November 4, 2012

Why liberals don't win

Air Force Times - A new report by a liberal-leaning think tank recommends a dramatic overhaul of military pay, retirement and health care benefits as part of a $1 trillion cut in defense spending over 10 years. The Center for American Progress calls for capping pay raises, eliminating military health benefits for many retirees who are covered by an employer-provided plan, and reducing the value of military retired pay as well as making retirees wait until age 60 to start receiving it.


Capt. America said...

What is necessary is not what these morons suggest, but a reduction in the ratio of officers to enlisted. Reform should raise the quality of leadership, not reduce it. Too many chiefs has been a problem in the U. S. military forever.

Advocate a peoples' army, like the Vietnamese army that beat us. A colonel is the commander of a regiment. No regiment, no colonel, and no salute. The job is the rank, and the only rank.

Strelnikov said...

Another way out would be cancelling any weapon system that's been in development hell longer than a decade. For example SDI (aka "Star Wars") is STILL in development, but now reduced to "regional" missile defense....scrap it.

I agree that the US military is top-heavy, that began in the late 1950s and grew with Vietnam. Too many senior officers (especially in the Pentagon) try to go the "revolving-door" route, where they cultivate contacts with the defense industry and thus have a shot at a job after their retirement from the service. This has created conflicts of interest in the past and is probably causing similar issues now.

We need a rational military, and between cutting dud weapons and slimming down the officer corps, we also need foreign base closures and the reduction of the mothball fleet in the Great Lakes.

Anonymous said...

heh, i've got an idea:
why don't we just go by the original constitution (i know, i know, that's so quaint) and have NO, ZERO, standing armies ? ? ?
...or are you tough-guy fraidy cats peeing your panties already ? ? ?

art guerrilla
aka ann archy

Anonymous said...

Exactly: no standing army.

Washington was the one who used his overvalued prestige to get the standing army.

That the rich had to pay to put down the misnamed "Shays's Rebellion" frightened him: he wanted us proles to have to pay for our own oppression. And the best way to do that would be to have a standing army.

Having a standing army would also eliminate the problem of not being able to treat militia as badly as the Continentals were treated. He could hang regulars who ran away rather than freeze and starve to death, but he couldn't do the militia that way -- they were civilians and neither they nor their officers would tolerate it. He hated the militia.

I bet we could reduce the standing army to a training and war-gaming cadre.

Capt. America said...

Yes, Streinikov. The ratio of officers to enlisted during WWII was 1:14. After WWII it has remained fairly steady at 1:6. What that means is that at the platoon level during WWII there were almost 4 officers, including the CO, for each platoon sergeant. After WWII it got much worse. Returning to the ratio during WWII is not enough, IMO.

The US military is the greatest waste of talent and ability in history, except possibly the US schoolteachers. Bad institutions produce bad results no matter how good the people are.

You're right about not continuing to develop already obsolete weapons systems.