” and that force levels in the president’s QDR are “inadequate given the future strategic and operational environment.”

The panel was also critical of the president’s reduction of the nation’s global mission has long enabled the military to fight two wars simultaneously, to one where we are capable of defeating one enemy while keeping another one in check. “We find the logic of the two-war construct to be as powerful as ever and note that the force sizing construct in the 2014 QDR strives to stay within the two-war tradition while using different language. But given the worsening threat environment, we believe a more expansive force sizing construct — one that is different from the two-war construct but no less strong — is appropriate,” the report stated. It called on Obama to expand his current mission statement—one driven far more by budget concerns than global threats.

Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) addressed the misplaced priorities. “It is the same conclusion many Americans have already reached,” he said. “There is a cost when America does not lead, and there are consequences when America disengages. What the president fails to understand — which the report points out — is that a strong military underwrites all other tools our nation has for global influence.”

The report, which concludes that the “Navy and Air Force should be larger,” reveals that we are moving in the opposite direction. It explains that the Navy is “on a budgetary path to 260 ships or less,” giving them far fewer ships than 323 to 346 previously recommended. The report further notes that an even larger fleet could be necessary “if the risk of conflict in the Western Pacific if increases.”

An even grimmer picture of the Air Force emerges, with the report explaining that it is currently fielding the “smallest and oldest force in its history,” despite the need to project a “global surveillance and strike force able to rapidly deploy to theaters of operation to deter, defeat or punish multiple aggressors simultaneously.”

The panel understands the fiscal challenges facing the government, but states that attempting to solve those problems on the backs of the military is not only “too risky,” but “won’t work.” “America must get her fiscal house in order while simultaneously funding robust military spending,” the panel concludes. In a shot across the administration’s bow, the panel explains that health care spending in the military and overall is “stunning wasteful,” consuming “more than a third of the federal budget.”

It’s actually worse than that, if one includes benefits and entitlements, driven primarily by “non-means tested government programs,” defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as those that provide benefits to Americans regardless of their income levels. In 2013, the federal government paid out more than $2 trillion in such programs, which consumed 58.1 percent of the $3.4 trillion in total federal outlays. In the first eleven months of FY2013 the federal government received a record-setting $2.4 trillion in revenue, yet still ran a deficit of $755 billion. This year revenues are expected to top $3 trillion, but the deficit is still projected to be $648 billion.

Clearly something has to give. Unfortunately as far as the Obama administration is concerned, the welfare state, rather than the military that makes it possible, takes precedence.

In fact, the administration has recently put the pedal further to the metal. At the beginning of the month, the Army announced it will downsize the number of majors by 550, including some still serving in combat operations in Afghanistan. This move follows another recent effort to slash 1,200 captains from the force as well. “The ones that are deployed are certainly the hardest,” Gen. John Campbell, the vice chief of the Army told reporters. “What we try to do there is, working through the chain of command, minimize the impact to that unit and then maximize the time to provide to that officer to come back and do the proper transition, to take care of himself or herself, and the family.”

The cuts are being made among majors who joined the service between 1999 and 2003, and while some will have enough time on the job to retire, many won’t. The effort is all part of the aforementioned move by the Obama administration to reduce the size of the military from its current level of 514,000 soldiers to 490,000 by October 2015, and 450,000 by 2019. Automatic budget cuts currently in place could ultimately reduce the number of soldiers to 420,000— a number leaders contend would leave the nation incapable of fighting even one sustained military conflict.

None of this was lost on the panel. Writing for National Review, House and Senate Armed Services Committee member, Rep. Jim Talent (R-MO), who was part of the panel, explains that while there were the “usual arguments over specific wording and programmatic recommendations…the broad conclusions were easy to reach. In fact, they were obvious to anyone with eyes to see the rapid deterioration of our armed forces and the worsening global threats that became manifestly more dangerous even during the months the panel was deliberating.”

He then gets to the heart of the matter. Citing our “rudderless and sometimes unreal foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East,” he further explains that the problem “isn’t just an Administration that acts as if America is weak. The problem is also that America is weak, and becoming weaker, relative to the threats posed by its adversaries – which is the only measurement of military power that really matters.” This leads Talent to a stark conclusion. “The world will get a lot messier until that changes,” he warns. It is a warning the Obama administration ignores at its peril—and that of the entire nation.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arn...pared-for-war/

[American Patriot]

This man is an assclown.

See if you can figure out which one I am talking about....

[Brian Baldwin]

Brother-in-law showed this to me the other day.

[American Patriot]

List Of Military Elite Purged And Fired Under Obama

Compiled By General Paul Vallely
3-17-14


Here is the list of our military elite who have been purged or fired under Obama:

Commanding Generals fired:


· General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
· Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)
· Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)
· Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)
· Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
· Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)
· General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)
· Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)
· Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)
· General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)
· Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico's Security Battalion (Oct 2013)
· General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)
· General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)
· General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)
· Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)
· Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)
· Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)
· Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

Commanding Admirals fired:
· Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)
· Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011)
· Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)
· Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)
· Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
· Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)
· Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)
· Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)
· Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)
· Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)
· Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)
· Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)
· Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)
· Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego
(Apr 2011)
· Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific
(Mar 2011)
· Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
· Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)
· Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)
· Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)
· Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota, U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011)
· Commander Timothy Murphy-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011)
· Commander Joseph Nosse-U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011)
· Commander Mark Olson-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011)
· Commander John Pethel-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011)
· Commander Karl Pugh-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011)
· Commander Jason Strength-U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011)
· Captain Greg Thomas-U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011)
· Commander Mike Varney-U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011)
· Commander Jay Wylie-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2012):
· Commander Alan C. Aber-Executive Officer Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 (July 2012)
· Commander Derick Armstrong- U.S. Navy Commander missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (May 2012)
· Commander Martin Arriola- U.S. Navy Commander destroyer USS Porter (Aug 2012)
· Captain Antonio Cardoso- U.S. Navy Commander Training Support Center San Diego (Sep 2012)
· Captain James CoBell- U.S. Navy Commander Oceana Naval Air Station's Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic (Sep 2012)
· Captain Joseph E. Darlak- U.S. Navy Commander frigate USS Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
· Captain Daniel Dusek-U.S. Navy Commander USS Bonhomme
· Commander David Faught-Executive Officer destroyer Chung-Hoon (Sep 2012)
· Commander Franklin Fernandez- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24 (Aug 2012)
· Commander Ray Hartman- U.S. Navy Commander Amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry (Nov 2012)
· Commander Shelly Hakspiel-Executive Officer Navy Drug Screening Lab San Diego (May 2012)
· Commander Jon Haydel- U.S. Navy Commander USS San Diego (Mar 2012)
· Commander Diego Hernandez- U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (Feb 2012)
· Commander Lee Hoey- U.S. Navy Commander Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego (May 2012)
· Commander Ivan Jimenez-Executive Officer frigate Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
· Commander Dennis Klein- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Columbia (May 2012)
· Captain Chuck Litchfield- U.S. Navy Commander assault ship USS Essex (Jun 2012)
· Captain Marcia Kim Lyons- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic New England (Apr 2012)
· Captain Robert Marin- U.S. Navy Commander cruiser USS Cowpens (Feb 2012)
· Captain Sean McDonell- U.S. Navy Commander Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 FL (Nov 2012)
· Commander Corrine Parker- U.S. Navy Commander Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1 (Apr 2012)
· Captain Liza Raimondo- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, MD (Jun 2012)
· Captain Jeffrey Riedel- Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program (Jan 2012)
· Commander Sara Santoski- U.S. Navy Commander Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (Sep 2012)
· Commander Kyle G. Strudthoff-Executive Officer Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 25 (Sep 2012)
· Commander Sheryl Tannahill- U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Nashville, TN (Sep 2012)
· Commander Michael Ward- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Pittsburgh (Aug 2012)
· Captain Michael Wiegand- U.S. Navy Commander Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (Nov 2012)
· Captain Ted Williams- U.S. Navy Commander amphibious command ship Mount Whitney (Nov 2012)
· Commander Jeffrey Wissel- U.S. Navy Commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (Feb 2012)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2013):
· Lieutenant Commander Lauren Allen-Executive Officer submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
· Reserve Captain Jay Bowman-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Fort Dix, NJ (Mar 2013)
· Captain William Cogar-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Mercy's medical treatment facility (Sept 2013)
· Commander Steve Fuller-Executive Officer frigate Kauffman (Mar 2013)
· Captain Shawn Hendricks-Program Manager for naval enterprise IT networks (June 2013)
· Captain David Hunter-U.S. Navy Commander of Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 12 & Coastal Riverine Group 2 (Feb 2013)
· Captain Eric Johnson-U.S. Navy Chief of Military Entrance Processing Command at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, IL (2013)
· Captain Devon Jones-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Air Facility El Centro, CA (July 2013)
· Captain Kevin Knoop-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Comfort's medical treatment facility (Aug 2013)
· Lieutenant Commander Jack O'Neill-U.S. Navy Commander Operational Support Center Rock Island, IL (Mar 2013)
· Commander Allen Maestas-Executive Officer Beachmaster Unit 1 (May 2013)
· Commander Luis Molina-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Pasadena (Jan 2013)
· Commander James Pickens-Executive Officer frigate Gary (Feb 2013)
· Lieutenant Commander Mark Rice-U.S. Navy Commander Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
· Commander Michael Runkle-U.S. Navy Commander of Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 (May 2013)
· Commander Jason Stapleton-Executive Office Patrol Squadron 4 in Hawaii (Mar 2013)
· Commander Nathan Sukols-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
· Lieutenant Daniel Tyler-Executive Officer Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
· Commander Edward White-U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (Aug 2013)
· Captain Jeffrey Winter-U.S. Navy Commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 (Sept 2013)
· Commander Thomas Winter-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Montpelier (Jan 2013)
· Commander Corey Wofford- U.S. Navy Commander frigate Kauffman (Feb 2013)


Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented.Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the 'purg' of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place. As you will see below, dozens of highly decorated military leaders have been dismissed from their positions over the past few years. So why is this happening? What is going on right now is absolutely crazy especially during a time of peace. Is there a deliberate attempt to reshape the military and remove those who don't adhere to the proper 'viewpoints' ? Does someone out there feel a need to get officers that won't cooperate out of the way?

Throughout world history, whatever comes next after a military purge is never good.

If this continues, what is the U.S. military going to look like in a few years?

Perhaps you are reading this and you think that 'purge' is too strong a word for what is taking place. Well, justconsider the following quotes from some very highly decorated retired officers:

-Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely:The White House protects their own.That's why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare.He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.

-Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.

-Retired Army Lt. General William G. Jerry Boykin:Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.

-Retired Navy Captain Joseph John:I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views.

A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job just keep your mouth shut. Now this trend appears to be accelerating.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...e-u-s-military

General Vallely's comment:

Absolutely every communist regime on the planet did this as soon as they got in power. I am surprised this communist traitor with his feet up on our furniture in the white house hasn't done this until now!


SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? I am doing my part. How about forwarding this.

Paul


(General Paul Vallely)

[American Patriot]

Obama administration has waged its own war on America’s capacity to meet the needs of our national security Decapitating the U.S. Military


By Alan Caruba August 27, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |


Many Americans were shocked by the Islamic State video of the beheading of the photo journalist James Foley. Perhaps they had already forgotten the decapitation of Wall Street Journal journalist, Daniel Pearl in 2002. Most certainly, the memory of the murder of nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001, with the destruction of the World Trade Towers has begun to recede.

What most do not know is that decapitation is a requirement in the Islamic holy war and holy book, the Koran.


“So when you meet in Jihad in Allah’s cause those who disbelieve, smite their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…” (Surat 47, al-Qital—the Killing—, Ayat 4.


“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite them over all their fingers and toes.” – Surat al-Anfel (The Spoils), Ayat/Verse 12.)


If I were a jihadist who wanted to undermine the capacity of the United States of America to both defend itself and/or to wage war on those who regard us as their enemy, I would welcome what is currently occurring to weaken our military. It is exactly what President Obama and a compliant Congress has been doing for some time now.


In the name of the “sequester”, an across-the-board reduction in federal spending, the military has suffered the most despite being the single key factor to defend the nation and to project our power to protect our allies.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing’s defense unit, and Northrop Grumman, have eliminated 70,000 jobs since 2008 through layoffs, buyouts, attrition

An August 26 article in Politico reported that the five leading U.S. defense firms, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing’s defense unit, and Northrop Grumman, have eliminated 70,000 jobs since 2008 through layoffs, buyouts, attrition, or, as Boeing did, moving employees to the commercial side of its business. “There’s little momentum in Congress to undo the current caps on discretionary federal spending and, facing a war-weary public, U.S. officials are pledging to avoid sending combat troops to today’s hotspots, including Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine.”


As reported by Bloomberg News in July, “The U.S. Navy can’t meet its funding needs for surface warships and a new class of nuclear attack submarines from 2025 to 2034 according to the service’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan.” The Navy is just one element of the Pentagon’s current five-year funding plan “in an era of declining defense spending.” It will impact the need for new submarines, the planned full production of F-35 fighter jets, and a new long-range strike bomber.


In March The Washington Times reported that “President Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.” Obama wants to eliminate the famed Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs. Why?
We have, however, billions for a variety of welfare programs, those devoted to “environmental research”, and countless other examples of sheer waste.


In January, commentator Mike Snyder raised the question, “Why are Dozens of High Ranking Officers Being Purged from the U.S. Military?” He noted that “Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the ‘purge’ of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place.”


Retired Major General Paul Vallely was quoted as having said, “He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon, and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”


Recognizing the threat that the Islamic State represents, even Secretary of State, John Kerry, has spoken of the need to destroy it, but he has for too long been saying that “climate change” is the most serious challenge the world is facing.


The U.S. has a full range of enemies such as Iran which since 1979 has declared the U.S. its enemy and continues a program to make its own nuclear weapons. Additional challenges include Russia’s actions in Russia in the Ukraine and China’s military power.


In July, Rowan Scarborough, a Washington Times columnist, warned that “An independent panel appointed by the Pentagon and Congress said that President Obama’s strategy for sizing the armed services is too weak for today’s global threats.” The National Defense Panel called on the President to “dump a major section of his 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and write a broader strategy that requires the military to fight on multiple fronts at once.” That alone would require a larger military than we have now; one that is the size it was prior to World War Two!


How stupid is the Obama-Kerry climate change policy? In June, The Washington Times reported that “Some critics say such alarmist reports are causing the Pentagon to shift money that could be used for weapons and readiness. It is making big investments in biofuels, for example, and is working climate change into high-level strategic planning.”


The article quoted Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, as saying “The president’s misguided priorities with our national security can be seen in the $1 trillion defense cuts he has put into motion since taking office and then using the limited defense budget to support his green agenda.” Everything the President has said about climate change has been a lie.


President Obama has taken steps to open the military to homosexuals, a practice that was avoided for most of the nation’s history because of its effect on morale and he has advocated women in combat units in the name of “diversity.”


Questioned about it in 2013, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs Chairman, referred to the requirement to introduce a “critical mass” or “significant cadre” of women into previously all-male units. Wars are not won by diversity. They are won by men who meet the physical standards and requirements of combat.


In May, The Washington Times reported that “These days, the U.S. military is only taking twenty percent of the applicants who walk into their local recruiter’s office intent on enlisting in the armed forces” noting that “the tough environment for potential recruits is due in large part to troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Pentagon’s plans to cut the size of the active duty Army.” Cut the size? At a time when we may need “boots on the ground” again in Iraq and a possible incursion into Syria?


Whether it is weapons systems needed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, the Obama administration has waged its own war on America’s capacity to meet the needs of our national security currently and in the years ahead. It has waged an effort to alter the makeup of our military personnel, to reduce portions of it, and to eliminate many top officers to lead it.


It isn’t just the Islamic State’s American hostages that are being decapitated. It is the U.S. military.


© Alan Caruba, 2014

[Ryan Ruck]

Army Is Worried Too Many White Men Lead Combat Units

Sociologists worry lack of black officers will have detrimental effect on minorities

September 11, 2014

U.S. Army sociologists are worried that a lack of black officers leading its combat troops will have detrimental effect on minorities and lead to fewer black officers in top leadership posts.

“The issue exists. The leadership is aware of it,” Brig. Gen. Ronald Lewis told USA Today on Thursday. “The leadership does have an action plan in place. And it’s complicated.”

The Army reports that only 10 percent of its active-duty officers are black, which has contributed to its dearth of black officers leading soldiers with occupational specialties in infantry, armor and artillery.

“It certainly is a problem for several reasons,” Col. Irving Smith, director of sociology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told USA Today. “First we are a public institution. And as a public institution we certainly have more of a responsibility to our nation than a private company to reflect it. In order to maintain their trust and confidence, the people of America need to know that the Army is not only effective but representative of them.”

USA Today’s research found that 25 relevant brigades it looked at did not have a single black commander in 2014. For 2015, the paper reported that there will be two black commanders of combat brigades.

Capt. Grancis Santana, 33, spoke to the paper and asserted that it wasn’t discrimination that was causing a lack of minority officers in key posts — the supply of desired soldiers in his military occupational specialty simply wasn’t there.

“It’s not a good feeling when you’re one of the few,” Capt. Santana told USA Today. “There was no discrimination; there are just not a lot of people like you.”

The paper also noted that of the 238 West Point graduates commissioned to be infantry officers in 2012, only seven were black. One of the Army’s plans for addressing the issue will be to put more emphasis on recruiting and mentoring minority officers.

[Ryan Ruck]

Morale: The U.S. Navy Is Fading Away

September 18, 2014

The U.S. Navy recently ran an opinion survey which confirmed that morale was low and getting worse, with a growing number of experienced sailors eager to get out of the navy. The most common gripe was the length of time spent at sea and the belief that those long voyages to distant waters were going to get longer. There was also growing disillusionment with navy leadership. Sailors saw senior officers more concerned with political correctness and “zero tolerance” than with legitimate complaints of sailors and junior officers. Some 42 percent of respondents said their last deployment (aboard a ship and away from home) was seven months or longer. Nearly half the sailors expect their next deployment to be even longer. Nor surprisingly only 21 percent of sailors were satisfied with the amount of time they spent at sea. When asked about morale only 42 percent felt it was good or better. A major reason for low morale is the growing talk in Congress for reducing pay and benefits. In particular many sailors feared the long-standing custom of retirement (at half pay) after twenty years’ service was in danger. Most (63 percent) were certain they could get a good job if they left the navy. Worse, nearly half the respondents did not want to get promoted because of the growing amount of paperwork and petty rules that had to be enforced. Over half the respondents had a low of opinion of senior leadership, believing the admirals did not pay attention of the problems of those they commanded and were not themselves held accountable for bad decisions.

None of these problems are new and there have been attempts to address complaints. In 2012 the navy sought to make it easier for sailors who volunteered to spend more time at sea to stay in the navy. The problem was that this was a solution to a problem that was already fading. After the 2008 recession sailors who wished to reenlist (usually for 4-6 years) faced stiff competition from all other the sailors who wished to do so. The number of people in the navy is limited by law and when the unemployment rate is high many sailors found themselves competing for a limited number of reenlistment opportunities. Many things are measured (job performance, skills, staying out of trouble) to determine how eligible for reenlistment a sailor is and how willing they are to spend more time at sea now counted as well. But by 2012 the navy was finding that many of its most skilled and experienced sailors, the ones that the navy definitely wanted to keep in uniform, were more eager to get out because those same skills were in great demand outside the military and all the time at sea was hell on family life.

So while the navy was making an effort to get more people to sea without hurting morale they found themselves fighting a losing battle keeping the people they wanted and needed the most. With the U.S. Navy facing annual personnel cuts for the rest of the decade, it's become more difficult to give all sailors more time ashore with their families. Shore time is good for morale but the navy needs ships at sea as much as possible to maintain seagoing and combat skills. The most skilled and experienced sailors have to be on those ships to make that happen.

Sailors were also dismayed at the failure of the navy to find a solution to the problem of constant long voyages. At one point the navy thought it had this manning problem solved with a collection of bold new ideas. But by 2010 the navy was forced to admit that its decade-long experiment in "optimal manning" was not working out as planned. This solution was a collection of policies including cross-training sailors to handle different jobs, reorganizing work on a ship, and introducing automation with the ultimate goal of reducing crew size up to 20 percent. Early experiments seemed to work. But optimal manning was less successful when it was tried on more ships. The long term impact was very damaging to morale and ship readiness. What happened was that as many little emergencies showed up, especially on long voyages, sailors were pulled away from their duties, especially ship maintenance. The maintenance deficits were often never made up and ship systems began to fail. In particular, they began to fail the periodic readiness inspections.

Another attempt to get more people to sea occurred before 2010 when the navy notified 60,000 sailors (about 16 percent of navy strength) that they would be spending more time on sea duty (assigned to a ship). When the ship is in port the married sailors, and many of the unmarried ones, live in homes or barracks ashore. But when on sea duty they live on the ship, which is lot less pleasant than in barracks or at home. While some sailors prefer sea duty, most avoid it when it becomes too frequent. Married sailors are usually under some pressure to stay ashore most of the time. Forcing more sailors to spend time at sea did help end the complaints about sailors who never seemed to get assigned to a ship (and thus risk spending up to six months, or more, at sea during a single voyage) while others seemed to spend most of their time assigned to a ship. So the navy continues to monitor their personnel records to find who had been a landlubber too often and changed their personnel software to avoid sailors spending too much time away from sea duty.

All these efforts helped a little when what sailors were seeking was something that would make a big difference. None of these measures did. This latest opinion survey confirms that the morale problem is not only still there, but that it is worse.