Monday, October 13, 2014

U.S. Army Crying Poor Well In Advance Of Projected Funding Cuts

Right on schedule I'd say.

It never fails to amaze me the fucking balls on these guys.

They don't even bat an eye when billions of dollars worth of equipment gets scrapped or left behind in countries we have been mucking around in but a couple years ahead of some projected budget cuts they are out in front of Congress crying that the roof is leaking and they can't feed the kids.

Cry me a river bitches, we are all broke.

I have an idea.
Why don't you fucking people quit giving your toys to the local podunk police departments around the country and use them against that bunch of camel jockeys you keep fucking around with?

U.S. Army says it faces huge equipment, training risks with budget cuts

By Andrea Shalal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army warned on Monday that mandatory budget cuts due to resume in fiscal 2016 would be devastating to a service that is already facing huge risks as it tries to keep forces ready for battle, replace aging equipment and respond to crises around the world.

"We have to have a national security debate ... because there is too much going on," U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno told reporters at the annual Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference.

Odierno said the Army had agreed to further reduce the size of its active force to 450,000 troops from an earlier goal of 490,000 to comply with mandatory budget cuts known as sequestration, but he questioned if even the original target would allow the Army to respond as needed around the globe.


Grog said...

Fuck You, General. You sorry bastards can't bring even 1/2 of the equipment back, go eat 2 year old MRE's in the pentagon dining room, see how you like it because it doesn't taste like sand. Asshole.

riverrider said...

they leave it there because of rules set by politicians, not generals. those planes btw were bought with aid money not pentagon budget and some were foreign planes we have no use for. we do leave shitloads of gear over there, some useable some not. trucks running 24 hour ops in the desert don't last very long. sure they look good, but inside the engine not so much. it would cost more to bring it home and replace the engine and tranny than to buy a new one in most cases and this in turn creates jobs in the u.s. that's really what wars are about anyway, money. additionally, to bring it home it costs more money to process it for shipment as it must be oil/fuel free and...SOIL free. good luck. then it has to have customs inspections, all the while troops or contractors are required to get this all, there were some c-130s airplanes scrapped. in addition to the above costs, the air force not the army has say over them and they have been telling congress for years they don't need any more but congress allocates another 20 or so a year to keep hercules air in business. i love your blog but lets do our research before we condemn serveice members please.

tweell said...

You can be sure it isn't the military that wants to give away their MRAPs and stuff. Our wonderful bureaucrats are doing that, the Army left to itself hoards gear like a miser.

The US also spends an incredible amount of time and money on training troops, then retraining them - more than any other military does. That could (and will) be cut, but the problem there is that is one of our military superiority points. We train to the point that our 'green' troops are at the level of other's combat veterans, and our combat veterans are even better. The Army realized how terrible they were after Reagan sent some Rangers to Grenada, the changes made caused our green supply troops in GW1 and 2 to be superior to Iraq combat vets. Cut the training, and how many lives will it cost?

Are we going to cut the political lard on the DoD budget, or the pet projects for the Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon? Heck no, although that would be the best place to cut. Instead, it'll be just like everywhere else - cut the essentials and scream about it.

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.