| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Obama Goes To Pentagon To Announce Downgrades And Cuts |
| 2012-01-05 |
| President Barack Obama will make a rare visit to the Pentagon Thursday morning when he rolls out the new military strategy tied to deep cuts in military spending over the next 10 years. Officials in the Pentagon say it's the first time any president will address reporters in the Pentagon briefing room. Unfortunately, he doesnÂ’t plan on taking questions. He'll leave that to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, two men he has worked closely with to devise this new approach to countering worldwide threats. "But ultimately," as one senior defense official put it, "it's the president's strategy." "He was heavily involved in the military strategy," this official said, adding the president also met in recent weeks with every Combatant Commander to review it. The new strategy is based purely around the roughly $490 billion in cuts to the defense budget over 10 years that Congress decided on last summer. According to those familiar with the report, the future U.S. military will have the ability to fight only one major land war at a time. Any addition battles would have to be fought primarily from the sea and air. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #24 P2k: there goes 80% of the Air Force. /ducks |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2012-01-05 23:00 |
| #23 Well as a first chop in personnel, I'd set teams up to go out to every installation and activity to accurately measure the height and weight of the troops. Those beyond 5 pounds of the maximum weight standards for their body mass would get the first round of pink slips. The second round of pink slips would be for their raters who signed off on the last efficiency report that said individual met height and weight standards. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-01-05 22:11 |
| #22 Take the money off The Pentagon (& MoD) and Give the money to those in the field to buy. Surely you jest. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-01-05 22:07 |
| #21 Reductions? OK. But not the current troops ("don't worry; you'll be 'grandfathered in!")OR the future troops! Let's not downgrade the military to the bunch of misfits the MSM (and zero) think they are. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2012-01-05 21:37 |
| #20 Cuts here... Procurement $140.1 b/−1.8% R&D, Test&Eval $79.1b/+1.3% Take the money off The Pentagon (& MoD) and Give the money to those in the field to buy. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-01-05 21:05 |
| #19 You want to see gutting defense? Take a look at Britain and France post WW1, with appeasement and unilateral disarmament. Nice job. Not. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2012-01-05 20:52 |
| #18 The Precursor = Preliminaries as to why + how the the future post-GWOT US will use "EarthQuake Bombs to sink-n-destroy strategic Pacific isles in area/strategic denial to enemies as it geopol retreats across the Pacific keeps humming along. [HUGO CHAVEZ here]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-01-05 20:48 |
| #17 "Fight one major land war at a time ... [others]from the Sea + Air" > YYYUUUPPP. Analysts in EOY 2011, BOY 2012 are already indic that Nuke-wannabe IRAN, + by extens Nuke-wannbe Radical Islam + aligned, is being geopol or regionally aggressive [short-of-war], while the US-NATO just watch + wonder because its poor Economy + Budget, Debt woes prevents it from effec challenging Iran. THIS IS CONSISTENT WID 1980's-1990'S WORST-CASE SCENARIOS FOR THE US GOVT-DOD. THE US FOUGHT THE GWOT WID A VOLUNTEER ARMY, IT WILL DO THE SAME AS RADICAL ISLAM SLOWLY BUT STEADILY ESTABLISHES + EXPANDS THE OWG NUCLEAR CALIPHATE, ESPEC VEE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN NATIONS. Again, the Islamist Jihad is GLOBAL/UNIVERSAL in scope, not just Local or Regional - ITS A MUSLIM/ISLAMIC, "MOORISH", OR "MOHAMMEDAN" CONQUEST IN EVERYHING EXCEPT CONTEMPORARY, PCORRECT-DENIABLE MSM-NET + DIPLOMATIC DESCRIPTION. WID "EYES WIDE OPEN", NOT SHUT??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-01-05 20:44 |
| #16 This country went through the same shit under Carter -- Doesn't anybody have any f***ing memory in this nation? There are consequences. Obama is Jimmy Cater II - weaker and worse. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2012-01-05 20:00 |
| #15 Thanks, Moose, but my question is about the Like for an article posted at Rantburg. If I click Like on the article about cutting the military --- am I liking the content of the article, or am I liking that the article was posted? I don't like the downgrades and cuts Obama is doing, but I like that the article was posted here in Rantburg. When I click like on a Facebook friend's page, I like the content -- and probably like it because I agree with it! Kinda hard call here in Rantburg with an article like this one --- cutting military -- I don't like, but, I like having the article posted! Just my own self-made confusion, prolly. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-01-05 18:09 |
#14 Sherry: Not much help I'm afraid, but here is what Facebook says about 'Like':What does it mean to "Like" a Page or content off of Facebook? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2012-01-05 17:59 |
| #13 Oh, and Obama needs the money to continue to build up his heavily armed Federal Police Force and Viper Teams that he will be launching around the United States this year, before the "election". |
| Posted by: Unush Panda7572 2012-01-05 17:39 |
| #12 Question about "liking" this --- if I click LIKE am I liking that the article was posted, or am I liking that I agree with the article and it's content, or that I like the cut of military funding, 'cause I don't. Little confusion on my part here. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-01-05 16:09 |
| #11 Obama needs the money to buy votes with before November. Rush Limbaugh today said he is going to use the money cut all FHA and GSE home mortgage payments in half. |
| Posted by: Unush Panda7572 2012-01-05 13:20 |
| #10 Yeah, and those military personnel aren't gonna vote for him anyway. Better to give that money to welfare moms and illegal aliens. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-01-05 12:03 |
| #9 Lessee here... Which pieces of that don't represent contracts for contributors? |
| Posted by: Fred 2012-01-05 11:36 |
| #8 If you had to reorg for cost savings in defense, where do you go? Components/Change, 2009 to 2010: Operations and maintenance $283.3b/+4.2% Military Personnel $154.2b/+5.0% Procurement $140.1 b/−1.8% R&D, Test&Eval $79.1b/+1.3% Military Constr $23.9 b/+19.0% Family Housing $3.1b/−20.2% Total Spending 683.7 billion +3.0% |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2012-01-05 11:00 |
| #7 So the reduced threat justifies reduction in our military, how about Homeland Security. About time to declare victory and pull TSA out of the 'front lines'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-01-05 10:55 |
| #6 Who, in the name of all that's holy, would ever think that this loser would know anything at all about military strategy? I think I threw up in my mouth on reading He was heavily involved in the military strategy. Saints preserve us. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2012-01-05 10:40 |
| #5 You go to war with the military you have. Politicians cut the military they better cut their expectations at the same time. That includes humanitarian missions and the like. Personally I'd be willing to cut a bomber or two or cut the change the uniform every decade song and dance , to help base housing and put more money into the pockets of the troops. I'm not so willing to do those things to make a handful of politically connected folk wealthy or to ensure the "piss christ" gets subsidized. I'm funny that way. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-01-05 10:28 |
| #4 Cut 2 |
| Posted by: Grolush Barnsmell2218 2012-01-05 09:41 |
| #3 Cut 1 |
| Posted by: Grolush Barnsmell2218 2012-01-05 09:39 |
| #2 Who would have ever thought the only area of the Federal budget Obama would be in favor of cutting would be the military? anybody awake and watching him for the last 10 years? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-01-05 09:31 |
| #1 Who would have ever thought the only area of the Federal budget Obama would be in favor of cutting would be the military? |
| Posted by: Raj 2012-01-05 09:15 |