October 16, 2012
September 8, 2012
Horrible… Obama Tells Troops That $500 Billion in Defense Cuts (That He Proposed in January) Are Not His Fault | The Gateway Pundit
September 1, 2012
In January of this year President Obama announced a new military strategy that will cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. The new strategy included $487 billion in cuts over the next decade.
read more at link
January 6, 2012
New Pentagon strategy stresses Asia, cyber, drones
But the size of the U.S. Army and Marines Corps would shrink. So too might the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the U.S. military footprint in Europe.
The mighty American military machine that has for so long secured the country’s status as the world’s only superpower will have to be drastically reduced, Barack Obama warned yesterday as he set out a radical but more modest new set of priorities for the Pentagon over the next decade.
Air Force Will Lose Hundreds of Planes in New Pentagon Plan
The Air Force is preparing to trim hundreds of aircraft from its aging fleet in order to meet an Obama administration austerity order. The move will strike many Air Force supporters as ironic. Because just as the fleet is set to shrink, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is getting ready to argue, at least implicitly, that the country needs it more than ever.
Danger Room has learned that around 200 airplanes, mostly older models, will eventually be retired without replacement. That represents about a 5 percent reduction in the overall fleet of about 4,000 aircraft. Exactly which planes will go is unclear. But under any scenario, the positions of thousands of airmen who fly and maintain those planes will be phased out. The majority of those airmen will be reservists and Air National Guardsmen.
Update, 4:45 p.m.: According to Inside Defense, the Army shrinkage we heard about isn’t just real, it’s serious. Over the next five years, the Army will lose nearly 100,000 active duty soldiers, going to an “end-strength” of 480,000 to 490,000. That’s a significantly deeper manpower cut than the Army expected — it was slated to go down to 520,000 soldiers — at a faster clip: the reductions Gates announced last year started in 2015. The Marines, too, will shrink from 202,000 to 181,000 leathernecks, which is a few thousand Marines fewer than Gates envisioned; they’ll return to being more of a sea-based service instead of a de facto second Army.
This moment was coming. At last year’s big Army convention in D.C., Gen. Raymond Odierno, the chief of staff, warned that budget cuts would probably shrink the Army to a smaller size than he’s comfortable with. Odierno also said that his priority was to preserve a capable, deployable Army that’s well-trained to win wars, even if it’s relatively small. But make no mistake: Odierno does not want this.
If you’re wondering why the Army (and Marines) will shrink so much, the reason is the impending Asia pivot — which Obama himself will visit the Pentagon tomorrow to announce. Not only will Obama, Panetta and Dempsey say that land wars are passe, they’re expected to abandon a formal planning posture committing the military to prepare for two major simultaneous wars. Most experts think the posture is archaic, but the Army spent most of the last decade fighting two simultaneous ground wars — and, the Army is quick to remind, had to add tens of thousands more soldiers to do so.
For their part, the Air Force and Navy are quick to remind people that it’s cheaper and faster to bring up new soldiers in an emergency than it is to build and deploy new planes and ships. True, but it may not be that simple. The diminishment of the Army in both size and prestige carries the prospect of losing battle-experienced career officers, testing the Army’s ability to retain the hard lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan for the next time the U.S. faces unexpected land wars. Your move, Gen. Odierno.
Taliban leaders held at Guantánamo Bay to be released in peace talks deal
US agrees in principle to releasing top officials from Afghanistan insurgent group in exchange for starting process of negotiations
October 23, 2011
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 22, 2011, 7:50 PM
As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.
According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, according to CBO. That compares to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion and a 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion, according to data provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.