We can't run at this rate...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Navy1960, May 7, 2012.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Officials are warning this can’t keep up indefinitely.

    Asked at an April 16 speech whether these mounting demands were allowing crews enough time at home and giving ships the opportunities for needed maintenance, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert replied: “If we continue through, if you will, the [future years defense program], the next five years, at the pace we are at today, the answer to your question is no, we can’t run at that rate.
    “We’ve made that point very clear,” he continued, during his question-and-answer session before hundreds of contractors and naval officers at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space symposium outside Washington, D.C.
    CNO: Stressed fleet can’t sustain op tempo - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

    As everyone knows the problems associated with two very long wars that have stressed the US Military to a point where its operational capability is now being called into question is now beyond debate. With an ever increasing number of young soldiers, sailors, and marines under stress to the point where some tragically take steps to end their own lives. It is time we as a nation take a step back and focus on defending this nation and the health and welfare of our young warriors, and the much needed upgrades to the tools needed to carry out future missions. We have expended over a Trillion dollars in the above two endevours at great expense and with little in return depending on who you listen to, and with ever more pressing issues in the world both economically and defense wise. The prudent path would be for any Administration be it this one or the next one, to take under consideration the real needs of the warriors and their families, bring those much honored and very pressed young people whom we are all thankful for a well deserved rest. Use that time to refocus Defense in a smart way towards the needs of this nation.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    I agree. I think we expect far too much of our military. They deserve far better treatment than we, as a nation, give them. As a country, we say we respect them, but how do we show it? We talk the talk, but we do not walk the walk.

    We do not fight wars, we send them to God-forsaken shitholes and expect them to play nice with the locals. That is not what an army is for. If we are to go to war, we should go to war.... hit hard, win and walk away.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Is the proposed operation likely to succeed? What might the consequences of failure? Is it in the realm of practicability in terms of material and supplies?
    Chester W. Nimitz


    Seems simple enough doesn't it? when you stretch your Military to the point where its operational readiness becomes a question in terms of "people" amd "materials" then it calls into question your overall use of the Military itself. this nation building that we have engaged in, in the last many years is proving to be costly and is now being felt in the general economy and also in terms of readiness as the CNO pointed out. I submit that if we plan to have a strong and healthy Military then we must realize that the Military is not like playing GI Joes where you take them out of the box everytime you want to play with them and they are the same each time.
     
  4. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,754
    Thanks Received:
    3,044
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,784
    I agree.

    Never mind the nation building crap. We are wasting our rescources and our men and women in uniform rebuilding.

    Thats not what the Military is for.

    As CG says. Get in, win and then get the hell out.
     
  5. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,192
    Thanks Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,769
    Libtard absentia is duly noted.
     
  6. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Yep. The whole point of having a military is that they should be feared... that our enemies don't attack us because the price is too high. Yet we have them building infrastructure, and paying the locals to be our 'friends'. WTF is that about? We train these guys to defend our nation and our interests.... and then we expect them to be the Peace Corp. Ludicrous.
     
  7. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    A very wise Marine that I know puts it this way....

    "In, win, walk".

    Works for me.
     
  8. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    why didnt Bush do that with these wars, he started them.
     
  9. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    " once political authorities commit military forces in pursuit of political aims, military forces must win something--else there will be no basis from which political authorities can bargain to win politically. Therefore, the purpose of military operations can not be simply to avert defeat--but rather it must be to win." AirLand Battle Doctrine which has been replaced with Network Centric Warfare and is now being looked at again by the Navy and Air Force with a Doctrine called AirSea Battle. The point CG made is quite correct in that the aim of US Military Forces should be to win! and win in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the outcome and then let those better able to rebuild do that task.
     
  10. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Why did you have no problem with Bush sending people back 5 and 6 times?
     

Share This Page