Rumsfeld Betrays The Troops AGAIN!

[CSM]

I totally disagree with you on this...Silicon Valley,California is a prime example...China is now buying into these manufactures of Micro Chips...and by the way when I first got out of the Army back in 68' I went to work for a company that produced some of the first micro integrated circuits...they later sold out to a well known company out of Texas...I am very familiar with the production of micro chips! And does Pearl Harbor ring a bell? Seems that we did the same thing with Japan pre WWII...just food for thought!

Things are a wee bit different now than they were in '68. Take a look at who is producing what in Silicon valley. Chip wafers and such are produced there still but the actual packaging is done overseas. China is buying some companies up for sure...ask yourself why those companies are selling! That well known company in Texas...now mostly overseas...ask yourself why.

US citizens bitch about outsourcing and companies moving overseas with he resultant loss of jobs....could it be because we DRIVE them out of here? Just look how much debate goes on just within this board about that very subject and the evils of big corporations. Not all big corporations are financial institutions. Our defense industry is being bought up and sold out as well.

 

[archangel]

what are you dissagreeing with? The fact the military MUST ask for bids?

the statement about profit vs restrictions on production...and I am against outsourcing military contracts to foreign governments as well as any other outsourcing of US workers jobs! It was a bogus argument about restrictions as I worked for Electromask Inc who later sold out to TRW...production of micro integrated circuits does not cause problems with restricted material codes or rules...!

 

[CSM]

what are you dissagreeing with? The fact the military MUST ask for bids?

Truly the heart of my argument. It is not that US manufacturers cannot produce aas good or even better products; it is that the military MUST accept the lowest bid which often times is a foriegn manufacturer. Anyone remember when the US Army switched to the black beret for all members? the lowest bidder was China, then Canada. It took an act of Congress (literally) to allow the US Army to buy anywhere BUT China.

 

[CSM]

the statement about profit vs restrictions on production...and I am against outsourcing military contracts to foreign governments as well as any other outsourcing of US workers jobs! It was a bogus argument about restrictions as I worked for Electromask Inc who later sold out to TRW...production of micro integrated circuits does not cause problems with restricted material codes or rules...!

Not profit necessarily but cost of production. The Environmental Protection Agency has some strict requirements about how certain chemicals necessary to the manufacture of circuit boards etc must be handled which drive up costs. Costs that many foriegn manufacturers dont have. Couple that with the cheap labor overseas and the US manufacturer comes in with a higher bid for an equitable product. If the products are equitable (they usually are) the military defense contractor MUST opt for the lower bid. By the way, do you know who actully OWNS TRW?

 

[archangel]

Things are a wee bit different now than they were in '68. Take a look at who is producing what in Silicon valley. Chip wafers and such are produced there still but the actual packaging is done overseas. China is buying some companies up for sure...ask yourself why those companies are selling! That well known company in Texas...now mostly overseas...ask yourself why.

US citizens bitch about outsourcing and companies moving overseas with he resultant loss of jobs....could it be because we DRIVE them out of here? Just look how much debate goes on just within this board about that very subject and the evils of big corporations. Not all big corporations are financial institutions. Our defense industry is being bought up and sold out as well.

actually the environmental restrictions are much less in todays manufacturing of integrated circuits...back in the day computers were used to photograph the engineeers design onto a photo plate that was later acid etched on metal...today the process is much cleaner and free from environmental impact!

 

[archangel]

Not profit necessarily but cost of production. The Environmental Protection Agency has some strict requirements about how certain chemicals necessary to the manufacture of circuit boards etc must be handled which drive up costs. Costs that many foriegn manufacturers dont have. Couple that with the cheap labor overseas and the US manufacturer comes in with a higher bid for an equitable product. If the products are equitable (they usually are) the military defense contractor MUST opt for the lower bid. By the way, do you know who actully OWNS TRW?

but I will let you fill me in...I worked for Electromask Inc out of Van Nuys California who developed the original process and later sold out to TRW who was a US owned company at the time...I left the company when they sold out as TRW management was not my cup of tea...went to work for the City of Los Angeles as a electrician then later with LAPD then finished college and went to work for the Feds!

 

[CSM]

but I will let you fill me in...I worked for Electromask Inc out of Van Nuys California who developed the original process and later sold out to TRW who was a US owned company at the time...I left the company when they sold out as TRW management was not my cup of tea...went to work for the City of Los Ageles as a electrician then later with LAPD the finished college and went to work for the Feds!

TRW is now pretty much owned by a European holding company named Exparian (sp?).

 

[CSM]

actually the environmental restrictions are much less in todays manufacturing of integrated circuits...back in the day computers were used to photograph the engineeers design onto a photo plate that was later acid etched on metal...today the process is much cleaner and free from environmental impact!

True enough, but the fact is the cost of mass producing ICs and circuit boards using the cleaner and more environmental friendly processes cost more than the old acid etched methods. This is especially true for multi-layer circuit boards. Companies in the US are required to utilize the cleaner, more expensive process. Chinese and other foriegn companies are not. So when the bid goes out, guess who gets it! Also, this little debate is not the sole issue. There are a bunch of trade agreements that have to be factored in as well. There are also mutual international military agreements that havve an impact. It is not a simple thing to analyse or explain.

 

[archangel]

True enough, but the fact is the cost of mass producing ICs and circuit boards using the cleaner and more environmental friendly processes cost more than the old acid etched methods. This is especially true for multi-layer circuit boards. Companies in the US are required to utilize the cleaner, more expensive process. Chinese and other foriegn companies are not. So when the bid goes out, guess who gets it! Also, this little debate is not the sole issue. There are a bunch of trade agreements that have to be factored in as well. There are also mutual international military agreements that havve an impact. It is not a simple thing to analyse or explain.

Command Sgt...however I am from the old school and I say give the jobs to my kids and grandkids...the hell with China and Japan and anyone else...bring our jobs home...thats my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[CSM]

Command Sgt...however I am from the old school and I say give the jobs to my kids and grandkids...the hell with China and Japan and anyone else...bring our jobs home...thats my story and I'm sticking to it!

I agree...however, the Congress writes the rules in this instance...you know, the folks who think we spend too much money on technology for the military. The ones who think being a frialator cook at Mickey D's is a noble profession and should pay as much as being a brain surgeon. The ones who think cutting the defense budget is a good way to finance social programs. The ones who think the UN should provide for our national defense. Those guys.

 

[archangel]

I agree...however, the Congress writes the rules in this instance...you know, the folks who think we spend too much money on technology for the military. The ones who think being a frialator cook at Mickey D's is a noble profession and should pay as much as being a brain surgeon. The ones who think cutting the defense budget is a good way to finance social programs. The ones who think the UN should provide for our national defense. Those guys.

then we agree to agree...let's kick all those sob's outta office and start fresh in 2008!

 

[CSM]

then we agree to agree...let's kick all those sob's outta office and start fresh in 2008!

Too easy....you still have to contend with the environmentalists, the socialists, the communists, and every special interest group that tries to tell everyone else how they should live, act or run their business. Then there is the UN, every other nation on the planet and every talking head who thinks they know how the US and US companies should act, make a profit and distribute its assets. Dont forget to add the religions of the world too.

 

[archangel]

Too easy....you still have to contend with the environmentalists, the socialists, the communists, and every special interest group that tries to tell everyone else how they should live, act or run their business. Then there is the UN, every other nation on the planet and every talking head who thinks they know how the US and US companies should act, make a profit and distribute its assets. Dont forget to add the religions of the world too.

providing we move to a real conservative party...such as 'American Independent'...the wave of the future...the two party system has failed us !

 

[Cylinder]

I suppose this op/ed is just an extension of the age old inter-service rivalry but his criticism of the Raptor is wrong. Even before the strategic strikes are done, the Air Force is well-immersed in vertical envelopment of the battle space. Over half of my wing's missions in Desert Storm were target boxes - little squares drawn on the map in which the package engages whatever ground equipment exists.

In OEF and PIF the USAF is living up to its responsibility for ground support, flying CAPs and ground support missions. An infantry officer who dials 911 will likely as not reach an Air Force of Navy pilot.

To answer the OP regarding the Raptor, all I have to do is ask a very simple trivia question - when was the last conflict in which US ground forces were routinely exposed to air attack?

 

[archangel]

I suppose this op/ed is just an extension of the age old inter-service rivalry but his criticism of the Raptor is wrong. Even before the strategic strikes are done, the Air Force is well-immersed in vertical envelopment of the battle space. Over half of my wing's missions in Desert Storm were target boxes - little squares drawn on the map in which the package engages whatever ground equipment exists.

In OEF and PIF the USAF is living up to its responsibility for ground support, flying CAPs and ground support missions. An infantry officer who dials 911 will likely as not reach an Air Force of Navy pilot.

To answer the OP regarding the Raptor, all I have to do is ask a very simple trivia question - when was the last conflict in which US ground forces were routinely exposed to air attack?

I am going to guess you are refering to the Vietnam era...we frequently called in Air Support to saturate a area in which we were being overrun..I had a best bud who lost 2/3 d's of his forearm when his position was being overrun by VC and NVA...It was a common occurance back in the day and accepted....

 

[dmp]

I am going to guess you are refering to the Vietnam era...we frequently called in Air Support to saturate a area in which we were being overrun..I had a best bud who lost 2/3 d's of his forearm when his position was being overrun by VC and NVA...It was a common occurance back in the day and accepted....

Well DUH. No wonder he lost part of his Arm. If you saturated an area in which you were currently being over-run, you'd have bombed the shit out of yourself.
The idea is to saturate (with bombs, etc) an area you ARE NOT occupying. If the enemy isn't in YOUR area, you aren't being over-run - you are being advanced upon. Waiting until you're over-run is TOO LATE.

 

[NATO AIR]

I forgot Thomas PM Barnett had already chimed in on this earlier....

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002737.html

Is the military-industrial complex winning?
■"Pentagon May Pare Air Force Ranks, Army Growth: About-Face by Planners Would Help Protect Budget For Big Weapons Programs," by Jonathan Karp, Andy Pasztor and Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2005, p. A1.
■"Free England--II: A story of Senate pork--and payback," editorial, Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2005, p. A20.

■"Democrats Find Iraq Alternative Is Elusive: Party's Elite Differ on How to Shift U.S. Policy," Robin Wright, Washington Post, 5 December 2005, p. A1.

■"Endangering the Marines," op-ed by Robert D. Novak, Washington Post, 5 December 2005, p. A21.

■"U.S. Forces Try New Approach: Raid and Dig In," Krik Semple, New York Times, 5 December 2005, p. A1.

■"Navy Plans to Expand Fleet, with New Enemies in Mind," by David S. Cloud, New York Times, 5 December 2005, p. A15.



Think the China bashing doesn't matter?

Like I said in the November Esquire piece, it's the programmatic hammer used to beat back the surging demands of the Army and Marines for serious support in this global war on terrorism, with the winners being the defense contractors determined to protect their huge weapons systems and platforms. Budget get tight? Slow the Army's manpower growth, but be sure to keep buying the big-ticket, Big War items most obviously attuned to future great power war with China.

And if we lose a thousand ground-pounders a year with this approach (not just skimping them on money and equipment and personnel, but denying them strategic alliance with countries that we must inevitably keep in the realm of quasi-enemies because that's how we justify buying the weaponry), well . . . that's just too damn bad.

Too many profits on the line. Too hard to change our Cold War acquisition programs.

Read the amazing text of this article if you don't believe me:

As the Defense Department scrambles to finalize its budget for the coming fiscal year, the Air Force is looking to secure much of its savings by cutting active and reserve forces, instead of slashing weapons purchases.
The move to sacrifice manpower in order to protect high-tech weaponry is an about-face from signals in recent months that Pentagon leaders and defense-industry executives were girding for deep weapons-program cuts to offset huge bills from both the war in Iraq and the Gulf Coast hurricanes. The Army, meanwhile, already grappling with a recruiting shortfall, is exploring a modest slowdown in troop growth . . .

The personnel moves may be controversial, but they reflect the military's need to replace aging equipment that has been pushed to the limit. Congress just a few months ago blessed a White House request to temporarily boost the Army by as much as 30,000 soldiers, and some powerful lawmakers are convinced the total number of U.S. ground troops should swell even further than that as the insurgency in Iraq rages. Moreover, many lawmakers remain skeptical about the military's ability to effectively manage some of the very aircraft, satellite and other hardware-development programs Pentagon brass most want to save from the budget axe.

Nonetheless the shift is good news for the nation's major defense contractors, which appear to have again dodged major cutbacks in big-ticket weapons purchases.

Stunning, isn't it, the power of the military-industrial complex?

Meanwhile, the Army is considering cutting three National Guard brigades and slowing its reformatting process of divisions into brigade combat teams.

Just like we're seeing the limits of imagination in U.S. foreign policy, we're watching the limits of imagination in U.S. defense planning. Afraid to let go of the past, the Big War crowd continues to win, and the boots on the ground continue to get shafted. A $440 billion budget for the Big War crowd, while the Army and Marines get to live off supplementals from Congress.

This is the very same Office of the Secretary of Defense that says postconflict stabilization ops will receive equal billing as planning for war, and then goes right on pretending that no shift in funds will accompany this historic shift?

This is stuff and nonsense. Of course there will be shifts in funds. Anyone who tells you otherwise is being dishonest or is woefully misinformed. Schoomaker, current Army Chief of Staff, notes that keeping 10,000 soldiers in the force has risen from $1.2 billion annually to $1.5 billion annually during his two years holding that position. If you're going to be serious about a global war on terrorism, you're going to have larger numbers of ground troops, both active and reserve. There is no way to get around that. That will mean less money for acquisitions, not just asking more money from Congress for supplementals for actual operations. The reason why the cost of manpower has gone up so much is that the Defense Department has recently sought to correct a lot of low compensation and quality of life issues for the troops, fearing unacceptable losses in enlistment and reenlistment rates. This is proper and good and shouldn't then be used as an argument against keeping those troops.

The only reason why our force structure ages and gets worn out is that we insist on buying only the highest of high tech, or weapons systems and platforms whose high-end use can only be justified by very high-end warfare against high-end opponents, i.e., the Big War rationale, which isn't just alive and kicking, as this article shows, but remains dominant on the subject of acquisitions.

So, despite all logic in this global war on terror, "plans for victory" and what not, we watch a last-minute reversal on long-anticipated big-ticket force structure cuts, which really has to make you wonder about what kind of DepSecDef Gordon England, former high-ranking defense contractor executive, is turning out to be. For months, he signaled otherwise, and based on his career of antagonizing the Big War Navy crowd during his time as SECNAV, one had reason to hope for the best. In fact, his confirmation has been held up by senators (Snowe, Lott) angry over his past cuts.

Plus, I think with Mullen taking over at Chief of Naval Ops, we're seeing the shift on force structure coming there, and England has to get some credit for that.

I have interacted with England and know him to be a solid guy, worthy of respect, but he needs to bring more to this position than just a sense of how to balance the books. The strategic vision here needs to be on building the SysAdmin function within DoD. Arming up a Leviathan force that we'll be self-deterred from using is not strategically sound. It plays into the hands of asymmetrical opponents. It endangers lives of our ground troops. It will make us less relevant militarily to the global security environment. It is simply bad judgment.

The long-term squeeze on high-tech procurement will never go away, but we'll never retreat from the world in the way that we did following Vietnam, which allowed for the massive hardware build-up begun under Carter and brought to fruition by Reagan. It is simply not in the cards. If this fiscal year budget goes down as this article projects, we're just putting off the inevitable, really endangering our troops in the meantime.

We're not going to fight counter-insurgencies with battleships, so Novak should settle down. Most of the guys leading change in the Army and Marines will tell you it's all about intellectual capital, not physical capital. So even there you'll find officers who'll say we need to recapitalize the force structure even as we move heavily into counter-insurgency capabilities. The underlying argument is: if we go light on the big war, then opponents will move into that realm, just like our having gone light in the postwar capabilities has encouraged the rise of Fourth Generation Warfare opponents.

In short, they will always hit us where we ain't.

I want to agree with both sides of this argument, but I won't. Given the aging of our population and the competitive pressures of Friedman's "flat world," I think we need to make some choices in this Global War on Terrorism. I think that if we're going to shrink the Gap, we'll need a lot of manpower help, so moving toward strategic alliance with China kills two birds with one stone: takes great power war off the table and frees up resources within the Pentagon for more intensive focus on postconflict (which does cost, buddy, no matter what anyone tells you) while giving us historic access to allied troops we'll need for the "long war" effort that will be shrinking the Gap.

But if you believe the Jaffe et. al article (and such articles are always snapshots in time), instead of seeing this shift unfolding we're watching the military-industrial empire strike back. Instead of weapons cuts when no major power in the world is spending anywhere near what we spend on acquisitions each year (#2 China spends less on its entire military than we spend on just acquisitions, blowing about $30k per soldier when we spend in excess of $300k in terms of overall spending), expect cuts in troops to preserve huge Big War weapons and platform systems riddled with poor oversight, wasted spending, and iffy technologies of dubious value to a global war on terrorism. Also watch as "manpower reductions affecting either the Air Force's uniformed or civilian acquisition corps are expected to face particular scrutiny, because the service has gone through years of scandal and morale-sapping controversy over allegations that Boeing received preferential treatment on some big-ticket aircraft and munitions programs."

And then watch Congress, led by the China hawks, swallow this budget whole, happy to see the acquisition money flow to their districts, all the while sanctimoniously decrying, on Sunday morning talk shows, the lack of support for the nation's troops on the ground over there.
Where will the Hill Dems be on this one? Probably chiming in with trade protectionism on China.

This whole thing makes me sick and deeply ashamed to be part of this business. Lives will be needlessly sacrificed in this pathway. It is wrong in the worst way.

I'm beginning to think Ralph Peters has a real point . . .

I'm beginning to think McCain, with his feud with Boeing on such issues, will make a great GOP presidential candidate in 2008.

And I'm wondering where the serious presidential candidates on the Dem side are on this issue . . .

Come to think of it, Wes Clark's answer on Iraq was pretty darn good . . .

Hillary better start speaking up with some intelligence.

Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett on December 6, 2005 11:18 AM | Permalink

 

[archangel]

Well DUH. No wonder he lost part of his Arm. If you saturated an area in which you were currently being over-run, you'd have bombed the shit out of yourself.
The idea is to saturate (with bombs, etc) an area you ARE NOT occupying. If the enemy isn't in YOUR area, you aren't being over-run - you are being advanced upon. Waiting until you're over-run is TOO LATE.

I can see you were never in combat...In Vietnam it was quite common to call air support or artillery in on your 'own' postion if you were being overrun...and by the way Jerry received a silver star and two purple hearts...so bite me Mr.Duh!

 

[Cylinder]

I can see you were never in combat...In Vietnam it was quite common to call air support or artillery in on your 'own' postion if you were being overrun...and by the way Jerry received a silver star and two purple hearts...so bite me Mr.Duh!

There has been a great improvement in the accuracy of glide bombs. In WWII, the CEP (circular error probability - or the average distance from the aim point a bomb would impact) was in hundreds of meters. During Vietnam, it was down to within a hundred meters. Desert Storm measured CEPs in tens of meters. Today it has probably decreased to 5 of so meters - with JDAMS measuring less than half that.

The same issue exists for artillery strikes which were often conducted with full knowledge that the friendly forces wound take whatever shorts happened to occur in that barrage. I think the ROEs for artillery are a lot stricter these days, though I'm not certain about that fact.

 

[Gunny]

don't believe me, check out ralph peters.
our military leaders and their civilian masters at the pentagon are selling out the troops and the country. the defense contractors are running the show, ruining our nation's future standing and capability to fight the real enemies we will face in the coming years, while our troops are fighting and dying in a war they already are busy forgetting about.
This is damn near treason, as bad as the libs who demand we cut and run from Iraq.

Y'know, I used to enjoy most of your posts. Sems lately they've been rather tainted with radical leftism.

Deployment get to you?