Presidential Brief today at 1650EST on future military budget and force posture


5-Year Member
Nov 22, 2010
Today at 1650 (local) President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon E.
Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey
will brief the media on future military budget and force posture. Press
briefing and conference is set to be broadcast on the Pentagon channel.
Pentagon channel may also stream it live on the web at
I saw already on the news about what they expect the administration to say, basically it was exactly what reuters released.

The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

Even heard that Panetta is expected to say the Army will draw down to 490K troops under this plan.
It was very uplifting and motivating!

I especially like being told how many cuts there will be while at the same time being told how much the military will grow and becoming more capable than ever before.

Please join me later today to celebrate my first 24 hours of life (I was born yesterday).

Also, I appreciated the snake oil ads in between talking points from Obama and Penetta. I almost bought some, but I didn't have the money because I had to forward it to a Kenyan bank account as I received an email earlier today informing me $1.5 million had been left to me in an overseas account, and all I had to do was transfer some money to free it up.

Didn't see it, but LITs you gave me my laugh for the day with...please join me in celebrating your birthday!
Happy birthday LITS! It's almost my first birthday too. Can't wait! :biggrin:
In todays paper, the editorial board of The Washington Post illuminated perfectly the problems of the Obama Strategy. The entire thing is resting on a very shaky and flawed set of assumptions. "We will not engage in sustained ground combat and stability operations". The last hundred years have seen countless American Politicians making those kind of strategic forecasts- and every time they are wrong, because the threat and circumstances dictate the response needed. Harry Truman said something almost identical in 1949- in 1950 he was at War in Korea. Same could be said for post Korea ("the new look" and "massive retaliation"- and yet by 1964 we were in Vietnam. The "peace Dividend" of the 1990's gave way to an undersized Army and Marine Corps that were cycling troopers repeatedly thru Iraq and Afghanistan- neither Rumsfeld nor Bush started off planning to stick around for 10 years in either Afghanistan or Iraq- but they wound up dealing with a reality of war- It's never what you plan on it being. So the President can put all the lipstick he wants on this pig- but the ugly truth is that his strategy is still fraught with "the future will be what I say it will be" rather than a strategy that is based on the ability to minimize risk and respond to the circumstances as required.

The Post’s View
President Obama’s defense strategy rests on shaky assumptions

...A more dubious, and risky, assumption of Mr. Obama’s plan is that the United States will no longer conduct operations like those of the last decade: “long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” Though counterinsurgency has produced results in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it — and the troop levels required for it — will be retired; the size of the Army and Marines will be returned to prewar levels. This, too, is not a new concept: After Vietnam, the Pentagon abandoned counterinsurgency and planning for troop-intensive operations.

Mr. Obama acknowledges that was a mistake, and he vowed Thursday not to repeat it. His solution is what the Pentagon is calling “reversibility.” Officials say the expertise and some of the officer cadre necessary to carry out counterinsurgency and nation-building will be preserved, so that the capacity could be restored if needed.

Even if that works, the judgment that such operations can be ruled out for the next decade strikes us as at odds with the reality of a Middle East in revolution, an increasingly belligerent Iran and a North Korea undergoing an unpredictable leadership transition — to name just the most obvious threats...
the strategy could work

- we "refuse" to get involved in African conflicts
- Somalia was a quick exit
- Bonsia and Kosovo were limited involvements scale wise
- I wouldn't call Egypt and Libya a success, but no ground troops
Diplomacy is less effective if there is no muscle behind it.
My thoughts go to Somalia

Blackhawk down. When the locals were celebrating and carrying that Helicopters Pilot's body thru the street. Not a damn thing we could do about it. Under strength can lead to trouble. There are crazy people in our world. God loves nuts which is why he made so many of them.
Diplomacy is less effective if there is no muscle behind it.

Another way to look at it as that diplomacy is less effective if there is no will to back it up with force.

My two cents, even with the proposed cuts, we will still have enough "muscle" to back up our diplomacy. The question becomes, are we going to use what we have.

Use Taiwan as an example.

Can U.S. still send Aircraft Carrier groups even if we cut the number of AC group down to 8?

Can we suddenly process the arms sales we held up?