« Previous · Home · Next »
SECDEF Gets Some
By John
Robert Gates seems to know what he's about:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the Iraq war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.Gates, who met with members of Congress on Wednesday, said that he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funding around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
As a result, he said that he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.
Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion — which is just one week's worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.
The House on Wednesday passed, 218-203, a $50 billion bill that would pay for the wars but require that troops start to leave Iraq in 30 days.
I like the idea of hitting Congress where it hurts, constituencies that care more about their jobs than Iraq, but -if things go nuclear- how effective is it going to be? Without pulling out the map, aren't most representatives -sans Senators- from military areas generally conservative and pro-mission? I've got the big ones in mind, Norfolk/VA Beach, Fort Hood, Fort Bragg/Pope AFB, certain areas of San Diego, etc.
I was talking with Charlie a few days ago (yes, he's finally home), and we both noted how much the military has suffered from the Clinton-era cuts and then the later Rumsfeldian Transformation snafu. While we can't posture ourselves against a single, solid threat like the USSR anymore, both Charlie and I agreed that we need to elevate our capabilities to a much higher level of general readiness, given the instability and unpredictable nature of our new enemy.
Anti-war representatives love to toss around these canned, meaningless press releases about how the wars are "breaking" our Armed Forces, when -in reality- their underfunding of the military is placing more strain on the force than the wars ever could.
Think about it like this. If you've neglected your Armed Forces to the point where it can't deal with the stresses of two small wars (where your combined enemy numbers approximately 25,000 bad guys), then you have failed your servicemen and women.
Can you defeat an enemy ideology by throwing money at the problem? Who knows? Reagan seemed to think so....
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1352
Comments
Yes, but who's neglect?
The President (previous) and the congress for cutting endstrength something like 40% between 1992-2000?
Or the military leadership for refusing to change the available forces to meet the emerging threat? Or train for a variety of threat? Or to develop and procure platforms/weapons systems that are inexpensive and "get the job done"?
I think Rumsfield had it right, it's just his methodology was wrong. The more I learn about how the Army does things in general, the more I watch our shipbuilding programs atrophy and wither on the vine, the more I watch aircraft procurement fiascos, I can't help but place a good bit of blame on the military leadership.
We have a long way to go, and I am not just talking Iraq...
I agree with bullnav except that the shipbuilding programs aren't withering, they're metastasizing.
The problem is all the senior military want to fight WWII again and the machine they built can't deal with 25,000 bandits. It's time for the leadership of the military to get out of the way and allow those with Iraq field experience to redesign most of the military to fight the threats we will actually face instead of the ones the leadership dreams of facing.
I think this is a great idea and he could be non-partisan, Secretary Gates and start in all those with projects and earmarks in states who are represented by Democrats AND Republicans who depend on Defense dollars for votes but continue to not support our troops and in some cases call troops terrorists and murders!
Power of the purse can work both ways. You don't support/fund our troops then we won't support/fund projects in your state >:)
I give them a week of this before they cave.
Ish.
I think the problem is much larger. The military needs to be able to fight all wars - big, small, conventional and unconventional, counterinsurgency, you name it. How do you plan forces and budgets for this when your budget changes from year to year and the political leadership changes almost as often? Yes, some military leaders want the big expensive programs designed to fight the Soviets but most want the best system to fight the current war and hopefully the future ones. Plus, it's next to impossible to cancel a big program because there are constituents of congressmen somewhere working on the program, and no congressman wants to tell voters he supported cutting a program, i.e canceling their jobs. It's a huge vortex of competing interests and one change affects almost everything else. Sec Gates is doing the right thing by making it clear that congress has failed in it's primary job of passing a budget. This is why I am not donating any money to any congressional candidate; why reinforce failure?
Bullnav,
There is blame to go around on both sides. First it was Bush's father who started the down sizing trend, it accelerated under Clinton with the tacit assistance of the services themselves. Bush continued the trend as his choice for SECDEF and for the Service chiefs got in love with "transformation" instead of recognizing that quantity had a quality all its own. (Just thing if we still had those extra 4 Army divisions we whacked....). We can say, "Thank you Mr. Rumsfeld, may I have another?"
The services have been remiss in my humble opinion for not screaming louder about this.
You want to be a global power with influence world wide? It takes a global Navy. and Army and Air Force and Marine Corps.
It is time the voters told Congress and the President, "Shut up and pay the bill."
And on a personal note since I am going to be looking for a new job next year-an hiring freeze is the last thing I want to see.
Resume available on request. :-)
Skippy, I agree with you 100%. Note I point out from '92 when Bush Sr. was pres.
I would almost say it was collusion on both sides...trying to buy votes for purely political power instead of having the country's best interests at heart.
We have to be able to fight today's and tomorrow's wars instead of yesterday's wars...
Bull Sir, and respects to Skippy,
Past is walking the active flight line @ NAS Alameda in the bunker zone where I would have been gunned down by Hard Grunts with deer slugs less than 19 years past. Driving the ramp @ El Toro and having to dodge bird watchers in their L.L Bean Camo instead of being greated by MP's and 1911's, for you Bull, MARE ISLAND.. sitting in the BEQ @ NRMC Oakland and watching the spark become the fire in "79" with DAY 200 and......
it's just the way things have happened....
so what do we do about it.....
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
If I were Gates I would have my staff searching for all those "earmarks" that have been added to defense spending bills. Take Jack Murtha (D-PA) as an example. He has made a career of adding unrequeted projects (but no money to fund them) into defense appropriations measures.
Wouldn't this be a wonderful opportunity to highlight the hypocracy of Democrats like Murtha; slow down, or even cancel some of these boondoggles; and remind their constituents that "supporting the troops" begins at home?
I seem to recall that the Army SF used to say in Vietnam that their unofficial motto was "Once you get them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."