Current SA/ROTC Cadets: Sorry you missed the fun

[-Bull-]

Just to lighten things up a bit on a Friday.


http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/m...ld-close-service-academies-end-rotc-programs/

 

[Chockstock]

I guess we just need a new enemy

 

[aglages]

I guess we just need a new enemy

As though we don't have enough already.

 

[Chockstock]

As though we don't have enough already.

Yeah, I suppose, but the majority of the American public doesn't really feel threatened and it will be more so once we begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. Unjustified war-mongering is sick and twisted (thanks Bush and friends) and I would rather not experience war. Our readiness and training taking a dive is bad news for the future and wish we wouldn't have to sacrifice that. But on the bright side there will be more peace...and rest for our troops

 

[raimius]

"Peace dividend"...while still engaged overseas.

I'm hearing rumors of massive flying hour cuts. That will make for a "current" force on paper, but not necessarily proficient.

Such a draw down in capabilities would follow historical trends. The US doesn't like to pay for a big military in times of (relative) peace.

 

[scoutpilot]

Yeah, I suppose, but the majority of the American public doesn't really feel threatened and it will be more so once we begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. Unjustified war-mongering is sick and twisted (thanks Bush and friends) and I would rather not experience war. Our readiness and training taking a dive is bad news for the future and wish we wouldn't have to sacrifice that. But on the bright side there will be more peace...and rest for our troops

That's because Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat, nor was the Taliban. The very odd relationship of AQ and the Taliban was, in the end, not justification for our endless involvement there.

 

[Pima]

Unjustified war-mongering is sick and twisted (thanks Bush and friends

Just curious on how you feel about the millions we spent under Clinton for Bosnia?

How about when we almost invaded Haiti in 94?

How about the fact that Clinton might be responsible in part because of his in action as a President...Twin Tower bombing 93, USS Cole, US Embassy bombings?

All under his watch, while terrorists knew we were searching for UBL.


For me I don't blame Clinton, because I look at the bigger picture. GHWB inherited Reagan's administration, where he funded Hussein against Iran, and UBL against Russia. Hussein invaded Kuwait because he was power hungry, and he gassed his own people(kurds) for the same reason. He did so because of Carter's presidency. I can keep pushing this back to the Arch Duke that set off WWI.

The idea that buck began and stopped with GWB 43 only illustrates to me that there is a lack of comprehension regarding the unique tie between the State Dept and the DoD.

Honestly, can you say that 9/11 would have not occurred under 43 when UBL's big problem was the Infidels in Saudi because of Gulf I? Can you say because we funded UBL under Reagan against the Russians, he would have risen to that level? How about Hussein when we funded Iraq against Iran? Reagan did because of Carter.

It is MPO short sighted to say it is 43's fault when it is clear to see it goes back to at least the 39th President.

Did we stay too long, only history will tell, but if you are going to say it was wrong to get involved when 3K innocent lives were taken, sorry, I am not with you.

Again, why were we about to invade Haiti? Why risk American lives? Why were we involved with Serbia?

People say it is about oil for why we did this...comical, because the same people who say it was about oil, beeeaach when they pay 4 bucks a gallon. Can you imagine the cost of gas if we didn't do it? We would be like Europe 8-10 bucks a gallon. For just one second imagine 8 bucks a gallon when it comes to your spending? Where would you cut, and how will that cut impact the economy with 7.9% unemployment?

You can't have it both ways. Leave the mid-east alone, no arctic drilling, be prepared to pay the cost at the pump.

Horrified that women are stoned, than don't ask the military to step in unless you are willing to pay for them to be the police.

The only way to have peace IMPHO is Teddy's position, Walk quietly, but carry a big stick.

203K flying hrs will be cut for the AF or 40% of their flight hours. Programs/airframes will be cut. How do do that? This is not 43's problem, it is 44"s problem, and most likely will be 45's because Obama is hollowing out the military like Carter!

When they can bolt they will! History is the best predictor of the future.

My question to you is how can you keep peace if you can'r fight due to loss of a training budget?

One link stated the Army will be short 500 Helo pilots. AF link stated some comm squadrons will go from 24 to 8 hrs on top of the 203K flight hours. This is not Bush's administration, it is Obama's. Bush didn't blame Clinton, Clinton didn't blame Bush 41.


Want to say THANKS, say it to Obama's administration. It is his budget, he is not 1 yr in, but now 4.

 

[Pima]

OBTW, we live in a bubble on this site.

Here is a link to Vegas media regarding the AF
http://www.lvrj.com/news/red-flag-thunderbirds-at-nellis-targeted-for-grounding-190244941.html

read the comments.

~~~As we all know nothing will happen to the people who screwed the taxpayers, someone needs to go to jail and that includes Air Force personnel!!
~~~Please, after careful observation of how the USAF spends the tax payers money it is about time that these manned aircraft be place in a museum, along side with the Wright Brothers aircraft.
~~~Obviously, there is no fat in the Air Force's budget. Ya, right! They can't cut 10% of their expenses? They just go after the very public items to try to scare the heck out of the people who pay the bills.
* remember the title...Thunderbirds.
~~~I'm certain that Americans would rather see the Thunder birds fly than hear about what's going on in cesspools east of the Med! Stop all financial aid to those rotten dictatorships in the mid east, too! That should free up some loose change to help our military.


That was 3 of 9 posts. Frightening to read. I get it they may be anti-military, but still we must acknowledge that these opinions exist. MOCs will be deciding the military's financial future.

Living in our bubble only hurts us. You need to be prepared that the bad will happen in 2-3 weeks, and not rely on the 11th hr reprieve.

 

[cb7893]

Just curious on how you feel about the millions we spent under Clinton for Bosnia?

How about when we almost invaded Haiti in 94?

How about the fact that Clinton might be responsible in part because of his in action as a President...Twin Tower bombing 93, USS Cole, US Embassy bombings?

All under his watch, while terrorists knew we were searching for UBL.


For me I don't blame Clinton, because I look at the bigger picture. GHWB inherited Reagan's administration, where he funded Hussein against Iran, and UBL against Russia. Hussein invaded Kuwait because he was power hungry, and he gassed his own people(kurds) for the same reason. He did so because of Carter's presidency. I can keep pushing this back to the Arch Duke that set off WWI.

The idea that buck began and stopped with GWB 43 only illustrates to me that there is a lack of comprehension regarding the unique tie between the State Dept and the DoD.

Honestly, can you say that 9/11 would have not occurred under 43 when UBL's big problem was the Infidels in Saudi because of Gulf I? Can you say because we funded UBL under Reagan against the Russians, he would have risen to that level? How about Hussein when we funded Iraq against Iran? Reagan did because of Carter.

It is MPO short sighted to say it is 43's fault when it is clear to see it goes back to at least the 39th President.

Did we stay too long, only history will tell, but if you are going to say it was wrong to get involved when 3K innocent lives were taken, sorry, I am not with you.

Again, why were we about to invade Haiti? Why risk American lives? Why were we involved with Serbia?

People say it is about oil for why we did this...comical, because the same people who say it was about oil, beeeaach when they pay 4 bucks a gallon. Can you imagine the cost of gas if we didn't do it? We would be like Europe 8-10 bucks a gallon. For just one second imagine 8 bucks a gallon when it comes to your spending? Where would you cut, and how will that cut impact the economy with 7.9% unemployment?

You can't have it both ways. Leave the mid-east alone, no arctic drilling, be prepared to pay the cost at the pump.

Horrified that women are stoned, than don't ask the military to step in unless you are willing to pay for them to be the police.

The only way to have peace IMPHO is Teddy's position, Walk quietly, but carry a big stick.

203K flying hrs will be cut for the AF or 40% of their flight hours. Programs/airframes will be cut. How do do that? This is not 43's problem, it is 44"s problem, and most likely will be 45's because Obama is hollowing out the military like Carter!

When they can bolt they will! History is the best predictor of the future.

My question to you is how can you keep peace if you can'r fight due to loss of a training budget?

One link stated the Army will be short 500 Helo pilots. AF link stated some comm squadrons will go from 24 to 8 hrs on top of the 203K flight hours. This is not Bush's administration, it is Obama's. Bush didn't blame Clinton, Clinton didn't blame Bush 41.


Want to say THANKS, say it to Obama's administration. It is his budget, he is not 1 yr in, but now 4.

Pima, just a couple of things.

First, Yugoslavia is about as unmitigated a success as one can find in the application of US military force. Why were we there? Because Yugoslavia was coming apart. Serbia, who inherited most of the weaponry and dominated the Yugo military, pre break-up, was bombing its neighbors and arming Bosnian Serbs who were shooting old ladies waiting in line for vegetables. They rounded up over 8000 males under 50 in Srbrenica and executed them. That was after it was declared a UN "safe area", monitored by dutch troops. (My neighbor did Hague war crime forensics at several mass grave sights besides Srebrenica. Our European neighbors, particularly Germany (obsessed with reunification) had no interest. As for the Bush administration, US involvement did not square with the Powell doctrine. Our attention was on the newly liberated Warsaw Pact countries and how to deal with Russia.

Bottomline, look at the scoreboard. Settling Bosnia opened the way to settle issues with Croatia and Kosovo. In Kosovo, Serbia gave up its claim to their equivalent of the Alamo and Concord. When was the last outbreak of nationalistic violence in the former Yugo? Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic were all delivered to the Hague by the Serbian gov't who now wants to join the EU and NATO. Game, set, match. Don't have numbers on the cost, but I'll take the unders at $5b and US casulties at 20.

A point could be made that our success in the former Yugo, following the illusory success in Gulf I, gave US policy makers and maybe even the generals a little bit of hubris when deciding to take on Sadaam one more time.

Yugo was definitely a case of walking softly and carrying a big stick. That was not the case in Gulf 2 and I don't know what you call Afghanistan 10 years later.

Second, we did not fund Iraq in their war with Iran. We sold them important weapons systems, paid for by the Gulf states. We certainly shared some intelligence with them. (Unfortunately, not the location of one our our ships which they hit with an Exocet missle.) Most important, we gave the Gulf oil states a gigantic green light to support Iraq in anyway possible. Sunni Arabs hate Persians worse than Jews. BTW, we turned a blind eye to their use of chemical weapons against Iran.

Third, most of our involvement in Afghan in those early days was farmed out to the Pakistani ISI. UBL's was one of about 100 militas. His $ came from the Gulf and the ISI. He was one the ISI's favorites, not being Dari or Tadzik or Hazara. We funded the ISI as we do today. I'm sure that UBL's fighters knew where to attack based largely on US supplied intel.

 

[cb7893]

That's because Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat, nor was the Taliban. The very odd relationship of AQ and the Taliban was, in the end, not justification for our endless involvement there.

Scout, I'll expose myself to the community as a naif, believing you to be serious in your comment...and/or as un-patriotic for generally agreeing with it.

 

[Pima]

cb,

My terminology was wrong regarding funded. However, I think we agree on the fact that to blame either Bush is wrong.

Pull that one single thread from 9/11 and UBL's attack, you see this just keeps going and going for decades.

Most important, we gave the Gulf oil states a gigantic green light to support Iraq in anyway possible.

We created the monster back in 1980. UBL had an issue that the infidels invaded their holy land in 90/91. Decades before 43 was our president.

As a woman, let's put this aside. Can anyone here defend the Taliban's actions from a humanitarian perspective? I doubt it. Hence, why was it okay to invade Haiti, but not okay to do it in Afghanistan?

Planes were in the air filled with the 82nd AB under Clinton. Yes, they were turned back, but they were in the air. We were ready to invade Haiti. They didn't harbor a terrorist that took pride in killing thousands of Americans.

My irk was

Unjustified war-mongering is sick and twisted (thanks Bush and friends) and I would rather not experience war

.

It illustrated to me that they saw 9/11 as 9/11 alone. Just like some saw this as 43 doing it for 41. That was not the case, the path started back decades ago even before 41 was President.

The term war-mongering was also very offensive to me, and said they don't get it, because those that want peace the most are those "war mongers". Bullet and his friends have always said going into battle is something they would never want to do again. They would do it, if called, but it is the last option.

Since I live in the DC area, Bush 43 was known to visit quite frequently military members in the hospital. He didn't auto-sign letters.

He, like President Obama deserves respect as the Commander. I felt it was distasteful the comment of Bush. It is akin to saying thanks Obama and friends for sequestration. You don't have to agree, but you should respect.

Does anyone here really believe Obama wants to hurt the military? He wants to see 203K flight hrs cut for the AF, or 500 helo pilots short for the Army?

I don't, but that is going to be the new military. Like Carter, he will now be known as the President that hollowed out the military. There are other factors that caused it. That will be part of his history in the military's perspective.

 

[AcademyFriend1]

'95 Government Shutdown Redux?

I'm old enough to have lived through the 1995 Government shut-down and this feels fairly similar to me. Battle lines drawn on both sides, and the party not in the White House believing that the time has come for a show-down on the role of Government and also convinced the public will back them (and cheer them) once the cutting begins.

In that case, Speaker Gingrich underestimated the extent to which the American public would (a) sympathize with the furloughed federal employees; and (b) value federal government services like getting passports (to cite a minor inconvenience) or having access to VA hospitals (a major issue). In the end, the shutdown ended relatively quickly and was not seen as a success by the Republican caucus (as I recall, it was a part of why Gingrich stepped down as speaker).

I think when the public "pays attention" on this one, the cuts impacting military readiness and the welfare of military personnel is something the public will care about, and a compromise will come. Not sure whether or not the cuts will have to go into effect for a time first (as was the case with the shut-down).

 

[scoutpilot]

cb,

My terminology was wrong regarding funded. However, I think we agree on the fact that to blame either Bush is wrong.

Pull that one single thread from 9/11 and UBL's attack, you see this just keeps going and going for decades.



We created the monster back in 1980. UBL had an issue that the infidels invaded their holy land in 90/91. Decades before 43 was our president.

As a woman, let's put this aside. Can anyone here defend the Taliban's actions from a humanitarian perspective? I doubt it. Hence, why was it okay to invade Haiti, but not okay to do it in Afghanistan?

Planes were in the air filled with the 82nd AB under Clinton. Yes, they were turned back, but they were in the air. We were ready to invade Haiti. They didn't harbor a terrorist that took pride in killing thousands of Americans.

My irk was .

It illustrated to me that they saw 9/11 as 9/11 alone. Just like some saw this as 43 doing it for 41. That was not the case, the path started back decades ago even before 41 was President.

The term war-mongering was also very offensive to me, and said they don't get it, because those that want peace the most are those "war mongers". Bullet and his friends have always said going into battle is something they would never want to do again. They would do it, if called, but it is the last option.

Since I live in the DC area, Bush 43 was known to visit quite frequently military members in the hospital. He didn't auto-sign letters.

He, like President Obama deserves respect as the Commander. I felt it was distasteful the comment of Bush. It is akin to saying thanks Obama and friends for sequestration. You don't have to agree, but you should respect.

Does anyone here really believe Obama wants to hurt the military? He wants to see 203K flight hrs cut for the AF, or 500 helo pilots short for the Army?

I don't, but that is going to be the new military. Like Carter, he will now be known as the President that hollowed out the military. There are other factors that caused it. That will be part of his history in the military's perspective.

You're offended. So what? No one called your dear a warmonger.

There is no doubt among almost any intelligent person that the war in Iraq was prosecuted based on intelligence which was completely false, and that there was no link between al Qaeda and the Hussein regime.

We squandered thousands of American lives there, and the end result was to create an unstable government that is far closer to Iran than that which preceded it.

Planes were in the air to invade Haiti? You don't say. What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing. The idea that one President almost invaded Haiti by force does nothing to justify the following President's leveraging of UBL's attack into a war in a Iraq, or even into a war in Afghanistan.

I venture that if your child was among the veterans of those wars, you might feel differently about it, especially if the unthinkable happened to him. Some of us have been down that road with too many friends in the ground, or missing limbs, or only shadows of the vibrant people they used to be accept the idea that the last ten years were justified or resulted in any security gains for our nation.

Giving Bush 43 a pass on the wars his administration pursued is dereliction of duty by an intelligent citizenry and will result in nothing more than a repeating of the last decade.

 

[bruno]

All right folks- you have all pushed this significantly off topic and are grubbing around in political weeds. Let's get it back on track and off the political bandwagons

 

[MemberLG]

First, Yugoslavia is about as unmitigated a success as one can find in the application of US military force. Why were we there? Because Yugoslavia was coming apart. Serbia, who inherited most of the weaponry and dominated the Yugo military, pre break-up, was bombing its neighbors and arming Bosnian Serbs who were shooting old ladies waiting in line for vegetables. They rounded up over 8000 males under 50 in Srbrenica and executed them. That was after it was declared a UN "safe area", monitored by dutch troops. (My neighbor did Hague war crime forensics at several mass grave sights besides Srebrenica. Our European neighbors, particularly Germany (obsessed with reunification) had no interest. As for the Bush administration, US involvement did not square with the Powell doctrine. Our attention was on the newly liberated Warsaw Pact countries and how to deal with Russia.

I take a different view. The discussion is not about what US military did in Yugoslavia, but why did we get involved in the first place? I had to make peace with myself as to deciding how much of I was doing for past 18 years as an Army officer was defending our country vs something else.

Call me old fashion, but I signed up to defend my country, not to be a peace keeper or nation builder. I could have join the Peace Corps. I think most military members ask themselves during their military career what am I doing here - insert some location outside US. You should be able answer that question, as your soldiers might ask you the same question.

For folks that agree that getting involved in Bosnia was the right thing to do because of bad people were "shooting old ladies waiting in line for vegetables," why aren't we involved in Africa where much much bad things are happening?

 

[Packer]

Call me old fashion, but I signed up to defend my country, not to be a peace keeper or nation builder.

I think many agree with this.

 

[bruno]

Originally Posted by MemberLG
Call me old fashion, but I signed up to defend my country, not to be a peace keeper or nation builder.

I think many agree with this.

Any who agreed with that would, however, be wrong. They "signed up" to "faithfully execute the orders of the officers appointed over them". What Army did you mistakenly believe you were joining? And what exactly is defending your country" ? Certainly it's not limited to launching rounds down range once someone has directly attacked the sovereign territory of the United States. In fact Defending your country has a huge proactive component to it. Preventing the escalation of a regional conflict that may have the ability to threaten the long or short term interests of the United States is defending the country as well. Who makes that decision? Well- by my reading of the Constitution- it's the President in consultation with the Senate and paid for by Congress. As far as why do we intervene in someplaces and not others- even where there are equal amounts of injustice or suffering in both? We take action where it is in our interest to do so, and in places where we have no compelling interest- we don't. So we intervene in Europe because the stability of the continent is in our interest and because we had an interest in ensuring the long term cohesiveness of NATO. We've intervened in the Persian Gulf because that is the source of much of the world's crude oil (whether or not we get it from there is almost beside the point- a disruption to the other half of the world will certainly be a major economic disruption to us as well). Unfortunately for Somalia- beyond a human rights concern- we have no vital interests at stake, so they get a token response. Ugly reality of life in an unjust world and it's not black and white- though what is black and white is that the soldier "signed up" to go deal with any that the political leadership determines is a threat -real or potential - to the interests of the United States and all of that is part and parcel of "Defending" the United States.

 

[Packer]

Any who agreed with that would, however, be wrong. They "signed up" to "faithfully execute the orders of the officers appointed over them". What Army did you mistakenly believe you were joining? And what exactly is defending your country" ? Certainly it's not limited to launching rounds down range once someone has directly attacked the sovereign territory of the United States. In fact Defending your country has a huge proactive component to it. Preventing the escalation of a regional conflict that may have the ability to threaten the long or short term interests of the United States is defending the country as well. Who makes that decision? Well- by my reading of the Constitution- it's the President in consultation with the Senate and paid for by Congress. As far as why do we intervene in someplaces and not others- even where there are equal amounts of injustice or suffering in both? We take action where it is in our interest to do so, and in places where we have no compelling interest- we don't. So we intervene in Europe because the stability of the continent is in our interest and because we had an interest in ensuring the long term cohesiveness of NATO. We've intervened in the Persian Gulf because that is the source of much of the world's crude oil (whether or not we get it from there is almost beside the point- a disruption to the other half of the world will certainly be a major economic disruption to us as well). Unfortunately for Somalia- beyond a human rights concern- we have no vital interests at stake, so they get a token response. Ugly reality of life in an unjust world and it's not black and white- though what is black and white is that the soldier "signed up" to go deal with any that the political leadership determines is a threat -real or potential - to the interests of the United States and all of that is part and parcel of "Defending" the United States.

You are kind of preaching to the choir here. I am aware of the obligation. As for what is defending the country is a good question and often has a political answer, thus my previous post. The politics of this I do not wish to engage in on this forum so I will cease and desist.

 

[cb7893]

I take a different view. The discussion is not about what US military did in Yugoslavia, but why did we get involved in the first place? I had to make peace with myself as to deciding how much of I was doing for past 18 years as an Army officer was defending our country vs something else.

Call me old fashion, but I signed up to defend my country, not to be a peace keeper or nation builder. I could have join the Peace Corps. I think most military members ask themselves during their military career what am I doing here - insert some location outside US. You should be able answer that question, as your soldiers might ask you the same question.

For folks that agree that getting involved in Bosnia was the right thing to do because of bad people were "shooting old ladies waiting in line for vegetables," why aren't we involved in Africa where much much bad things are happening?

Why we got involved is easy.

Yugo was not just about the humanitarian tragedy. It was about a power vacuum developing in Eastern Europe following the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. The last time such a vacuum developed in the Balkans preceded WWI when the Ottoman Empire was on the wane. The goal was not to nation build, but to have Western style/democratic forces build/rebuild their own nations. When Serbia delivers the three most wanted Balkan War Criminals to the Hague, begs for membership in the EU and NATO, and accepts Kosovo independence, AFTER we bomb their capital, I call that serving US national interests.

Risky? No doubt. Successful? Unquestionably. Were we lucky? Hell yes. Fortunately, Russia was caught at its weakest and was in no position to meddle.

Why is the easy one. How and whatafter are what matter.

More than one expert has suggested that our involvement in Yugo was at partially a function of our inaction in Rwanda, which was at least partially influenced by the recent experience in Mogadishu. Of course, no one knows what we could have done to stop the genocide, but the Clinton Admin had to think about the possibility of two genocides on their watch.

Maybe the success of our efforts in the Balkans set the table for the Bush administration's mis-underestimation of the challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan, the blowback and cost of which makes sequestraton look like a bump in the road. The why was easy. It was the how and whatafter that weren't asked.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Any who agreed with that would, however, be wrong.

In sorry, did you just suggest that people who signed up to defend their country are "wrong".


Yes, they uphold and defense the Constitution... but just because it doesn't say "defend my country".... doesn't mean it's wrong.

Oh wait, quick, tell the people who have already taken the oath... what it really means!!!

There are about 2.5 centuries that disagree with you Bruno... sorry, but you're wrong.