DoD Prepares to Shut Down

[Leatherneck]

Wonderful. Just wonderful.

1. Army Orders Commanders To Prepare Cuts. Washingtonpost.com, Nov 27, 07
WASHINGTON -- Army commanders have been ordered to begin calculating budget and personnel cuts as a result of the congressional gridlock over the war spending bill, according to a new memo.
The four-page directive, issued by Gen. Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff, tells top officers at all Army bases to develop plans to use troops to replace civilians and contractors who may have to be laid off around Feb. 23. The detailed plans are due next Tuesday, according to the memo obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.
Because the war funding bill has not been approved, the military is using operations and maintenance money from its 2008 budget for war-related costs. For the Army, those funds will run out in mid-February unless Congress acts.
Cody said all military personnel other than those preparing to go to the war zone should be considered available as the civilian substitutes.
The memo, issued late Monday night, tells commanders to calculate the weekly costs of the minimum essential operations that could continue under emergency procedures if all money for operations is exhausted.
Those essential costs could include activities:
*to protect national security,
*to protect the lives and health of Army soldiers and their families at all installations,
*to prepare and train forces for deployment.
Cody also told commanders they should plan to suspend all maintenance that is not necessary to support warfighting. And he said they should expect the Pentagon to send layoff notices that would be effective on Feb. 23.
Cody's memo comes as Defense Secretary Robert Gates renewed his call for Congress to approve the war funding bill. During a speech Monday night to the Killeen, Texas, Chamber of Commerce, Gates said that the department has to start planning now to be ready in case the money is not approved by early next year.
"The Defense Department is like the world's biggest supertanker. It cannot turn on a dime, and I cannot steer it like a skiff," said Gates. "I do not want to create anxiety among our employees, but we must plan and prepare."
Gates has said that many of the union contracts require that employees be notified of an impending layoff 60 days in advance. Thus notices would have to start going out in mid-December. He warned that layoffs could affect 100,000 civilian employees and an equal number of civilian contractors.
The Democratic-led House has passed a $50 billion war spending bill that would keep operations going for several more months, but it sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. President Bush threatened to veto it, and the measure was blocked in the Senate.

[Len Budney]

Whatever your opinion of the funding flap, this is just theater.

When Ed Rendell failed to get the tax increases he wanted, he made a big show of cutting schools and fire departments, too. A bit like a whiskey drinking momma saying, "We don't have enough money for groceries and booze. Tighten your belts kids: no food this week."

--Len.

[Chris]

And that is the evil of government funding.  Each branch or decision puts on a show as to why they need the money.  And, when someone mentions cutbacks, all branches and divisions throw out the worst case scenario to try and protect their funding.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

CAll it a show all you want, it doesn't change the despicable circumstances that the Left has dragged the country into.  National defense is one of the few legitimate, Constitutionally mandated segments of the FedGov.  Of all the departments, programs, and money sinks in Washington, the DoD should be the absolute last one to go without funding.  There's no excuse for politicians forcing the DoD to get political about how long they can stay open during a war.

It's disgraceful...

[Manedwolf]

CAll it a show all you want, it doesn't change the despicable circumstances that the Left has dragged the country into.  National defense is one of the few legitimate, Constitutionally mandated segments of the FedGov.  Of all the departments, programs, and money sinks in Washington, the DoD should be the absolute last one to go without funding.

It's disgraceful...

Bet you they didn't cut a penny from National Endowment for the Arts grants.

[HankB]

Bet you they didn't cut a penny from National Endowment for the Arts grants.

[sarcasm]The increases in NEA funding that Bush signed when he had a conservative, GOP-controlled House & Senate are really, really important.[/sarcasm]

[Len Budney]

CAll it a show all you want, it doesn't change the despicable circumstances that the Left has dragged the country into.  National defense is one of the few legitimate, Constitutionally mandated segments of the FedGov.

That's true, but invading other nations isn't. What's disgusting is that the left wants it both ways: they want to appear "tough" on national defense while also appearing dovish for their base. So they refuse to recall the troops, which is the only choice consistent with their claimed opposition to the war. Instead they stick them in the middle of a war zone, and then refuse to supply them.

It's the worst of both worlds. It's like a pro-choice Catholic who aborts her baby and then whips herself bloody in penance.

--Len.

[Leatherneck]

Regardless of what Kabuki Dance is playing across the Potomac, it's serious business here. As Secretary gates said, the kind of shutdown that would be required BY LAW cannot be accomplished on short notice without massive disruption to everything the DoD is doing. So we are to start making plans. Active duty military will have to pick up the essential tasks being performed by millions of civilians and contractors. That sucks for everybody.

TC

[wooderson]

YES, THOSE DASTARDLY PINKO COMMIE DEMORATS HAVE LEFT US OPEN TO INVASION BY JIHADISTS!

Wait...

The four-page directive, issued by Gen. Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff, tells top officers at all Army bases to develop plans to use troops to replace civilians and contractors who may have to be laid off around Feb. 23.

Huh. Civilians and contractors, eh? Gosh, I don't think the local trash pick-up guy is all that vital to national defense.

And wait a second...

The memo, issued late Monday night, tells commanders to calculate the weekly costs of the minimum essential operations that could continue under emergency procedures if all money for operations is exhausted.
Those essential costs could include activities:
*to protect national security,
*to protect the lives and health of Army soldiers and their families at all installations,
*to prepare and train forces for deployment.

You mean plans will be in place to continue the actual, necessary operations of a defensive military.


Golly gee, I feel less safe by the second!

[Len Budney]

YES, THOSE DASTARDLY PINKO COMMIE DEMORATS HAVE LEFT US OPEN TO INVASION BY JIHADISTS!

Wait though, Wooderson. While we apparently agree that the invasion of Iraq isn't promoting US security, there's another issue here. Sending soldiers overseas to fight and die for something other than defense of the US is a crime against the soldiers. But sticking them in the middle of a war zone and then depriving them of the necessary supplies and support, they're flat-out murdering American soldiers.

The right thing to do is bring 'em home. If they lack the cojones to go ahead and do that, then maybe they should declare war properly and go for bloody, all-out slaughter. But to send them over there so you look tough, and then leave them sitting ducks so you look dovish, is an unspeakable crime.

--Len.

[wooderson]

How is Congress supposed to 'bring them home'? Nancy Pelosi ain't the commander in chief. Revoking a Congressional authorization from 2003 is meaningless (if not impossible). Congress, per usual, has no weapons but the purse strings.

The troops won't be stranded in a war zone without supplies. Nothing even suggests that.

[Len Budney]

Congress, per usual, has no weapons but the purse strings.

Hm. I'll have to read up; I casually assumed that the power to declare war implied the power to declare peace. 

But they have more weapons. Impeachment, for one. But the most important weapon of all is the column of bone that separates our heads from our behinds. Unfortunately, just about nobody in congress has that vital organ.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

YES, THOSE DASTARDLY PINKO COMMIE DEMORATS HAVE LEFT US OPEN TO INVASION BY JIHADISTS!

Wait...

The four-page directive, issued by Gen. Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff, tells top officers at all Army bases to develop plans to use troops to replace civilians and contractors who may have to be laid off around Feb. 23.

Huh. Civilians and contractors, eh? Gosh, I don't think the local trash pick-up guy is all that vital to national defense.

You don't have any idea how many millions of civilians work for the DoD in a variety of support roles, do you.

Wow. I guess you think that the military is like the movies, with some people in full dress uniform in offices while a private works on a typewriter?

[wooderson]

You don't have any idea how many millions of civilians work for the DoD in a variety of support roles, do you.

I think we all know too well how many billions are funneled into private coffers.

But, again - these 'support roles' are either being eliminated (if they are not key to national security) or they are being replaced with troops. Troops who would provide plenty of warm bodies for 'support' labor if they weren't, say, stuck in Iraq.

Wow. I guess you think that the military is like the movies, with some people in full dress uniform in offices while a private works on a typewriter?

That's a lovely non-sequitur.

[wooderson]

Impeaching Bush and/or fomenting a little French Revolution of our own wouldn't stop the debacle in Iraq, at least until you managed to impeach and remove both Bush and Cheney.

There are two viable options (and perhaps only one) to the end the debacle in the short-term: attempt to de-authorize the Congressional authorization (which would become a prolonged battle in the courts, if it got that far) or de-fund the enterprise.

[Len Budney]

Impeaching Bush and/or fomenting a little French Revolution of our own wouldn't stop the debacle in Iraq, at least until you managed to impeach and remove both Bush and Cheney.

Don't forget that Bush, like the Iranians and unlike our propagandistic portrayal of Muslims, is capable of acting in self-interest. A credible threat of impeachment would produce prompt results.

--Len.

[MechAg94]

You are pretty irrational on this subject wooderson.  IMO at least. 

If the Congress wanted to specifically cut Iraq war spending or specifically call for an end to that war, they could do so without defunding the entire DoD.  I believe that a few of them have tried, but failed to get enough of their own party to support it. 

[wooderson]

MechAg94 - the Democrats haven't "defunded the entire DOD." The situation, as I understand it, is that Bush refuses to sign any spending bill which does what you specify, eliminate funding for Iraq. And there aren't enough Republicans willing to break ranks to override the veto.

(last paragraph of the AP story - The Democratic-led House has passed a $50 billion war spending bill that would keep operations going for several more months, but it sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. President Bush threatened to veto it, and the measure was blocked in the Senate.)

It's like the writers in CA/NY - they aren't, really, 'on strike.' Their contract expired and they refuse to go back to work under the old terms.

A credible threat of impeachment would produce prompt results.

No, it wouldn't. They might, if lightning struck, manage to 'impeach' Bush - but there is simply no way that enough Republicans cross over to remove either Bush or Cheney (assuming you got every Democrat on board).

Impeachment is a pipe dream and even considering it works counter to any reasonable effort to end the debacle.

[Len Budney]

A credible threat of impeachment would produce prompt results.

No, it wouldn't. They might, if lightning struck, manage to 'impeach' Bush - but there is simply no way that enough Republicans cross over to remove either Bush or Cheney...

You're not saying a credible threat wouldn't work. You're saying that a credible threat will never arise in the first place. I agree with you. It would require an organ that politicians are born without. But that's why we're in this grotesque war of half-measures: the Democrats are trying to appear for AND against the war, so they have no choice but to support and oppose it at the same time. The result is a meat grinder for the soldiers, but they don't care about that.

--Len.

[wooderson]

The Democrats aren't trying to appear for the war anymore. In 2002-2004? Absolutely. Cowards.  They are, at this point, bound in by realpolitik and a fear of the GOP spin machine rewriting this into Vietnam II ('we coulda won, if only we'd stuck it out!'). Cowardice, yes, but of another sort.

I don't know of any Democratic figures of importance (ie candidates for Pres., potential VPs, etc.) who are in any way trying to appear to be 'for the war.'

You're not saying a credible threat wouldn't work. You're saying that a credible threat will never arise in the first place.

Not exactly. I'm saying both, because you're conflating 'impeachment' and 'removal' - it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a serious motion to impeach being introduced if something bad happens in the next few months. That's a 'credible threat of impeachment.'

But even that 'credible threat' cannot move Bush and Cheney - because they're almost done anyway, and because they know that removal is an impossibility.

[Len Budney]

I don't know of any Democratic figures of importance (ie candidates for Pres., potential VPs, etc.) who are in any way trying to appear to be 'for the war.'

Well "for the war" may not be the best way to put it, but Hillary, for example, refuses to talk withdrawal. She believes that she must look "tough on defense" while also being "against the war." So she rejects talk of withdrawing, but votes to cut funding.

--Len.

[wooderson]

Hillary sponsored one of the bills that would 'de-authorize the war' - her position in 2005 is basically no more relevant than Dubya on 'nation-building' in 1999. Her current statement is that she hopes for an immediate withdrawal under Bush, but will not guarantee anything about her potential actions upon election - because she has absolutely no idea what the bozos in the White House will do between now and Jan. 2009.

I dislike Hillary for numerous reasons (chief among them being her choice to support the war to build her cred as a hawk), but it's unfair to say she's riding the fence at this point.

[Gewehr98]

Man, aren't DoD budget drills a kick in the pants?

That's one thing I don't miss.   

[Leatherneck]

Yep Gewehr, they do come too often. A business would quit in a year or two if it was run by the same rules this Congress applies. The chaos ensuing from planning for a shutdown and restart pretty much brings all acquisition and contracting activity to a halt for the duration. And then, once we're back in business, bids will be higher just to cover the risks of this foolishness happening again. Sometimes I hate everything inside the Beltway.

TC

[French G.]

Well amongst all the political sniping in this thread consider this. If you use maintenance and operation money to fund only the essential operations then you blow up training, maintenance and procurement schedules then a year or two from now you have a hole in readiness or a less repaired, trained and equipped force. Smart.

Now back to the political blather, some of the crap I see in this thread is why I could never vote for Ron Paul no matter how much I like him otherwise. I just love the concept that in this day and age we can sit on our beach and wait to repel and attack. War doesn't work like that anymore. No one else in the world is going to step up in force to ensure open sea lanes, keep every tinpot from having a nuke, etc. Being the world's cop is our national security. If we stop there won't be peace, harmony, and hugs worldwide. Then when we are finally backed into fighting we will be well behind the agressors in readiness and strength leading to hard nasty fighting and lots of losses. You know, like WWI & WWII. If you want peace, prepare for war.