U.S. military decimated under Obama

[Theowl32]

U.S. military decimated under Obama, only ‘marginally able’ to defend nation

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 24, 2015
The U.S. military is shedding so many troops and weapons it is only “marginally able” to defend the nation and falls short of the Obama administration’s national security strategy, according to a new report by The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday.

“The U.S. military itself is aging. It’s shrinking in size,” said Dakota Wood, a Heritage analyst. “And it’s quickly becoming problematic in terms of being able to address more than one major conflict.”

President Obama’s latest strategy is to size the armed forces pledged in 2014 so that the four military branches have sufficient troops, ships, tanks and aircraft to win a large war, while simultaneously acting to “deny the objectives of — or impose unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in another region.”

In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.

But Heritage’s “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength” took a look, in detail, at units and weapons, region by region, and came to a different conclusion.

“The U.S. military is rapidly approaching a one-war-capable force,” said Mr. Wood, a former Marine Corps officer and strategic planner. “So [it is] able to handle a major war and then having just a bit of residual capability to handle other minor crises that might pop up. … But it is a far cry from being a two-war force.”



“The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure,” the report concluded. “The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

The index report is part scorecard, part research tool.

It grades the Army, which is shrinking from 570,000 soldiers to 440,000 or lower, and the Navy, which is failing to achieve a 300-ship force, as only “marginal” in military power. The Air Force’s fleet of fighters and long-range bombers is judged “strong.”

Heritage says the military cannot fight two wars at once.

The report said the Army historically commits 21 brigade dombat teams to one war. Several years ago, that left just 21 more brigades for a second war and none for strategic reserve.

But the problem is more acute. The Army announced in 2013 it may go as low as 33 brigades, far short of the 50 brigades Heritage says are needed.

The Army has been battered by automatic budget cuts known as “sequestration.” A bipartisan budget deal provided some relief last year, but the slashing could come back in 2016 without another agreement.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, has said that if the active force is squeezed down to 420,000 soldiers, it could not carry out all global commitments.



Read more: U.S. military decimated under Obama only marginally able to defend nation - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


All of Obama's 'achievements' amount to the planned and orchestrated annihilation of our republic ... He is bringing our country to its knees. That we are now militarily unable to defend ourselves, let alone our allies, leaves us completely vulnerable to our enemies.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

 

[mudwhistle]

U.S. military decimated under Obama, only ‘marginally able’ to defend nation

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 24, 2015
The U.S. military is shedding so many troops and weapons it is only “marginally able” to defend the nation and falls short of the Obama administration’s national security strategy, according to a new report by The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday.

“The U.S. military itself is aging. It’s shrinking in size,” said Dakota Wood, a Heritage analyst. “And it’s quickly becoming problematic in terms of being able to address more than one major conflict.”

President Obama’s latest strategy is to size the armed forces pledged in 2014 so that the four military branches have sufficient troops, ships, tanks and aircraft to win a large war, while simultaneously acting to “deny the objectives of — or impose unacceptable costs on — another aggressor in another region.”

In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.

But Heritage’s “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength” took a look, in detail, at units and weapons, region by region, and came to a different conclusion.

“The U.S. military is rapidly approaching a one-war-capable force,” said Mr. Wood, a former Marine Corps officer and strategic planner. “So [it is] able to handle a major war and then having just a bit of residual capability to handle other minor crises that might pop up. … But it is a far cry from being a two-war force.”



“The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure,” the report concluded. “The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

The index report is part scorecard, part research tool.

It grades the Army, which is shrinking from 570,000 soldiers to 440,000 or lower, and the Navy, which is failing to achieve a 300-ship force, as only “marginal” in military power. The Air Force’s fleet of fighters and long-range bombers is judged “strong.”

Heritage says the military cannot fight two wars at once.

The report said the Army historically commits 21 brigade dombat teams to one war. Several years ago, that left just 21 more brigades for a second war and none for strategic reserve.

But the problem is more acute. The Army announced in 2013 it may go as low as 33 brigades, far short of the 50 brigades Heritage says are needed.

The Army has been battered by automatic budget cuts known as “sequestration.” A bipartisan budget deal provided some relief last year, but the slashing could come back in 2016 without another agreement.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, has said that if the active force is squeezed down to 420,000 soldiers, it could not carry out all global commitments.



Read more: U.S. military decimated under Obama only marginally able to defend nation - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


All of Obama's 'achievements' amount to the planned and orchestrated annihilation of our republic ... He is bringing our country to its knees. That we are now militarily unable to defend ourselves, let alone our allies, leaves us completely vulnerable to our enemies.

Maybe we could conduct jobfairs for all of our enemies so they won't attack us.

 

[mudwhistle]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

It's too late by then.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

It's too late by then.

Not at all. Unless you wanna get wasted too you're not gonna use nuclear weapons. Any war where even one nuke gets used opens pandora's box to a full release (and not the pleasant happy kind.) So a ground operation to secure territory is all that's left. You could never take over the US for any length of time (geography working in our favor and making supply lines all but impossible,) but the attack gesture could result in concessions being given when it's over so you never do it again.

Defense contractors love wars. Doesn't matter what they're about, how successful they are, or how long they last. Longer the better. Wars make the contractors money. If defense spending gets cut, they need an enemy to justify ramping spending back up. No better boogeyman than the guys who just landed on the East Coast.

If they see defense spending being scaled back bit by bit over time, they might not resist it and even encourage it on the hope someone takes a shot at us. Once that happens, demands to be protected come and spending goes back up. Like drug dealers giving free samples knowing people will get hooked and spend lots more than the free sample cost the dealer.

 

[Wildman]

when are people going to wake up to the FACT that muslime son-of-a-bitch is going to drive the U.S.A. into total ruin.., he absolutely HATES America and every thing Americans have accomplished in the 239 years of existence and 100 years before that !!

i want to piss on that motherfuckers grave !!

 

[LoneLaugher]

when are people going to wake up to the FACT that muslime son-of-a-bitch is going to drive the U.S.A. into total ruin.., he absolutely HATES America and every thing Americans have accomplished in the 239 years of existence and 100 years before that !!

i want to piss on that motherfuckers grave !!

I am really warming up to your point of view. You have this genuine way about you that makes me want to trust what you say. I wish I had that ability.

 

[mudwhistle]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

It's too late by then.

Not at all. Unless you wanna get wasted too you're not gonna use nuclear weapons. Any war where even one nuke gets used opens pandora's box to a full release (and not the pleasant happy kind.) So a ground operation to secure territory is all that's left. You could never take over the US for any length of time (geography working in our favor and making supply lines all but impossible,) but the attack gesture could result in concessions being given when it's over so you never do it again.

Defense contractors love wars. Doesn't matter what they're about, how successful they are, or how long they last. Longer the better. Wars make the contractors money. If defense spending gets cut, they need an enemy to justify ramping spending back up. No better boogeyman than the guys who just landed on the East Coast.

If they see defense spending being scaled back bit by bit over time, they might not resist it and even encourage it on the hope someone takes a shot at us. Once that happens, demands to be protected come and spending goes back up. Like drug dealers giving free samples knowing people will get hooked and spend lots more than the free sample cost the dealer.

Actually Defense contractors don't love war. They love weapons development. That is the biggest expense to the government. Once a system is tested at government expense they can sell it to anyone. If you're in a war expense is a major factor, and cuts have to be made. New weapons have to take a back seat to sheer numbers.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

It's too late by then.

Not at all. Unless you wanna get wasted too you're not gonna use nuclear weapons. Any war where even one nuke gets used opens pandora's box to a full release (and not the pleasant happy kind.) So a ground operation to secure territory is all that's left. You could never take over the US for any length of time (geography working in our favor and making supply lines all but impossible,) but the attack gesture could result in concessions being given when it's over so you never do it again.

Defense contractors love wars. Doesn't matter what they're about, how successful they are, or how long they last. Longer the better. Wars make the contractors money. If defense spending gets cut, they need an enemy to justify ramping spending back up. No better boogeyman than the guys who just landed on the East Coast.

If they see defense spending being scaled back bit by bit over time, they might not resist it and even encourage it on the hope someone takes a shot at us. Once that happens, demands to be protected come and spending goes back up. Like drug dealers giving free samples knowing people will get hooked and spend lots more than the free sample cost the dealer.

Actually Defense contractors don't love war. They love weapons development. That is the biggest expense to the government. Once a system is tested at government expense they can sell it to anyone. If you're in a war expense is a major factor, and cuts have to be made. New weapons have to take a back seat to sheer numbers.

Don't get money to develop new weapons systems if no one's depleting their existing supplies in wars.

 

[Sunni Man]

when are people going to wake up to the FACT that muslime son-of-a-bitch is going to drive the U.S.A. into total ruin.., he absolutely HATES America and every thing Americans have accomplished in the 239 years of existence and 100 years before that !!

i want to piss on that motherfuckers grave !!

Our beloved Pres. Obama was elected to rule over us.

As his loyal subjects. We need to obey his dictates and directives.

Because he knows what is best for his citizens and country.

Why can't people understand this? .......

 

[rightwinger]

We have a military stronger than the next ten nations combined and eight of those ten are our allies

It is time for the US to stop playing world policeman and make our allies step up to the plate

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

It's too late by then.

Not at all. Unless you wanna get wasted too you're not gonna use nuclear weapons. Any war where even one nuke gets used opens pandora's box to a full release (and not the pleasant happy kind.) So a ground operation to secure territory is all that's left. You could never take over the US for any length of time (geography working in our favor and making supply lines all but impossible,) but the attack gesture could result in concessions being given when it's over so you never do it again.

Defense contractors love wars. Doesn't matter what they're about, how successful they are, or how long they last. Longer the better. Wars make the contractors money. If defense spending gets cut, they need an enemy to justify ramping spending back up. No better boogeyman than the guys who just landed on the East Coast.

If they see defense spending being scaled back bit by bit over time, they might not resist it and even encourage it on the hope someone takes a shot at us. Once that happens, demands to be protected come and spending goes back up. Like drug dealers giving free samples knowing people will get hooked and spend lots more than the free sample cost the dealer.

Actually Defense contractors don't love war. They love weapons development. That is the biggest expense to the government. Once a system is tested at government expense they can sell it to anyone. If you're in a war expense is a major factor, and cuts have to be made. New weapons have to take a back seat to sheer numbers.

Don't get money to develop new weapons systems if no one's depleting their existing supplies in wars.

Meanwhile our enemies are developing newer and more sophisticated weapons making ours obsolete. Yeah...brilliant

 

[Iceweasel]

By utter coincidence this tends to happen with Democrat presidents.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

It's too late by then.

Not at all. Unless you wanna get wasted too you're not gonna use nuclear weapons. Any war where even one nuke gets used opens pandora's box to a full release (and not the pleasant happy kind.) So a ground operation to secure territory is all that's left. You could never take over the US for any length of time (geography working in our favor and making supply lines all but impossible,) but the attack gesture could result in concessions being given when it's over so you never do it again.

Defense contractors love wars. Doesn't matter what they're about, how successful they are, or how long they last. Longer the better. Wars make the contractors money. If defense spending gets cut, they need an enemy to justify ramping spending back up. No better boogeyman than the guys who just landed on the East Coast.

If they see defense spending being scaled back bit by bit over time, they might not resist it and even encourage it on the hope someone takes a shot at us. Once that happens, demands to be protected come and spending goes back up. Like drug dealers giving free samples knowing people will get hooked and spend lots more than the free sample cost the dealer.

Actually Defense contractors don't love war. They love weapons development. That is the biggest expense to the government. Once a system is tested at government expense they can sell it to anyone. If you're in a war expense is a major factor, and cuts have to be made. New weapons have to take a back seat to sheer numbers.

Don't get money to develop new weapons systems if no one's depleting their existing supplies in wars.

Meanwhile our enemies are developing newer and more sophisticated weapons making ours obsolete. Yeah...brilliant

Actually, it is not even close on any major weapon system

Do you just make shit up?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

There's really no new weapons systems. Only more efficient and accurate ones. We've hit a ceiling of sorts technology-wise where all we have to do now is make things smaller, lighter, faster, etc. But the weapons systems are just variations on centuries old themes (solid projectiles travelling down a pipe, or some explosive device carried aloft by a rocket.) So in 30 years our stuff will be 30 years smaller or faster, but not 30 years newer. There's nothing left to invent that's really new. More disturbing, it only took us about 5 years to invent from scratch the atomic bomb. If you can get the fissile material (U-238 or plutonium) the actual mechanics and engineering is so simple engineering grad students at MIT are tasked with doing it and most succeed (absent the fissile material of course.)

I expect future weapons systems to be things whose effects are discreet. A mushroom cloud isn't discreet so not something you can get away with actually using. Biological and chemical, cyber, and some other stuff I've read about suggest the holy grail of weapons research is anything with big effect but low observability.

 

[Moonglow]

Here's a scenario. In order to placate defense contractors and ensure they make lots of money at the expense of our military veterans, weaken US defense capability to the point where an enemy shows up on US shores some day ala Kuwait in '91. As we're invaded and only just able to repel the invaders, the US population demands more defense spending.

It's too late by then.

Not at all. Unless you wanna get wasted too you're not gonna use nuclear weapons. Any war where even one nuke gets used opens pandora's box to a full release (and not the pleasant happy kind.) So a ground operation to secure territory is all that's left. You could never take over the US for any length of time (geography working in our favor and making supply lines all but impossible,) but the attack gesture could result in concessions being given when it's over so you never do it again.

Defense contractors love wars. Doesn't matter what they're about, how successful they are, or how long they last. Longer the better. Wars make the contractors money. If defense spending gets cut, they need an enemy to justify ramping spending back up. No better boogeyman than the guys who just landed on the East Coast.

If they see defense spending being scaled back bit by bit over time, they might not resist it and even encourage it on the hope someone takes a shot at us. Once that happens, demands to be protected come and spending goes back up. Like drug dealers giving free samples knowing people will get hooked and spend lots more than the free sample cost the dealer.

Actually Defense contractors don't love war. They love weapons development. That is the biggest expense to the government. Once a system is tested at government expense they can sell it to anyone. If you're in a war expense is a major factor, and cuts have to be made. New weapons have to take a back seat to sheer numbers.

Don't get money to develop new weapons systems if no one's depleting their existing supplies in wars.

Meanwhile our enemies are developing newer and more sophisticated weapons making ours obsolete. Yeah...brilliant

You ain't seen nothin'..

 

[Manonthestreet]

Strategic defense is fading fast, meanwhile Obama ashcans nonproliferation and our Allies

 

[Manonthestreet]

Railguns and lasers right around the corner.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Btw defense contractors only get away with what you allow. Start canceling crap and reality might return

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There's really no new weapons systems. Only more efficient and accurate ones. We've hit a ceiling of sorts technology-wise where all we have to do now is make things smaller, lighter, faster, etc. But the weapons systems are just variations on centuries old themes (solid projectiles travelling down a pipe, or some explosive device carried aloft by a rocket.) So in 30 years our stuff will be 30 years smaller or faster, but not 30 years newer. There's nothing left to invent that's really new. More disturbing, it only took us about 5 years to invent from scratch the atomic bomb. If you can get the fissile material (U-238 or plutonium) the actual mechanics and engineering is so simple engineering grad students at MIT are tasked with doing it and most succeed (absent the fissile material of course.)

I expect future weapons systems to be things whose effects are discreet. A mushroom cloud isn't discreet so not something you can get away with actually using. Biological and chemical, cyber, and some other stuff I've read about suggest the holy grail of weapons research is anything with big effect but low observability.

You must have missed the Navy's new Laser Weapon System. Star Wars technology the left said was impossible to develop