Nincompoop

I had been focused on writing about the future of the Air Force but feel I neglected my favorite nincompoop, Secretary Hagel.  How can one announce a force reduction not seen since before WWII and then state, "American dominance in the seas, sky and space can no longer be taken for granted"(Daily Mail).  You have just confirmed publicly what China and Russia has suspected for sometime…the United States is no longer a threat.

Look at this little graphic that was in the Daily Mail article:

Russia and China have always assumed what they lacked in technology, they more than made up for in sheer numbers.  Now with the technology gap also decreasing, what exactly can be done if say Moscow decides to invade Ukraine?  Or if China and Japan decide to revisit long existing hostilities?

Hagel slugs on even though his cuts means he knows the US military will become a paper tiger, he states the Department of Defense Strategy "is focused on defending the homeland against all strategic threats, building security globally by projecting U.S. influence and deterring aggression, and remaining prepared to win decisively against any adversary, should deterrents fail".  The most obvious criticism of this asinine statement "defending the homeland".

According to the Department of Homeland Security website, "The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards." Looks like the SecDef is allowing his department into mission creep and spending money unnecessarily on defending the homeland.

The next criticism is when he says "...building security globally by projecting U.S. influence".  Well Mr. Secretary there is no way to do that when you are closing bases overseas and cutting your force structure.  You can't deter aggression if you aren't there!  Cuts to aircraft and a lack of reinvestment in surface ships guarantees the US military will be unable to deliver on the Sec Def's assurance of "remaining prepared to win decisively against any advisory".  Unless of course he means nuclear forces will now be used.  Of course that can't be since Mr. Obama wants to reduce the number of nuclear warheads.

But wait, there is more from this nitwit that makes no sense:

Hagel confirmed that the Pentagon would soon 'shift its operational focus and forces to the Asia-Pacific [region]' while it continue to aggressively pursue global terrorist networks.'--Daily Mail

And how pray tell are troops supposed to get there?  Is DHS supposed to be dealing with the terrorists? And most importantly, how are you going to sustain prolonged operations without the troops and equipment for the long haul?  The nuclear option keeps coming to mind but of course, we aren't heading that way…except why then all of the fuss about cheating scandals in the nuclear forces?

Many will point to how the small troop strength prior to both world wars heavily contributed to those wars occurring.  What many fail to point out is how long those wars actually went on BECAUSE of the lack of troops and equipment.  Let's look at just one example from World War II.

When the United States entered WWII, it's primary air-to-air fighter was the P-39 Airacobra.  It lacked sufficient speed and performance at high altitude (above 18,000 feet) to be effective against the German and Japanese fighters.  The years between 1917 and 1941 saw a decided lack of investment in aviation technology.  The result was it would be almost 5 years before the US could field the premier fighter of World War II, the P-51 Mustang.

Yes, we are plowing ahead with the F-35 despite some serious design problems and huge price tag but the supporting systems are no where to be found.  The A-10 was almost completely eliminated but saved at the last minute.  C-17s are ending their production run.  The KC-46 is being given the go ahead but there won't be enough made so at least 200 legacy KC-135s will be maintained.  The B-52s are now being flown by the grandsons of the pilots who first flew them nearly 60 years ago.

We can't spend widely on the military but what is so ridiculous about the current Sec Def is how ineffective he has been at organizing his department.  Rather then cut spending and making the US more lethal, he has cut spending and made us a hell of a lot more vulnerable.

March the 1st, S-day

Two clips from the AFA Daily Report:

"Sequestration took effect at midnight on March 1, as congressional leaders were unable to broker an 11th-hour deal to prevent it from kicking in. The Pentagon, facing up to the possibility of no deal, has been hoarding cash since mid-January, repeatedly warning that it can't absorb the sequestration cuts without profound effects on the military, especially on readiness. Though war-bound units will have priority, the Air Force will have to lay off or furlough tens of thousands of civilians, and some flying units may be idled for months at a time. Returning those people to proficiency will be a long and difficult process, and in the meantime, the Air Force will indeed be hollow. Sequestration is just part of a "perfect storm" of fiscal crises affecting the service, though, as the never-ending budget continuing resolution and debt ceiling battles also take their toll."

"Air Guard Potentially Grounding Large Fleet Portion: The Air National Guard is facing the likelihood that it will ground or significantly reduce flying hours on a large portion of its fleet by week's end, except for "critical wartime missions," according to the National Guard Bureau. Several sources told the Daily Report that the budget continuing resolution and impending cuts from budget sequestration were about to force the Air Guard to cancel flying hours on all but essential missions if no progress occurred on budget negotiations. Barring any late night deals on Thursday, the sequester kicks in on Friday, March 1. NGB spokeswoman Rose Richeson told the Daily Report that Air Guard funding in the CR, which expires on March 27, "greatly underfunded" flying hours and did not account for the ANG's front-loaded depot maintenance schedule in Fiscal 2013. That's because the CR appropriates at the levels in the President's original Fiscal 2013 defense spending request and does not factor the changes made to that original request in this fiscal year's enacted defense authorization legislation, she said on Feb. 27. The Air Guard has identified cost-saving measures and will operate a reduced number of fully mission-capable and partially mission-capable aircraft "by the end of this week," said Richeson. The most critical missions, such as aerospace control alert, search and rescue, airborne firefighting systems, and pre-deployment activities, will continue to operate, however, she noted."


The impact of the first quote may not be apparent.  Civil servants in the military serve as the continuity that uniformed personnel usually cannot perform.  Uniformed military personnel have to move around for promotion, learn new skills, or help improve unit readiness.  Civilians remain in place and serve as subject matter experts.  Furloughing civilians may have made sense since they do not deploy as part of a warfighting unit.  However, support services and research will be tremendously hampered by these furloughs.  And remember, these furloughs are across the entire federal government (except of course for Congress and the Senate).

The impact of the second quote may even be more arcane.  The Air National Guard is responsible for air defense of the United States.  It was the ANG that scramble F-15 fighters to intercept the airliners on 9-11.  It was the ANG that flew combat air patrols (CAP) over DC and New York.  Reducing flying hours means pilots skills are being compromised.  It means maintenance crews are sitting around idle.  Readiness will be effected and the longer sequestration remains in effect, the longer it will take to get those skills back up to speed.

The myth is that units and personnel being deployed to contingencies won't be effected.  True, those rotations won't be effected but what about the cuts to training that take effect at home station?  Even if the argument is training for deploying troops isn't effected, support and services for those that are not deploying will be cut.  Readiness is still effect.  Why?  If you have not been on an active duty base, many of the functions one would think as being performed by military personnel are actually performed by civilians or contractors.  Furloughs automatically reduce availability of services.

Sequestration will have broad and profound impacts on things we take for granted.  Food inspectors are being furloughed.  This could have the effect of reducing the amount of fresh produce available which will increase the cost at the grocery.  Federal law enforcement will be affected even if sworn personnel aren't cut, their support personnel (technicians, clerical, maintenance) will be subject to furloughs.

The ability for the United States to respond to a national disaster or attack is now greatly compromised.

Sequestration

Will it happen or won't it?  Sequestration is refers to a procedure whereby the US federal budget has a hard-cap placed on it.  These cuts will, from all accounts, be draconian.  Wright-Patterson will lay off thousands of civil servants.  Postal service will be cut.  Food inspectors will be laid off.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....

I previously posted the US Navy is facing challenges regarding its carrier fleet.  The carrier USS Lincoln is back in port, unable to be refueled.  Others Nimitz class carriers may face a similar fate.  The F-22 has been grounded (again) due to a persistent cough pilots and ground crews are developing. Sequestration may prevent funds from being used to find a solution.  The F-35 continues to need cash injections that sequestration may end.

The military is my field of expertise but of course sequestration is across the entire federal government.  In my new career at the college, this means students may have less financial aid.  Perkins grants may be greatly reduced.

The real question is if sequestration happens (remember the imminent fiscal cliff that was avoided at the last minute?), it doesn't mean that sequestration remains in place forever and a day.  The government will continue to work to come out from under sequestration.  The may reason we are in this mess is the Democrats want healthcare reform and the Republicans don't want to eliminate tax cuts.  Sounds reasonable to me, let's shut down everything then!

As I sit here at my house, the local news has show that North Korea is continuing to escalate its nuclear weapons posture, Syria is still tearing itself apart, and Iran is pressing forward with becoming the next nuclear power on the scene.  All the while, our government becomes less and less relevant to world affairs.  Some might even remark they are becoming less relevant to its constituents.