Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

[ProSense]

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

By THOM SHANKER and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

The proposal, described by several Pentagon officials on the condition of anonymity in advance of its release on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

The officials acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.

<...>

Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html

[Lost_Count]

1. Until next time...

[1awake]

2. IF this takes place... which I doubt....

About damn time.

[ProSense]

6. Proposing it is a good place to start. n/t

[1awake]

8. I don't agree with you on much these days

But I do on this 100%.

[ProSense]

9. That's OK. "These days" are all about being anti-Obama.

I'm not in that group.

[1awake]

64. No, your not.

and Ill leave it at that. Have a good day.

~1

[blkmusclmachine]

3. We'll see...

[theHandpuppet]

4. Considering how much of our military "might" is comprised of mechanized technology...

... I wonder how this actually translates into the actual power of our military force? Has there been a study? I am glad to see our military forces reduced but we still spend obscene amounts of money on military weaponry, including ships, planes and such.

[Octafish]

21. Robots. Drones.

Drones. Robots.

Perfect Jarheads: Do only what they're told. Easier to maintain. No pay. No retirement hassles. No griping. No mutiny.

[pangaia]

5. Johnny McC ain't gonna like this one bit.

[ProSense]

10. Yeah, but is he the only one? n/t

[msanthrope]

7. Cutting the MIC...let the concern trolling from the faux Left begin!!! nt

[ProSense]

11. It's an election year.

Win!

[sabrina 1]

13. How much is the budget for our mercenary/private armies? Does anyone know?

I know we use the euphemistic term 'contractors' airc from the old Bush days when the 'faux left' as you call Liberal Democrats were fairly outraged that this country was using mercenaries in their 'faux' wars. Or are we supposed to be supporting Bush's policies now?

Who needs a national army when we can outsource their jobs to hundreds of 'private security' contractors like Blackwater eg, or have we learned to Blackwater also, speaking of the 'faux left'.

[SidDithers]

15. Yup. FUD'ers gotta FUD...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

12. We pay mercenaries now, that's who is still in Iraq, 'private armies' and

we also use our allies' troops as 'proxy armies' when we are involved in 'wars' we want to pretend we are not involved in 'on the ground' like Libya eg. Why pay Americans when we can outsource our wars?

This is no surprise. As soon as they figure out a way to outsource the 'Civilian police' they will 'cut' that budget too I suppose.

How sad it all is, the money being spent on our Global war machine while pretending it is for 'our protection'. Meanwhile people who actually need protection right here cannot get it.

[ProSense]

16. Absolute nonsense. n/t

[sabrina 1]

17. Well, that's informative. Are you denying that we are paying Blackwater 'contractors'

who have changed their name due to their war crimes in Iraq, among others? Are you saying we have pulled all these 'contractors' out of the ME? That would be great news. But I have not read that anywhere, perhaps you have a link?

[ProSense]

19. This

"We pay mercenaries now, that's who is still in Iraq, 'private armies' and we also use our allies' troops as 'proxy armies' when we are involved in 'wars' we want to pretend we are not involved in 'on the ground' like Libya eg. Why pay Americans when we can outsource our wars? "

...is nonsense. There are no "contractors" engaged in combat in Iraq.

[sabrina 1]

20. Are there 'contractors/mercenaries' in Iraq or not? Simple question.

[ProSense]

22. I said it was nonsense. Is that hard to understand? n/t

[wocaonimabi]

25. Congressional Research Service Says Otherwise

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf

Here is the GAO showing a 90% savings using Contractors vice Active Duty
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-266R

US ‘Army of Contractors’ Now Works for Iraq
Thousands of Contractors Remain in Place, With New Employer
by Jason Ditz, January 24, 2014
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/01/24/us-army-of-contractors-now-works-for-iraq/

[ProSense]

31. No, it doesn't

First of all the report is from 2011. Secondly, it's nonsense that there are contractors in combat in Iraq.

Every friggin person knows there is an embassy there, and there are people assigned to it.

[sabrina 1]

34. We are outsourcing everything else, why not the military. They don't want to have to

pay for the care of the troops when they return and have figured out a draconian solution for the problem, hire mercenaries, pay them more, but with not benefits. And people are actually cheering for this?

Thanks for the links, and they can't even tell us how much they are spending on these mercs.

[sabrina 1]

28. '108,000 Private Contractors in Afghanistan'

108000 Private Contractors in Afghanistan

So despite the increasing number of private contractors being used and the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on them, the Pentagon is not even able to determine what they are doing or whether it is effective. As CRS reports, the information the Pentagon has on private contractors is probably not reliable enough to be used to make decisions "at the strategic level," thus hindering its ability to tell whether the work of contractors is contributing to "achieving the mission."

The U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been massive, and destructive, wastes of lives and money. Although the U.S. and its allies say that they plan to remove combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014, this will in no way be the end of the West's presence in the country. Francis reports that much of the work currently done by the military will be done by the private contractors after the military leaves. So while the attention paid to Afghanistan is likely to continue to dwindle even further, as has been the case in Iraq, as the military withdrawal picks up, the foreign occupation, by what one analyst has called "a de facto army," looks set to continue on.

So what is that you are calling 'nonsense'? There's lots more on this available btw, you are free to look it up and maybe find out just how much we are spending on these private armies that are replacing the military in these 'war zones'.

If you meant it is nonsense that were doing this at all, then I agree.

[ProSense]

32. When did Afghanistan become Iraq? n/t

[sabrina 1]

36. When did cutting the military mean hiring mercenary armies in their place? Your OP was about

cuts to the military was it not? How is it cutting the Pentagon budget by replacing the regular army with mercenaries? Can you explain that, unless we the people get the benefits of not having to pay for the care of the troops when they return, rather than handing over any savings to the 'Contractors' for profit. It's hard to get any figures on all of this though. The pentagon doesn't seem to have any.

You want to know how many are in Iraq? Just click the GAO links that are all over the internet, some even in my link above I believe.

You're not diverting from the facts by pretending not to know what is going on.

This was a huge topic throughout the Bush years, and guess what, some of us have not suffered some form of amnesia since then. We actually remember what the plans for our military escapades were regarding outsourcing our 'wars', hiring of 'proxy' armies.

Of course we thought this would end when we elected Dems.

Maybe you thought it had?

[ProSense]

40. When did Afghanistan become Iraq? n/t

[Octafish]

23. President Obama thanked ''civilians'' for their "sacrifices" and ''service'' in Iraq.

He also thanked the nation's men and women in uniform for their sacrifice and service.
I am all for giving thanks to them: They volunteered to defend the United States out of patriotism.

The problem is blurring the lines of who's who and what's what when it comes to matters of war.
Specifically, American civilians in Iraq are largely the mercenaries and contractors there to make a buck.



What the president said at a presser with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki:

...So this is a historic moment. A war is ending. A new day is upon us. And let us never forget those who gave us this chance -- the untold number of Iraqis who've given their lives; more than one million Americans, military and civilian, who have served in Iraq; nearly 4,500 fallen Americans who gave their last full measure of devotion; tens of thousands of wounded warriors, and so many inspiring military families. They are the reason that we can stand here today. And we owe it to every single one of them -- we have a moral obligation to all of them -- to build a future worthy of their sacrifice...

Here's the link to the official White House transcript:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/12/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-al-maliki-iraq-joint-press-co

I have a problem with blurring the distinction. Apart from the civilians in government service (State Department, CIA, and so on), the contractors are not there out of patriotism. Like their corporate paymasters -- such as Halliburton, Blackwater and DynCorp -- they did it for the money.

[sabrina 1]

30. I was just told that it was nonsense for me to point out that we now have

more mercenaries in these war zones than US Military. I guess they have privatized the military, outsourced our wars, so naturally they can cut those military jobs here. Makes sense to me, but apparently no one wants to talk about it in this thread, other than me, and now you.

Thanks for providing FACTS not propaganda, as always Octafish. I wonder what we have to do to stop spending billions of our tax dollars on these mercenary armies. See my post below on the cost, which no one seems able to provide, certainly not the Pentagon.

And you are correct, mercenaries, like Erik Prince eg, who btw has slammed us wimpy liberals for our lack of support for his 'patriotic work' killing Iraqis in their own country, ironically, mercenaries like him, not to mention the foreign mercenaries we are hiring, are NOT working in these places for patriotic reasons.

So sickening, all of it, even more to see the attempts to obfuscate and excuse the facts surrounding our foreign wars.

[ProSense]

38. You know what's hilarious

"Thanks for providing FACTS not propaganda, as always Octafish...So sickening, all of it, even more to see the attempts to obfuscate and excuse the facts surrounding our foreign wars."

...people are so lost in distortion and spin that they can't tell the difference between "facts" and nonsense.

I mean, a link to a 2011 speech by President Obama thanking civilians has nothing to my point that there are no contractors in combat in Iraq today.

[sabrina 1]

41. I know you don't want to talk about the money being diverted from the military now to private

'contractors' for some reason. I see no reason why since you raised the issue, we should not explore where all the money is going, how much, what these 'cuts' to the military ACTUALLY mean in terms of money etc.

But, if you don't want to discuss the facts, others do, all over the country in fact.

You haven't responded directly to a single question I asked I asked. You stated that my claim that we were diverting all that money we are 'cutting' to Private Armies, was nonsense. When I proved you wrong, you went off on something else. Do you really think those tactics obliterate the facts or that we as tax payers will just forget about it because you call it 'nonsense'. I'm at a loss as to why you post a thread about military 'cuts' but then try not to discuss that very subject.

[ProSense]

43. Apparently, announced cuts to the military seems to be causing some to panic. n/t

[sabrina 1]

44. Actually if there WERE cuts which would be passed on to taxpayers rather than Private Contractors

we would be thrilled. Can you confirm that these 'cuts' to military PERSONNEL equal cuts to the Pentagon Budget, and then we can all celebrate together?

But you seem reluctant to even discuss the issue so I have to go with what is available regarding what these cuts to personnel actually mean and from what I'm finding out, I see no reason for celebration.

Of course I could be wrong, and if you have information to provide that is cause for celebration, I am certainly willing to read it. I love celebrating and we haven't had much to celebrate over the past decade or so.

Feel free to show how we the taxpayers will benefit from 'shrinking the military', financially.

[ProSense]

45. "Feel free to show how we the taxpayers will benefit from "shrinking the military", financially."

So-called progressives struggle (panic) to spin cuts to defense as a negative.

Yikes!

[sabrina 1]

48. You still haven't addressed how cuts to military personnel has anything to do with

cuts to the Pentagon Budget. Or if there will also be cuts to the Mercenary Armies we have all over the world.

I couldn't find anything about cutting Military Contracts for Mercs so I'm skeptical that the money we save on the health care of the troops by 'shrinking the military' won't be funneled now to Private Mercenary Contractors. But you could put my mind at ease if you have something to show how I am wrong.

[ProSense]

49. Here's the title of the OP: Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

Now, feel free to keep debating yourself, using your own spin and obfuscation.

"Feel free to show how we the taxpayers will benefit from "shrinking the military", financially."

[sabrina 1]

67. I haven't noticed any debate at all, other than the rolly poly guy which has come to

indicate on DU, a lack of ability to respond to legitimate, even if, inconvenient questions. That in itself is a response whether you know it or not.

I have been searching around for actual cuts in the Pentagon Budget regarding the money being spent on our now vast Private Security Operation, and have seen no mention of them at all, so I have to assume that any cuts in personnel only means a refunneling of the money into private hands.

Hey, nothing new about that lately, Prison Funds now privatized, Education Funds, Medicaid, what is left of public funds to privatize? And of course the National Security fund billions of which goes into private hands.

It's almost mesmerizing to watch how methodically it is all happening, something many of us doubted back in the last decade. I just didn't think Dems would let them get away with it.

Iraq is study in the way they do business. Seriously, you should look it up, it's unbelievable how patient they are, how ruthless when it comes to money. They CREATED a macabre business there. I admit I thought it was ONLY about the oil at first.

[ProSense]

69. Actually,

"I haven't noticed any debate at all, other than the rolly poly guy which has come to"

...the debate ended before it started.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024555346#post12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024555346#post16

You then continued to debate yourself, adding new red herrings and straw men, even responding to the point about Iraq with information about Afghanistan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024555346#post28

That's definitely worth a

[sabrina 1]

71. You should have read the article rather than just the headline. Still no answer

on whether or not we will stop using Mercs or paying our proxy puppets as in Iraq eg, to take over the payment of their salaries, or whether we will be spending more money on Drones, to SELL TO our 'new' puppet allies, as in Iraq eg. Are we in the arms business or the war business, it's hard to tell sometimes. Both I suppose. One leads to the other it seems ....

Hey, thanks for providing this thread so we could explore all these questions. As I said above, last time we are told, we didn't ask enough questions and shouldn't have been surprised by some of the policies we were later shocked by.

This time, we will be asking, you count on that ... not that we will get answers, but if nothing else, to demonstrate how we have zero power anymore, as a people. First the acknowledgement of the problem, then maybe, a way to fix it. At least we are far, far more aware now than we were during the Bush years and that is a step in the right direction.

[ProSense]

72. You're blaming the article for the bogus claim and your continuing to debate yourself?

OK

[sabrina 1]

74. I'm not even trying to debate you, just using your thread to inform

others of facts that need to be known and questions that need to be asked.

No need to thank me for kicking your thread.

Iraq, a travesty of human rights abuses, is still going on. But Mercenaries are making a fortune there, still.

[ProSense]

75. LOL! Denial is strong. n/t

[woo me with science]

59. No response to your questions, I see.

Just a lot of rolling on the floor.

[ProSense]

60. LOL!

Obfuscation: Make wild claims, ask red-herring questions and yell "propaganda," and when all else fails, try the superiority crap.

"Just a lot of rolling on the floor"

[ProSense]

33. What the hell does that have to do with my point? n/t

[sabrina 1]

37. What was your point? Cuts to the Pentagon budget? If so, this has everything to do

your point.

[ProSense]

39. LOL! Need more posts?

[sabrina 1]

42. Does this mean you didn't have a point? That's fine, we do and are more than willing

to discuss it!

[Octafish]

62. Your point was wrong.

My post showed why.

[ProSense]

63. No, it wasn't, and your post was completely and undeniable irrelevant to my point. n/t

[Octafish]

65. Shows that mercenaries were thanked for their ''Service.''

So, yes. That's most relevant, seeing how the point of the thread is shrinking the Army and I'm showing how there are ways to make the Army bigger at the same time through privatization.

Do you know who spearheaded that process?

[ProSense]

66. Nothing to do with my point. Nothing. n/t

[woo me with science]

46. Thank you, Octafish and Sabrina,

for exposing the bullshit and the usual propaganda.

The US military is being privatized, like everything else in this country.

Anyone who seriously believes that the MIC, the bloody jewel in the crown of the profit-mongering of the One Percent, will actually be scaled back in any meaningful way under the current bipartisan corporate machine, I have a nice one of these to sell you:



We have seen this con game many times before. I have often thought it would be interesting to post a graph of the years when military cuts are promised with great fanfare but end up being restored or merely shifted to another part of the budget. Unfortunately, that isn't possible, because budgeting/reporting of military spending is so deceptive. We would see some damned impressive peaks around election years.

[ProSense]

47. LOL!

"Thank you, Octafish and Sabrina, for exposing the bullshit and the usual propaganda."

Say anything: All facts are "propaganda" when one is in denial and has an agenda.

[sabrina 1]

50. Well, it's an election year. I expect we will see a lot of things that look like

'progress' but from past experience, I believe we are all a lot more wary and questioning than we once were. I know we are being 'inconvenient' regarding the flow of election year, what shall I call it, appeals to our better nature, to be kind. But I remember being told AFTER the last election, that 'we should have known and not 'believed' all that we heard. I'm just trying to take that advice this time, and ask all the questions we should have asked in 2008, well according to THEM anyhow.

I am having difficulty finding out of there are any proposed cuts to our Military Contractors, more of which are now in Afghanistan and Iraq than the actual military. I haven't found anything that proposes cutting the huge numbers of our Private Armies anywhere, but who knows, miracles sometimes do happen!

[woo me with science]

61. "...from past experience, I believe we are all a lot more wary and questioning than we once were."

...from past experience, I believe we are all a lot more wary and questioning than we once were.

Well said. It's sure important to watch the fine print when corporatism rules Washington, isn't it? I have started a list of just some of what we've heard this week in terms of election year promises, that certainly elicit wariness and questioning:

SS cuts are out of the budget....for this year anyway.

It may not be the time to be aggressive about the TPP....for right now.

We promise to defend net neutrality...... but we aren't actually going to use the FCC to STOP the corporate expansion of power. We just promise to rewrite the rules sometime down the road.

And now we are promised military cuts....but with no assurances that any of the ostensibly "saved" money will be diverted in a way that helps Americans, and with no assurances of cutting private armies/mercenaries.

Superb posts throughout this thread, Sabrina. If we have learned anything during these past five years, it is that real change running in any way counter to corporate interests will not happen without pressure from the people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Blackwater no longer exists....

thought you were a journalist....shouldn't you know that it is now called Xe?

[sabrina 1]

79. Know how many Private Merc corporations we are paying with tax dollars?

Apparently neither does the Pentagon, they just keep spending billions of our tax dollars on these corps and no one knows what for.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. I don't care.....a "journalist" would know that Blackwater is Xe....

[sabrina 1]

94. So would any ordinary DUer, like me. Are you confused?? I am not a 'journalist' nor ever

claimed to be. You appear to be terribly confused.

I know Blackwater claims to be 'out of the business'. I know Erik Prince left the country after the exposure of their war crimes, I know they changed their name which didn't really work for them.

I used them as an EXAMPLE. Try focusing for a minute.

Is Dynecorp, remember them and the Torture Scandal, 'out of business' also? Have THEY changed their name? Are THEY receiving contracts from the Pentagon?

As a 'journalist' surely you know how many Private Contractors we are paying and surely you know how brilliantly we got them employment in Iraq after we supposedly 'left'?

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. I have never claimed to be a journalist.....but I knew about it...

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. You got proof....got some figures...

otherwise you are pulling your data out of that place the sun doesn't shine....

[sabrina 1]

93. Yes, how about you? I have already posted, in this thread, information on

our Bush initiated Private 'Contractors'/Mercenaries. Go read the thread before you jump in demanding what has already been provided.

And here I thought Democrats were OUTRAGED over Bush's Mercenaries, back in the 'old' days. So now we have learned to LOVE Bush's policies??

When did Progressive Democrats change their minds about our use of mercs in Afghanistan and Iraq? Care to enlighten us, I'm having problems keeping up with the Bush policies we are suppose to SUPPORT now after eight years of opposing them. Thanks in advance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. If you bothered to read BEFORE you respond to me....you would see that we were all discussing the

data and figures I provided just a few posts earlier....I have a whole stack of evidence and figures....what you holding?


EPIC FAIL ATTACK!

[alarimer]

83. It's called Academi now, actually.

In 2011, he set up a secret desert force in the UAE.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html?pagewanted=all

Third paragraph:

The force is intended to conduct special operations missions inside and outside the country, defend oil pipelines and skyscrapers from terrorist attacks and put down internal revolts, the documents show. Such troops could be deployed if the Emirates faced unrest in their crowded labor camps or were challenged by pro-democracy protests like those sweeping the Arab world this year.

Erik Prince is now helping China steal Africa's resources.

http://www.examiner.com/article/blackwater-s-erik-prince-opportunity-china-after-u-s-political-blowtorch

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. well it is certainly not blackwater....

And that company seems to have moved on to be a corporate Army....not working for the govt per se...

[rdharma]

77. The cuts in our military will be shifted to private contractors............

You are absolutely correct, Sabrina 1 !

[Blue_Tires]

14. I wonder if this is setting the stage to eventually down the road

eliminate the U.S. Army altogether and have the Marine Corps assume all the Army tasks...

I've seen it proposed in more than a few places over the years...

[Xithras]

24. It does make a bit of sense.

There's some redundancy between the Marines and Army, so consolidating them or phasing one out in favor of another does make some sense. Still, the roles they play aren't identical, so eliminating one would require changes to the other to fill the gaps.

Another proposal that's been raised a few times would scale the Army back to encompass ONLY the current National Guard and Reserve components. Under that proposal, the Army would technically still exist and could be called up for combat if needed, but there wouldn't be a "standing" Army. I think this option is far more likely than a total elimination of the Army.

[Blue_Tires]

26. Yeah, and what makes the Marines the superior choice (or so I've read)

is the long-standing organizational cohesion with the Navy combined with their faster mobility and wider versatility...

I agree with your point about maybe making the "Army" the new "National Guard"...Instantly makes the National Guard better, and allows the army to still exist and everyone saves face...Besides, no politician wants to go down in history as the one who "killed" the army....

[oldhippie]

18. Works for me! nt

[grasswire]

27. where will all those who are purged find work?

I am not opposed to this step although I don't trust the joint chiefs to tell the truth. But I wonder where all those men and women will find jobs.

[JJChambers]

29. Drones

A few guys in a room with drones are a lot more efficient and cost effective than boots on the ground, apparently.

[CJCRANE]

73. Not just drones...driverless trucks...

U.S. Army convoys will soon be able to roll into even the roughest of unfriendly foreign urban areas and combat zones without the worry of loss of life, thanks to new technology that will make large vehicles fully autonomous".



"But not only do driverless convoys add a degree of safety under dangerous conditions, they also move the military closer its apparent goal of nearly total autonomous warfare".

Full article here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2014/01/driverless/

[Coyotl]

35. This is the kind a change we voted for.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Good for America, bad for the Democrats.

Cutting the armed forces is good policy but lousy politics.

[RobertEarl]

58. That is conventional and conservative politics

I seem to remember a few presidents, especially Obama, getting elected because of mass voter turnouts mainly fueled by the idea that we would be turning away from warmongering.

Republicans, much as you claim here, use fearmongering to fuel their warmongering. But real politics say that Peace is the real winner.

This Peace idea may be too progressive for some but it is the Truth.

[sarisataka]

52. Not exactly true headline

The pre WW2 army was less than 250,000. This plan leaves the army well over 400,000

[jberryhill]

53. Did you adjust for inflation?

[sarisataka]

55. No. I don't have populationsfigures handy

But to match 1940 army size with current population, i believe the army should be over 750,000.

So the size is lower but the budget is bloated both in real dollars and percentage of GNP. Reducing the army budget to pre WW2 levels, adjusted for inflation would cause aneurysms among the chicken hawks

[jberryhill]

56. I was kidding, you know

I think 1 soldier in 1938 soldiers is still pretty much 1 soldier in 2014 soldiers.

That's in US soldiers.

[sarisataka]

57. .

[flying rabbit]

92. A DUzy. nt

[ProSense]

54. It will be

"The pre WW2 army was less than 250,000. This plan leaves the army well over 400,000"

...the lowest level since then.

See the chart at the NY link.

[Cha]

76. K&R.. not exactly

good news for so many.. wonder why?

[ProSense]

84. It's a

"not exactly good news for so many.. wonder why?"

...pattern. If Obama doesn't do something he promised, he's a corporatist trojan horse. If Obama and his administration propose something he promised, he's a lying. If he begins to implement it, then jump on the RW bandwagon to attack it.

See health care or this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024553152

LOL!

[Cha]

87. And, ODS is a myth on

DU.. LOL

[ProSense]

89. Yeah,

let it sink.

[Cha]

90. Right! "maybe no one will

notice "

[ProSense]

91. Here's a

new version of "teh list," though it doesn't include the OP announcement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024559777

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. As long as you don't actually look at what they mean when they say "Pre-WWII level".

If anyone but you had posted this it might be worth discussing...

[ProSense]

70. "If anyone but you had posted this it might be worth discussing..."

Issues?

Why are you in this thread announcing that?

[Thinkingabout]

85. There has been changes for needs for the US protecting oil supply for the world, it is

Time for the nations purchasing the oil to step up to the plate to protect the supplies. The need for large numbers of foot troops has changed with the use of more technology. With the winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan should result in less need of numbers.

[Purveyor]

82. lol, indeed!

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. That'd be cool if they were measuring it in dollars. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Then how are we supposed to stop Zombie Hitler and his corps of elite reanimated Nazis?

[agent46]

97. Just another draw-down

What a disingenuous statement, framed to sound like fiscal responsibility with the defense budget.

Warfare has changed permanently. There's no longer much use for so-called "large land-war" operations. This draw-down will be followed (as draw-downs are every 10 -15 years) by retooling with next generation weapon technologies and automations. Private contracts with mercenary security companies will supply trained manpower on a mission by mission basis. CIA sponsored "rebel forces" will do the dirty work in the civilian population centers of our enemy of the week. This reconfiguration of the army will support the trend of using small team covert and intelligence ops which are also preferable because they happen off the mainstream media grid.

This may also be happening now because the empire has begun to contract after decades of over-reach just as Rome did. I don't believe for a second our astronomically bloated defense budget is going away, nor our "permanent war footing."