Home
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
Quote
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno revealed this week that just two Army brigades are combat-ready, with budget cuts hampering the military's ability to train its own troops.




The startling comments were made Monday at the Association of the U.S. Army conference. Odierno and Army Secretary John McHugh both addressed the fallout from the budget cuts, as well as the recent partial government shutdown, and appealed to lawmakers to restore some stability to military funding.

"Functioning like this is just dysfunctional," Odierno said.

He said that after the sequester kicked in, "we had to stop training basically" in the last six months of the year. He said the recently passed stopgap funding bill has further reduced the Army's ability to train, and warned that the recurring budget battles in Washington could have serious consequences for America's fighting force.

"So the worst-case scenario is you ask me deploy thousands of soldiers somewhere, and we have not properly trained them to go, because we simply don't have the dollars and money," he said.

Odierno said the goal is to beef up the number of combat-ready brigades to seven by June, but voiced doubt as to whether that could happen.

"Right now, we have in the Army two brigades that are trained. That's it. Two," he said.

That doesn't count brigades in Afghanistan, but Odierno noted those aren't really combat-ready either, since they're deployed for "training and advising only."

The so-called sequester kicked in earlier this year, as a result of lawmakers failing to reach a broader budget agreement. Across-the-board cuts slashed away at virtually every agency's budget -- but while lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the policy, many fiscal conservatives want to retain the overall spending reductions since they have helped trim the deficit.

The question for them is whether Congress can give agencies more flexibility; and many lawmakers from both parties still want to provide some relief to the military. Cuts to entitlements could also be considered as part of a deal to relieve sequester cuts elsewhere.

Congress and the White House ended the partial government shutdown last week with a short-term funding bill. Under the terms, lawmakers must reach a broader agreement by mid-December. A bipartisan committee will soon get to work, and is likely to weigh requests to curb or modify the sequester.

McHugh echoed Odierno's warnings, describing the current budget picture as "particularly perplexing and largely without precedent."

He questioned claims that the Army is merely scaling back to spending levels from a decade ago, arguing that the costs of caring for wounded soldiers and funding family programs is greater than it was back then.

"So certainly I, for one, would argue that those kinds of comparisons are a fool's errand," he said.

McHugh said training and equipment are "absolutely essential."
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.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
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...

Quote
we all see the world through the lens of our own experience


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/
Originally Posted by BW
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.


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.
Originally Posted by EvilTwin
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/


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!
Originally Posted by Pete E
Obamba wants the USMC to change



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.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
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.


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.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
"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..
Originally Posted by EvilTwin
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/


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

Originally Posted by Pete E
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!


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

smile

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

Originally Posted by BW
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.


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.
all of which gives credence to my thoughts that the 'dumbing down' of the armed forces is part of a calculated move to reduce our ability to fight a war, and to defend America.
The two things that are most damaging, are the change from the armed forces being a 'fighting force', to being a vehicle for social change, and the reduction of finances to the point where manpower, equipment, readiness and standards can't be maintained.
Originally Posted by EvilTwin
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/



Fox News Politics
Obama wants Marines to wear �girly� hats
24 Oct 2013
would make more sense to just the girls out of the Marines in the first place. There is nothing in the Marine's task, that would mandate having women involved.
It ain't just the poosified hat. That poor bastid on the right seems to be wearing lipstick and rouge, too.

Join the Marines and be a g-a-y male model. Yup, that's where we're headed under Czar Barry.

BTW, the hat looks like it came straight from the French Foreign Legion, All it lacks is the removable sun flap/surrender flag at the back. Cheezits Kites...


(In fairness to that poor Marine, he's probably just red-faced from terminal embarrassment.)
There is nothing "girly" about the Legion.
Originally Posted by RockyRaab
It ain't just the poosified hat. That poor bastid on the right seems to be wearing lipstick and rouge, too.

Join the Marines and be a g-a-y male model. Yup, that's where we're headed under Czar Barry.

BTW, the hat looks like it came straight from the French Foreign Legion, All it lacks is the removable sun flap/surrender flag at the back. Cheezits Kites...


If you're talking about the Kepi Blanc, there are few items of military headwear that have the heritage of the Kepi Blanc.

And Legionaries are excellent soldiers that I would rate second to none, even against the USMC or our Para's. In a changing world the Legion has managed to avoid being embroiled PC bullsh1t and remains a very formidable fighting force..
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
Never served a day in the Army. That does not mean I'm blind to what is happening.


Your as blind as any one of us, and have only selected news articles and press releases to judge by. Except some of operate a bit closer to the subject.


Originally Posted by Mannlicher
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?


Really?

This is your debate?

One unqualified statement on my 'awareness', and three loaded 'when did you stop beating your wife" type questions?

To address your unqualified statement, I'll add that I'm not only aware of the issues caused by budget cuts, but have experienced the effects first hand while I served, and have observed them now in my interactions with active-duty soldiers.

However I understand that this is what happens when wars wind down. It's nothing new, and it's not happening because Obama hates the Army.

The three questions I'm going to ignore as the are obviously not to be taken serious.
Heya Brian,

Hope you're doing well over there amigo! I miss your pictures of our aircraft doing what they do. Ya gotta hook an aviation junkie up from time to time man!

One thing that is different this time around is the reductions in forces will take us back to pre WWII numbers and the restructuring on an organizational level is going to be unheard of.

As you know, it takes time to build up and in the event anything should happen, the amount of build up that would be required would leave us very vulnerable indeed.

Those are the facts and my sincere concerns with what is proposed at this time. That aside, keep your head on a swivel over there and get your ass back here in one piece.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
all of which gives credence to my thoughts that the 'dumbing down' of the armed forces is part of a calculated move to reduce our ability to fight a war, and to defend America.


Well a decade of lowered standards for recruitment haven't helped matters. But that's changing already.


Originally Posted by Mannlicher
The two things that are most damaging, are the change from the armed forces being a 'fighting force', to being a vehicle for social change, and the reduction of finances to the point where manpower, equipment, readiness and standards can't be maintained.


I'm haven't given it enough thought to rate which things are hurting the military the most. But we are in agreement that the military needs enough money to maintain standards. Getting out of Afghanistan will help immensely. But budgets are going to get tight, just like they always do, and that's nothing new.

We talk about waste, yet I see dozens of MRAP's sitting on Afghan flatbeds just a few miles from the Kyber Pass and the Pakistan border, for weeks on end. Then one of the bad guys finally smartens up, and torches a bunch of them in situ. What the hell is the Army doing to protect it's assets? There's a freakin' FOB 500 yards away, yet they sit outside unprotected.

But in the meantime, some Army General is complaining about not having enough money. I get it, they need money, but I also see the sheer craziness.
Originally Posted by RockyRaab
All it lacks is the removable sun flap/surrender flag at the back. Cheezits Kites...

lol. grin
Originally Posted by HugAJackass
Heya Brian,

Hope you're doing well over there amigo! I miss your pictures of our aircraft doing what they do. Ya gotta hook an aviation junkie up from time to time man!


Probably not the right thread... laugh

But here's a couple...

Good times...

[Linked Image]

and bad...

[Linked Image]

I'll look through some pictures, and maybe start a new thread.

Take care yourself.
Saw a hole like that get made about 15 second after one of your birds left the ground at Shank.

Thanks for the pics! I'll keep an eye out for the other thread when you get to it.
© 24hourcampfire