Career military screwed by Obama military cut backs!

[Guest]

Our grand daughter is going on 9 years in the Marines, two tours in Iraq;
she applied for anoth 6 year enlistment and was denied due to the military cutbacks. So she now faces being discharged January 2016.

This tells me there was not much thought given to the impact on career individuals, officer or enlisted. There are so many alternative ways to make the reductions happen that would allow those who want to continue to serve to do so.

Needless to say this was a shock to her as well as to those of us who are ex military.
For me it displays the shallow nature of the planning of implementation in the US government.

No thinking or consideration for those loyal to and willing to serve.

Emasculation of our armed forces by arm chair :swear: who have no idea of the impact of their robotic actions.

:censored:!! :censored:!!!

[Guest]

If the US war machine is pulling back from combat missions, no longer having boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan as they were during the peaks of interventions, why would that not translate into fewer soldiers being needed? I am fairly certain that the number of servicemen and women decreased after WW I, WW II, Korea, Nam, Iraq I, and now after Iraq/Afg . Isn't the reason that enlistments have end dates to provide both the soldier the chance to leave should they no longer wish to remain, and the military to adjust. If we don't need them, why should the taxpayer be supporting them? What specific reductions are you supporting that would you believe
"make the reductions happen that would allow those who want to continue to serve to do so."


I don't think the US Military was ever one where people could continue to serve as long as they personally wished. It has always been you can stay if we need you.

[Guest]

I did not say ir imply to not make the reductions. My quarrel is with the method. There are any number of ways the reductions could be made without affecting those who want to enlist.
Some examples:
>anybody with 9 or more years gets to re-enlist
>those with less than 6 years rotate out at the end of their current enlistment.
>new recruits do not get to re-enlist
>non essential assignments be eliminated
>eliminate the activities that over the years have been farmed out to civilian contractors.
>anybody over 30 (pick a number) years of age ia able to re-enlist.


Just to name a few. It is very easy to project the impact and timing of such actions to deternine how and when the implementation is affecting the goal.

There are no actions taken that require any amount of thinking. Any dolt can put out a drop dead date and let the chips fall where they may....much easier....no accountability or follow up required.

Nobody is proposing a military we do not need. And therein lies the problem. Being at war is not the measure of need. Having a specific capability in place at all times to serve and protect this country and it's citizen's safety is the goal (used to be).

By the way....boots on the ground..... is only one small measurement of any military's capability.

The current military reduction is financial and date based. No thinking of any substance as to implementation impacts.
Typical one dimension, shallow robotic compliance.

[Guest]

The money to pay for the benefits of the hordes of illegal aliens has to come from somewhere. Why not shift the money from non-democrat voters, the military, to future democrat voter, the illegal aliens.

[Guest]

I don't believe Obama is your enemy here. You should check some facts before you blame someone. The blame for the cuts may be coming from others.

Obama's 2016 Defense Budget Request Charts a Familiar Course - US News (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/02/03/obamas-2016-defense-budget-request-charts-a-familiar-course)

[Guest]

Our grand daughter is going on 9 years in the Marines, two tours in Iraq;
she applied for anoth 6 year enlistment and was denied due to the military cutbacks. So she now faces being discharged January 2016.

This tells me there was not much thought given to the impact on career individuals, officer or enlisted. There are so many alternative ways to make the reductions happen that would allow those who want to continue to serve to do so.

Needless to say this was a shock to her as well as to those of us who are ex military.
For me it displays the shallow nature of the planning of implementation in the US government.

No thinking or consideration for those loyal to and willing to serve.

Emasculation of our armed forces by arm chair :swear: who have no idea of the impact of their robotic actions.

:censored:!! :censored:!!!

Think of military cutbacks as a good thing. With 9 years in the military, hopefully she will quickly find a new job.

[Guest]

If the US war machine is pulling back from combat missions, no longer having boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan as they were during the peaks of interventions, why would that not translate into fewer soldiers being needed? I am fairly certain that the number of servicemen and women decreased after WW I, WW II, Korea, Nam, Iraq I, and now after Iraq/Afg . Isn't the reason that enlistments have end dates to provide both the soldier the chance to leave should they no longer wish to remain, and the military to adjust. If we don't need them, why should the taxpayer be supporting them? What specific reductions are you supporting that would you believe


I don't think the US Military was ever one where people could continue to serve as long as they personally wished. It has always been you can stay if we need you.

True and all military members know that going in.

[Guest]

Doesn't this go in accordance with the need for a smaller government? The military is part of the government and if not as many troops are needed, it makes sense to discharge instead of reupping the troops.

[Guest]

Doesn't this go in accordance with the need for a smaller government? The military is part of the government and if not as many troops are needed, it makes sense to discharge instead of reupping the troops.

Yup. We should be pulling the totally and completely not needed troops out of Germany and Japan and all the non combatant or threat of combat areas in the last 30-40 years.

Hell we declared the war was over in Iraq and pulled everybody out. Why not pull out of the other places where the threat is non existent?

And then when someone decides to take us on we can scaramble to see what we can salvage.

We did not become a world super power by being able to grow more corn than anybody else in the world.

Teddy Roosevelt had the right idea with carrying the big stick.
The other super powers, Russia and China are not cutting back. Just the opposite. They do not have the same political conflicts internally that we do.

Hawkish. Damn right. Remain the number one super power. Second and third place are for the other guys....not the USA!

[Guest]

There have been many excellent career soldiers.

However, guys, when you were in the service, how many overweight, lazy, and worthless lifer E-6's and E-7's did you come across? I can remember SFC McMahon, SSG Mosher, and SSG Digby among others. Those slobs should have been booted out of the Army instead of taking up space and monetary resources that could have been used on assets instead of liabilities.

I remember my brother-in-law, a career Air Force man, telling me that the AF would not retain all who wanted to re-enlist. This was 20 years ago or more.

[Guest]

In the interest of providing facts:

If we are not the world superpower, then I believe we are not getting our money's worth. We spend far and away more than any other country on defense.

U.S. defense spending compared to other countries | pgpf.org (http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison)

[Guest]

The OP's grand daughter had a contract with the Marines for a set number of years depending on her satisfactory service. The Marines decided not to do another contract when this one expires. Employment in most private sector is exactly like that. What is the problem? She presumably did a good job and should be able to find a career in the private sector using the skill set learned in the military.

[Guest]

The OP's grand daughter had a contract with the Marines for a set number of years depending on her satisfactory service. The Marines decided not to do another contract when this one expires. Employment in most private sector is exactly like that. What is the problem? She presumably did a good job and should be able to find a career in the private sector using the skill set learned in the military.

I errored by citing my grand daughter and creating a distraction for some. Forget the personal slip up on my part.

The purpose of the post is two fold.
The effect on career military folks?
There are alternate ways to accomplish the financials (because when all gets said and done it is all about hitting a $$$$$ number).

[Guest]

I errored by citing my grand daughter and creating a distraction for some. Forget the personal slip up on my part.

The purpose of the post is two fold.
The effect on career military folks?
There are alternate ways to accomplish the financials (because when all gets said and done it is all about hitting a $$$$$ number).

No one minds that you cited your grand daughter. Obviously, she is a dedicated Marine and a value to her country.

However, when not as many troops are needed, cutbacks happen. Cutbacks happen in the private sector, too, and people get laid off.

The effect on career military will simply be not to think of the military as a lifetime job. Keep up on skills and education so you can transfer them to private sector if necessary.