« | »

NYT Claims Pentagon Willing To Risk Gutting Army

From the New York Times:

Pentagon Officials Say They’re Willing to Assume Risks of a Reduced Army

By HELENE COOPER and THOM SHANKER | February 24, 2014

WASHINGTON — In shrinking the United States Army to its smallest size since 1940, Pentagon officials said Monday that they were willing to assume more risk the next time troops are called to war.

Naturally, when Obama declared that ‘the era of austerity is over,’ he wasn’t including the military.

But assuming more risk, they acknowledged, meant that more of those troops would probably die…

Unreal. Who would volunteer for a military that doesn’t care if more of you die? (Which, come to think of it, could be the idea. Find yet another way to discourage volunteers.)

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also warned of higher risks during a news conference on Monday. He said that if additional cuts are imposed under the across-the-board mandatory reductions known as sequestration, “the risks grow, and the options we can provide the nation dramatically shrink.”

Gee, Gen. Dempsey doesn’t sound so willing to assume the risks of a reduced army.

Also, as the article notes, while the Republicans have thrown in the towel on the sequester for domestic spending, the sequester for the military marches on. The era of military austerity is going to continue. So things are only going to get worse.

Under Mr. Hagel’s proposed budget, the Army would drop to 440,000 to 450,000 troops by 2019, down from a peak of 570,000 during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army, which bore the brunt of the fighting and casualties in the wars, was already scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops.

Meanwhile, China has an army that totals over 2 million. Russia’s totals over 1 million. So does North Korea’s. But that’s okay. We can count on the deterrence of our nuclear arsenal. — No, wait. Obama has gutted that, too.

The National Guard and reserves, which were costly to train for Iraq and Afghanistan to meet the standards of their full-time counterparts, would face smaller reductions, although the Guard’s arsenal would change to focus more on domestic disaster relief…

Which, after all, is the only good reason to have a military.

Many defense experts interviewed Monday said that given the budget realities, the decision to cut back on the Army made sense, even with the increased risk…

Naturally this is what the ‘defense experts’ that the New York Times knows would say. They previously said that the most important for national security was having openly gay troops.

“You can’t buy perfect security,” said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and a defense expert at the Center for American Progress

The Times is citing ‘military experts’ from the Democrat front, the Center for American Progress, which would love to see the US do away with its military entirely.

Michèle Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official in the Obama administration, said the country was unlikely to find itself engaged in two large simultaneous ground wars like Iraq and Afghanistan anytime soon.

“If we got that prediction wrong, there would be some risk in terms of needing to grow the force quickly to try to cope with a second large and sustained ground campaign,” she said. “It’s a calculated risk, but one that I think is reasonable.” …

Well, if Michèle says it’s okay, than who are we to question it?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 25th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “NYT Claims Pentagon Willing To Risk Gutting Army”

  1. captstubby says:

    as long as they promise to keep us out of overseas wars,
    you know, so no American boys will be killed.
    Wilson and Roosevelt got re elected on this.

  2. Petronius says:

    Hmmm… let’s check the scorecard and see how he’s doing :

    1. kill jobs √
    2. raise taxes √
    3. stop economic growth and de-industrialize the country √
    4. foment class warfare √
    5. boot-on-the-necks of business leaders and businesses √
    6. redistribute wealth √
    7. live high on the hog √
    8. drive up welfare spending and ignore welfare fraud √
    9. payoffs to political cronies √
    10. blow the public debt sky high √
    11. undermine US debt rating and the currency √
    12. bury the financial system in red tape √
    13. wreck the health care system √
    14. attack the energy industry √
    15. selective enforcement of the laws √
    16. weaponize government against the opposition √
    17. militarize domestic law enforcement agencies (except Border Patrol) √
    18. DOJ release Panthers and bring lawsuits against AZ, TX, AL, NC √
    19. shred the Constitution √
    20. attack the Bill of Rights √
    21. bypass Congress with Phone-&-Pen strategy √
    22. pack the courts √
    23. intimidate Chief Justice John Roberts √
    24. attack religion and undermine the country’s moral compass √
    25. dismantle NASA and the space program √
    26. open borders, mass immigration, and amnesty √
    27. free terrorists and release 3,000 foreign felons from prisons √
    28. betray America’s old allies √
    29. encourage America’s enemies √
    30. gut military defense √

    Yep, looks like the program’s moving along right on schedule.

    Lucky thing he’s a real patriot, right Mr. O’Reilly?

  3. captstubby says:

    “check the scorecard ”
    and today is only tuesday.

  4. Astravogel says:

    Hey, King Priam, since I got back with this cute Greek bint, I
    don’t think we need to keep as much of an army as Troy used to
    have. I’m sure goodwill will prevail, inasmuch as her husband was
    a lout, according to the soothsayers. Besides, war never solves
    anything anyway.

  5. canary says:

    With everything going on between N Korea and the US.
    Just how weak does Obama want to make the US.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »