Gutting our military

By drinking the KOOL AID you mean try to avoid killing civilians than I would say I dink it quite regularly.

AboveAlpha

 

They can on retake what is theirs. The cannot legally take my property. Nor can they legally jail me.

 

The way I see it, having an auxiliary corps (good name for it, by the by), would be more effective. The Navy, Marines, Army, and Air Force, all have billets for fully-trained and duly-sworn members of the military doing non-combat support roles that could be better done by an auxiliary. The auxiliary could also be for non-disabled people that nevertheless do not want to join the military but still want to do their part to serve their country in a way.

They would not be much different from contractors, but they would undoubtedly cost less and we would not have to worry about having to renew contracts and then the contractors getting more money with each new contract.

As the most pertinent example, let's take the Marine Corps, the branch I believe that is the most potent of the branches on a man-for-man basis. The Marines have their size dictated by statute, and it would be best served to have them be a fighting force with as much manpower focused on putting the bad guy down as possible.

There are several Marine Corps MOSs that could be done just as effectively by an auxiliary that could even be used for other branches as well, these are:

Almost entirely:
01XX Personnel and Administration
11XX Utilities
30XX Supply Administration and Operations
31XX Distribution Management
34XX Financial Management
41XX Morale, Welfare and Recreation
43XX Public Affairs
44XX Legal Services

Some to most:
02XX Intelligence
04XX Logistics
06XX Communications
28XX Data/Communications Maintenance
33XX Food Service
58XX Military Police and Corrections
59XX Electronics Maintenance
60XX-62XX Aircraft Maintenance
63XX-64XX Avionics
66XX Aviation Logistics
68XX Meteorological and Oceanographic
70XX Airfield Services

I know those MOSs probably don't account for a lot of the Marines total complement, but the fact remains that by removing those billets from the Marine Corps, more Marines can then be put into actual combat roles, making the Marine Corps just that much more potent. If this plan was expanded to cover all of the branches, you would see the military become more potent and more focused on putting ordnance downrange.

I'm not saying they're not assets, what I'm saying is the costs of the contracts outweigh the benefit they give to the military. In effect, we're getting hosed when a job that can be done for $10-$14 an hour is getting done by someone who is getting paid $20-$28 an hour, and I don't doubt that some of those contractors effectively are getting overpaid.

Snowden is an anomaly. He became a contractor in order to be in a position to commit espionage. History has shown that full time employees of the NSA, CIA, and FBI turned traitor, and not based on their employment status.

 

Given your self-assessment of brilliance in military affairs how much do you credit teamwork to military success? Do you know why the military develops combat teams? How does your virtual military work together enough to be successful in the initial battles of the next war?

Aren't you really just creating a second class military to work and fight alongside a first class military? How do you get around the historical toot-to-tail problems? Would your first class military consist of only combat forces? What about administration, logistics and life support?

 

Hey PTP? I will wait while you do a little reading.

 

" Maybe my impression of contractors is more positive than yours is, but in the military I worked along side contractors who I felt were positive assets to the units I was with and their mission. They are paid well, but at least in a deployed area those guys had worse duty than the military. The ones I worked with overseas worked a month at a time with no days off, at least a 12 hour day, and the only reason they got a day off after a month was because their visas had them leave the country every month and then come right back. The ones I worked with stateside were basically on call 24/7. They were called in the middle of the night plenty of times to come in and fix the equipment.

I'm not saying they're not assets, what I'm saying is the costs of the contracts outweigh the benefit they give to the military. In effect, we're getting hosed when a job that can be done for $10-$14 an hour is getting done by someone who is getting paid $20-$28 an hour, and I don't doubt that some of those contractors effectively are getting overpaid. "


You are only looking at the salary paid, which as you say is in favor of keeping the military guy. But what you are not factoring in is the ancillary costs and benefits that the military gets, the free medical and dental, retirement that starts in your 40s, etc. If you add up the total costs you will find that a person in uniform is more expensive that a civilian. Which is why the services have already been contracting out certain functions for more than 20 years.

 

The purpose of a strong military, not mentioning a primary purpose for the US Military (Constitution), is deterrence of others to attack our homeland and/or those we have treaties with. Said another way, the probability of wars that could have been, never happened. Not trying to go off topic, I have no idea how many hot spots there are around the world today, where war is possibility or even likely, then mainly for a lack of US involvement.

As for cutting back to what has been suggested, it's unlikely Congress will allow the cuts or in fact the electorate, but if they do it will just be another issue/cost being kicked down the road. Rebuilding a military infrastructure, however defined, is not going to be cheap and it's unlikely those that loan us money today, will be there when needed...

 

Not so long ago I might've been certain that the GOP would never allow such cuts to be made to the defense budget. Now I ain't so sure.

 

Everyone become shortsighted when the options are to pay for necessary things like defense and real general welfare or buy additional votes by taking from the productive to give to potential voters.

We are doomed to another major war. Which would we like? Russia vs the US? China vs the US? or Russia-China-Iran vs an emasculated enfeebled US?

 

Such a thin line between love and hate with you, isn't there?

 

Most of those MOS's you mentioned would be assigned to units in the combat zone, particularly the ones that are at the Brigade level. So I don't see the advantage of having auxiliaries in a combat zone who are untrained for combat. That kind of defeats the purpose of having auxiliaries in the first place.

The contractors I worked with were technical specialists. These were highly skilled positions and you are just not going to be able to fill those positions with auxiliary type folks. Some of the equipment is so specialized there may be fewer than a couple of dozen people qualified to work on it. Whatever benefits you think would derive from having some positions moved to an auxiliary, you're still basically talking about unskilled or semi-skilled work; post maintenance or food services. You are still going to need contractors.

There may be some benefits to having an auxiliary if we went back to a draft. The majority of young people wouldn't qualify for military service now days because of physical issues, like obesity, or drug and criminal history. So if you had an auxiliary, you could still put them to work mowing lawns or something, but otherwise it seems unlikely.

 

But you see where I'm coming from on this though? I want the military to be as potent as possible, and if there's a chance a job can be done without putting someone in harm's way, it should be done, and when that happens, there can be auxiliaries.

I still think the Army and the Marines should be swapped in terms of manpower though, with the Army boiling down to an armor and artillery-centric force and the Marines becoming the United States' primary branch for infantry and air-mobile warfare. The Navy might need to build a few more LHAs, but with this Ukraine situation, it occurred to me that the only air power the United States could get into the Black Sea would likely be on the decks of the LHAs, since the Montreaux Convention precludes pure aircraft carriers from transiting the Bosphorus, so to me, it seems having a few more ESGs aren't all that bad an idea.

 

History has recorded that gutting the military is stupid. Why hasnt Obama learned from history?

 

He has and that is why he seeks to weaken our military and thus weaken the power of this nation. He is a fool but also just a puppet. His handlers tell him what to do. This nation is being ran by foreign globalists.

 

I do not agree with this cut. When other country's have millions of soldiers. We are heading back to pearl Harbor days

 

I served for 20. I took advantage of the opportunity to learn something important. It may be you did the opposite.

 

Why do you keep repeating the same stupid lines?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure you did, that's why you stayed for 20. Far easier than living in the real world.

 

"If you believe that then you should join with me to demand that each of our states petition the Congress for a Convention of the States to propose Amendments. You go for yours. I will go for mine. Then the results go to the people for ratification."

 

Yet the reality is that just is not the case, but it is the knee jerk reaction.

 

Apparently you are not familiar with the ratification process as defined in the US Constitution. Try reading it.

 

54 attack submarines
14 boomers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy

 

I spent some time in the boneyard. It has a small maintenance force, some people to test, and a very dry climate to preserve airframes. It is not a scrap yard. Unless one counts cutting up the nuclear capable airframes we have negotiated away. They did get cut up under the watchful satellites of our friends the Russians.

 

Downsizing in the face of growing threats is the perfect way of ensuring the next war. Very good thinking. How are things in the Ukraine? Why, in your opinion, are we chasing away potential allies, bowing to our enemies and destroying the military for the next generation? Don't we spend enough on individual welfare?

 

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

- - - Updated - - -

Enlighten us please.

 

While this is poorly worded it is an interesting point. We had victory in Iraq but president Obama threw it away. We might have had success in Afghanistan but president Obama announced we were leaving.

Is it possible that we do not teach strategy well enough to our high-level civilians? In my opinion, the US national command authority is not doing its job of determining the political goals it is intent upon achieving and then directing the military toward achieving those political goals.

What do others think?