SECDEF's DoD Budget Proposals

[Hacksaw]

As for cost savings... they declined to comment based on the fact that they didn't discuss classified programs... Although Mr Gates made a distinct effort to clarify that the program recommendations were NOT based on a real or perceived budget top line... In his words (paraphrased) this was about doing the right thing...

As for FCS, and Army vehicle recapitalization, Mr Gates was specific in discussing the need to recapitalize the Army fleet, and that there was a cost in $ and time by cutting FCS vehicles, but that it was in his mind the right thing to do... so I think they have probably placed a wedge in for recapitalizing the fleet without really knowing what shape that recapitalization will take...

Live well and row

[J Wolfsberger]

Hoover Research Fellow

"Expertise: national security strategy, the effective use of military force, European politics"

If the quality of thought in her article is representative of a Hoover Institute expert, they've fallen on hard times.

[William F. Owen]

Hoover Research Fellow

"Expertise: national security strategy, the effective use of military force, European politics"

If the quality of thought in her article is representative of a Hoover Institute expert, they've fallen on hard times.

Wow... I was just musing posting on just this topic but considered it a little bit "bad form," ... but since you say it, I must concur.

I was underwhelmed as to both the assertions and the evidence or even reasons to support them. May be a smart chap, but it did not shine through in the article.

[MikeF]

Wow... I was just musing posting on just this topic but considered it a little bit "bad form," ... but since you say it, I must concur.

I was underwhelmed as to both the assertions and the evidence or even reasons to support them. May be a smart chap, but it did not shine through in the article.

I watched the NCAA championship last night. I'm a huge Carolina fan. Does that make me an expert on basketball? I can hardly make a free throw.

v/r

Mike

[Courtney Massengale]

Just from my foxhole, it looks like a lot of this is targeted at incorporating things that were born in supplemental into the "regular" budget.

Obviously the writing is on the wall – we can't continue to fund transformation, expansions of Special Operations and good ideas for GWOT one supplement at a time.

[wm]

Just from my foxhole, it looks like a lot of this is targeted at incorporating things that were born in supplemental into the "regular" budget.

Obviously the writing is on the wall – we can't continue to fund transformation, expansions of Special Operations and good ideas for GWOT one supplement at a time.

I suspect that when one ties this in with the earlier fracas over the OMB position about calling what is happening in IZ/AF a species of overseas contingency operations, then the overall position becomes more clear. GWOT and supplemental budgets have been a license to steal for the operational forces, buying a lot of non-sustainable capability at tremendously inflated prices. Actually, the GWOT-funded COTS capability is sustainable, but the maintenance fee will also be grossly overpriced.

What the budget announcement from the SecDef seems to be saying is that we have to wean ourselves from the GWOT funding fix and get back to a realistically sustainable force that has a balance between the current fight and likely future contingencies. I'd love to be able to build Battlestar Galactica, but I don't think we really have to worry about Cylons attacking Earth any time in the next 50 years or so. A loose ICBM/MRBM from some of the more screwy leaders of middling (maybe that ought to be muddling or meddling?) nations in North and SW Asia or a conventional intervention in support of some treaty obligations seem much more likely (and closer to the small war type efforts in which we currently engage) as targets for our future force structure.

By the way, bringing more discipline to what is currently a "grab-and-go" approach to acquiring technology seems more likely to make our cyber problems a little easier to manage. At least we might all be using the same or very similar technology across the force so we won't have to devise as many different defenses for the smorgasbord of systems currently in use

[Courtney Massengale]

What the budget announcement from the SecDef seems to be saying is that we have to wean ourselves from the GWOT funding fix and get back to a realistically sustainable force that has a balance between the current fight and likely future contingencies.

A loose ICBM/MRBM from some of the more screwy leaders of middling (maybe that ought to be muddling or meddling?) nations in North and SW Asia or a conventional intervention in support of some treaty obligations seem much more likely (and closer to the small war type efforts in which we currently engage) as targets for our future force structure.

To go along with that, I think it sends the message that The Pentagon wants out of the Strategic level of diplomacy.

If the United States wants to continue with missle defense, power projection, etc on the scale that it has over the past few years, then Congress will have to legislate it as a seperate and unique issue; not bury it in funding for other more pressing needs.

Whats going to be really interesting is how the folks on the hill scramble to keep funding for unpopular projects that have domestic and international political value.

[Schmedlap]

I watched the NCAA championship last night. I'm a huge Carolina fan. Does that make me an expert on basketball?

No. But if you had played a basketball game on an XBox or Playstation, then that would make you an expert basketball player. At least, that is what I infer from claims that violent military-like video games are a conspiracy to turn kids into killing machines for the military.