Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire king hussein nears completion of his goal to destroy America's armed forces

The president has been working hard, for 4 years now, to reduce America's military to a dysfunctional status.
He is making great progress.
link to story

Mr. O is not gonna be happy until he makes the Jimmy Carter military look like It was the best in the world. He and his consortium hate the military, the same one they dodged and burned their draft cards for in 1969. kwg

An Army General asking for more money. Who's surprised?

Making claims that there's only two trained brigades is a lot like Obama closing the WWII Memorial on the Mall.

If it doesn't sound horrible, it won't sell papers. If it doesn't hurt the people, they won't notice the government shut down.

Don't get me wrong, I served in the Army, retired from the Coast Guard, and am working with the Army once again. If I thought they were seriously hurting, I'd be more sympathetic. But the fact is that once we leave the 'Stan next year, we will need a lot fewer soldiers, airman, sailors, and Marines. The cuts have already started. There's nothing new about cutting back ones military when wars are over. It happens just about once a decade in the USA. We've just missed a couple.

That's not the whole story about budgets.

It is true that when conflicts end, the military needs to downsize and budgets are cut. However, I never recall the budget allowing the military to replenish all of the worn out equipment and material that was used up, worn out, or left behind.

Hussein and his guys are never short of folks who can 'splane it for the rest of us.

Lets take a moment to discuss part of your signature line...



I've explained my point of view through my past and current experience working in and with the US Army. Why don't you do the same. Or should we just read your C&P and not apply our own experience? Will we let some reporter do the thinking for us?

Tell us how budget cuts have affected you while in the military, and maybe we can find common ground.

Never served a day in the Army. That does not mean I'm blind to what is happening.
You though, say you have served, and seem to be unaware that there are financial issues that are having a negative impact on the Army, the Navy, Marines and Air Force.
You are saying that you honestly can't see how budget cuts have an adverse impact on readiness?
Are you supporting the diminished ability of the Armed Forces? Did you vote dhimmicratic in the last election?

I'm betting Sam...

Page 3 of NY Post, Obamba wants the USMC to change their covers (hats to the unanointed) to a really really [bleep] unisex cover. Looking to destroy morale and make girlie men out of the Marines!!

http://nypost.com/2013/10/23/obama-wants-marines-to-wear-girly-hats/

If the General makes that statement then it will be based on facts and not hyperbole.

I saw it in my 20 operational years in the Navy. The training matrix by which we judged our readiness and reported each month with a SORTS report does not lie. In fact, there was very little latitude a CO had to tweak the numbers and those reports did not go to the TYCOM or Wing Commander before they went up they were sent directly into the big machine to avoid undue influence.

What happens though is the training matrix changes. To some extent this is good as it shows an ability to modernize the training needs against the defined mission. On the other hand, what it does too is allow the type commander to change the training rules to ensure readiness is achieved even though the mission hasn�t changed.

An Example: In 1990 we were required to fly a Division (4 aircraft) low level navigation training flight once every six months and a section (2 Aircraft) every 2 months and a single ship every month to remain current in low level navigation. This isn�t something you can train in even the best simulator to do as it�s a very dynamic event. It also isn�t easy for a squadron that only has 4 airplanes assigned all up at the same time to get these quals so most often we would team up with another squadron to do it. When I retired in 07 that qual had dropped to never having to do a division currency qual (beyond initial in the FRS) and having to do a section once a year and a single ship every 6 months.

The mission of the EA-6B was such that a low level penetration would be a very rare tactic (overland anyway independent of WASEX mission) so as a mission-centric qual it was dubious. That being said it DID serve a purpose as the training in crew skills in managing to get 4 fighting drumsticks across 300-400 miles of maneuvering at 200 feet and 500 kts to a target within +/- 3 seconds and get a HARM or trons on target. It showed a maintenance readiness in getting numerous jets up and ready and coordination with other squadrons. This was all good stuff that built readiness. I believe that the guys out there in the fleet today do not have the opportunity to be as sharp as we were because of the changes in that matrix. Instead, operational readiness has been replaced by training in every PC issue that comes along in the .C3500 instruction. I still follow this al ot and I assure you the amount of non-tactical "readiness" training has increased 100's of % to include every gay/lesbian/alcohol/traffing in persons/rape or whatever other shiny knee-jerk topic some congress-critter tells the Navy that have to train on.

Expected readiness (in the Navy anyway) varies depending on where you are in the rotation cycle and a unit that is 6 months back from deployment is not expected to be given the resources to be deployment ready. The resources to accomplish those training event will ramp up through the deployment cycle to the point that you are ready when to word to go comes.

The point being that numbers of troops and vehicles/aircraft and fuel do not tell the story what tells the story is the readiness against the training matrix and if the General is saying readiness is suffering and his units are not ready to deploy then you can bet your butt he has numbers to back that up.

At the risk of being key-hauled, I had a quick look at the pictures of the proposed new hat, and it didn't strike me as particularly "girly" or "[bleep]" like, certainly not to warrant the somewhat hysterical and child like tone of the article.

That said, I very much understand the role of tradition in these matters, and I don't see the need for change in this instance, but if members of the USMC are going to throw a strop, pick up their ball and go home crying over the new covers, I suspect you have far bigger issues to worry about!

That is the problem...Redskins all over again.

Pete: I quote one of my personal heroes, Admiral Of The Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham: " It takes three years to build a ship, but three hundred to build a tradition." The democraps and unprincipled republicans have been on a politicallly-correct vendetta against tradition since the early 90s. Tradition is part of the glue that holds a fighting force together and they are succeeding where our enemies couldn't.

Jorge, at a guess I would bet that Valerie Jarrett likes small hats.




...or she owns the company that makes them.

There is vast difference between presenting an argument as above, and stomping your foot and saying "I ain't wearing it cos it looks girly"

"girly" being the operative word here. Just like the new "egalitarian" uniforms the Navy adopted. Can't tell the difference between an E-1 and an 0-10. It's the old turning the heat on the frying pan slowly, by the time you realize it, you're fried.. And we are.

To be honest, if I were an American, I'd be more outraged they wanted to spend $8million for such a trivial reason..I am sure that money could be put to far better use within the USMC elsewhere..

No just no, but [bleep] no!!!!

Yeah, because you guys would think it's cool if the Scottish Guard's traditional dress uniform was changed to tights or something.....



FWIW, marines don't usually cry and go home. At least not until they destroyed everything that pissed them off.

Well, I joined the Army, and stayed, zero swabbie time for me. I've done enough "quals", completed enough "gates", and been on enough ARTEPS/JRTC rotatations to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what the War College knuckleheaded generals consider "qualified" as it pertains to training and readiness is the frikin MINIMUM. The two brigades he says are good to go are probably marginal at best, and the rest pathetic.

The Army's standards for combat readiness are already marginal at best, if they aren't even meeting those we've basically got a cannon fodder mob. Think building code, if you don't meet that, [bleep] might just fall to the ground around you.