quote:

Originally posted by 2571722:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,184397,00.html But Obama has money for the National Endowment for the Arts for their filth. He is screwing the active military and veterans.

quote:

Originally posted by esample1:
Neither of you obviously didn't read the article, or you don't understand what it means. The 2009 Future Years Defense Program is a defense budget projection through 2016 that was created in Apr 2008 by the DoD. The article says that the projected defense budget needs will be greater than the projections stated in the DoD report.

This is just testimony before the house budget committee, It doesn't say anything about cutting the budget, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by esample1:
Neither of you obviously didn't read the article, or you don't understand what it means. The 2009 Future Years Defense Program is a defense budget projection through 2016 that was created in Apr 2008 by the DoD. The article says that the projected defense budget needs will be greater than the projections stated in the DoD report.

This is just testimony before the house budget committee, It doesn't say anything about cutting the budget, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by Anbar7:

quote:

Originally posted by esample1:
Neither of you obviously didn't read the article, or you don't understand what it means. The 2009 Future Years Defense Program is a defense budget projection through 2016 that was created in Apr 2008 by the DoD. The article says that the projected defense budget needs will be greater than the projections stated in the DoD report.

This is just testimony before the house budget committee, It doesn't say anything about cutting the budget, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with Obama.

What the DoD needs and what they will get is totally different. We need tons of things, but we won't get it because we want to give money to the AF and NASA instead of the troops on the ground. So IMO there is a budget GAP.

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by Anbar7:

quote:

Originally posted by esample1:
Neither of you obviously didn't read the article, or you don't understand what it means. The 2009 Future Years Defense Program is a defense budget projection through 2016 that was created in Apr 2008 by the DoD. The article says that the projected defense budget needs will be greater than the projections stated in the DoD report.

This is just testimony before the house budget committee, It doesn't say anything about cutting the budget, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with Obama.

What the DoD needs and what they will get is totally different. We need tons of things, but we won't get it because we want to give money to the AF and NASA instead of the troops on the ground. So IMO there is a budget GAP.

What they needed while the Repubs controlled the government during earily days of the Afganistan and Iraq wars was an increase in size of the ground combat elements and more funding and the Repubs REFUSED to give it to them.

quote:

So Rumsfeld comes in and he starts to look to his civilian advisors rather than to the military, who he tends to ignore. Then he comes up with an idea that the military is a Cold War legacy organization that we have to modernize—it’s too big, and it’s built en masse to face the Soviets on the plains of Germany. Rumsfeld felt what we need now is a smaller military which is more mobile, more lethal, and we have technology that can give them the wherewithal for the necessary lethality. So when planning for Iraq began, this fit in with Rumsfeld’s approach to transformation, that we can show that we can take out this enemy—a pretty easy enemy with a small, rapid, highly lethal force.

Interview with Marine Lieut. Gen. (ret.) Bernard E. Trainor (November 2006)

<<<http://www.cfr.org/publication/11979/trainor.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3348%2F%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D3348%26filter%3D2006

quote:

Originally posted by jdksfcret:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by Anbar7:

quote:

Originally posted by esample1:
Neither of you obviously didn't read the article, or you don't understand what it means. The 2009 Future Years Defense Program is a defense budget projection through 2016 that was created in Apr 2008 by the DoD. The article says that the projected defense budget needs will be greater than the projections stated in the DoD report.

This is just testimony before the house budget committee, It doesn't say anything about cutting the budget, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with Obama.

What the DoD needs and what they will get is totally different. We need tons of things, but we won't get it because we want to give money to the AF and NASA instead of the troops on the ground. So IMO there is a budget GAP.

What they needed while the Repubs controlled the government during earily days of the Afganistan and Iraq wars was an increase in size of the ground combat elements and more funding and the Repubs REFUSED to give it to them.

Well the repubs, were just following Rummies lead. He was hell bent on turning the military in to a smaller more technical dependent entity that was going to bomb or scare our enemies into submission

quote:

So Rumsfeld comes in and he starts to look to his civilian advisors rather than to the military, who he tends to ignore. Then he comes up with an idea that the military is a Cold War legacy organization that we have to modernize—it’s too big, and it’s built en masse to face the Soviets on the plains of Germany. Rumsfeld felt what we need now is a smaller military which is more mobile, more lethal, and we have technology that can give them the wherewithal for the necessary lethality. So when planning for Iraq began, this fit in with Rumsfeld’s approach to transformation, that we can show that we can take out this enemy—a pretty easy enemy with a small, rapid, highly lethal force.

Interview with Marine Lieut. Gen. (ret.) Bernard E. Trainor (November 2006)

<<<http://www.cfr.org/publication/11979/trainor.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3348%2F%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D3348%26filter%3D2006

When are he (and his boss) going to be blamed for what has happened to the military after January 20, 2001?