The American Spectator

Big J| 6.24.09 @ 8:25AM

Obama is just shifting funds to his "civilian defense force that is just as strong and just as well funded as the military".

In other words, Acorn brown shirts made up of community organizers, black panthers and Americorps "volunteers".

John W.| 6.24.09 @ 8:33AM

I agree completely with the thrust of your article. However, don't defend FCS - it was complete junk. Pulling the plug and starting over was hands down the best thing Gates could have done.

For further information on why killing the manned ground vehicle portion of FCS was the right move, see the past 8 (eight) years of GAO reports detailing why the program was a failure.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.24.09 @ 8:43AM

Under Obama/Gates look for ZERO positive reforms and improvements in the military. Instead this team will undermine military readiness in a way that makes the Carter and Clinton administrations (which were a disaster for national defense) look competent and hawkish.

The main focus of Obama/Gates, as it seeks to impose its version of soft despotism on the nation, is silencing criticism in the military of their draconian cuts, inaction and appeasement of our enemies.

The winners of the Obama/Gates "strategy" will be China, Russia, tyrants and Islamo-fascists/imperialists.

Kent Lyon| 6.24.09 @ 9:59AM

Interesting that there is no comment on the modernization of the forces that Rumsfeld undertook, that were, to my perception, far more visionary and appropriate than the moves Gates is making, which appear disastrous. Rumsfeld got unending flack for doing much of what Gates is purporting to want to do as a cover for emasculating the military. Obama is opposed to the US military, for the same reasons that Mohamar Khadafi disbanded his military in favor of a brigade structure loyal to him personally and to his family members, without a central military command that might have a tendency to overthrow him; and, as Bg J notes, is mostly focused on a paramilitary civilian corps to maintain control of the US population, a la the Basij (hence the firing of the IG overseeing Americorp, vast quantities of money to ACORN, er, excuse me, COI, and the placement of Michelle's chief of staff as head of Americorps, or should that be Amerikorps, etc., etc.).
Michael Tomlinson appears to have it exactly correct. There is no concern on the part of Obama/Gates to defend America against her enemies or providing security to the nation, or to the world. There is high concern about defending themselves from the restless natives they seek to rule, dominate, and enslave with government control of the economy and forced dependency of a great people. Look for government goons harrasing participants in the next tea party outbreak.

John W.| 6.24.09 @ 10:33AM

Kent Lyon| 6.24.09 @ 9:59AM
Interesting that there is no comment on the modernization of the forces that Rumsfeld undertook, that were, to my perception, far more visionary and appropriate than the moves Gates is making, which appear disastrous. Rumsfeld got unending flack for doing much of what Gates is purporting to want to do as a cover for emasculating the military.

Restructuring the army to center on BCTs rather than divisions was about the only thing Rumfeld got right. Gates is continuing that.

Kill the vehicle portion of FCS and starting over - Good.
Canceling F-22 - Bad.
Delaying addition of BCTs - Bad.
Continuing LCS - Good.

It's kind of mixed bag, so I wouldn't accuse the Obama administration of damaging national defense - yet. If we wait a while, I'm confident they'll give us the justification.

2Anglico| 6.24.09 @ 10:39AM

George W. Bush (warmonger..cowboy ... what else libtards?) names Gates, who was running a college, as Sec Def. Known military expert... wait, that's known military antagonist, Obama, keeps him on... why?

Thomas| 6.24.09 @ 10:40AM

Two quick thoughts.

First, the Pentagon, contrary to popular belief is not peopled by idiots. The strategic planner there know that the face of land warfare has been changing since 1965 and that conventional warfare is decreasing and irregular warfare is now the norm rather than the exception. In irregular warfare, vehicles become primarily a means of transporting ground troops to a location and then transporting them away from that location. If they have some troop support capability, that is good, but the nature of modern conflict does not require large numbers of dedicated battle vehicles. In fact, the largest targets on the battlefield are vehicles and modern technology makes them extremely vulnerable to simple man-portable weaponry. The problem with today's military budget cuts is that they impact the integrated battlefield concept, where infantry, artillery and air are all interconnected through computerized communication and data management and linked into satellite communications and intelligence systems.

Naval requirements are an entirely different matter and are based upon different strategic needs.

Second, the Obama administration can not count on the military to support its long-term goals and objectives. It views them as a threat. Look for larger budget cuts and additional overseas deployments. At the same time look for the rise of the "domestic security" service that Obama unveiled during the campaign.

2Anglico| 6.24.09 @ 10:47AM

The comments about FCS made me remember an article about the possiblity of GPS failing! Our troops, probably not all, but the ones I've talked to, do not even know how to use a compass and orient a paper map! Overreliance on techlology creates blind spots.

Frank Natoli| 6.24.09 @ 11:28AM

Secretary Gates is reverse engineering a definition of the threats as a function of how much of an allowance his boss gives him each week.

But I get real nervous when good men say that a certain type of fighting will never happen again, doesn't need to be planned for again, doesn't need weapons to fight against anymore.

If I quote history, someone will say "but that's your mistake, you're mired in the past, your history won't repeat, you need to plan for the future not the past". So the sign reads: help wanted prophets, historians need not apply.

Harry Truman, the patron saint of tough talking Democrats, so thoroughly gutted the U.S. military after World War II that when our forces took the first shock of the North Korean invasion, and fled back to Pusan, they had no tanks, no armor, because somebody said Korea was no place for tanks or for armor. Nobody would fight a war with armor in that God forsaken place. But the T-34s rumbled against the GIs who maybe, maybe, could find a bazooka.

As Clay Blair recounted in "The Forgotten War", the Army had to winch rusting knocked out Shermans from their Pacific island graves, transport them to West Coast depots, fix-em-up, and deliver them to that place that the experts said would never need them.

We need to plan and fund for all reasonable contingencies, not just the few Gates' boss is willing to pay for. And against a Chinese threat, with a very large conventional army and armor, that includes keeping some stuff that some people don't think will ever be necessary again.

Old Texican| 6.24.09 @ 12:08PM

Some good thought here, guys, and a good article too.
I would love to see that predator-drone technology expand a lot. Lots of tasks that make helos very vulnerable...make drones very successful.
Quiet, nimble, they ignore terrain, and they are cheap.
We could field thousands of them just as fast as we train operators properly.
We also would never run out of pilots in combat by sharing the tasks with drones.

L. Ross| 6.24.09 @ 12:47PM

I joined the Air Force while Renoldus Maximus was president, and life was good. B-2's were being designed in secret, B-1's were rolling off the line, we had the FB-111 and the B-52D, F, G, and H models for the bomber force. We had the C-141, the C-9, the C-5, and the C-130. We had the A-7, the A-10, F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, and the F-117 was an operational secret aircraft. The KC-135 was a tired old plane.

Today, we have lost the C-141 and the C-9, we have retired 1/3 of the B-1 fleet, our B-2 buy was reduced from hundreds of aircraft to just 20, we retired the B-52 D, F, and G models, retired the F-111 and the FB-111, retired the A-7, the A-37, the F-5, the F-4. We haven't purchased a tanker in decades. The T-38's our student pilots learn in were all built 40 years ago. That KC-135 which was a tired old plane in the 80's is a dangerously tired old plane now. We stopped the C-17 line at just about 200 aircraft, we stopped the F-22 line at about 200 aircraft. For goodness sakes, we just got the plane online, and we are stopping production already. Almost every base I have ever been assigned to has been closed, or had it's missions greatly reduced. I just don't know how much more fat they think there is to cut. I'm here to tell you they got through the fat years ago. Now they are cutting muscle, bone, and sinew.

Quartermaster| 6.24.09 @ 12:51PM

LCS is a bad concept. You nned to go over to the USNI blog and Cdr Salamander to even begin to understand the problems with the concept. The Navy has lost its way big time, and the current maladminstration is not helping. The Bush maladministration allowed it to go, and made absolutely no effort to correct the problems introduced into the military under Clinton's misrule. We are now 8 years behind the 8 ball, and Obama is likely to bury us over the next 4 years.

Old Texican| 6.24.09 @ 1:47PM

Hi military guys. Thank you for your service.

Chances are, the most difficult enemy you will have to face...is your so-called Commander in Chief....and his "blue-shirts".

I honestly feel sorry for you guys. Would one of you write here the exact oath you swore?

The best I can recall, you have a conflict in your oath these days....the Constitution vs. your oath to follow orders from your commander.

Folks, will our military be forced to "stand down"?

J.C.Eaton| 6.24.09 @ 2:13PM

I don't know as much about the state of the U.S.Airforce as I'd like but I try to follow along. Would one of you air guys explain to me why, with all the computerization of our systems[ I learned recently that if the B2 lost its computer it would be unflyable] why a cleverly introduced EMI couldn't instantly ground our whole air force[the exception being the antiques that are fully human dependant]? In other words, shouldn't we have some failsafe retaliatory options? Thanks.

Maneverist| 6.24.09 @ 3:10PM

The most important piece of hardware our military must procure and maintain is our human resource capacity. Second guessing commanders, prosecuting men and women in uniform for following orders and taking the initiative, and now reading the miranda rights to compatants will not retain our best capacity. That capacity is the best and brightest who volunteer to defend this country and do for peanuts, so others can be free to whine about free stuff they think they're entittled to.

L. Ross| 6.24.09 @ 4:26PM

J.E. Eaton:

They call it EMP hardening. All of our heavy hitters have it, including all our fly-by wire birds. That venerable KC-135 used to be EMP hardened. They have changed out so much navigation equipment, I'm not so sure anymore. It's something we don't talk much about, now that SAC (Strategic Air Command) is dead. It was one of SAC's top priorities.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that the pricnipal behind EMP hardening is based on the Faraday Cage. You can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Crusader| 6.24.09 @ 4:35PM

"Folks, will our military be forced to "stand down"?"

Old Texican, this assumes the US military is being led by officers more concerned with their oath than getting promoted/not making waves. They will do what the usurper tells them to do, whether the order is legal or not. When the SHTF I sincerely hope most Americans are not counting on the military to stand with them.

They'll be in for a HUGE disappointment.

Richard Baker| 6.24.09 @ 7:07PM

Crusader:
Just because we've always believed in civil control of the military doesn't mean that these folks are robots. I was in during Carter, many of my friends served Clinton, but this one means to tear the country down to a level that any dictator would love (Heck, the dictators love him).. Don't assume that the military is going to blindly follow the path of destruction of the Kenyan. They are also Citizens. The oath says "enemies, foreign and domestic".

Thom| 6.24.09 @ 8:02PM

I’m kind of in Frank Natoli’s corner on this one. I don’t understand statements like “we need to design our military forces for the 21st century warfare”. What changed at midnight Dec 31st 1999 that demands such a sweeping effort to fight wars over the next 100 years when we can’t even fight the current ones and win them?

Let me lay the groundwork. We fought the Korean War with mostly WWII equipment against an enemy who was poorly trained and equipped and we lost that war despite slaughtering the North Koreans and Chinese by huge numbers. That was a pretty conventional war we thought we weren’t going to fight after all was said and done with WWII.

We fought the Vietnam using some innovations, such as helicopter mobility, precision munitions but lost that war as well despite slaughtering both the VC and NVA by even larger numbers than we did in Korea. We had the best of everything possible but still lost, why?

Were it not for one lucky SCUD impact the first Gulf War would have been the largest live fire training exercise in the history of the world. We walked over a relatively large conventional military force with our “Cold War” stuff and training. We lost that one too and had to go back for more… in which we took serious losses over 5 years from relatively primitive weapons and tactics…… We went in “light” using the latest thinking out of the Pentagon playbooks and got our hat handed to us (relatively speaking) and still slaughtered the enemy everywhere they stood using those Cold War weapons. What finally turned the thing around for us? More people on the ground using those same Cold War weapons.

We’ve been in Afghanistan for over 8 years now and can’t seem to get a handle on things there despite slaughtering the enemy every time they present themselves in a stand up fight which they don’t do very often btw. The type of war we are fighting there is the oldest kind there is…. We keep trying to find a miracle technology to solve it with.

All these “limited wars” have a common thread that binds them and ultimately ends in defeat for us (politically speaking) and lots of our people die in vain as a result. We never made the effort to win in strict military terms. We never committed enough forces to get all parts of the job done. We tried to substitute technology for manpower and attrition warfare for decisive action in the shortest possible time frame. In other words we violated thousands of years of proven military strategy that brings about “victory” in terms that have substance and meaning to those that make the sacrifices.

Since the late eighties, the “powers that be” have been trying to “do more with less” in terms of force levels. They have all failed to produce decisive results which lead to having to tie down a sizeable portion of our deployable ground forces in fruitless slow burns that wear out our equipment and manpower for very little in return. This latest budget is just a continuation of the same under President F.U.D. He has not plans to fight a war thus he will not modernize anything he can get away with particularly in regard to ground forces and Air Power. The Navy will remain powerful (defensively) and shrink; the Air Force will shrink and have to retire 30-40 year old airframes because we have not replacements for them one on one. The ground forces will rust in place.

Those that advocate the FCS lost sight of the force levels we have and the lightly hood that new light weight equipped forces were going to gut what conventional forces we have and render our total capability sliced and diced into too many specialized forces to be effective in that conventional war that can’t happen. Just as Special Forces can’t take on comparable conventional forces except in Hollywood movies, so is it with “light weight” weakly armored units when the real stuff shows up. The FCS Net Centric warfare model looks impressive on paper or in computer simulations but I submit we have a track record of not making the effort to win in such limited conflicts and I see no point in designing “light forces” for a conflict that we probably won’t engage in any way nor have the forces levels required to win even if we did. Recent history is on my side. From my perspective, if we are going to fight a conflict we should only go with the intent of winning in military terms and should take a full tool box to that effort and not try to get by with a Swiss Army knife approach as we have been doing. No one fears the guy that can kill you with a Swiss Army knife under just the right circumstances but most despots in the world do fear a bunch of guys armed with sledge hammers coming through the front, side and back of the house all at the same time. The current Administration has no “plans” to fight and win any kind of war thus they are going to gut our offensive capability and ability to actually win one in real terms.

If we are going to continue to fight wars we do not intend to win and have the force levels for we had better start preparing for what happens when you lose one you can’t afford to lose.

Crusader| 6.24.09 @ 8:44PM

Richard, thank you for your service. I am actually getting ready to retire after almost 21 years of service. When I speak of a military that will blindly follow orders, it is because I've witnessed it for the last 21 years. I've also worked in recruiting and seen the "quality" of young people we're bringing in. After 9/11 it was ridiculous the trash they allowed to serve. There is a reason for all the gang graffiti in Iraq, the missing flak vests and helmets ending up in the hands of gang-bangers, etc.

As if to drive home the point even more, while waiting at the VA the other day, picked up a copy of Newsweek (yes I know it is a libtard screed) and read a bit about some of our troops serving in OEF/OIF. Some of their very own quotes scared the hell out of me.

From one Staff Sgt Shaun McBride, "(In Iraq) you do whatever you want on the road. You own the road ... You can go into people's houses without being invited in. It's like you own their house." Talking about 9/11: "We all knew we were going to war," he says. "We were all excited about it."

So much for the soldier praying the hardest for peace. He "owns their house," huh? Nice.

From 39 y/o CWO Robert Lakes, "It (deployments) cost me an 18-year marriage," says Lakes with an awkward laugh. "But you know, I just do what they tell me to do, go where they tell me to go. I don't think about it too much."

Wow. This guy is a leader of men, and he just does what they tell him, doesn't think about it too much. Wow.

This re-enforced what I've witnessed the last few years especially. Throw in the military does not train on the soldier's constitutional responsibility to the American people, and instead trains that peaceful opposition to government overreach is "low-level terrorism," and this is what you get.

My advice is if and when the SHTF DO NOT count on the US military to come down on the side of the Constitution, i.e. the people. Most folks believe (and I know because I ask) that the oath they take is to the government and not the Constitution. Not to mention the high percentage of minorities serving in the Army especially will do whatever the usurper tells them. Guaranteed.

After Katrina the Army had no problem, no questions about kicking down doors in N.O. and disarming peaceable citizens. There was NO outrage on the right over this gross, blatant stomping of the US Constitution. As a military member it saddened me that my fellow brothers-in-arms violated our own country's citizens constitutional rights with nary a peep.

So no, I don't trust them. Not one bit.

Thom| 6.24.09 @ 9:53PM

Richard, there is truth in what Crusader says about the nature of our younger generation serving today. After serving in shit holes like Iraq and Afghanstan if you put them in a US city today they are going to react as they did in Iraq to the sight of US citizens with weapons.... These aren't career people for the most part today. 4 years and out....They will tend to do what is best for them absent a mature leader and some knowledge of our Constitution.

J.C.Eaton| 6.25.09 @ 12:35AM

L.Ross, A belated "thank you."

2Anglico| 6.25.09 @ 8:10AM

Crusader, while I agree with your overall point, take the bravado of busting down doors, etc. with a grain of salt. Also, the guy Newsweek quoted could be a total phony. Remember the "Ranger" who was more anti-war than Ciny Sheehan that the media fell in love with? Turns out he washed out of basic training, sort of a Section 8.

@Anglico| 6.25.09 @ 8:12AM

Busting down doors and running roughshod in Iraq, that is. The bs in N.O. cannot be justified. That was a media inspired panic too.

olepapajoe| 6.25.09 @ 9:44AM

Modernization of our military has to be in line with what is required now and in the foreseeble future, in support of a national security strategy. The former is easy, the latter nearly impossible. In either case, the FCS program was developed on a future strategic situation that was seriously flawed as it was designed to defeat a symmetric, high technology enemy such as a revitalized Russian army. The vehicles were designed for "stand off" engagements a-la the Gulf War and not close combat (less than 200 meters) of irregular war in cities or in mountains.

Tony in Central PA| 6.25.09 @ 11:16AM

As a number of people have astutely pointed out, how we comprise our military affects the types of conflicts we will face. If we overspecialize, putting all of our eggs into the insurgency conflict basket, we will surely face an adversary in the future who will try to exploit this in some way.

Crusader| 6.25.09 @ 2:00PM

2Anglico, if Newsweek ran another fraud article they went to great extremes this time, complete with multiple pics of each soldier profiled and their spouses.

Media inspired panic or not, it does not bode well when a real panic strikes. The oath we take doesn't say "...protect and defend the Constitution except in times of panic."

cheap handbags| 7.26.09 @ 7:29PM

We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica  Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica  Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest  Replica Hermes handbags   at low price you'll find anywhere.

george| 7.29.09 @ 3:28AM

Louis Vuitton Epi Leather handbags , commonly referred to as

Louis Vuitton Epi Leather, or sometimes shortened to

Louis Vuitton LV Shoes bags has become one of the most

LV Shoes handbag luxury brands.

louis vuitton online storelove

louis vuitton online shopnice

vuitton onlinegood

luis vuitton onlinei like

s| 8.20.09 @ 3:01AM

Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes

dropshippngwatch| 9.1.09 @ 10:55PM

Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Rado Watches
Replica Richard Watches
Replica Romain Jerome Watches
Replica Tag Heuer Watches
Replica Tissot Watches
Replica Tudor Watches
Replica U-Boat Watches
Replica Ulysse Nardin Watches
Replica Vacheron Constantin Watches
Replica Versace Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 1:48AM

The information you posted Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
about is so useful, I am expecting for your next post.

slewing ring| 10.20.09 @ 10:25PM

shanghai massage
turntable bearings