It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Army Budget Billions Short

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 04:58 PM
The Chief of Staff has warned the White House and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that the miliary budget must be increased by at least 25 billion or the it will not be able to meet its obligations and will have to reduce its commitments someplace, including Iraq.
Published on Monday, September 25, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times
Army Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short
An extraordinary action by the chief of staff sends a message: The Pentagon must increase the budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere.
by Peter Spiegel

WASHINGTON — The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Think of additional 25 billion on top an already stunning 98 billion. The simple reality behind this according to NPR's "All Things Considered" is that the constant redeployments of forces and materials are wearing them thin. Equipment designed to last in peace time for 25 years is wearing out from constant use in 3 or 4 years. The notion that you can do a military operation of this size (Iraq and Afghanistan) on the cheap is totally absurd and it is amazing to me that it should have ever been seriously considered in the first place.
Another reality that must be faced is spending at this level cannot be maintained indefinately without threatening to bankrupt the country. Something has got to give.

Related News Links:

[edit on 25-9-2006 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:13 PM
Some one has to not give, maybe, so that they government will stop abusing the monies of the people. Itis an outrage that they will outsource half of the job market and then claim all is fine.

For a ATSNN link on the report follow provided link below;
Army Warns Rumsfeld: We're Billions Of $$$ Short

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:44 PM

Originally posted by grover

The simple reality behind this according to NPR's "All Things Considered" is that the constant redeployments of forces and materials are wearing them thin.

Cutting the funding to NPR would be a start!

Defense spending and providing for the common welfare are the only spending specified in the Constitution! NPR does not provide for the common welfare of the people, it among other things should stop being subsidized by the government, so more can go to defense.

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:33 PM
Well Grover,

Though a staunch Republican, this is the spending-est Administration I have ever seen.

But RR has a point, if they cut spending and we are attacked again, all those now crying about the budget will be first in line crying that the Admin. did not do enough.

How can they win?


top topics

log in