A must read

If one doesn’t believe that the Coast Guard be negated to becoming the ‘US Lifesaving & Buoy Tender Service’, they should request that Papp be asked this during his confirmation hearing:

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?

"The Coast Guard, as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." (Title 14, Part I, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code) The Coast Guard (including its predecessor service, The Revenue Marine) is one of the oldest forces of the U.S. government and, until the Navy Department was established in 1798, it served as the nation's only armed force afloat. The Coast Guard flag displays more than 30 battle streamers shared by our military partners. Coast Guard (and its predecessors) personnel served at home and abroad alongside our sister services in: The Quasi War with France, The War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Seminole Indian Wars, The U.S. Civil War, The Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, The Korean War, The War in Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, NATO Operations in Kosovo, UN operations in Haiti, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

If this is Papp’s real agenda, the Coast Guard will remain the most underappreciated assets of this country!

Or is it ONLY Papp's agenda?
 
The article is talking about what would be cut, given current and future funding levels.

Take a look at the thread called "An interesting read about your U.S. Coast Guard". It also addresses concerns regarding funding, the concerns of ADM Allen.
 
My rant was relating to the article “U.S. Coast Guard nominee would reduce terror hunt”… reading through the lines, anything that was emplaced to support US strategic objectives at home and overseas for the war on terror will be cut, gone. Since other agencies can do the job better, eliminate MSST’s, DOG, and drug interdiction programs. More than likely the Cooperative Maritime Strategy agreement with the US Navy and Marine Corp will be dismissed. My guess the Out of Hemisphere (OOH) deployment program will be sunk. Few dollars will be spent to recapitalize the outdated fleet while waiting on Deepwater to run on eight cylinders (If it ever can.) Providing cutters to DoD Combatant Commanders (COCOMs) in support of naval operations, exercises, and Theater Security Cooperation will cease since the administration & new command doesn’t vision the Coast Guard having any resemblance to an Armed Forces service. Hey, if the Coast Guard isn't considered an Armed Service by the populace, that means the promise NOT to cut any Military Budget at this time can be...

Essentially what was stated by Rep. Pete Olson “Papp's proposals would gut an agency critical to national security.” seems to be the ticket.
 
I don't believe the congress passed the FY2011 budget yet... Papp shouldn't propose any cuts in the CG mission until he actually becomes commandant.

From what I understand Homeland Security budget increases 2% for FY2011... for what?... 200 million dollars for security in NYC for four worthless wastes of humanity, while the Coast Guard loses five MSST teams in the same city and again gets clobbered in the pocket book. How many cutters could get refurbished for 200 million dollars? The High Endurance Cutters Dallas & Gallatin where just dry-docked and completely retrofitted in 2009 at a cost of 15 million for the pair. If the current administration is looking for ways to create jobs, don't be cutting over a thousand coast guardsmen, five cutters and valuable aircraft. How many jobs would be created recapitalizing the existing fleet and fulfilling the promise to modernize the service?

Instead of cutting missions in the war against terror because of a deteriorating fleet, partnership with the US navy on proven logistics & naval technologies in which already exist to save funding. Convince congress to pay for OCONUS strategic maritime missions where the navy is stretched thin.

There is already bipartisan support for blocking these budget cuts. If one has a vestige interest in the coast guard or national security these cuts should be alarming.
 
Last edited:
No branch of the military can "advocate" in Congress. They can only inform, not "influence" and that is by law. VADM Papp's memo was a pre-decisional memo, involving a variety of levels and commands. The memo was not from "yesterday" however addresses the very real possibility of the Coast Guard losing more and more funding.

The Coast Guard's missions have continued to increase while funding has decreased.

At some point you will reach a breaking point. Is that now? Is it 5 years from now? You cannot continue to do more with less. Ships will break down and there will be no funds to repair them (just look at the Polar rollers to see how year round dry dock looks).

Partnering with the Navy does nothing for this problem. The LCS program has had it's own problems, but the Navy also has advocates in Congress.

Look at the entire Coast Guard budget v. the cost of a single Navy air craft carrier.

The request to have the ice breaking missions reinforced was NOT approved in the stimulus package.

There are cuts because there is no funding, and the Commandant is more concerned about modernizing a over-aged fleet than funding units and programs that are not "proven".

At some point, it becomes critical. Yes, congressmen will have to explain why they are losing units in their areas.

If you think any of this comes as a surprise to Coasties, you are wrong, we're on those broken down ships, and we have been for decades....
 
I believe this Administration consistently demonstrates that it lacks the fortitude to secure the Homeland. If 9/11 has taught us anything it is the reality that we are vulnerable to attack by air, sea and land.
We are fighting an enemy from within as well as from without. We are fighting
an enemy that seeks to exploit weaknesses on a continual basis. The fact that Napolitano (OBAMA) wants to reduce funding to the "Securing the Cities " initiative is evident in the budget outline.
The fact that OBAMA is alright with eliminating MSST's for New York and other major cities, reduce Cutter Fleet is consistent evidence his administration is SOFT on Terror.
The internal document generated by Admiral Papp (if accurately reported) shocks the conscience of its citizens as the War On Terror rages on.
We should be arguing for an increase in funding to the Coast Guard, not reducing it.
With the war on terror being funded through the importation of narcotics around the world and to our shores, reducing the Coast Guard's ability to
maintain its operational tempo in this vital area of Law Enforcement is stupid.
I would decline the nomination of Commandant before I would accept it under the terms of the budget proposed.
Remember management is doing all things correctly, leadership is doing the right thing.
 
READ THIS
comment
E-mail
Print
share
Obama's coast guard cuts: a recipe for disaster (Rep. John Mica)
By Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) - 02/26/10 03:11 PM ET

The cuts to the U.S. Coast Guard budget proposed by the Obama Administration are nothing short of a recipe for disaster and could severely undermine the nation’s port and maritime security.

The Coast Guard is our first line of defense against any threats of waterborne terrorism, and the service leads U.S. efforts to stop the flow of illegal drugs and immigrants into the country. Maritime safety, search and rescue and marine environmental protection are other critical missions performed every day by the capable men and women who serve in the Coast Guard.

It is outrageous that the Administration would propose cutting personnel, equipment and assets so essential to American security and safety.

This budget would reduce funds for port, waterway and coastal security by more than $100 million. It would also eliminate five Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSST): specially trained anti-terrorist teams responsible for providing security at our largest ports. Included among the cuts would be the MSST station at our nation’s second largest port, the Port of New York/New Jersey.


The Administration’s proposal would also reduce the number of vessels, air facilities and aircraft available to the Coast Guard to carry out its missions. The fleet of large oceangoing cutters would be reduced by 1/3 before replacements for those vessels have been completed. In addition, five recently upgraded helicopters would be mothballed, reducing the Coast Guard’s anti-drug operations in Florida and the Caribbean and hamstringing its nationwide capability to respond to any at-sea terrorist events.

Most egregiously, the Obama budget would cut more than 1,100 Coast Guard military positions, yet it would grow an already bloated Transportation Security Administration (TSA) bureaucracy of over 60,000 by another 4,500 positions. This out of control, top heavy agency already has more than 3,000 administrative staff in its Washington, DC headquarters with average salaries over $100,000, and another 8,700 administrators and managers across the country.

We should significantly cut this excessively large administrative bureaucracy before slashing our men and women of the Coast Guard and their capability to secure this nation’s ports and waterways.

The federal government has a responsibility to be a good steward of the taxpayers’ dollars, but we cannot compromise our capacity to secure our nation. The Administration’s budget proposal represents the wrong priorities. It is simply irresponsible and unacceptable.
Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...uard-cuts-a-recipe-for-disaster-rep-john-mica
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.
Comments (4)
 
Late to this party and confused but re: Sandbar's comment:

"The fact that OBAMA is alright with eliminating MSST's for New York and other major cities, reduce Cutter Fleet is consistent evidence his administration is SOFT on Terror."

Last I checked the USCG had 7 aspects to their mission and redcing specific portions of the current budget request in the current or next appropriations cycle wouldn't in and of itself mean they want to be soft on terror. In fact I'd be willing to bet that many folks who voted for "Change" and President Obama are disappointed with the relatively slow pace of redeployment from Iraq, additional unit deployments to Afghanistan and several other of his administrations policies that are representative of the fact of life that most of the time Presidents have to govern from the center of the ideological spectrum.

I'm not defending either argument here, just saying I don';t really understand snadbar's comments, unless of course he/she is auditioning for a show to follow Bill O'Reilly's on FOX.....
 
A breaking point is coming. The CG has massively increased its role. Funding and the amount of missions are going in the opposite direction. Its going to take one accident to change that. Can't remember the details exactly, but during the Iran hostage crisis there was a task force setup to take back the hostages. Two helicopters were sent out to carry the guys to the mission. Well both helicopters crashed. Was it a direct result of low-funding? Probably not. But its all about perception.

One of the biggest principles (I think) the Obama administration is missing is the fact that the military is not just meant to fight. It projects power. Power is displayed through numbers. Whether that be the amount of pilots, ground forces, planes, ships, etc. Its not something that can just be scaled back because one particular variable is not needed in that specific mission/conflict.
 
One in five Americans is on some type of Government assistance, one in eight is on food stamps, Barry is looking to make this a dependant Nation.

Very sad....
 
goldfarb1 said:
Can't remember the details exactly, but during the Iran hostage crisis there was a task force setup to take back the hostages. Two helicopters were sent out to carry the guys to the mission. Well both helicopters crashed. Was it a direct result of low-funding? Probably not. But its all about perception.
Click to expand...
There were eight helicopters. One crashed. It lifted off from a refueling station into the wing of the C-130 and created a fireball. The mission failed, not because of funding, but because it was overly complex.

The straw that broke the camels back was the fact that an aircrewman threw his flight jacket onto the deck in front of the avionics compartment of one of the MH-53s causing the avionics to overheat and in turn causing that helicopter to abort.

Maximus said:
One in five Americans is on some type of Government assistance
Click to expand...
I guess that includes millions of military retirees and those wounded veterans receiving compensation.
 
Mongo said:
There were eight helicopters. One crashed. It lifted off from a refueling station into the wing of the C-130 and created a fireball. The mission failed, not because of funding, but because it was overly complex.

The straw that broke the camels back was the fact that an aircrewman threw his flight jacket onto the deck in front of the avionics compartment of one of the MH-53s causing the avionics to overheat and in turn causing that helicopter to abort.

I guess that includes millions of military retirees and those wounded veterans receiving compensation.
Click to expand...

Basically as Mongo says: Desert 1 was an overly complex plan without enough redundancy built in and relied on an adhoc organization to provide the Rotary wing airlift to execute. They needed a minimum of 6 lift helicopters to execute the plan- they took off with 8 Navy CH53s not configured for that kind of mission and relatively inexperienced pilots. When they lost two- they went to the minimum required and then when they lost a 3rd for maintenance the game was up- and the crash sealed the deal and killed a bunch of soldiers in the process. It was a low point in the US Military- and it led to JSOC, followed up by Goldwater Nichols and the creation of the US Special Operations Command. To a certain extent you could blame inadequate funding of the military since at that point the funding truly was horrendous and earned Jimmy Carter a place on most US Military members personal wall of shame; but in truth- had the DoD gotten every dime it ever requested at that time, the likelihood of any of it going to fund special operations and a joint headquarters for this kind of mission would have been almost zero in 1980.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top