Pentagon cuts aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf due to budget

[Brett327]

I gotta admit, the services, in general, and the Navy, in particular, are playing some weird games. Really? The VERY FIRST THING you would do to save some bucks is to cut a "fully trained and ready... and long-scheduled….carrier strike group deployment"? Really? Nowhere else to save a few bucks in the near term? And THEN…send those poor folks on IKE back out again?

I now admit to all…I don't get it. But I've been staying close to the phone in case SECDEF or the CNO calls…nothing heard yet...

Gotta go…phone's ringing...

You should really read the justifications that have been put out WRT why HST's deployment was delayed. Regardless of whether this is part of a grand counter-sequester posturing scheme by OSD, the stated justification makes perfect sense given the constraints of sequester and CR. I would argue that those who find fault with the decision simply haven't taken the time to understand it.

 

[BusyBee604]

I gotta admit, the services, in general, and the Navy, in particular, are playing some weird games. Really? The VERY FIRST THING you would do to save some bucks is to cut a "fully trained and ready... and long-scheduled….carrier strike group deployment"? Really? Nowhere else to save a few bucks in the near term? And THEN…send those poor folks on IKE back out again?

I still think it was a ploy by SECNAV (perhaps ill advised), thinking it would help leverage the Congress into a..gasp, COMPROMISE and avoid the sequester. It appears that both sides of the idiots in Congress are willing to allow the sequester, which really cuts nothing, detracts from military readiness/national security, further erodes confidence in our elected leaders, and foreshadows a gloomier future for our country.
BzB

 

[Renegade One]

You should really read the justifications that have been put out WRT why HST's deployment was delayed.

Good vector, Brett…thanks. I'll go read that.

 

[Renegade One]

Good vector, Brett…thanks. I'll go read that.

Read that. Still not quite responsive to my point about "IKE" vs. "HST"…but that's probably not too relevant any longer.

I do think the "fundamental math" seems to have changed since I last paid attention. The good Admiral says; "Typically it takes three ships back home to produce one forward-deployed." That's a big paradigm shift from what I remember…which is that "Typically it takes three ships IN THE INVENTORY to produce one forward-deployed." Maybe I'm quibbling about the numbers….but you get the idea.

 

[Fog]

What is going on w/ today's senior military leadership is eerily like the Viet Nam Era in that we hear 1 to 4 star admirals & generals say things in public that allow them to continue their military careers when all their subordinates and many vets know its all BS and lies. Call all this stuff weird games, BS or whatever, it represents the crushing of integrity by personal ambition once again. Falling on one's sword is terribly out of fashion these days - regrettably. Glad I'm old, retired, irrelevant and have little left to defend. There, I feel better now that I said that.

 

[jmcquate]

This is all inside the beltway Kabuki on a monumental scale…….believe me, I’m living it. There are no real cuts coming, just decreases in increases (and those aren’t very large). This is a battle royal about the role of the Federal Government in our everyday lives. I think we all know which party comes down on which side of this.

 

[707guy]

I think the blame can be equally spread among both parties, not just the dems. I agree, it is approaching ridiculous.

Agreed - both sides need to find the middle ground here...

 

[jtdees]

Forget the middle ground. They both need to find the higher ground. They've gone further afield of their jobs than this thread ever did. Role of government comes down to philosophy and what folks are willing to pay for, but there are Constitutional failures going on here.

 

[armada1651]

Read that. Still not quite responsive to my point about "IKE" vs. "HST"…but that's probably not too relevant any longer.

That choice had to do with long-term maintenance plans and shipyard scheduling, we're told. The particulars as they've been explained to us make perfect sense, but they probably shouldn't be discussed on an open forum.

 

[SkywardET]

This is a battle royal about the role of the Federal Government in our everyday lives. I think we all know which party comes down on which side of this.

Mainstream Democrats want an enormous federal government prosecuting unlimited wars with no end game in sight while interfering in our abilities to freely interact with one another in economic and some political and social contexts.
Mainstream Republicans want an enormous federal government prosecuting unlimited wars with no end game in sight while interfering in our abilities to freely interact with one another in social and some political and economic contexts.
Do I have this right?

Common theme between the entitlements/deployment cancelled sides of this thread is that the folks in DC need to do SOMETHING. This BS politicking on both sides is wearing thin - "the system" is broken and needs to be fixed.

I would argue the system is broken because the folks in DC have always felt the need to do SOMETHING and have acted accordingly. I think the truth is too uncomfortable for many to imagine.

 

[jmcquate]

Mainstream Democrats want an enormous federal government prosecuting unlimited wars with no end game in sight while interfering in our abilities to freely interact with one another in economic and some political and social contexts.
Mainstream Republicans want an enormous federal government prosecuting unlimited wars with no end game in sight while interfering in our abilities to freely interact with one another in social and some political and economic contexts.
Do I have this right?


I would argue the system is broken because the folks in DC have always felt the need to do SOMETHING and have acted accordingly. I think the truth is too uncomfortable for many to imagine.

Not quite. The Dems want to make a statement that whatever the budget and programs that are in place at any given time are the absolute minimums that we as a country have to fund to be functional. The Republicans don’t know what argument to make. The “endless wars” you are talking about will end (sooner than you think). The real budget issues are entitlements, that neither side wants to touch. THESE CUTS ARE NOT REAL.

 

[BusyBee604]

Mainstream Democrats want an enormous federal government prosecuting unlimited wars with no end game in sight while interfering in our abilities to freely interact with one another in economic and some political and social contexts.
Mainstream Republicans want an enormous federal government prosecuting unlimited wars with no end game in sight while interfering in our abilities to freely interact with one another in social and some political and economic contexts.
Do I have this right?

You do have the right; however, your assessment of the parties' split is kinda otherworldly?

I would argue the system is broken because the folks in DC have always felt the need to do SOMETHING...yet have done NOTHING. I think the truth is too uncomfortable for many to imagine.

FIFY.
BzB

 

[SkywardET]

FIFY.
BzB

I wouldn't call an average of 68 new regulations per day during the President's first term doing nothing. On that trajectory, that means about 100,000 new regulations by the time his second term is over. That's doing nothing? Au contraire, mon frere.

(I'm not singling out this administration for any reason other than it is the most recent example.)

I, for one, welcome gridlock at the Center for Loot Distribution, otherwise known as Capitol Hill. Doing SOMETHING is far more likely to mean implementing new ways to spend money rather than to curtail existing spending.

Not quite. The Dems want to make a statement that whatever the budget and programs that are in place at any given time are the absolute minimums that we as a country have to fund to be functional. The Republicans don’t know what argument to make. The “endless wars” you are talking about will end (sooner than you think). The real budget issues are entitlements, that neither side wants to touch. THESE CUTS ARE NOT REAL.

I would agree with your assessment of what each party claims in the current political climate, but I definitely think my descriptions of the mainstreams of both parties is fairly accurate.

How do you know these wars will end? Is there a secret, comprehensive, NSC-68-style policy being prosecuted that is showing measurable progress towards the elimination or mitigation of our enemies? If so you couldn't tell me anyways. These wars will never end so long as we don't have a comprehensive endgame in sight. Since the goals listed in the latest National Security Strategy WRT terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular (not to mention numerous other goals stated there) appear to be slipping further away or stagnating, what is the outlook for this situation except for more war?

 

[wink]

Well I am not buying it. You don't have to immediately shut down a CVW, cease flying in at least 3 others and reduce flying in two others to min currency. One shut down five dramatically affected out of 10 CVWs. That, (plus the other major adjustments) because the increase in spending over last year is being reduced by a fraction? This from Brett's link... "Look, military leaders don't make decisions to make a point. We don't do drama. And we don't involve ourselves in political debates." I'd debate whether military leaders don't make decisions to make a point. Regardless, military leaders do follow orders. I don't care how much money has already been spent, and what pots of money are untouchable. If this were truly necessary now than we can NEVER expect a future cut in military spending of any significance without operations grinding to a halt. That is the signal being sent, for the military and government at large. That there is no fat, no waste, no duplication, no new efficiencies. Not in discretionary spending and certainly not in entitlements.

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/03/02/department-of-the-navy-response-to-sequestration/

 

[BigRed389]

Well I am not buying it. You don't have to immediately shut down a CVW, cease flying in at least 3 others and reduce flying in two others to min currency. One shut down five dramatically affected out of 10 CVWs. That, (plus the other major adjustments) because the increase in spending over last year is being reduced by a fraction? This from Brett's link... "Look, military leaders don't make decisions to make a point. We don't do drama. And we don't involve ourselves in political debates." I'd debate whether military leaders don't make decisions to make a point. Regardless, military leaders do follow orders. I don't care how much money has already been spent, and what pots of money are untouchable. If this were truly necessary now than we can NEVER expect a future cut in military spending of any significance without operations grinding to a halt. That is the signal being sent, for the military and government at large. That there is no fat, no waste, no duplication, no new efficiencies. Not in discretionary spending and certainly not in entitlements.

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/03/02/department-of-the-navy-response-to-sequestration/

WRT to the military side, I don't think that's the signal. I think it's been made pretty clear that cuts aren't a problem, but timing to reassess the priorities.

Really, now would be the right time to be talking about what kind of budget we can expect NEXT year, and what is going to be a priority for funding. Instead, we're way behind the power curve trying to catch up on this fiscal year because these decisions should've been made a long time ago.