Army Budget

[|Bunghole|]

[b]Another general revolts.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Sept. 25, 2006, at 5:51 PM ET[/b]

The generals' revolt has spread inside the Pentagon, and the point of the spear is one of Donald Rumsfeld's most favored officers, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff. This new phase of rebellion isn't aimed at the war in Iraq directly, as was the protest by six retired generals that made headlines last spring. But in some ways, it's more potent, and not just because Schoomaker is very much on active duty. His challenge is dramatic because he's questioning one of the war's consequences-its threat to the Army's ability to keep functioning.



The trumpet sounded last month, when [b]Schoomaker refused to give Rumsfeld a detailed Army budget proposal for fiscal year 2008. The Air Force and Navy met the Aug. 15 deadline for submitting their program requests. But Schoomaker-in an unprecedented move-said he preferred not to. Rumsfeld had limited the Army's budget for 2008 to $114 billion. Schoomaker told him that the sum wasn't enough to maintain the Army's present commitments. Simply to repair the tanks, radios, and other equipment damaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, he would need at least another $17 billion. If he didn't get it, he said, there was no point drawing up a budget at all. [/b]



Today's Los Angeles Times reported on Schoomaker's revolt, but there have been stirrings of a ruffle since the summer. On Aug. 23, at a speech before the National Press Club, Schoomaker publicly threw down the gauntlet: "There is no sense in us submitting a budget that we cannot execute ... a broken budget."



A month earlier, Government Executive reported that Schoomaker had told a group of congressional staffers about grave backlogs at the Army's repair depots. Nearly 1,500 Humvees, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, and other vehicles were awaiting repair at the Red River Army Depot in Texas. The same was true of 500 M1 tanks at the Anniston depot in Alabama. None of the Army's five largest depots was operating at more than 50 percent capacity-all because of a shortage of money. It's not just the repair depots that are overworked.



Friday's New York Times reported that the Army is so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan that just two or three active-duty combat brigades-7,000 to 10,000 soldiers-are fully ready to deal with a crisis that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And among the units cycling in and out of Iraq, troubles are brewing. The 3rd Infantry Division, which so quickly roared up the desert to Baghdad at the outset of this war, is scheduled to head back to Iraq soon for its third tour of duty. Yet, according to a story in today's New York Times, two of the division's four brigades aren't ready to go. They have none of their armored vehicles and only half of their troops. Units throughout the Army are so strained, generals say, that they’re going to have to rely even more on the National Guard and Reserves, which are wildly overwhelmed themselves.



Meanwhile, to meet enlistment targets, [b]the Army has raised the maximum age of recruits to 41, lowered their required aptitude scores, and-in another recent gulp-relaxed moral and disciplinary standards. The Army has always waived these standards to let in a small number of applicants. But since the Iraq war, this number has risen substantially. In 2001, just 10.07 percent of Army recruits were given moral waivers-i.e., were allowed into the Army, even though they had committed misdemeanors or had once-prohibited problems with drugs and alcohol, records of serious misconduct, or disqualifying medical conditions. By 2004, this number had risen to 11.98 percent. But in 2005, it soared to 15.02 percent. And as of April 2006, according to a fact sheet obtained from an Army officer, the number has leapt to 15.49 percent. This is one reason so many Army officers, active and retired, have been so skeptical of the war all along-not so much because they oppose the war itself (though some do), but because they feared it would wreck the Army. The Army's crisis threatens the entire structure of defense spending.[/b]



Since the late 1960s, the Army, Air Force, and Navy (of which the Marines are a part) have abided by an informal agreement that gives each of them a roughly equal share of the total military budget. No service has ever wavered from its share by more than a percentage point. In this way, the chiefs have avoided the interservice rivalries that tore the military establishments apart throughout the 1940s and '50s-and let civilian secretaries of defense, especially Robert McNamara, step in and take control in the early '60s, reshaping their missions and slashing their weapons programs.



The Army is clearly in need of a higher share of the budget now. It is the service that's dominating the fighting, losing most of its troops, and getting most of its equipment chewed up in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Schoomaker gets his demand, the Army would get a significantly higher share-and the Pentagon wars would start in again. There are ways to treat the Army's ailments without opening the purse strings. For instance, Schoomaker could cancel or postpone the Army’s Future Combat Systems, a $200 billion confabulation that may be way over designed for any realistic scenario of future combat. But the FCS is the Army's only big-ticket weapon system, and the procurement commanders wouldn't surrender it unless the Air Force and Navy chiefs junked their big fighter planes and submarines, which isn't about to happen, either.



Early on in his regime, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have had the clout to force such a bargain, but no longer. He has already abdicated his authority, allowing Schoomaker to appeal directly for more money to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. (According to Army Times, this is another unprecedented move: No service secretary has ever dealt directly with the OMB-all such appeals are supposed to be made through the secretary of defense.) This bureaucratic turbulence only reflects a broader dilemma that higher political authorities will soon have to address, whether they'd like to or not.



Schoomaker's central complaint is that he doesn't have the money to maintain the Army's global missions. The president and the Congress can pony up the money (a lot more money) or scale back the missions. To do otherwise-to stay the course with inadequate resources-is to invite defeats and disasters

[Jamie_B]

I read about this a few weeks ago, I hope there is more revolt amongst these guys and they keep standing up to that jackass.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='362051' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:31 AM']I read about this a few weeks ago, I hope there is more revolt amongst these guys and they keep standing up to that jackass.[/quote]

heres to hoping for [url="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/460372p-387315c.html"]rummies replacement soon[/url] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/26.gif[/img]


[i]"there are alternatives between ... stay the course and cut and run."[/i]

[i]"I believe in talking to your enemies," Baker said on television Sunday. "It's got to be hard-nosed, it's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."[/i]

just some tidbits from (hopefully) our next secretary of defense <praying>

i still don't think rumsfeld is the devil like some do, but his misteps and the amount of generals coming out is slowly changing my mind on him...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='362167' date='Oct 11 2006, 01:15 PM']heres to hoping for [url="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/460372p-387315c.html"]rummies replacement soon[/url] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/26.gif[/img]
[i]"there are alternatives between ... stay the course and cut and run."[/i]

[i]"I believe in talking to your enemies," Baker said on television Sunday. "It's got to be hard-nosed, it's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."[/i]

just some tidbits from (hopefully) our next secretary of defense <praying>

i still don't think rumsfeld is the devil like some do, but his misteps and the amount of generals coming out is slowly changing my mind on him...[/quote]



Well see, Bush has defended this tool for a long time now, Im not sure I see that changing.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='362171' date='Oct 11 2006, 01:19 PM']Well see, Bush has defended this tool for a long time now, Im not sure I see that changing.[/quote]

he defends them b/c he's hardheaded, too loyal and b/c democrats keep calling for his head... his loyality is holding him back majorly imo... this is clearly the democrats fault... if they would stop criticizing him, bush would probably replace him....























j/k

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

rumsfeld needs to be brought up on charges for crimes against humanity and tried at the Hague, this scumbag shouldn't represent America and needs to go today.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' post='362193' date='Oct 11 2006, 03:10 PM']rumsfeld needs to be brought up on charges for crimes against humanity and tried at the Hague, this scumbag shouldn't represent America and needs to go today.[/quote]


I agree

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='362045' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:17 AM'][b]Another general revolts.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Sept. 25, 2006, at 5:51 PM ET[/b]

Friday's New York Times reported that the Army is so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan that just two or three active-duty combat brigades-7,000 to 10,000 soldiers-are fully ready to deal with a crisis that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And among the units cycling in and out of Iraq, troubles are brewing. The 3rd Infantry Division, which so quickly roared up the desert to Baghdad at the outset of this war, is scheduled to head back to Iraq soon for its third tour of duty. Yet, according to a story in today's New York Times, two of the division's four brigades aren't ready to go. They have none of their armored vehicles and only half of their troops. Units throughout the Army are so strained, generals say, that they’re going to have to rely even more on the National Guard and Reserves, which are wildly overwhelmed themselves.

Meanwhile, to meet enlistment targets, [b]the Army has raised the maximum age of recruits to 41, lowered their required aptitude scores, and-in another recent gulp-relaxed moral and disciplinary standards. The Army has always waived these standards to let in a small number of applicants. But since the Iraq war, this number has risen substantially. In 2001, just 10.07 percent of Army recruits were given moral waivers-i.e., were allowed into the Army, even though they had committed misdemeanors or had once-prohibited problems with drugs and alcohol, records of serious misconduct, or disqualifying medical conditions. By 2004, this number had risen to 11.98 percent. But in 2005, it soared to 15.02 percent. And as of April 2006, according to a fact sheet obtained from an Army officer, the number has leapt to 15.49 percent. This is one reason so many Army officers, active and retired, have been so skeptical of the war all along-not so much because they oppose the war itself (though some do), but because they feared it would wreck the Army. The Army's crisis threatens the entire structure of defense spending.[/b][/quote]

I'm no historian...But this seems a bit reminiscent of the failing Roman Empire.

Perhaps the money would be better invested in the infrastructure necessary to be self-sufficient and stave off the barbarians.

BZ

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

How can rummy build his nuclear powered submarines and sleath fighter planes if he gives the army enough money to operate??

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='362204' date='Oct 11 2006, 01:58 PM']I'm no historian...But this seems a bit reminiscent of the failing Roman Empire.

Perhaps the money would be better invested in the infrastructure necessary to be self-sufficient and stave off the barbarians.

BZ[/quote]



and meanwhile there are a few that still want to sit around and play the fiddle.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' post='362281' date='Oct 11 2006, 01:18 PM']How can rummy build his nuclear powered submarines and sleath fighter planes if he gives the army enough money to operate??[/quote]
They'd better figure out a way to pony up the cash to keep the Army viable. You simply cannot win wars with airplanes, you have to have boots on the ground to gain control of an area (and you need ENOUGH of them that are properly equipped and resupplied).

[Guest bengalrick]

[url="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L91ID02.html"]click here[/url]

[i][b][size=3]GOP Says Rumsfeld Stepping Down[/size][/b]
Nov 08 12:51 PM US/Eastern






dumbass officials say Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down. Word comes a day after the Democratic gains in the election, in which Rumsfeld was a focus of much of the criticism of the Iraq war. [/i]


<organ plays> the prophacy of bengalrick strikes again....

[Guest bengalrick]

according to drudge though, the next Sec of defense will be [i]EX-CIA CHIEF ROBERT GATES[/i]...

<edit> now confirmed by the president in his press conference...

[Homer_Rice]

It'll be interesting to see the next supplemental budget request. I think one is due soon. Let's see if a bunch of extra stuff gets thrown in, as has happened in the past.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='381758' date='Nov 8 2006, 02:01 PM']It'll be interesting to see the next supplemental budget request. I think one is due soon. Let's see if a bunch of extra stuff gets thrown in, as has happened in the past.[/quote]

Homer,

Not to be taken as an Army vs Navy/Air Force issue; all services are wasteful and should do a better job, but the Army, from what I seen