Tweet
OK I am sure I put this in the wrong spot and it has an unreliable source, ie Military.com
So I apologise now.
This just struck me as being out of place since I was heavily under the impressions many defence projects such as the FCS had been cut to accommodate other needed real toys.
So am I reading this correctly or is there some misunderstanding here?
Costs Could Force Troop Cuts
June 25, 2009
Military.com|by Christian Lowe
The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s defense panel said Wednesday that the services are likely to have to shed personnel starting in 2013, given the increasing costs of equipment and other programs the Pentagon needs to win future fights.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters at a wide-ranging breakfast meeting in Washington that the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, and Pentagon chief Robert Gates wanted to increase end strength for two years to stabilize a force stretched by frequent deployments with little time home for training and family life.
He said the two-year reprieve would be needed to eliminate the practice of “stop-loss,” in which service members are kept n the military beyond their contracted enlistment.
“Personnel costs are so high we have to cut back on personnel. You can’t cut the budget anyplace else,” Murtha said. “We’ve got to cut back on personnel, and at some point we will.”
The Army got approval from the Pentagon in 2007 to accelerate some active-duty end-strength increases through fiscal 2010, building from roughly 512,000 to 547,000 Joes. The service says it needs the extra troops to “restore the Army’s strategic depth to meet combatant commander requirements.”
But Murtha said that as America withdraws nearly 100,000 combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, the need for extra Soldiers won’t be as critical.
“Once you get the people out of Iraq and once you get to establish how many people will be [deployed] around the world, we’ll have to cut troops,” he added.
Murtha did not address the Marine Corps’ own end-strength increase of 27,000, or whether troops would be cut there. The Corps has nearly reached its goal of 202,000 Leathernecks this year.
The warning of personnel cuts potentially coming in three years raises the specter of another “reduction in forces” after a wartime plus-up. Old memories still smolder within the services of then-Pentagon chief Dick Cheney who slashed the services by more than 500,000 troops in the post-Cold War drawdown of the early 1990s.
In a bitter irony, it was Congress -- recognizing that the two ground-oriented services were strained to the breaking point by repeated long-term deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan – that drove the current end-strength increases of the Marine Corps and Army; while military officials quietly pushed back on the idea, fearing another painful drawdown.
And it looks as if the brass’s fear may come to pass.
“We’re going to fund [the increase] for a couple years, then it’s going to have to come down. The only place we can really reduce funding is for the number of people,” Murtha said. “I think two years is the limit.”
And as if the fading interest in funding a bigger Army wasn’t scary enough, Murtha had dark warnings of a Congress unwilling to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the latest $106 billion supplemental bill agreed to last week.
The war funding bill, which is to pay for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and what used to be called the “global war on terrorism,” passed the House by only 24 votes after significant pressure on anti-war Democrats from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Murtha said.
“The members are getting very nervous about this war – a lot of members were elected because they wanted out of Iraq and they voted for the supplemental because they said ‘well, we’ll give them some time, and we know [Obama] ran on the same platform.’ Murtha explained.
“Obama’s base is ‘get out of Iraq’ and Afghanistan ... but they’re giving him a year,” he said, adding that Democrats are unlikely to tie their political fates to Obama’s war policy if it’s failing.
If things don’t turn around dramatically in Afghanistan, and Iraq security disintegrates as American troops pull out, it will be next to impossible to get a war funding bill passed with a Democrat-controlled Congress and intransigent Republicans.
“It’s quite possible that we could lose the war funding,” Murtha warned. “If it hadn’t been for the speaker we would have lost it this time.”
So I apologise now.
This just struck me as being out of place since I was heavily under the impressions many defence projects such as the FCS had been cut to accommodate other needed real toys.
So am I reading this correctly or is there some misunderstanding here?
Costs Could Force Troop Cuts
June 25, 2009
Military.com|by Christian Lowe
The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s defense panel said Wednesday that the services are likely to have to shed personnel starting in 2013, given the increasing costs of equipment and other programs the Pentagon needs to win future fights.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters at a wide-ranging breakfast meeting in Washington that the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, and Pentagon chief Robert Gates wanted to increase end strength for two years to stabilize a force stretched by frequent deployments with little time home for training and family life.
He said the two-year reprieve would be needed to eliminate the practice of “stop-loss,” in which service members are kept n the military beyond their contracted enlistment.
“Personnel costs are so high we have to cut back on personnel. You can’t cut the budget anyplace else,” Murtha said. “We’ve got to cut back on personnel, and at some point we will.”
The Army got approval from the Pentagon in 2007 to accelerate some active-duty end-strength increases through fiscal 2010, building from roughly 512,000 to 547,000 Joes. The service says it needs the extra troops to “restore the Army’s strategic depth to meet combatant commander requirements.”
But Murtha said that as America withdraws nearly 100,000 combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, the need for extra Soldiers won’t be as critical.
“Once you get the people out of Iraq and once you get to establish how many people will be [deployed] around the world, we’ll have to cut troops,” he added.
Murtha did not address the Marine Corps’ own end-strength increase of 27,000, or whether troops would be cut there. The Corps has nearly reached its goal of 202,000 Leathernecks this year.
The warning of personnel cuts potentially coming in three years raises the specter of another “reduction in forces” after a wartime plus-up. Old memories still smolder within the services of then-Pentagon chief Dick Cheney who slashed the services by more than 500,000 troops in the post-Cold War drawdown of the early 1990s.
In a bitter irony, it was Congress -- recognizing that the two ground-oriented services were strained to the breaking point by repeated long-term deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan – that drove the current end-strength increases of the Marine Corps and Army; while military officials quietly pushed back on the idea, fearing another painful drawdown.
And it looks as if the brass’s fear may come to pass.
“We’re going to fund [the increase] for a couple years, then it’s going to have to come down. The only place we can really reduce funding is for the number of people,” Murtha said. “I think two years is the limit.”
And as if the fading interest in funding a bigger Army wasn’t scary enough, Murtha had dark warnings of a Congress unwilling to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the latest $106 billion supplemental bill agreed to last week.
The war funding bill, which is to pay for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and what used to be called the “global war on terrorism,” passed the House by only 24 votes after significant pressure on anti-war Democrats from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Murtha said.
“The members are getting very nervous about this war – a lot of members were elected because they wanted out of Iraq and they voted for the supplemental because they said ‘well, we’ll give them some time, and we know [Obama] ran on the same platform.’ Murtha explained.
“Obama’s base is ‘get out of Iraq’ and Afghanistan ... but they’re giving him a year,” he said, adding that Democrats are unlikely to tie their political fates to Obama’s war policy if it’s failing.
If things don’t turn around dramatically in Afghanistan, and Iraq security disintegrates as American troops pull out, it will be next to impossible to get a war funding bill passed with a Democrat-controlled Congress and intransigent Republicans.
“It’s quite possible that we could lose the war funding,” Murtha warned. “If it hadn’t been for the speaker we would have lost it this time.”
What a crock of shit John! You both deserve one another:P
Comment