NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Although I tend to favor most of the proposals outlined below, I still have to ask if it's not time to look for a new Sec. Def., particularly given "The Donald's" deteriorating relationship with Congress. I favor Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, who is a true professional, a great soldier, and a very wise man.


Rumsfeld Seeks Cut in Military (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,82847,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | December 14, 2005
WASHINGTON - Hampered by an increasingly combative relationship with Congress, the Pentagon is expected to seek savings from its payroll rather than making deep cuts in major weapons programs in its next long-range plan.

The blueprint for military restructuring that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is to release early next year - an exercise the Pentagon undertakes every four years - is the first one fully conceived since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The review is expected to confirm Rumsfeld's views that the military must be lighter, more agile and better equipped to fight terrorism and confront weapons of mass destruction.

Officials said Rumsfeld is considering several options for cutting personnel costs, including:

- Eliminating 40,000 Air Force jobs over the next six years, including active duty, civilian and reserves.

- Cutting up to three National Guard brigades, each of which generally has about 3,500 troops.

- Scaling back plans to increase active Army forces.

"All proposals for cutting weapons systems have, one by one, been shot down, so in the end the savings are achieved by minor cuts in many places, rather than big decisions," said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank in Arlington, Va.

"Rumsfeld has lost most of his following on Capitol Hill, so any bold moves were likely to be rebuffed," said Thompson, who has close ties to the Pentagon.

Weapons systems from the high-tech Joint Strike Fighter to the Navy's expensive new DD(X) destroyer had been mentioned as possible targets for cuts during early discussions on the long-term plan, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review.

President Bush's proposed budget sought $111 billion for personnel costs this year, more than one-fourth of the $420 billion he requested for the Pentagon, not including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of September, the Defense Department had about 1.4 million troops in the active-duty military and 671,000 civilian employees.

The Army is looking at cutting National Guard brigades to find savings that will enable it to keep weapons programs on track, according to Thompson and a military official and a second defense analyst, both of whom did not want to be identified because decisions have not been announced.

Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne said Tuesday that much of the job cuts would be done through attrition and that there also will be efforts to control the number of recruits coming in.

Rumsfeld has refused to talk about possible cuts in the defense review or the 2007 budget, which will be released in February.

The Pentagon's last quadrennial review was released on Sept. 30, 2001, but largely completed before the Sept. 11 attacks. The new review, expected to be finalized this month, maps the people, equipment and structure the military wants for its 21st century wars.

Thompson said the review would discuss the military's need to focus on emerging threats, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. He said it would seek to reduce dependence on traditional weapons systems, but by looking for savings in personnel and not arms, the Pentagon will not reflect such changes in the program budgets.

"There will be a mismatch between the words and the numbers," Thompson said.

Bush proposed spending $147 billion researching, developing and buying weapons systems in the 2006 budget year, which runs through September. Some lawmakers have urged the Pentagon to find savings from weapons costs, which are projected to rise to $180 billion by 2011.

Bitter political battles over the war in Iraq, efforts to ban inhumane treatment of prisoners, and the massive growth in spending for the war and military programs have caused divisions in Congress and between lawmakers and the administration, including Rumsfeld, one of the war's architects.

"The relationship between Rumsfeld and Congress is pretty poisonous," said Winslow T. Wheeler, a former Congressional budget analyst now with the Center for Defense Information think tank.

I thought the time to dump him was about two years ago, when it was clear he'd ignored his top military advisors about practically everything to do with the Iraq War.

This is what's going to break you on Rumsfield? No words...

This is what's going to break you on Rumsfield? No words...
About what I've come to expect from you, Cannot Think. Weren't you one of those who accused me of lying about having been in Vietnam? Hmmm? :p

I thought the time to dump him was about two years ago, when it was clear he'd ignored his top military advisors about practically everything to do with the Iraq War.
In the US, the military is still under the command and control of civilians at the top levels. I personally favor a process whereby the civilians decide what is to be done where and the military has a free hand in deciding how it is to be done, but then, that's just me. :rolleyes:

About what I've come to expect from you, Cannot Think. Weren't you one of those who accused me of lying about having been in Vietnam? Hmmm? :p
No, no I was not. I challenge you to find anything I've said that's even close to that. What the hell have you been reading?

No, no I was not. I challenge you to find anything I've said that's even close to that. What the hell have you been reading?
Ok. If I'm wrong I apologize. It's just that I seem to remember your name on that mercifully short list. :)

In the US, the military is still under the command and control of civilians at the top levels. I personally favor a process whereby the civilians decide what is to be done where and the military has a free hand in deciding how it is to be done, but then, that's just me. :rolleyes:
So if we agree on that, why are you rolling your eyes at me? Or does your mouse automatically go to that smiley when you're replying to a post of mine?

Ok. If I'm wrong I apologize. It's just that I seem to remember your name on that mercifully short list. :)
That's some fucking bullshit (and don't think I missed your little play on my name, either). And the smileys don't make your bullshit accusation any better. 'If' you're wrong, you're fucking wrong and at this point are just making shit up. Stuff your smileys up your ass.

I personally favor a process whereby the civilians decide what is to be done where and the military has a free hand in deciding how it is to be done, but then, that's just me. :rolleyes:

For once, I agree with you.

The civilians provide overall objectives, the professionals decide how the objectives will be reached.

The only other position I could see civilians in would be some sort of watchdog capacity so that incidents like Abu Ghraib aren't repeated.

http://xb0.xanga.com/ba407427733b122050860/w15681327.jpg


I still find it astonishing that Rumsfeld made it into Bush's second term.

Rummy and the whole pit of NeoCons should be lynched for treason.

So if we agree on that, why are you rolling your eyes at me? Or does your mouse automatically go to that smiley when you're replying to a post of mine?
ROFLMFAO!!! Touche! :D

I suppose I was thinking that not many would agree. Sorry if I offend ... I'm still on my first cup of coffee! :p

That's some fucking bullshit (and don't think I missed your little play on my name, either). And the smileys don't make your bullshit accusation any better. 'If' you're wrong, you're fucking wrong and at this point are just making shit up. Stuff your smileys up your ass.
ROFLMAO!!! Tsk! Such language! :D

For once, I agree with you.

The civilians provide overall objectives, the professionals decide how the objectives will be reached.

The only other position I could see civilians in would be some sort of watchdog capacity so that incidents like Abu Ghraib aren't repeated.
Abu Gharib "happened" because of civilians, as I understand it. The military would rather assault hell with a waterpistol than run the risk of being incarcerated at Levenworth.

Rummy and the whole pit of NeoCons should be lynched for treason.
:rolleyes:

ROFLMAO!!! Tsk! Such language! :D
You can stuff your condescending attitude up your ass, too. Is this how you're going to deal with criticism now? Make up bullshit accusations about people? How honorable is that? Where the fuck do you get off? How would you have reacted to someone making up bullshit like that on you? Fuck you, man. Prove your accusation or fucking take it back, not 'if I'm wrong but I totally thought you where because I'm making shit up now.'

I still find it astonishing that Rumsfeld made it into Bush's second term.
Just between you and me and the fencepost, I tend to agree, but the "civlian control" indoctrination of the old soldier in me sometimes prompts me to defer that sort of thing to those in elected office. I was in for a long, long time and that sort of training tends to become second nature in most of us.

Reducing the size of the military in terms of personnel does not necessarily mean a reduction in capability.

The whole plan outlined in the late 1990s by most services involves a substantial replacement of personnel by technology. The Navy is planning to send ships to sea that are designed from the outset to use 1/4 of the personnel currently aboard comparable ships. The Army is moving to a model that uses far more advanced weapons in the hands of what will essentially be Special Forces. The Air Force is moving towards robotic and remotely operated aircraft. All services are going to be moving towards robotics.

Not as cut and dried an issue as "he's cutting the defense budget" or "he's reducing the number of troops". I don't really mind reducing the defense budget if you can still do the job.

Put it this way: we invaded Iraq with 1/5th of the forces we used in the First Gulf War. I really don't think it would have made a difference to use that many more troops during the occupation - it would have only meant more soldiers available as targets for roadside bombs. And it would have cost 5 times as much. Would you rather spend 100 billion on a military adventure (which may or may not turn out as planned - likely not a complete failure, but likely not exactly the way you wanted), or spend 500 billion?

Simple math to me.

You can stuff your condescending attitude up your ass, too. Is this how you're going to deal with criticism now? Make up bullshit accusations about people? How honorable is that? Where the fuck do you get off? How would you have reacted to someone making up bullshit like that on you? Fuck you, man. Prove your accusation or fucking take it back, not 'if I'm wrong but I totally thought you where because I'm making shit up now.'
Sigh.

[ in a most non-condescending tone ] Obviously I had you confused with someone else. I totally retract any implicantion that you accused me of lying about having been in Vietnam.

How's that, oh overly-sensitive one???

Abu Gharib "happened" because of civilians, as I understand it. The military would rather assault hell with a waterpistol than run the risk of being incarcerated at Levenworth.
Not the way I understand it--soldiers did the torturing under the supervision of other soldiers, using techniques brought from other camps where soldiers did the same things. Why Major General Geoffrey Miller isn't in Leavenworth right now I'll never understand.

Reducing the size of the military in terms of personnel does not necessarily mean a reduction in capability.
I totally agree with this, for most scenarios, especially having been in counterinsurgency ops. I suspect there's a downside to too much reliance on "hi-tech" toys, but a leaner, more agile military seems like a good idea to me.

My problems with The Donald have more to do with his apparent lack of political agility than with anything else. Well, his apparent support of shall we say, less than acceptable methods of interrogation leaves me cold as well. I've never favored that.

Sigh.

[ in a most non-condescending tone ] Obviously I had you confused with someone else. I totally retract any implicantion that you accused me of lying about having been in Vietnam.

How's that, oh overly-sensitive one???
Go to hell.

You've shown your true colors.

Congrats.

Not the way I understand it--soldiers did the torturing under the supervision of other soldiers, using techniques brought from other camps where soldiers did the same things. Why Major General Geoffrey Miller isn't in Leavenworth right now I'll never understand.
I've read several things which indicate to me that prisoner abuse was winked at by some in the highest levels of the DOD as well as by an arm of the CIA. The military will almost always seek to please the civilians and will almost always "interpret" the spare verbage of orders in whatever way they suspect the civilians want it interpreted.

Go to hell.

You've shown your true colors.

Congrats.
Whatever.

Not the way I understand it--soldiers did the torturing under the supervision of other soldiers, using techniques brought from other camps where soldiers did the same things. Why Major General Geoffrey Miller isn't in Leavenworth right now I'll never understand.
My understanding is that the interrogation techniques authorized at Guantanamo were technically not authorized at Abu Ghraib, but due to CIA (OGA) direction, and confusion by military commanders (some of whom thought it was authorized and others who did not), they went ahead and let the CIA run the interrogation techniques at will.

It was soldiers prepping prisoners under supervision of CIA interrogation specialists - one of the problems of telling the military that they have to listen to the civilian arm of the government.

In listening to one of the stories where a prisoner died during interrogation on NPR, it was clear that the MPs were responsible for transport, and were asked by the CIA men to shackle prisoners and then leave the room. When the MPs came back in the room, the man was dead, and the MPs were aghast.

Other abuses at Abu Gharaib include the naked human pyramid, which is the result of largely unsupervised low ranking people thinking that because the CIA does it, it must be good.

Normally, when there's a fuckup like this, if it's the CIAs fault, the military will say it's the CIAs responsibility - not theirs. And if it's rogue soldiers (as in the naked human pyramid), it's usually the chain of command from battalion level on down that gets fried.

Looks like they did the battalion level on down thing. So it doesn't appear unusual to me.

My problems with The Donald have more to do with his apparent lack of political agility than with anything else. Well, his apparent support of shall we say, less than acceptable methods of interrogation leaves me cold as well. I've never favored that.

He's a poster child for the Cold War. There were more people tortured during that War (not counting the hot wars like Vietnam) than anyone will ever know. Secret detentions, assassinations, torture - all part of the bag of tricks on both sides back then.

I like General Pace - but I'm surprised that it took this long for an officer to speak up.

My understanding is that the interrogation techniques authorized at Guantanamo were technically not authorized at Abu Ghraib, but due to CIA (OGA) direction, and confusion by military commanders (some of whom thought it was authorized and others who did not), they went ahead and let the CIA run the interrogation techniques at will.

It was soldiers prepping prisoners under supervision of CIA interrogation specialists - one of the problems of telling the military that they have to listen to the civilian arm of the government.

In listening to one of the stories where a prisoner died during interrogation on NPR, it was clear that the MPs were responsible for transport, and were asked by the CIA men to shackle prisoners and then leave the room. When the MPs came back in the room, the man was dead, and the MPs were aghast.

Other abuses at Abu Gharaib include the naked human pyramid, which is the result of largely unsupervised low ranking people thinking that because the CIA does it, it must be good.

Normally, when there's a fuckup like this, if it's the CIAs fault, the military will say it's the CIAs responsibility - not theirs. And if it's rogue soldiers (as in the naked human pyramid), it's usually the chain of command from battalion level on down that gets fried.

Looks like they did the battalion level on down thing. So it doesn't appear unusual to me.
I agree. God help you if, as a soldier, you "interpret" civilian orders "incorrectly" and then have to answer for it. :headbang:

I've read several things which indicate to me that prisoner abuse was winked at by some in the highest levels of the DOD as well as by an arm of the CIA. The military will almost always seek to please the civilians and will almost always "interpret" the spare verbage of orders in whatever way they suspect the civilians want it interpreted.
Ah--I see what you mean. But that doesn't make the military any less responsible for what its soldiers did. And Miller, who headed up the interrogation units in Guantanamo and Baghram before coming to Abu Ghraib, was definitely military. CIA and DOD may have had something to do with it, but there's no way this didn't include the military.

Whatever.
It gives lie to any concern you've had about honor. You're nothing more than a punk at this point, making shit up and then passing it off. I've dealt with you in a straight forward manner, it seems now that I've given you far more respect than you have ever deserved.

He's a poster child for the Cold War. There were more people tortured during that War (not counting the hot wars like Vietnam) than anyone will ever know. Secret detentions, assassinations, torture - all part of the bag of tricks on both sides back then.

I like General Pace - but I'm surprised that it took this long for an officer to speak up.
It's the old "civilians are in control" thing again. Usually a good thing, but sometimes ...! :(

I agree. God help you if, as a soldier, you "interpret" civilian orders "incorrectly" and then have to answer for it. :headbang:

God help you if you refuse orders from civilian authority.
If the DoD tells you that the CIA is in charge of interrogation, and you interfere because you see someone being tortured (i.e., you follow General Pace's advice), you had better be prepared for trouble.

I remember what a good old boy network there is in some units. When I was stationed in Germany, I was one of four armorers at a firing range that was supposedly being run at night. It was run in the afternoon, and no one fired for qualification. The NCO in charge (for some reason there was no officer appointed for range duty) told eight people to fire off 65,000 rounds of ammunition as fast as they could, then instructed the 120 people who were supposed to qualify to lie and say that they had qualified.

When I got back (at about 8 PM), the S-3 asked me if we had night fired. I answered, "I suggest, sir, that you consult your local ephemeris, and see if the sun was up at 4 PM in Germany (it takes 4 hours to get back from the range)."

There was an investigation, and 119 people and the NCO lied. I did not lie.

Fortunately, they believed me, and the NCO was court-martialed, reduced in rank, and had to pay for the ammunition out of his pay.

But, it had long term negative repercussions for me. If you want to live in fear of your life, try living in the barracks with people who think that because you're honest, you're not to be trusted.

Just between you and me and the fencepost, I tend to agree, but the "civlian control" indoctrination of the old soldier in me sometimes prompts me to defer that sort of thing to those in elected office. I was in for a long, long time and that sort of training tends to become second nature in most of us.
There there. It's okay to not only have an opinion, but to express it as well. If you don't like something that members of the executive branch are doing, you can say so and have no obligation to be respectful about it. You are no longer subject to any provisions of the UCMJ. Get used to it.

Aren't you overreacting just a BIT? Jeeze! What does it take with you, anyway? You and I have never agreed on very many things, and you seem to have had some rather serious issues with me before, but this goes way beyond that now. Taking all this rather seriously, aren't you??? :(

Forrest
Don't drag this bullshit into my telegrams. You made a public accusation of some bullshit, deal with it public. Yeah I'm taking it serious, just like you would if someone made up some bullshit about you. I've been above board and have only attacked the nature of your arguements here. Above all, I never made shit up about you and then passed it off as if it was nothing. Grow up, own up to your bullshit. Show some of that honor you keep saying your supposed to have.

And enough of this cowardly bullshit.

I totally agree with this, for most scenarios, especially having been in counterinsurgency ops. I suspect there's a downside to too much reliance on "hi-tech" toys, but a leaner, more agile military seems like a good idea to me.

Downsides:

1. Cost -- in terms of R&D, procurement, and O&M

2. Information overload -- When you've go so many sensor systems out there providing data, it's difficult to pick out what important from what's not.

3. Distance -- With the trend towards strikes from standoff distances, or even using unmanned aircraft like the Predator, we distance ourselves from the true horror of war. Without seeing what war is really like, up close and person, war becomes, to a certain extent, sanitized, which, in my opinion, will make us more likely to choose the military option to solve disputes.

Don't drag this bullshit into my telegrams. You made a public accusation of some bullshit, deal with it public. Yeah I'm taking it serious, just like you would if someone made up some bullshit about you. I've been above board and have only attacked the nature of your arguements here. Above all, I never made shit up about you and then passed it off as if it was nothing. Grow up, own up to your bullshit. Show some of that honor you keep saying your supposed to have.

And enough of this cowardly bullshit.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/birgittroll01.gif

snip
When you know the history between these two, then you'll be in a position to call names.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/birgittroll01.gif
I'm not the one that made a bullshit accusation.

When you know the history between these two, then you'll be in a position to call names.

I just want it to freakin' stop...

I'm not the one that made a bullshit accusation.
It's not every day that people are so angry about something else that they don't even bother to read the posts I made (which I think were relevant to the topic).

There there. It's okay to not only have an opinion, but to express it as well. If you don't like something that members of the executive branch are doing, you can say so and have no obligation to be respectful about it. You are no longer subject to any provisions of the UCMJ. Get used to it.
LOL! Um ... ok. :D

It's not every day that people are so angry about something else that they don't even bother to read the posts I made (which I think were relevant to the topic).

I did read them, and you made some excellent points, esp. about Rumsfeld being a relic of the Cold War.

Downsides:

1. Cost -- in terms of R&D, procurement, and O&M

2. Information overload -- When you've go so many sensor systems out there providing data, it's difficult to pick out what important from what's not.

3. Distance -- With the trend towards strikes from standoff distances, or even using unmanned aircraft like the Predator, we distance ourselves from the true horror of war. Without seeing what war is really like, up close and person, war becomes, to a certain extent, sanitized, which, in my opinion, will make us more likely to choose the military option to solve disputes.
All very good points, particularly the last one. This is something which has concerned me for quite some time now, but expecting such a long-term trend to stop or reverse is the equivalent of expecting to stop Katrina by shouting at it. :(

Don't drag this bullshit into my telegrams. You made a public accusation of some bullshit, deal with it public. Yeah I'm taking it serious, just like you would if someone made up some bullshit about you. I've been above board and have only attacked the nature of your arguements here. Above all, I never made shit up about you and then passed it off as if it was nothing. Grow up, own up to your bullshit. Show some of that honor you keep saying your supposed to have.

And enough of this cowardly bullshit.
Most people take a rather dim view of posting private email or TG messages in public.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/birgittroll01.gif
He's not being a troll. He just has problems with me.

All very good points, particularly the last one. This is something which has concerned me for quite some time now, but expecting such a long-term trend to stop or reverse is the equivalent of expecting to stop Katrina by shouting at it. :(

Oh, of course that trend won't reverse or stop. It is a troubling thought, though.

Most people take a rather dim view of posting private email or TG messages in public.
Most people also take a dim view of making false accusations.

About what I've come to expect from you, Cannot Think. Weren't you one of those who accused me of lying about having been in Vietnam? Hmmm? :p
It was me. I still think you're a 46 year old woman living in a trailer in the Arizona desert and who makes up people in the NS forums to pass the time. Everybody in the NS forums is you. Except me, of course.

Well, I've read the off topic subthread, and I think you should apologize Eut.

Well, I've read the off topic subthread, and I think you should apologize Eut.

I think everyone should just get back on topic...

Well, I've read the off topic subthread, and I think you should apologize Eut.
I did.

I did.
What, you mean this backhanded shit?
If I'm wrong I apologize. It's just that I seem to remember your name on that mercifully short list.
Sigh.

[ in a most non-condescending tone ] Obviously I had you confused with someone else. I totally retract any implicantion that you accused me of lying about having been in Vietnam.

How's that, oh overly-sensitive one???
Oh yeah, feel the sincerity.

Be honest, one of your kids pulled that nonsense you wouldn't let them get away with it for a second. Own up to your bullshit.

I've read several things which indicate to me that prisoner abuse was winked at by some in the highest levels of the DOD as well as by an arm of the CIA. The military will almost always seek to please the civilians and will almost always "interpret" the spare verbage of orders in whatever way they suspect the civilians want it interpreted.

If I may offer a sugestion - swing by the CBC site and look for a Fifth Estate program called "A Few Bad Apples"; it does an intersting job of exploring how all the participants involved in Abu Gharib ended up there, along with the conditions that allowed it to happen - some eye-opening interviews with both those acused of the abuse, the wistle-blower, and the Military Police commander that basically took the fall for others actions....

Ah screw it here's the link to the website with video:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/badapples/

I was in favor of Rumsfeld's stated goal of molding a lighter, faster, more versatile military back when he took office again in 2000... We need a robust military, sure, but we need it to be light on its feet.. through that lens, I can understand the scrapping of programs like the Crusader tank (large, heavy vehicles), and massive expansion of projects like unmanned drones and robotic infantry.. my question is (to those in the know, that is.. I'm no expert), has he taken the proper steps toward that goal? Has there been progress?

Has there been progress?
Well, he demonstrated that you can win against a basically defenseless enemy with little forces on the ground.
Then he demonstrated that winning a war is not the only goal armies have.
Plus he demonstrated that all "Liberals" are teh evil, and that Old Europe suxors etc etc

Wouldn't it be ironic if Rummy would have to leave because he's not militaristic enough?

Who's the Flip Flopper now?

What happened to Staying the Course and Supporting Our Troops?

:p