..the smaller the people.
..the smaller the people.
“This isn’t 1940. Moreover, as an instrument of coercion, that smaller army would be more lethal than the much larger one that helped defeat Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Given a choice between a few hundred of today’s Abrams tanks and a few thousand vintage Shermans, Gen. George Patton would not hesitate to choose the former.”
Do we really need a large Army?By Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Post.
This is the same paper that whitewashes the drone strikes. George Bush would never have been given an article titled “5 myths of the Iraq war”.
And yet the “argument” for cutting the military persists.
This Ain’t Hell skewers Tom Rick’s argument for “going to a cadre-like military, with only two Army divisions kept at high readiness”.
The left believes that troops are stupid. Just draft the bodies you need, buy the tanks, trucks and planes and then send them off to war. Lefties won’t go of course, the draft dogers of the 60′s became to leaders of today.
No they want to cut to the bone and keep cutting. there is talk of a new round of BRAC. Closing MORE bases, gutting civilian towns, eroding the defense industrial base. All for more spending on “domestic programs”.
Once the troops leave, their expertise is gone forever. You can’t draft leadership, tribal knowledge or hours in the cockpit.
“In the meantime, the world, from East Asia to the Middle East, is “unsettled” and becoming ever more so. Does anyone doubt that the decision in Washington to slash its defenses has been fully noted in Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran, and North Waziristan? Like Jeremiah, we say judgment is inevitable. Unless the present course is reversed, the wages of weakness will be paid in increased instability, crises, and ultimately conflicts that might well have been avoided.”
“Deeply Unsettling“, Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly, WeeklyStandard.com
It’s 1938 all over again.
UPDATE: Told you so…
It’s time for a large number of Americans to hear what might seem like a harsh message: A degree from a four-year university might not be for you. Popular culture would cast this frank assessment as elitist. But that’s a toxic myth that needs to vanish because the stakes are too high. A new study by Young Invincibles, a think tank geared toward issues facing young Americans, estimates that high youth unemployment costs the government about $25 billion in lost tax revenue. All the while, there are three million jobs that employers can’t fill because too many workers lack the requisite skills.
Others have made this observation. Tuition rises because more are going to college. Student loans are given to young people to study “humanities”. Mostly fluff courses and liberal b.s.
All together the US produces many people with worthless degrees. Many jobs can’t be filled because Moma’s special little snowflake won’t take a vocational job. Mike Rowe was first to notice this and is now “uncool”. Wal-mart, Target, other local shops that cater to the middle class and the poor are pilloried in the media.
Income “inequality” is the left’s answer. Like global warming, it’s just Marxism with a fresh coat of paint. The Occupy “movement” didn’t succeed because it was all envy and hate not answers.
We need jobs not class warfare.
Expect the left to whine and cry as their recruitment dries up.
The war in Afghanistan continues. The war in Iraq is still fresh in the minds of the soldiers who fought it. The war on terror seems far from over. Good war movies will be made about these conflicts, but only after they’re long over.
Until then, speculative fiction allows storytellers to talk about the conflicts in a way that incompetent “realistic” crap like Lone Survivor and The Hurt Locker just can’t.
Matthew Gault in War is Boring
Consider the film Lone Survivor, which tells the true story of heroic Navy SEALs in Afghanistan. The film has been denounced by some critics; a “jingoistic, pornographic work of war propaganda,” in the words of one reviewer. Richard Corliss of Time chimed in: “That these events actually happened doesn’t necessarily make it plausible or powerful in a movie, or keep it from seeming like convenient propaganda.” Similar complaints (from non-conservatives, at least) about antiwar films made during the George W. Bush years are much harder to find.
Tinseltown’s Propaganda Problem , By Jonah Goldberg, NRO.com
Hollywood and the liberals in the MSM want blood and gore, sex and violence. As long as it makes America and her military look bad.
They want the fall of Saigon, US caskets. Hence the “demand” for “access” to Dover Air Force Base. With a Democrat in the White House?
Nope. And Lone Survivor is about the Navy SEALs. So was Zero Dark Thirty and Captain Phillips. And the left hates them. Oh they likes it when Bin Laden assumed room temp, we heard “Osama is dead and Detroit is Alive” over and over.
But then the economy and the ACA hit.
So the War On Terror(tm) grinds on. There will be no Deer Hunter, no psycho veterans shooting up bars or running around in fatigues and army surplus. Thanks to the internets vets are getting our voices out. There are directors who don’t want to do propaganda. We’re sick of 9/11 images and the left screaming about how “Bush/Cheney/the GOP” did [INSERT CONSPIRACY HERE].
The X-files and hippie anti-war b.s. had their day. I say let old Hollywood burn.
“A villain/overlord so evil that they literally eat babies.”-TvTropes
“I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this. It’s because women secretly like to talk about how hard managing a household is so they don’t have to explain their lack of real accomplishments. Men don’t care to “manage a household.” They aren’t conditioned to think stupid things like that are “important.”
– “Amy Glass”: “I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry.”
When I was in college, my friends and I used to joke that extreme feminists ate babies. It was a tasteless joke made by two 20-something slackers who got bored between classes.
This is “Amy Glass” seems to hate families and really hate children.
Women CHOOSE to stay at home with children.
Women and men CHOOSE to have families just like some chose not to.
This is another “how dare you disagree with me” liberal. The thing that turns America off from liberalism is the smug asshole factor. Glass hates families and assumes that she’s better for being single. Frankly if she did eat babies it wouldn’t be a surprise.
Already Wendy David‘s lie about being a single mom is frying her political future. If she had told the truth, the “Amy Glass” crowd would have loved a woman who used a rich man for his money and stuck him with the children. Liberals are all about hedonism and child abuse.
But that don’t play with working Texans.
“Glass” might be an epic level troll. I suspect that she could be a /b/tard or a creation of Gawker.com.
If she’s real then the left once again shows why they are made of fail.
So this happened:
SEATTLE (KING) – Boeing machinists have voted to approve Boeing’s latest eight-year contract proposal, securing assembly of the company’s new 777X airplane in Washington state.
Thousands of union members cast their ballots – some waiting in line for hours outside of the union hall in Everett – in Friday’s crucial vote.
– “Seattle machinists approve Boeing 777X production contract“, Ksdk.com
So Kshama Sawant must be spinning, she called for Boeing workers to “Take Over” their plant if Boeing left. Yeah, talking like a Batman villain makes all kinds of sense…
Boeing’s workers have working brains. Their Union doubled down and lost. Boeing could move to those “right to work” states. The voted to keep their jobs. Hopefully they will vote new union leadership.
And now how!
Here we see a call for peace in Asia:
The clock starts ticking for the next crisis. With China’s announcement of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea and the strong response from Japan, the United States and several other countries, tensions in East Asia are mounting. Since the crisis over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in September 2012, both China and Japan have begun to conduct frequent air and marine patrols in the Diaoyu/Senkakus area. With the flyby of the American B-52s, the area around these tiny islands has become a zone of tension with high probability of an accident and subsequent conflict.
To overcome this, Chinese and Japanese leaders first need to demonstrate their vision, courage, and determination to make peace. The establishment of the zone of peace is a crisis prevention tactic. It will not change any legal claims or the status of the territorial claims. If they want to avoid conflict, especially one arising from a small incident, they should take measures to decrease the likelihood of such accidents through using tools such as the zone of peace.
–”How to Prevent Accidental Conflict in the East China Sea:China and Japan could avoid conflict in the East China Sea by setting up a “peace zone.”,By Zheng Wang,thediplomat.com “
Alright, this would be a good idea, trouble is the hate China and Japan have for each other. The “zone” and “islands” in question are worthless (except for undersea deposits of oil, minerals and fishing rights). Yet they might start shooting over it.
Japan did horrible, horrible things to China in World War II. The Chinese Community Party needs a win to cement the idea it’s a superpower. Japan just wants it’s territory respected (and yes some of their right wing isn’t too keep on China). Peace? Hardly. If the U.S. intervenes we’ll be seen as on Japan’s side. Or worse the diplomats of our current party will be so wishy-washy that any deal will be crap.
So smart diplomacy isn’t their thing.
Neither is defense:
“Want a better U.S. military? Make it smaller. The bigger the military, the more time it must spend taking care of itself and maintaining its structure as it is, instead of changing with the times. And changing is what the U.S. military must begin to do as it recovers from the past decade’s two wars.”
“Want a better U.S. military? Make it smaller”
Tom, you’re an idiot. The Louisiana Maneuvers exposed an Army ill-equipped for war. Jeeps with wooden signs that said “tank”, wooden guns, four “bombs” dropped from air planes. The cycle repeated just before Vietnam. The USAF sold off thousands of iron bombs as scrap to prep for the nuclear mission. Cue 1965 and TAC was in country, a flight of 4 jets would have 1 bomb each. The old bombs? Sold to West Germany for pennies on the dollar and bought back in haste for much more.
Tom Ricks wants to repeat that. A downsized military loses thousands of junior enlisted, NCO’s and officers with experience. No we can’t draft it, recruit it or get it from the moon. Aircraft, tanks, ships and wheeled vehicles put in “storage” rot unless kept up, something a “smaller” military won’t be able to do. All lefites hate carriers and now China’s new anti-ship ballistic missile is there new excuse to get rid of them.
Yeah, take away the carriers, downsize the air fleet and shrink the ground troops and we have no leverage to force China or any one to the negotiation table. A frigate navy is what Tom Clancy predicted if we lost our carriers, something his latter pie in the sky novels got right.
While the fall of Communism and the post-Cold War era wasn’t kind to Clancy, Tom Ricks and Zheng Wang seem to think it’s 1939. They want Peace In Our Time.
Given how well that went back in ’39, I saw we ignore them and their MSM ilk.
“The most important point in arguing against bringing back the draft is that we don’t need it. That is, the armed forces are currently having no problems with recruiting, and in most cases, are recruiting over 100% of their target goals. To bring back the draft, the military would have to do one of two things in order to make room for the conscripts: increase the size of the overall force or partition off a certain quota of positions to be made up of conscripts. Considering the current economic situation and the planned reductions in troop numbers, increasing the size of the overall force is a nonstarter. Given the military’s current recruiting success, partitioning off “slots” for draftees could work only by turning away otherwise qualified recruits. Then, there would still only be a tiny portion of the armed forces that were draftees in a mostly all-volunteer force.“
–Why Bringing Back the Draft Makes No Sense Don Gomez, Small Wars Journal
Given that the Army has gone from a high of 500,000+ to a low of 470,000 and dip below that, why on earth do we need to put Americans who don’t want to join into the service?
I suspect that it’s part of the left’s plan to gut the military to pay for more social welfare. Lefty policy wonks want draftees so that they can scream about “skin in the game”. Sorry this isn’t football.
Most positions in the military are combat service and support, not shooting or kicking down doors. Most draftees would wind up fixing trucks and mopping floors. The old school Keyensian economics numbskulls think that’s a good idea. Reality is that it’s a bad idea and will turn the clock back to the hollowed out force of the 1970′s.
Gee seems personnel costs aren’t eating the DOD alive. That the DOD’s senior leadership was lying and cost are up elswhere in larger ammounts than ”’personnel”’!.
Okay, lemmie ‘splain:
In the 90′s, weapons tech was teh smexy, but the budget was low. Pay, the housing allowance and other bennies ”barely” kept up with inflation. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were on food stamps. Units were cut right and left (look at a map of pre-1989 West Germany, 1995 Germany and now). Many qualified troops left as flying hours were cut, 2 aircraft were cannibalized to keep one flying and the whole being military on food stamps thing.
Slick Willie agreed to the Future Combat System, JSF and a few other weapons programs, that were delayed. He punted and was more interested in oval sex in the oral office.
So 9/11 happened, BAH and pay were on the upswing. While recruitment was up before OIF, ~2004 the numbers went down. I was there, headlines like “empty seats at Benning” were in the Army times. Then some brain dead git addicted to power point came up with the “moral waiver”. Promotion points dipped and many idiots got in. So to preserve the proggies and hardware (and fat contracts) This Aint Hell gives us the money quote:
“Congress is deeply resistant to cutting pay and benefits. So the Pentagon leadership’s rhetorical focus on soaring personnel costs may help reduce pressure on the broader military budget.
“If you focus on the least doable thing, what you gain is leverage to bring the whole budget up,” Adams said. “By pointing to the hardest thing to change, they hope that the whole budget will continue to be high.”
–Stars & Stripes: “Report: Pentagon emphasizing personnel, but budget costs up across the board”
Well, not only is it the “hardest thing to change”, it impacts fewer voters, because cutting actual defense spending impacts contracting and manufacturing jobs and entire local economies. Whereas, cutting the number and pay of troops affects far fewer people – people who wouldn’t ordinarily vote for the current administration and it’s less likely to have any real impact on elections.
– Jonn Lilyea slams the DoD
Yup, because having good troops leave because they can’t feed their families, pilots leave because of poor maintenance and low flying hours and a garrison military nitpicking every little behavior worked so well in the Clinton Era.
If the Bush era was one of fat waste and flushing money down the toilet, the Clinto era was one of dry rot. It was Clinton’s DOD that came up with contractors and no-bid contacts to DynCorp, KBR et al. Bush just went over the top. Far from saving money, the new soldiers of fortune cost much, much more:
“We know that sergeants in the military generally cost the Government between $50,000 to $70,000 per year. We also know that a comparable position at Blackwater costs the Federal Government over $400,000, six times as much.”
The left wants to go back to a draft so they can take money from readiness, going back to the era of a small army/navy swelling with draftees. We have members of Congress saying that we need to “slash” future bennies.
What is needed is to fire the contractors, replace them with Reservists/National Guard, enlarge the Guard and Reserve and slash the DoD Civlians, O-5 and up, E-7 and up armchair warriors who’ve never deployed. End the draft.
When an Active duty US Vice Adm. Bill Moran has to “dispell rumors”, things are bad (go click on that link).
The 90′s sucked. As troops leave for better pay elsewhere, the military rots from within. I suspect that’s what some want, but do we really want a return to the 30′s Army?
I always wondered why the “tea party” and “limited government” see to be a dog-whistle to the left. Why do they hate these terms?
“Power, or perceived power, is a viciously addictive narcotic. It doesn’t matter what political or philosophical background a person hails from, very few have the self discipline or the self awareness necessary to relinquish the trappings of power once they have tasted it. This truth applies to conservatives as much as it applies to liberals.”
–”Guest Post: Are Constitutional Conservatives Really The Boogeyman?” Zerohedge.com
The Washington DC RINO‘s and Democrats are interchangeable. Those career politicians (something the founders feared and despised) are interested in power and the money from being the DC elite.
So they fear the group with the hand painted signs, the people meeting in their homes and on blogs. They sic the MSM and the IRS on innocent people.
Maybe on November 4th we should show them who’s the real boss.
UPDATE: Instapundit links to this:
Mr. Seitz-Wald’s alternative, using technology and innovation in the service of a more powerful, consolidated, and monopolistic state, is in an altogether different spirit, one that would have been familiar to George Orwell, who, in his more charitable moments, understood that nobody plans on becoming Napoleon, it just works out that way — something that happens as “they constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within by dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
–” Memories of Futures Past:
A brief history of bold new visions of the American order “,
Kevin D. Williamson, National Review.
It’s never about “reform”, it’s about securing jobs for those in power. The media, the lawyers, the politicians, they all want money and power. If we let them dictate reform we’ll never get true reform, just more of the same cronyism.