|
...was simply the extension of a plan that had already been implemented by SECDEF Cheney, to be executed over the course of a decade to align the force strength with the perceived and anticipated threat in conjunction with newer, less troop intensive warfighting methods (air war of GW1, e.g.). It was all a part of targeted force reductions using "force shaping tools" (up or out, overweight, TERA--temporary early retirement authority, PT failures, increased standards, raising exam qualification scores, etc.). The goal was to reduce the personnel load, because personnel is the most expensive line item in the budget, and infrastructure, the second most expensive line item, and increase use of contracted civilians, who do not get retirement pensions and you aren't responsible for their families. Also, the force reductions were aligned with, and implemented in conjunction with BRAC (Base realignment and closure) efforts by the Congress.
The thing to understand is that the plan was well underway, and saving a huge chunk of the budget, before Clinton ever came into office. In a peacetime environment, it made perfect sense. It was a lot like the demobbing that happened post WW2...of course, to the shock of many WW2 vets, when Korea came along, they were dragged back into the game.
Statistics do not tell the whole story, and are really unimportant because the idea was based on a continuum that was designed, from start to finish, to create a more lithe and flexible force structure. You need to go back as far as the very start of BUSH 1 to gain context. Just so you know, the planning was well underway and execution had already been started before the Berlin Wall even fell. It was inevitable--we were spending like, dare I say, drunken Sailors. It had to stop. This was accomplished first by horizontal cuts (everyone had to automate what they could and chop billets, or have them chopped by the senior personnel authorities) and then, later, when the savings weren't deep enough, by vertical restructuring (major command consolidations, function consolidations, base closures, and the reduction in the size of the Navy from almost 600 ships to around 300, e.g.).
Of course, now that so much cash is flowing to DoD, you have to wonder how much, and what percentage, is being diverted to blackops. I'm guessing the percentage is way up there. And when kids die or are seriously wounded, it gets expensive. We aren't saving anything nowadays...least of all lives, sadly enough.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
