• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Obama's Defense Policy

TrexLink

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Again, Obama is on the stump.  He, like any other politician, speaks to the audience at hand. The Senator was speaking to a peace group, almost certainly with the intent of getting their support. Given that, did anybody think he was going to push for more military spending?  Further, The American Thinker, which published the piece that started this thread off, is hardly one could call completely unbiased. We need to balance that off against what he says when he is speaking to veterans' groups or union workers at a company with regular defence contracts.

I am, I must confess, rather surprised at some of the personal cheapshots being taken here.  With the exception of support to Israel, I can agree with much of what adamic said. There is a lot of waste, a lot of duplication in their military. Much of their base and equipment spending is politically-driven vice militarily-requirement (LSVW, anyone?). Reducing waste does not automatically mean eviscerating capability. Indeed, it can, if done properly, lead to a better capability as some of the saved money can be used for useful projects.

So far as Obama goes, Democrats (particularly when seeking office) have historically been willing to talk cuts, but their support for the US military and navy has generally been pretty good.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,082
Points
1,110
I confess all I hear from Obama is "change" "hope" "future of America" and not much else.

All cheescake and no vegetables.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
TrexLink said:
.........  With the exception of support to Israel, I can agree with much of what adamic said. There is a lot of waste, a lot of duplication in their military. Much of their base and equipment spending is politically-driven vice militarily-requirement (LSVW, anyone?). ........


???

LSVW ?

 

TrexLink

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
LSVW = Light Support Vehicle Wheeled.  A replacement for a 5/4Ton pickup truck purchased some years ago.  The selection process was.... interesting and I cannot speak more to that (perhaps others might want to). Of note is that the only other military to adopt it was the Italian Air Force.  It had a charming habit of catching fire, just sitting there with the engine off, which took three fleet-wide modifications to cure.  It has very short range, very little legroom for tall soldiers, is very noisy inside and came with steel-on-steel brakes that squealed very loudly whenever they were applied.  To say it is unpopular would be an understatement.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
TrexLink said:
LSVW = Light Support Vehicle Wheeled.  A replacement for a 5/4Ton pickup truck purchased some years ago.  The selection process was.... interesting and I cannot speak more to that (perhaps others might want to). Of note is that the only other military to adopt it was the Italian Air Force.  It had a charming habit of catching fire, just sitting there with the engine off, which took three fleet-wide modifications to cure.  It has very short range, very little legroom for tall soldiers, is very noisy inside and came with steel-on-steel brakes that squealed very loudly whenever they were applied.  To say it is unpopular would be an understatement.

I am quite familiar with the LSVW, the Canadianized version of the Italian Iveco, which is the Italian version of an excellent German vehicle the Unimog.

I still don't understand what this has to do with the American Military Procurement program.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,699
Points
1,160
If the comment is about the "squeaky wheel getting the grease" then I understand and support it. In my experience the only military procurement system more riddled with mind numbing incompetence, unnecessary complexity, political pork-barrelling, bureaucratic infighting and downright graft and corruption than Canada's was that of he USA.

In the US the squeaky wheels in the congress ensure that there is plenty of grease for their constituents - thanks to the US defence budget.
 

TrexLink

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
George Wallace said:
I still don't understand what this has to do with the American Military Procurement program.
Given a number of things, I would prefer that somebody else explains the LSVW purchasing process. It's quite a story.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
E.R. Campbell said:
If the comment is about the "squeaky wheel getting the grease" then I understand and support it. In my experience the only military procurement system more riddled with mind numbing incompetence, unnecessary complexity, political pork-barrelling, bureaucratic infighting and downright graft and corruption than Canada's was that of he USA.

In the US the squeaky wheels in the congress ensure that there is plenty of grease for their constituents - thanks to the US defence budget.

While off topic you are probably on track with regard to shaddy procurement practices.There is some discussion that the recent firing of the top USAF leadership may have been over the tanker contract as some evidence is emerging that the USAF may have slanted the bid toward Airbus. Who knows ?
 

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
360
So is Obama really just flip-flopping on this issue? Or is this another sign that he is just another typical politician according to the McCain camp or is this another sign that he has moved further to the center? Such a major policy change proposed by Obama might not sit well with the anti-Iraq war voters who form the core of his base.

Still some of his advocates say that Obama will still increase the number of US troops in the Afghanistan even if he is not as eager to continue the war in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25519279/

Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy
Democrat says coming trip could change his troop withdrawal plan
The Associated Press
updated 3:58 p.m. PT, Thurs., July. 3, 2008
FARGO, N.D. - Democrat Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war.


A dustup over war policy — one of the main issues separating the Illinois senator from his Republican opponent, John McCain — overshadowed Obama’s town-hall meeting here with veterans to talk about patriotism and his plans to care for them. Republicans pounced on the chance to characterize Obama as altering one of the core policies that drove his candidacy “for the sake of political expedience.” He denied equally forcefully that he was shifting positions.

Arriving in Fargo, Obama hastily called a news conference to discuss news of a sixth straight month of nationwide job losses, but the questioning turned to Iraq policy and his impending trip there.

“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” he said. “I’m sure I’ll have more information and continue to refine my policy.”

He left the impression that his talks with military commanders there could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office.

Less than four hours later, after the town hall meeting, Obama appeared before reporters for another statement and round of questions to “try this again.”

“Apparently I was not clear enough this morning,” he said. He blamed any confusion on the McCain campaign, which he said had “primed the pump with the press” to suggest “we were changing our policy when we haven’t.”

“I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end,” he said. “I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”

Obama says 16-month timeline could slip
He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office “and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.”

He said that when he talked earlier about refining his policy after talking with commanders in Iraq, he was referring not to his 16-month timeline, but to how many troops may need to remain in Iraq to train the local army and police and what troop presence might be needed “‘to be sure al-Qaida doesn’t re-establish a foothold there.”

“I will bring our troops out at a pace of one two brigades a month” which would mean the United States would be totally out of Iraq in 16 months. “That is what I intend to do as president of the United States.”

But later in the session, he said it is possible the 16-month timeline could slip if the pace of withdrawal needs to be slowed some months to ensure troop safety. “I have always said ... I would always reserve the right to do what’s best,” Obama said.

His Web site contains this direct promise: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

During his presidential campaign, Obama has gone from the hard-edged, vocal opposition to Iraq that defined his early candidacy to more nuanced rhetoric. He has said that if al-Qaida builds bases in Iraq, he would keep troops either in the country or the region to carry out “targeted strikes.”


GOP calls Obama 'a typical politician'

McCain was an early supporter of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq as President Bush did last year. He wants to pursue the current counterinsurgency tactics to give Iraqis time to work out a political reconciliation. He has said he’s willing to see some U.S. troops stay there as much as 100 years but not if they are being wounded or killed in combat. Rather, he supports keeping a military presence in that part of the world because of its volatility.

Republicans, who have claimed Obama needs an update on the situation in Iraq, e-mailed a midday broadside prior to his second news conference of the day.

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

After Obama's second news conference, McCain's campaign quickly issued a rebuttal, saying: "He has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground."

"There is nothing wrong with changing your mind when the facts on the ground dictate it," said the statement, issued by McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. " Indeed, the facts have changed because of the success of the surge that John McCain advocated for years and Barack Obama opposed."


Obama: He will continue to gather information
Obama insisted his position has not changed at all. He pointed out he has always said, “We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.” This means, he said, that his 16-month timeline “was always premised on” not endangering either U.S. troops or Iraq’s stability, which he had previously been told by commanders was possible.

“I’m going to continue to gather information to see whether those conditions still hold,” he said at his second news conference. “My goal is to end this conflict as soon as possible.”

“I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, al-Qaida is continuing to establish bases in areas of northwest Pakistan, resources there are severely strained and we are spending $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq that we desperately need here at home, not to mention the strains on our military,” Obama said.


Obama plans a visit this summer to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The Illinois senator also has said he intends to visit Iraq and Afghanistan this summer as part of an official congressional trip that would be separate from the campaign-funded Mideast and European tour. It would be his second trip to Iraq.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
adaminc said:

Guam being a US possesion, its natural that a US military facility exist there. I am puzzled as to why you would bring this base into your argument.

adaminc said:
Greenland?

If you had ever been there, you might understand why it exists.


NAVSTA Rota isnt what it used to be and Torejon AB has been closed for years

The Philippines

Clarke AFB and The Subic Bay Naval base were burried in Ash......so "closed"

Portugal ?

If you are refering to NAF Lajes / Lajes AB well...i for one am glad its there.


Humm...think about that one long and hard.........


NATO.........and close to Iraq

Why do they have some of these bases so close to each other?

Politics combined with strategic  posture .

Seems illogical to me.

Thats why you are not in charge of US defense policy

You will also note that the US has also rationalized its facilities facilities in some countries (the UK and Germany for example) and closed others completely (Iceland's Keflavik NAS).



I'll stop ranting now before I say something I regret.

Too late
 

RangerRay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
848
Points
1,110
adaminc said:
The least the US could do is stop aid until they stop the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

Last I heard, Israel no longer "occupied"  Gaza.  I'm unsure of the West Bank...

Also to force Israel to start treating the Palestinian people like humans and not 2nd class citizens.

They may do that when the Palestinians stop killing their citizens.

Israel gets at least 1/3 of the US Foreign Aid, why? Why do they deserve it anymore than Sudan? Congo? Sumatra? Myanmar? More than likely it is political corruption, stemming from AIPAC.

Israel is a liberal democracy.  The others aren't.

As for Iran, I have only ever seen them threaten Israel in self-defense, or when Israel has threatened one of their allies (Syria or Lebanon).

When has Israel ever threatened to invade Iran?  There are a few hostile nations between the two.  Up until recently, Lebanon was a Syrian puppet state (though Syrian influence in Lebanon remains high).  Hezbollah in Lebanon wages war on Israel by proxy for Iran.

But you have to remember that Iran, when talking about attacking Israel, doesn't seem to have a problem with Israel as a state itself, but with the current ruling "Zionist regime".

Do you even know what "Zionist" means?  The Israeli government has been "Zionist" since it's inception.  You say "Zionist" like it's a dirty word.

Along with all the saber rattling that Israel does, which I admit is necessary considering where they are located and their current situation. I am also sure that as soon as occupation of Gaza and the West Bank stops, Iran will lighten up .

As long as President I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket and the mad mullah's are in charge, I doubt it.

 

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Interesting...

Obama calls on Americans to enlist

Wednesday Jul 2, 2008
   
COLORODO SPRINGS, Colo. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama included a pitch to enlist in the military in a speech here Wednesday about the need for Americans to be volunteers in all walks of life.

Speaking before an audience that included military veterans, families of current service members and at least one military officer in uniform, Obama said Americans expected a call to serve after the 9/11 terrorist attacks “but the call never came.”

Obama said he has met thousands of people who joined the military after 9/11, but the burden of serving the U.S. “has fallen exclusively ... on the backs of people in the military and their families, even though they have not received the care and support they deserve.”

Part of Obama’s national security plan calls for a 65,000-person increase in the Army and a 27,000 increase in the Marine Corps.

“We need to ease the burden on our troops while meeting the challenges of the 21st Century,” he said. “That is why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military.”

But, in a related call that might diminish the number of people headed to military recruiters, Obama also said he wanted to increase the size of AmeriCorps, the program for domestic national service, to 250,000 people — a proposal that drew more applause than his call for military recruits from the audience at the campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. AmeriCorps has just 75,000 slots for volunteers today.

Obama aides said they did not see the AmeriCorps programs as competition with the military because AmeriCorps is open to people of all ages, and Obama proposes an aggressive program to recruit veterans who have already served in the military. Additionally, aides said that pay and benefits for service members, including the newly improved veterans’ educational benefits program, are far more generous than anything promised to volunteers for domestic service.

Obama also said that as president, he would try to ease the burden of military service, with his boost in personnel levels a key part of that plan.

“There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and our values,” he said.

“A call to service must be backed by a sacred trust with anyone who puts on the uniform of the United States,” he said. “A young person joining our military must know that we will only send them into harm’s way when we absolutely must,” he said.

Obama pledged that “we will provide them with the equipment needed to complete their mission safely, and deployments that allow adequate time back home. They must see that we will care for our military families while they are deployed and that we are providing our veterans with the support, benefits and opportunity that they have earned when they return home.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/07/military_obama_speech_070208w/

 

Greymatters

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
RangerRay said:
Do you even know what "Zionist" means?  The Israeli government has been "Zionist" since it's inception.  You say "Zionist" like it's a dirty word.

Many Middle East countries refer to Israel as Zion or Zionist so that they dont have to acknowledge the country by its actual name. 

Back to the start of this thread, seems to me people are making mountains out of moleholes.  He's a politician.  Just cause he says he's going to do something doesnt mean its actually going to happen...

 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
The problem, of course, is there is a large constituency which will expect Senator Obama to implement his promises and will react negatively if he does not. As well, other nations will be making plans based on Senator Obama's positions: Alliance nations may feel it is prudent to get on with long lead time items to cover projected shortfalls in American power, while enemies may consider moves to exploit American retreats.

Internally, there are many vast bureaucratic and economic "empires" in and around DoD; a huge economic and political ecosystem if you will. Huge battles will be fought in the halls of the Congress, the MSM and various "back rooms" to preserve the budgets, power and prestige associated with these "empires"; look for some very nasty backlash against an Obama administration based on that.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Obama's version of Hugo Chavez's armed civilians ? A very dangerous proposal and one designed to overthrow the government as we know it. His proposals for national service where kids are forced to do community service is the first step toward an Obama Youth movement.Voluntary service has always been an option for national service.

Obama's civilian armed force would be as well equiped as the military ? We already spend a half trillion dollars on defense. My guess is that like Iran's IRG Obama's force would be paid for out of the defense budget at the expense of the active military.Obama as a leftist has a fear perhaps of the military.He has so far refused to appear before military audiences even when they are run by Phil Carter a pro-Obama reserve Captain.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html

[quote"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said Obama. "We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."][/quote]
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
It is difficult to see how that one will play out. Traditional Socialist/Fascist/Marxists have been great fans of alternative forces (armed Civilians/Blackshirts/Ministry of the Interior etc.) in order to have a counterbalance against the professional Armed Forces which might decide to remove the offending regime. How well this works is debatable, and often the answer for these regimes is to place political control right inside the Armed Forces as well, the most notable example being the Commisars of the Red Army.

OTOH, America is predicated on volunteerism. American national mythology revolves around such figures as the "Minutemen" and it is telling that volunteer fire departments outnumber professional ones. Americans in general volunteer for any sort of task at a far greater rate than Canadians or Europeans, and bitterly oppose conscription.

It seems to me (as an outside observer), that the Obama plan is one of those "tricks" Progressives like to play. While he uses the language of volunteerism, this may turn out to be a form of conscription (the government "voluntold" you). Americans will flock to the coloours when needed, if they discover they are being conscripted there will be a negative backlash indeed.
 

H9711

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
10
Obama's policy on fighting al qaeda is clear,he wants to kill them all and make sure they can't train anywhere by pro terrorist groups like the taliban.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/31/obama_to.html

Establishing a democratic society in Iraq is fine,but it's not making us any safer,the situation going on in Pakistan needs attention now.

His plan to increase the Army and Marines are just what is needed.

That's my two cents.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Pinball Dude
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,621
Points
1,260
I hope Mr. Obama keeps his word better than you H9711.
KLW said:
Whatever,I can't argue with a bunch of stupid crazy fascist scumbags.

I'm outta here you pathetic vermin.
 
Top