It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bad relations between Rumsfeld and Congress may affect funding for the QDR

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Distrust between Congress and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may make it impossible for the military to accomplish much change through its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a defense analyst and former congressional staffer said Nov. 18.

Right now, Rumsfeld’s relationship with Congress is “pretty poisonous,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate aide and current director of the Straus Military Reform Project.

In the Senate, Rumsfeld “can’t even get his deputy secretary confirmed,” Wheeler said during a panel discussion of the QDR at the National Press Club.

In the House, Armed Services Committee members are so distrustful of him that they are conducting their own “Committee Defense Review” to determine for themselves what military capabilities the nation will need in the future.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee chairman, has said he fears the Pentagon’s review, the QDR, will be “budget-driven,” meaning it will plan a future force and future weapons based on how much money the Bush administration is willing to spend on the military.

Hunter and other committee members say force planning should be “threat-driven,” meaning it should be based on the capabilities needed to defeat enemies the United States might face.

A budget-driven force would be more likely to shed Cold War-era weapons and focus on high technology and special operations capabilities for fighting terrorists and insurgents.

A threat-driven force might have an easier time justifying costly — but congressionally popular — weapons. If China is perceived as a threat, for example, that could warrant buying more stealth fighters and increasingly costly ships and submarines.


Link


Politics sucks! I wish they would just try to get along for the benefit of the U.S armed forces.




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Rummy is enamored with Special forces. He has already killed off two cold war era programs (Crusader and Commanche) and clearly has his sights set on a few more.

But Congress is driven by the almighty pork barell and major defence projects are now spread out over many states so items that we clearly need like the F-22, JSF, C-17, DD-X, etc should be okay albit they may get a few less than they actually need.

The C-17 is one of the more critical items IMHO. Its not sexy like the F-22, but if you cannot move and supply the force what is the point. Also to ceede the large cargo lifter requirment to Airbus and EADS would be a serious mistake. However, a case could be made for converting MD-11's and 747-400 now entering the boneyards into all cargo variants for the AMC. They could be used in the strictly cargo role.

Re-engining the B-52 with 4 CFM-56's etc also makes sence in terms of fuel saved which is a large part of any operational budget.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
But Congress is driven by the almighty pork barell and major defence projects are now spread out over many states so items that we clearly need like the F-22, JSF, C-17, DD-X, etc should be okay albit they may get a few less than they actually need.


I read very recently that DDX might get cut, the FCS may be scaled back, and funding for the MDA will be scaled down. And Congress wants the DoD to buy up to 180 more C-17s.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I don't argee with the pentagons new motto, Smaller, Faster, Lighter, we're scaling down and cutting back when china is building and growing. Boy are we setting ourselves up, I agree with congresses approach on this one.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
After reading this book on which I posted in another thread in the Weaponry section here on ATS I must agree with most of Fred T's assessment of Congress and Rummy.

According to Robert Coram's book "Boyd"...the Pentagon and Congress are out of step with much of what and where the new officer corps in the military want to go. There is a struggle on going with career generals wanting to survive on pork barreled projects, lobbys and Congressional approval at the expense often of the lives and abilities of our troops.
Rummy was groomed on the Boyd principles ...Energy Maneuvering and Patterns in Conflict...and thinks that many or our tactics are outmoded...and because of this much of our weaponry is too.
The motives of the Congress and Pentagon are often to keep companys employed and in buisness not the welfare of our troops and thier abilitys to fight a changing type of Foruth Generation Warfare.
This is the source of the conflict between Rumsfield and Congress. This is information not being made public so as to help stroke the political causes and issues. It is cheap politics at the expense of our troops.

Especially agree with Fred T on the B 52 modifications. What a irony ..the B 52 is by its very presence. For all our technological greatness no one has been able to come up with a replacement for the B52 at the right time at the right price and capable of doing the same job. This plane is a true heavy hitter...bar none..and still going strong. What a joke in the face of the military politics/ military procurement system. I dont believe they could build a replacement without politically messing it up to total uselessness and then force the useless product off on our miltary.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don't argee with the pentagons new motto, Smaller, Faster, Lighter, we're scaling down and cutting back when china is building and growing. Boy are we setting ourselves up, I agree with congresses approach on this one.


Well a conflict with China over Taiwan will mostly be in the air and sea. Maybe some special forces fighting, but I doubt there would be any tank division battles.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   


I don't argee with the pentagons new motto, Smaller, Faster, Lighter, we're scaling down and cutting back when china is building and growing. Boy are we setting ourselves up, I agree with congresses approach on this one.


We are hardly scaling down. Smaller, lighter and faster is what has won wars throughout all history. Manuever is the way of winning battles with the least cost. Being able to deploy troops rapidly, and anywhere is crucial. The FCS program gives America an edge over any other military in both. It's also the key to winning against a nation like China or Russia.

The reason the Crusader was cut is because it was simply too slow. Artillery couldn't keep up with the tanks in the Gulf War. It slowed us down, and could not be used to its full effect.

The Commanche was cut because it was simply a bloaded project that was far too costly to employ in battle. It's impractical. Some of the technology has been employed to Apaches, and it should get the job done.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The reason the Crusader was cut is because it was simply too slow. Artillery couldn't keep up with the tanks in the Gulf War. It slowed us down, and could not be used to its full effect.


It weighed too much, as well as being too slow.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Rumsfield is a believer in small tactics because of the influence of people likle John Boyd. Congress and much of the older military generals believe in going right up the middle and taking them on the olde fashioned way.
What Robert Coram and others explain in this book "Boyd" is that Boyd's theorys were put to use against the protests of many Generals...including Schwartzcoff who wanted to originally go right up the middle in stead of the feint which became the famous Hail Mary play. Boyds theory is dont get bogged down in heavy fighting go around them. Maneuver for advantage to take out the enemy. This applies in the air as well as on the ground. Many in the officer corps have seen the advantage of this practice and tactic especially the Marines. There is even a account in the first Gulf war where the Army stops to consolidate its positon and protect its flanks allowing the republican guard time to get away. The Marines were still on the attack.
This change in tactics meant that there was something wrong with our weaponry from fighters to ground equipment used for the job. Those projects already mentioned , The Crusader and Commanche , fell victim to this new battle philosophy much to the dismay of Congrress and pork in their districts.
The olde military buisness of attacking right up the middle is refered to as " Pee diddle diddle right up the middle.." suffering huge casualties if necessary against the enemys strong points. Rumsfield and others are against this as a ineffecient use of resources including lives. Marines, obviously, since they are often the first to go in are against this too.
This is the face of the new up and coming warefare tactics verses the olde slugfests. Maneuver warefare is historically borne out in battles against often numerically superior forces.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join