Strapped for money, Army extends cutbacks (can't afford to make repairs)

[ProSense]

Strapped for money, Army extends cutbacks

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Thursday, July 20th, 2006 02:31 PM (PDT)

Related Information
Defense Department
U.S. Army
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army, bearing most of the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Thursday its money crunch has gotten so bad it is clamping down on spending for travel, civilian hiring and other expenses not essential to the war mission.

A statement outlining the cutbacks did not say how much money the Army expects to save, but senior officials have said the cost of replacing worn equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan is rising at a quickening pace.

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said last week that in 2004 it cost $4 billion to repair or replace war equipment, but now it has reached $12 billion to $13 billion. "And in my view, we will continue to see this escalate," he said, adding that the Army is using up equipment at four times the rate for which it was designed.

Schoomaker traced the problem's origin to entering the Iraq war in 2003 with a $56 billion shortfall in equipment. The Army managed the situation by rotating in fresh units while keeping the same equipment in Iraq. Over time, he said, the equipment has worn out without sufficient investment in replacements.

The Army chief said there is too little money available to keep up with equipment repairs. He said the Army's five major repair depots are operating at only 50 percent of capacity, resulting in a backlog of 1,000 Humvee utility vehicles awaiting attention at the Red River Army Depot in Texas and 500 tanks at a depot in Alabama.

The Army's 2006 budget is $98.2 billion, and the 2007 budget request not yet approved by Congress seeks $111 billion for the Army.

more...

http://www.thenewstribune.com/24hour/iraq/story/3334302p-12278818c.html

[MadMaddie]

1. The ARMY AND THE MILITARY IS BROKEN...

Military bases around the US can't pay their utility bills......


Wake up America if our military ever needs to actually defend us on US soil we will have a serious problem....

[IChing]

2. they need more money, more, and more and more or we can't feed it.

:nopity: :nopity:



"For 45 years of the Cold War we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union. Now it appears we're in an arms race with ourselves."Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Deputy Director
Center for Defense Information



Support the military industrial complex, they have work that needs to be done.


:sarcasm:

[TomInTib]

5. Money won't fix it.

They have exported most of the warm bodies to the ME.

The mechanics who should be at the depots are guarding convoys.

[IChing]

3. dupe n/t deleted

[DELUSIONAL]

4. This happened during the Vietnam war

at least on Navy bases -- lots on base of cosmetic cut backs and cut backs of maintenance of equipment and replacement.

I've asked individuals who are familiar with Puget Sound Navy bases and they report no cut backs.

My Navy brat radar hasn't picked up on any significant changes -- and no bitching from dependents I know.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

6. Saw on the news last week the army met their recruiting goals,

so they took the money to offer big signing bonuses (how corporate of them) to let the bases literally crumble.

I did hear about a yr. ago that the Airforce was pushing private (how corp.) rentals my friends son and 4 roomates got a decent house on the Gulf of FL between the 5 of them.

[AzDar]

7. Just read in another thread that Halliburton has DOUBLED it's earnings.

Wow, just..wow.

[jwirr]

8. And with a military like this *ss wants to go to war with another

country?

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

9. WOULD SOMEBODY TELL ME WHY THIS IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

   I mean, this is the Commander-in-Chief, the civilian responsible for upholding the Constitutional mandate to "provide for the common defense"

   Sadly, I have it on good authority that, as a civilian, the President can not be held answerable to Military Law, can not be charged with offenses under the Uniform Code (of Military Justice, or U.C.M.J.). My cursory reading of the relevant articles (Sub-Chapter 1. Sec. 802. Art. 2. "Persons Subject To This Chapter") tends to support this opinion.

   But this can hardly be seen as a defense against charges that the President has committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" by his pattern of neglect of the lives of the military personnel under his command, and in harm's way in defense of the Nation, by his order and decision.

   This being the case, I submit that the Congress of the United States should investigate this, with the firm and focused intent of holding the President accountable for failing to do all within his considerable power to ensure the lives and safety of those doing deadly service at his order, in Our Name.

   Further, I submit that any member of Congress, and specifically, any member of the House of Representatives, who resists this mandate should be removed from office as soon as possible, but in any case, NO LATER THAN the next General Election.

   I believe that this should be given the status of a "litmus test" issue for any candidate seeking election to the U. S. House this
November.

   How say you?