Obama lashes waste in defense spending

[makattak]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivmFlotMyTRA3KyuWWaN9joQjHfAD9A4OUBO0

By LIZ SIDOTI (AP) – 16 minutes ago

PHOENIX — President Barack Obama on Monday lashed special interests and their "exotic projects" that he said drain the defense budget of money needed for U.S. military forces battling everything from nuclear weapons to "18th century style piracy and 21st century cyber threats."

Going after lawmakers as well, he said, "If Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of waste, I will veto it."

As he thanked America's veterans and praised U.S. fighting forces who continue making heavy sacrifices in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama spoke harshly of a "defense establishment (that) has yet to fully adapt to the post-Cold War world."

"You know the story," he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual convention in Phoenix. "The indefensible no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich. The special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget. The entrenched lobbyists pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want. The impulse in Washington to protect jobs back home building things we don't need at a cost we can't afford."

The president laid out a vision of a nimble, well-armed and multilingual fighting force of the future, not one that was built to fight land battles against the Soviets in Europe.

'Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand," the president said.

He praised Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican and his opponent in the 2008 presidential contest, for joining him and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in opposing unneeded defense spending. Shortly after Obama won the White House, McCain had pointedly suggested there was no need for the Marine Corps to bring on newer helicopters to ferry the president at a cost of billions of dollars.

"Maybe you heard about this. Among other capabilities, it would let me cook a meal while under nuclear attack," Obama told the VFW. "I'll tell you something. If the United States of America is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack."

You know, if it were just about waste, I'd be happy, however, this quote is telling:

'Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand," the president said.

Yeah... instead of Missile defense, we'll spend money on sociology and anthropology classes for soldiers.

That'll work well...

[brimic]

I thought they had already gutted the F-22 Raptor program about a month ago...

Maybe we could sell the B2 bomber plans to the highest bidder to finance Obamacare next.

[AZRedhawk44]

As long as we can group hug in Farsi, then everything will be A-OK.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Multilingual? A definite plus for speaking with the population... but when your troops can speak the language of the local wimmins, there will be trouble.

"I'll tell you something. If the United States of America is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack."

We get it already. You hate fat people. 
Still, that should be on your mind in the advent of nuclear war. There's some maxim about keeping your mouth shut when you're hungry, hurting, and something else I forget - as hunger can make you angry, even when you don't much care for food. And you don't need hunger anger on top of they-just-nuked-Chi-town anger. Leads to bad decisions.

[Ben]

'Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand," the president said.

You know, I agree 100% with this statement. However, I don't believe the President and I interpret it the same way...

[Jamisjockey]

Yeah... instead of Missile defense, we'll spend money on sociology and anthropology classes for soldiers.

That'll work well...

yes, it will.  Our troops are knocking on doors as much as they are kicking them in.  They are interviewing citizens as much as they are interrogating suspects.  They need to understand the nuances of social interaction in many of the countries they visit, and by doing so they will better be able to gather intelligence and find the people who need to be killed or apprehended. 
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

[T.O.M.]

Bravo to Jamis, breaking out the Sun Tzu!

[makattak]

yes, it will.  Our troops are knocking on doors as much as they are kicking them in.  They are interviewing citizens as much as they are interrogating suspects.  They need to understand the nuances of social interaction in many of the countries they visit, and by doing so they will better be able to gather intelligence and find the people who need to be killed or apprehended. 
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

You're right. Here's the problem: who is our enemy, what language does he speak, and what is his culture?

My problem isn't with learning about other cultures or languages. That's great. My problem is that the return on investment is a great deal lower than, say, missile defense.

Will we teach every soldier Farsi, Pashto, Hindi, Cantonese, Mandarin, Arabic, Wu, Indonesian, Korean, Russian, Urdu, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Uzbek, Turkish, inter alia (and this is not even comprehensive if we only fight in ASIA)?

Or will we teach them all one language, like Arabic, and then have them be useless when we are fighting in Afganistan? Or will we have specialists who speak all these different languages who will have to translate for our troops... oh, kinda like we have now?

[MicroBalrog]

Because there is no waste in defense spending. None whatsoever.

[makattak]

Because there is no waste in defense spending. None whatsoever.

You know, if it were just about waste, I'd be happy, however, this quote is telling:

[Jamisjockey]

What about a fluid training program that can quickly spool troops up on culture, politics and language when a new conflict arises.
I don't disagree with missle defense.    Defense cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to the new spending, deficit and bloating this current administration is causing.  I'm having a hard time getting wound up about this one.

[makattak]

What about a fluid training program that can quickly spool troops up on culture, politics and language when a new conflict arises.
I don't disagree with missle defense.    Defense cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to the new spending, deficit and bloating this current administration is causing.  I'm having a hard time getting wound up about this one.

I'm having a problem with it because it doesn't sound like a "fluid training program", it sounds like liberal meddling with the military trying to make them more "understanding".

However, on this point, I can't argue because we have no bills or proposals on which to judge. My "liberal sensitivity training" alarm went off when I read that quote, though.

[RevDisk]

You're right. Here's the problem: who is our enemy, what language does he speak, and what is his culture?

My problem isn't with learning about other cultures or languages. That's great. My problem is that the return on investment is a great deal lower than, say, missile defense.
 
Will we teach every soldier Farsi, Pashto, Hindi, Cantonese, Mandarin, Arabic, Wu, Indonesian, Korean, Russian, Urdu, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Uzbek, Turkish, inter alia (and this is not even comprehensive if we only fight in ASIA)?

Or will we teach them all one language, like Arabic, and then have them be useless when we are fighting in Afganistan? Or will we have specialists who speak all these different languages who will have to translate for our troops... oh, kinda like we have now?

My deployment experience is exactly opposite of your assessment.  Not saying missile defense is worthless, far from it.  But no one has ever launched a missile at the US.  We're not sure it will work.  OTOH, we have actually invaded countries that speak languages other than English and Spanish.  Language training has a demonstratively better real world ROI than missile defense. 

I really never understood why we deploy soldiers who don't understand a single word of the country they're invading or occupying, unless they're fobbits.  Soldiers that can speak the lingo, even poorly, are worth their weight in gold.  Personally, I think we should flag soldiers if they can't understandably speak a couple dozen phrases in the lingo where they are deploying.  No promotion, no medals, no positive administrative actions of any kind.  Just like a weight or PT flag.  Being over BMI is nowhere near as potentionally detrimental to the mission as not understanding at least SOME of the language.  I'm not talking about emergency no-notice deployments or short duration stuff, I mean the kind with some amount of reasonable notice for a prolonged deployment.  Which is most of them.

We use hired translators for a lot of the interaction.  This is a really bad thing.  Having been in the situation, I've personally witnessed contracted translators intentionally give false translations for personal, ethnic or ideological purposes.  This is excluding the translators that were blatant plants and/or 'spies'.  (Generally not real spies.  Just squealers.)

The other nice thing about knowing the lingo?  People everywhere are stupid and generally near automatically assume you don't speak the local lingo.  This came in very handy on a regular basis.  Folks love to talk.  Unfortunately, lot of Army personnel were just as stupid and assumed all the locals didn't understand English.  I can't count how many times I've halted someone saying stuff they shouldn't and pointed out which locals apparently understood some english.  It was an easy trick to learn.   They got the same look on their face when they were interpreting as I got on my face when I'm trying to figure out another language.  I watched myself in a mirror while mentally translating a foreign language off tape.  Works 80-90% of the time.

If you're a fobbit, I can understand not learning a single word.  If not, there's no valid reason for not learning as much as you can about the country you're invading.

[taurusowner]

And when the war paradigm shifts again, as it always does, and China or North Korea start wondering if the small, nimble, culturally sensitive US military is really that tough, what then?

[roo_ster]

And when the war paradigm shifts again, as it always does, and China or North Korea start wondering if the small, nimble, culturally sensitive US military is really that tough, what then?

We get rolled over in S Korea, Taiwan gets occupied, and Japan is threatened with thousands of SRBMs into submission.

[HankB]

It's not a bad thing to have people who can speak your enemy's language . . . it has military value for everything from monitoring enemy communications to interrogations. And a thorough knowledge of their culture can give insight into weaknesses we can exploit. (Will threatening to slap Taliban gunman Hamid Mustaffa Azziz upside the head with a pork chop really break him? Or just make him clam up?)

What we know of some "cultures" strongly suggests that there will be no accomodation, no common ground . . . maybe we'd all be better off if they were simply stamped out. And it takes real military power to do that, not some sort of cultural sensitivity training at the troop level.

But the added emphasis on language & culture skills at the troop level makes it seem as if we're transitioning our military from soldiers to policemen.

[makattak]

It's not a bad thing to have people who can speak your enemy's language . . . it has military value for everything from monitoring enemy communications to interrogations. And a thorough knowledge of their culture can give insight into weaknesses we can exploit. (Will threatening to slap Taliban gunman Hamid Mustaffa Azziz upside the head with a pork chop really break him? Or just make him clam up?)

What we know of some "cultures" strongly suggests that there will be no accomodation, no common ground . . . maybe we'd all be better off if they were simply stamped out. And it takes real military power to do that, not some sort of cultural sensitivity training at the troop level.

But the added emphasis on language & culture skills at the troop level makes it seem as if we're transitioning our military from soldiers to policemen.

Precisely.

[taurusowner]

Then expand the Military Police Corps (of which I am a part of) and let us do that kind of job.  Keep Infantry and the rest in the jobs they are meant to do.

[longeyes]

Obama's military of the future is a benign version of British colonialism.

[Jamisjockey]

But the added emphasis on language & culture skills at the troop level makes it seem as if we're transitioning our military from soldiers to policemen.

How else would you have them do thier jobs in the current war on Terror? 
You cannot occupy a people you do not understand, you will not succeed.
If we were pointing them at the middle east and asking them to scorch earth, then sure, screw culture and language.  But this isn't that kind of war.

Obama's military of the future is a benign version of British colonialism.

Because the previous President didn't invade two countries and leave troops there after the January transition of power?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Japan is threatened with thousands of SRBMs into submission.


that might not be fun to watch

[roo_ster]

Japan is threatened with thousands of SRBMs into submission.


that might not be fun to watch

The Chicoms have over a thousand SRBMs & MRBMs (conventional) just across the straight from Taiwan.  They've  been building them up for years.  Hmm, here we go:
http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.7219/detail.asp

China, the report observes, "has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world."

China continues to expand the force opposite Taiwan; seven brigades are now stationed nearby, comprising a total of 1,050-1,150 CSS-6 and CSS-7 short range missiles.  China continues to augment its missiles within striking distance of Taiwan at the "rate of more than 100 per year."

That's just opposite Taiwan.  They have lots more, to iclude road-mobile nuke ICBMs.

Unchanged from the 2008 report, China continues to deploy road-mobile solid-fueled ICBMs—most notably the DF-31A, which brings within range any location in the continental United States. The DF-31 and DF-31A are the newest and most sophisticated ICBMs in China's arsenal.  Their mobility and solid-fuel engines also make them among the most survivable.

The Pentagon's estimate of China's inventory of CSS-2, CSS-3, CSS-4, DF-31, DF-31A and CSS-5 ballistic missiles remains unchanged in number from last year.  China has, however, increased its inventory since 2007 of CSS-6s (from 315-355 to 350-400), of CSS-7s (from 675-715 to 700-750), and of DH-10 cruise missiles (from 50-250 to 150-350).

[MicroBalrog]

Gulp.

I don't think most people really understand how scary the very concept of a road-mobile ICBM is.

You see, normally ICBMs are tied to a silo or (more rarely) a train. This means you can disable them on the ground with a first-strike. Submarines are more difficult in that respect, but submarines are rather expensive and thus limited in number.

Roadmobile ICBMs go on what is, essentially, oversized trailer trucks. Which means they can go anywhere where there are roads. Now contemplate the logistics of tracking dozens, hundreds of trailer trucks all over an enemy country. And any number of these trucks can stop and fire a nuke at you within minutes.

[Waitone]

Road mobile missiles in Chinese hands = Bad
Road mobile missiles in US hands = Good

That about right?

[MicroBalrog]

Road mobile missiles in Chinese hands = Bad
Road mobile missiles in US hands = Good

That about right?

Basically that.