army ranger

Can Spec Ops Perform Their Jobs With Less Money and Training?

With the proposed automatic spending cuts, or sequestration set to begin March 1, 2013, Leon Panetta was quoted saying, “These steps would seriously damage a fragile American economy and they would degrade our ability to respond to crisis precisely at a time of rising instability across the globe.”  This year, an approximate $46 billion reduction of spending will result in “a serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in our military readiness,” Panetta also said.

What is Sequestration?


or Log In


To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

  • Txazz

    @majrod “Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,” asserted Woodward. “They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.” http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Woodward-Obama-Not-Telling-Truth-on-Sequester/2013/02/23/id/491678?s=al&promo_code=128F8-1   I already knew it came from Obama but, at least here it is in print.

  • majrod

    @Txazz  Don't be fooled.  The Pres is using the military to fight any cuts to entitlement programs.  Let the military take point and slip in entitlements.  It's hard to argue for Obama phones right now given the economy.      Obama let this sit for 18 months doing nothing and threatening a veto if he didn't get more taxes.  BTW, he's finally admitting sequestration was his idea. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

  • Txazz

    @majrod Maj, I think this makes me feel better.  It is a shell game indeed as now Obama suddenly is pleading for the military.  That should be a clue.  He outdid himself this time. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133673n less horses and bayonets

  • plainolamerican88

    I got be honest bros. I think it's smoke and mirrors. Look at info on Rand Paul site it leads directly to the words used. It don't cut nothing it simply slows the growth of how much they are going to spend (still going to spend) in the future. By 3 cents on the dollar.   The politipukes in DC have got target marketing down to a science. Tell us ugly green wearing fire pissers NO beans, bullets or battle gear so we contact our (NON) reps and tell them no money ? No fighty.   They using the troops just like they are using much of the rest of the country. Divide and conquer or more apropos segregate and conquer.

  • majrod

    Don't know if anyone has seen the latest ref sequestration but Gen Ordierno says that if sequestration happens units deployed to afghanistan will have to stay 12 months or longer because of lack of funding to train replacements.   http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/12/odierno-sequestration-would-extend-deployments.html?comp=7000023467962&rank=1   As I predicted this would apply to conventional units.  The Spec Ops guys are going to be able to fence their assets.   Not good news but may also be political grandstanding by the military.  I suspect it's BS because when you look at all the numbers the sequestration equals about $.03 of every dollar and i'd confidently bet a box of donuts we have that much waste in the military.  The Generals are just threatening the most important priorities to keep from having to cut anything.  Keep in mind I used to be against sequestration.  Since I've educated myself I believe the military is paying much more than entitlements and welfare programs but that doesn't justify in my mind not cutting.    Note, the military is screaming but those buying votes are keeping quiet.  They want defense to fight their fight because the those buying voted don't want the American public to figure out what they are doing.  After sequestration we need to continue to address discretionary spending.