Thread: Lets discuss defense cuts in detail

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

I think they should maintain the current pay rates but cut the force quite significantly. They could even look at increasing pay to attract better candidates. I'd much prefer a force about 50% the size of the current one (lean and mean) but with much higher standards.

That is of course, the other option...cut the force and keep the remaining as essential, cream of the crop military professionals.

USAF is dealing with a sex abuse scandal at their AETC facility at Lackland. This kind of crapola leads me to believe a house cleaning is in order...from the top down.

It was always stressed to me, we had a responsibility to the taxpayers and therefore accountability.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

I'm always been a proponent of keeping the military as a fighting force, and privatizing the support functions. The private sector is more efficient, they have a profit motive to consider and competition...the Government, including the military...has no competition..whether they do a good or bad job...they're the only game in town. Start holding them accountable or shift non-warfighting responsibilities to the private sector.

I have actually been opposed to this for a long time. And when you look at a lot of it it is actually cheaper to have the military do a lot of the work.

One thing about a lot of the basic "grunt work", is that it is done by the lowest ranks of Enlisted, E1-E4. These are your supply clerks, your administration clerks, your food services individuals. In fact, it is only within the last decade that a lot of the work done in chow halls was done by the lower enlisted. We called it "KP", and was generally a month long duty where people worked in the kitchens cleaning dishes, pots & pans, and things like this.

Now, they hire civilians for a lot of these jobs. Either civil service, contractors, or direct hire. Now for some jobs it certainly does make sense to have civilians do the work. But for others, it only adds more to the cost.

The vast majority of your military simply does their 3-6 year contract, then goes home. No retirement, no pension, no nothing due them by the military. But your civilians will generally keep their jobs for as long as they can. Annual raises for years, promotions over years. Yea, you hire them at lower wages then you pay your E3. But after 10 years, they are still doing the same job, but now they are making more. And the jobs we are paying them to do are ones we are already paying people to do.

Supply in the Army is almost entirely civilian run. And these civilians are hired on at about the pay of your E5 Sergeant. So within a few years, you now have somebody making the pay of an E6 Staff Sergeant, essentially doing the same job that an E3 PFC used to do. And instead of sending 2-3 soldiers to the mess hall for KP every month or so, now it is done full time by civilians that you have to pay. Why not use the soldiers, that is what they are for? Back when I was first in (and when we are in the field now where there are no civilians), we generally use this to put the most worthless individuals. It actually is a good discipline tool. Shape up, or wash pots and pans the rest of your career. And it lets us find a use for them that does not actually hamper the mission.

And how much more are they paid? Well, this hsould give an idea. My base pay upon discharge was $2,363. I am in the process of applying for a civil service job as essentially a supply clerk at a military supply depot, the same type of job I used to help out in 20 years ago. My base pay, around $4,500 a month. Plus benefits. Sure, I have to give some back to the Union (ugh), but it is significantly more then some Private is paid for doing the same job. And if I had decided to roll-over my military time I would be making a lot more (instead I am gonna keep them seperate, so I can be a "double dipper"). And another advantage is that after 1 year, I become "permanent", so I can't be fired without cause. If a downsize had to happen, they would have to find me another job at the same pay or higher, or give me a huge severance pay.

A lot better then your Privates get after 4 years. A lot more expensive also. And even though I am going to take advantage of this, I still think the military would be better off putting most of us out of work and returning this to them.

I really don't care how much we spend on the military as long as we don't feel compelled to use it everytime someone insults a president's father. Double the budget for all I care.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

That is of course, the other option...cut the force and keep the remaining as essential, cream of the crop military professionals.

And that is another problem. Because you jsut can't do that.

If you fire everybody other then the "cream of the crop", you then end up in the position of "to many chiefs, not enough indians". You can't have some E-7 changing oil on trucks in the motor pool, or a bunch of E-5's doing the police call around the barracks every day. And you certainly do not want Majors and Lieutenant Colonels in charge of Platoons. Because there are only so many billets for these people to hold, and these are actually based most times on how many people they have to lead, or the level of responsibility required.

And if you want to keep these professionals, you have to promote them also, or they will leave. So you end up having to make up positions to put them in, simply so you do not loose them. I saw this in the early 1990's, when the military was downsizing after the Gulf War. Staff Sergeants being given the boot after 18 years because they had a DUI 10 years prior as a Corporal. People a month away from being eligable to re-enlist now being told they could not do so because the quotas are full. People at their 20 year mark being told they had to retire, because they had no place to put them as entire bases were closed.

Our drawdown is slower this time, but no less real. We have seen retention points increasing steadily over the last 2 years, and at the same time the requirements for promotion have also increased.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

I have actually been opposed to this for a long time. And when you look at a lot of it it is actually cheaper to have the military do a lot of the work.

One thing about a lot of the basic "grunt work", is that it is done by the lowest ranks of Enlisted, E1-E4. These are your supply clerks, your administration clerks, your food services individuals. In fact, it is only within the last decade that a lot of the work done in chow halls was done by the lower enlisted. We called it "KP", and was generally a month long duty where people worked in the kitchens cleaning dishes, pots & pans, and things like this.

Now, they hire civilians for a lot of these jobs. Either civil service, contractors, or direct hire. Now for some jobs it certainly does make sense to have civilians do the work. But for others, it only adds more to the cost.

The vast majority of your military simply does their 3-6 year contract, then goes home. No retirement, no pension, no nothing due them by the military. But your civilians will generally keep their jobs for as long as they can. Annual raises for years, promotions over years. Yea, you hire them at lower wages then you pay your E3. But after 10 years, they are still doing the same job, but now they are making more. And the jobs we are paying them to do are ones we are already paying people to do.

Supply in the Army is almost entirely civilian run. And these civilians are hired on at about the pay of your E5 Sergeant. So within a few years, you now have somebody making the pay of an E6 Staff Sergeant, essentially doing the same job that an E3 PFC used to do. And instead of sending 2-3 soldiers to the mess hall for KP every month or so, now it is done full time by civilians that you have to pay. Why not use the soldiers, that is what they are for? Back when I was first in (and when we are in the field now where there are no civilians), we generally use this to put the most worthless individuals. It actually is a good discipline tool. Shape up, or wash pots and pans the rest of your career. And it lets us find a use for them that does not actually hamper the mission.

And how much more are they paid? Well, this hsould give an idea. My base pay upon discharge was $2,363. I am in the process of applying for a civil service job as essentially a supply clerk at a military supply depot, the same type of job I used to help out in 20 years ago. My base pay, around $4,500 a month. Plus benefits. Sure, I have to give some back to the Union (ugh), but it is significantly more then some Private is paid for doing the same job. And if I had decided to roll-over my military time I would be making a lot more (instead I am gonna keep them seperate, so I can be a "double dipper"). And another advantage is that after 1 year, I become "permanent", so I can't be fired without cause. If a downsize had to happen, they would have to find me another job at the same pay or higher, or give me a huge severance pay.

A lot better then your Privates get after 4 years. A lot more expensive also. And even though I am going to take advantage of this, I still think the military would be better off putting most of us out of work and returning this to them.

You're missing a huge part of the picture. You have to consider it from a supply chain management point of view. Yes, in terms of labor, it can sometimes be cheaper to have an E-2/E-3 to do the grunt work....although with medical, retirement, training, etc. all added in, this isn't neccessarily the case. The problem is that labor is only a small part of the issue. You have to consider management practices, materials, MIS, and a plethora of other components of the business. The government isn't anywhere near as efficient as a private specialized company. The military has A LOT more redtape to dance around and doesn't have the management professionals to increase efficency and cut costs. There was an absolute revolution in distributions/business in the 1980s/90s (around the time KP duty disappeared) where businesses became significantly more efficent because of distribution channels, MIS, technology, and much better management techniques. There's a reason contractors are used; it's cheaper. The military can't be an expert at fighting wars, AND supplying equipment, providing medical care, food, construction, design etc. Small specialized firms who have ironed out every inefficency over decades can do it much more cheaply. They may pay their employees twice as much as soldiers, but they MORE than make up the difference in other operational areas.

Labor is only one part of the total cost. Sysco isn't chosen because we lack the bodies to scrub pots, its chosen because it has the distribution and procurement channels, the management expertise, and economy of scale to provide food more cheaply.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

And that is another problem. Because you jsut can't do that.

If you fire everybody other then the "cream of the crop", you then end up in the position of "to many chiefs, not enough indians". You can't have some E-7 changing oil on trucks in the motor pool, or a bunch of E-5's doing the police call around the barracks every day. And you certainly do not want Majors and Lieutenant Colonels in charge of Platoons. Because there are only so many billets for these people to hold, and these are actually based most times on how many people they have to lead, or the level of responsibility required.

And if you want to keep these professionals, you have to promote them also, or they will leave. So you end up having to make up positions to put them in, simply so you do not loose them. I saw this in the early 1990's, when the military was downsizing after the Gulf War. Staff Sergeants being given the boot after 18 years because they had a DUI 10 years prior as a Corporal. People a month away from being eligable to re-enlist now being told they could not do so because the quotas are full. People at their 20 year mark being told they had to retire, because they had no place to put them as entire bases were closed.

Our drawdown is slower this time, but no less real. We have seen retention points increasing steadily over the last 2 years, and at the same time the requirements for promotion have also increased.

They need to significantly increase the recruitment standards then slowly push out the deadweight at the top. This would involve reducing ranks at all levels.

I would like to see us close most of our foreign military installations. We have no need to be the worlds policemen in my mind. Its time for other countries to start pitching in more. But of course, most of thsoe bases are not there for the purpose of being in place so that we can "police the world". They are there as a reminder of American power, and the ability to project that power anywhere in the world in a matter of hours and days.

I wish we would get awwy from our imperialistic way of thinking around the world. The sad fact is, that we have more military personal active over seas than we do in our own country. That is pretty deplorable.


I would like to see a much smaller ACTIVE military, but a much LARGER reserve force. I see no reason we cannot maintain our military edge, while at the same time having a smaller active force both at home and abroad.

And of course our investment in technology should continue to pay off.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

What you just described is called "Hegemonic Stability Theory" and it is one of the most hated concepts on the left. They want to beleive that the world has moved beyond the need for such things as a hegemon.

The left still wants a hegemon, but they want it to be China, the UN, or basically any other country in the world other than the US.

Originally Posted by Lil Mike

The left still wants a hegemon, but they want it to be China, the UN, or basically any other country in the world other than the US.

The question is Why? What makes them think another nation or organization would be a better hegemon? The USA is almost solely responsible for the building of the global economy and the infrastructure that supports it.

Who better to administer the global stability and security necessary for its existence than us?

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

The question is Why? What makes them think another nation or organization would be a better hegemon? The USA is almost solely responsible for the building of the global economy and the infrastructure that supports it.

Who better to administer the global stability and security necessary for its existence than us?

I dunno. I think it's part of the lefty mythology. They may be rudely surprised some couple of decades from now when the world is a crappier place without the US as a superpower.