Article

2013-08-23 Government

Army, Navy target top brass, HQ spending in latest cuts

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2013-08-23 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 I'd be looking at individual programs and agencies ie, DARPA, DIA, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Army Material Command (AMC), and Army Research Lab (ARL) before personnel, but those are pet rocks with heavy Department of the Army ~~feather merchant~~ Civilian strengths which are difficult to cut.

If you can live without some senior grades, why the fok weren't they cut years ago. Sort of telling isn't it ?

Posted by Besoeker 2013-08-23 02:10|| 2013-08-23 02:10|| Front Page Top

#2 See also BLOOMBERG > US PENTAGON WEIGHS FIRING THOUSANDS [up to 6,272] UNDER 2014 [sequester-led] SPENDING CUTS.

Artic also read, CHINA + IRAN WIN!

Unless the Bammer can decide iff he = USA has an effec foreign policy or not.

E.G. STARS-N-STRIPES > OPINION: US INTERESTS NOT SAUDIS TOP CONCERN.

ARTIC = denotes the KSA's "We-don't-need-the-USA" attitude + actions.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-08-23 02:53|| 2013-08-23 02:53|| Front Page Top

#3 Link to the article Joe references. Thanks Joe.

Excerpt, which shows the numbers are actually quite small. They appear to be the cutting of positions, thence reductions through normal attrition and a suspension of hiring vs layoffs.

The Army would lose more than 2,100 workers from a 263,900-person civilian workforce, and the Navy would cut as many as 2,672 of 214,000 people. Department-wide agencies would dismiss 1,500 people from a projected 137,000-person force, with most coming from the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-08-23 07:08|| 2013-08-23 07:08|| Front Page Top

#4 B,

If you compare the ratio of GOs (general officers) to enlisted in WWII and today, you got to see its way out of wack. Grade creep has been a serious problem for generations. Part of the problem has been dealing with NATO, specifically their over ranking vis a vis personnel strength (high officer vs enlisted ratio). The American argument for too long has been we can't have someone of lower rank dealing with an allied counterpart who's two or three grades higher. Now that we're disengaging from that situation, the rationale no longer holds.

If you have a 100 GOs, its important to be a GO. If you have only 10 GOs, it becomes important to be a Colonel.

Anyways, these days, who needs more political appointees in uniform? /rhet question

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-08-23 08:37|| 2013-08-23 08:37|| Front Page Top

#5 You nailed it Col.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-08-23 08:45|| 2013-08-23 08:45|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:03 JosephMendiola
22:57 Besoeker
22:52 JosephMendiola
22:40 JosephMendiola
21:59 junkiron
21:16 SteveS
21:16 Tyranysaurus Sneth4452
21:14 junkiron
21:12 tallyp
20:57 Rambler in Virginia
20:52 Beavis
20:51 Airandee
20:30 Zenobia Floger6220
20:14 3dc
19:54 Barbara
19:53 Lowspark
19:48 OldSpook
19:45 Barbara
19:44 JosephMendiola
19:43 Barbara
19:35 USN, Ret.