Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

George W. Bush's Real Legacy: a broken military

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 05:44 AM
Original message
George W. Bush's Real Legacy: a broken military
By Blue Girl:
<snip>
I screamed until I was blue in the face that our military was broken, that it is actually in far worse shape than it was in the aftermath of Vietnam, and will take decades to rebuild, and I was right. In fact, it has been degraded to the point that our ability to train our forces is in jeopardy due to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that stretched our military beyond it's breaking point. Consider this: If not for mercenaries doing much of the training that is getting done, wide swaths of the military would stumble and fall.
================================================
In a Feb. 16 memo <.pdf> to Gen. George W. Casey, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, says that the Army has lost thousands of uniformed trainers because of troop demands in Iraq and Afghanistan, has had to put junior officers in charge of some key training functions and has delayed initial instruction for nearly 500 pilots because it doesn't have enough trainers.
Only 30 percent of the instructors at Army training schools are in the military, Dempsey says, with the Army increasingly dependent on outside contractors.

"We are behind in integrating lessons learned, developing training and updating doctrine," Dempsey wrote in the memo, a copy of which McClatchy obtained. "We are undermanned in our efforts to design the future Army."

<...>

Dempsey wrote that since September 2001, the number of soldiers assigned to training and other planning responsibilities has declined by 7,300, while the number of civilian employees has declined by 4,500. To fill the gap, Dempsey says, his command has hired 9,000 outside contractors.

He complains that the result is a "de-greening" of training, meaning less reliance on Army personnel. For example, he wrote, outside contractors are teaching 68 percent of the courses at the Army's Intelligence School.

Dempsey also says the manpower shortage has affected ROTC training programs, particularly at universities that provide large numbers of junior officers to the Army. He says that the officer-to-student ratios at five of the nation's six largest ROTC programs, including The Citadel in South Carolina and Texas A&M University, now exceed 1 to 45 and that in some cases the ratio is 1 to 76.

A shortage of captains and majors with combat experience is particularly troubling, he says.

"Their experience level is of extreme importance to our command because it gives them the field-tested knowledge and credibility to teach, coach and mentor the officers following behind them," Dempsey wrote.

He wrote that 18 first lieutenants were filling company command positions in basic combat training units - positions usually reserved for higher-ranking officers - and that the command has had to turn to noncommissioned officers in some of those units to fill operations positions usually reserved for commissioned officers.

Link to complete memo here: http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2010/03/03/17/Youssef-CSAMemo.source.prod_affiliate.91.PDF
============================================
http://www.theygaveusarepublic.com/

"Only 30 percent of the instructors at Army training schools are in the military, Dempsey says, with the Army increasingly dependent on outside contractors."

This ought to give everybody the willies. Who are the contractors who are doing the training??? What are they possibly teaching in addition to what is assigned?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. The army isn't "dependent" on outside contractors. They could change the policy any time
& go back to using their own people.

The army has been deliberately & willfully "outsourced" to private for-profit companies.

Like every other public function is going to be:

military
schools
government
national parks
etc.


Because the money men demand it. They have a lot of spare bucks that need to be "invested" for profit somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Contractors are cheaper for the government
that's why they are so popular. It allows them to hire people for the short term instead of budgeting for a lifetime of pay, benefits, health care etc like they have to for military people. It is the only system that allows the government to quickly grow the size of the military in response to a crisis (ie war) and then just as quickly downsize.

When you look at how big a chunk of the Pentagon goes to personnel cost, it makes perfect sense. It also shrinks the "tail" of the military while growing the "teeth" as nearly all the contractor support are in support positions. That allows the military to concentrate on ensuring the actual combat troops are adequately trained and equipped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. yes, i've noticed how the pentagon budget has shrunk since bush 1.
what it allows is more poorly equipped & supported troops & more public money siphoned off to the owners & bureaucrats in the military contracting business.

all of whom get expensive healthcare, expensive retirement plans, & very, very expensive stock options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. The military is not poorly equipped
this is the first war where lots of money has been spent on the grunt. From body armor to night vision devices to advance medical training the US military sets the standard for the world.

Who said it would shrink the budget? Wars by their nature are expensive and wasteful - which is why it is time to end the two we are fighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I thought that Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot were the gold standard? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. They ain't got nothing on the American Indian genocide.
Perpetrated by the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. OK - and how is that relevent to the modern US army? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. OK and how is Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao relevant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I responded to your hyperbole with some of my own
it is not like this is a rational discussion or something. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Sure, just dismiss genocide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. No - just your knee jerk "America is evil" shtick. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. You know the devil can cite scripture when it serves his purpose.
Maybe America is evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. No more or less than any other country. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Go..Go..Go..
seems like you ate the Reagan Koolaide fo rHaliburton...KBR..Blackwater....etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It makes no sense if
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 06:43 AM by Are_grits_groceries
you are using the likes of KBR and Blackwater. KBR can't even put up structures with electricity that won't fry people. Blackwater runs around with apparent impunity. Unless these contractors are controlled more and held accountable, then they are dangerous in a lot of ways.

Not to mention that they are getting brazillions of dollars for their work which is very costly. The "tail" is not a base I would want to count on with all the problems that have been found that are related to the contractors.

IMHO it is much more costly in the long run to turn over so much of the work to them. It would be better to bring these functions back under military control or something. It is a costly boondoggle that those people are milking for all it's worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. End the war and the issue goes away
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 04:03 PM by hack89
with the added benefit that the military is not saddled with excess personnel they have to pay a lifetimes worth of benefits.

The functions are under military control - contractors in the war zone are not independent players. They carry out the orders and policies of their military commanders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. When was the last time the military quickly down sized?
The Defense Budget has gone up, up, and up some more, and the Majority of the money spent on the "War on Terror" (Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines, Somalia, etc) has come through "Supplemental" expenditures, and never in the Budget. While in theory your argument might makes sense, in reality the exact opposite is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Twenty years ago
Right after Desert Storm. The US military is much smaller now than it was 20 years ago. The US defense budget went from $409 Billion in 1990 to a low of $298 Billion in 1999. It only went up again after 9/11.

And after our present wars are ended, the budget will go down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. The USN was downsized under GWB. They had to cut 30K sailors in three years. They have
the fewest number of hulls since before the First World War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Sorry, but that is total bullshit
My wife used to work for the government. After she retired, she became a contractor, and wound up doing nearly exactly the same work for more money. She in fact sub-contracted with the actual government contractor who made even more money, plus profit. The whole thing was costing the agency about twice as much as it would have cost for an employee to do the same work. Contracting out is a total fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. But when that contract expired
the government was not on the hook for 50 years of benefits - it became her company's problem. If they couldn't find work for her then she would be fired.

When someone joins the military, the government is potentially on the hook for 80 years worth of benefits. Benefits to retired and former military personnel are a huge chunk of the defense budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. Well why wouldn't Bush break ALL his toys?
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 08:36 AM by lunatica
That seems to be what he's always done. He breaks things and others step in to try to pick up the pieces. I only wonder what he'll break next because it would seem he's run out of the really big toys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
22. He destroyed the Navy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC