Gen. Odierno: sequester could make Army less prepared for Syria intervention

Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, told a group of reporters today that sequestration cuts could impact Army training efforts that could make the Army less prepared for a ground intervention in Syria should the Obama administration on that course of action.

According to Foreign Policy’s E-Ring Blog Gen. Odierno told reporters at the Defense Writers Group breakfast that sequestration cuts could affect the Army’s readiness by the end of the summer.

This isn't so much a story of Syria as it is the state of our Military Forces. This isn't a pundit and this isn't a talking head. The is the Army Chief of Staff. He knows better than anyone in the world what he's talking about, as a literal truth. If he says we're in danger of losing military readiness ability to respond to something on the level of Syria? I take him at his word and say Obama is failing his duties, outright, in political gamesmanship on the Sequestration.

“If you ask me today, we have forces that can go. I think it will change over time because the longer we go cancelling training and reducing our training, the readiness levels go down” said Odierno. He explained that “It’s a matter of us having the dollars to make sure they are ready and trained to meet such a contingency in Syria.”

Source

This level of unpreparedness in the making is not funny or cute. If we can't, without question, handle the sheer training and manpower demands of something along the lines of Syria? Then there is no sense even JOKING about fighting Iran. That's a non-starter, outright. Other locations or possibilities fall the same way.

President Obama isn't simply the moral cheerleader for the United States Armed Forces. He is their Commander and Chief as one of the PRIMARY duties of the Office he chose to seek re-election to. I believe it's his duty to insure, by whatever means are necessary, they stand at a level of readiness sufficient for the needs his own policy decisions may well make necessary.

Well, the sequester was Obama's idea.

Well what level of readiness is actually required over there?

I don't see any context or details here. I think our level of readiness far supercedes what would be required in Syria and even though cuts will drop that readiness level it will still be much higher than what is actually required. It kind of sounds like he is playing a fear card here with words.

Is he implying that we would not be able to carry out the mission? I think he is saying that instead of accomplish the mission in a day it will now take us two days to do it.

That's just the impression I get.

I wouldn't take this at face value, its a General drumming up for budgets, its political in nature.

reply to post by Hopechest


Hope.... I link stories so you may go read more than is allowed for posting in quotes. In the larger story that comes from, he explains that by next year, it may not be a certainty for effective United States Army intervention with current training reductions and readiness levels.

In the end of the story, he also notes, and very rightly so, we cannot get Syria WRONG ....as we screwed Iraq 10 ways from Sunday. (He didn't mention Iraq, I did). He's absolutely right about Syria though.

I'd prefer we leave the whole area and save our money that way, but we are apparently 100% determined to support the side we've chosen. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Obama as the C&C of the Armed Forces to insure his people can cash the checks his mouth and Secretary of State are writing by supporting one side of a civil war.

Failure to do that, by the deep military cuts which Sequestration is the direct cause of, is a failure of command, a failure of duty and a failure to this nation. Period. Personally, I'm furious to see a problem so bad that the Army Chief of Staff feels it necessary to parade this kind of thing out in public. That alone is a screaming statement.

Brass are politicians to be sure.

Doesnt matter what the government office is. They always cry for more blood. Threaten to cut the supply of blood and they threaten Armageddon.

Cops say the streets will run with thieves and rapists if you dont pay up.

Teachers say your kids will grow dumb and work at McDonalds if you dont pay up.

Military says the unstable nation of the day will kill your children and take your freedoms if you dont pay up.

Glorified panhandlers spinning tales of veteran status just tryin' to catch the bus home yo.

Effem all.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well what level of readiness is actually required over there?

I don't see any context or details here. I think our level of readiness far supercedes what would be required in Syria and even though cuts will drop that readiness level it will still be much higher than what is actually required. It kind of sounds like he is playing a fear card here with words.

Is he implying that we would not be able to carry out the mission? I think he is saying that instead of accomplish the mission in a day it will now take us two days to do it.

That's just the impression I get.

Right-

We still outspend the rest of the World on Military spending- if the sequester hurt our level of rediness of Syria then I feel we better see where all that other money is being spent.

reply to post by benrl


Taken with the previous scrapping of U.S. Air Force training by 1/3rd, Naval grounding of it's aviation right down to little things like the Blue Angels and related cuts in very public ways...already felt? I do tend to take him at his word. If this came in isolation, I'd agree...but it's not. It's coming in line to a string of announcements both in the military and out of Sequestration related cuts.

Most of that is political in that men won't die over it. This? This is something where the consequences could be catastrophic ...for just another political move. Well.... It wouldn't seem to be. Not much at all.

Recall, the worst thing is, Sequestration was the idea of the White House, however much a failure of Congress to stop after it was put in place. It was then a law signed by Obama, in his own hand, this year to take effect. It's a law he could UNDO as well...but will not.

* A bit more for context

The residents of the Hampton Roads area of southeastern Virginia, with its large military presence, are on edge: sequestration is going into effect.

Sequestration is the term for the $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts the federal government must make by September, including $42.7 billion in Defense Department cuts.

According to the above video report from WHRO correspondent Cathy Lewis, which aired March 28 on the PBS NewsHour, the Navy had to cancel a six-month deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in order to reach its spending reduction targets, giving the 5,000 sailors just a few days' notice.

Before the sequestration deadline passed, and Congress was still struggling to make a budget deal to avoid the mandatory cuts, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told Judy Woodruff Feb. 20 on the NewsHour that in addition to furloughs, sequestration meant cutting back on military training for conflicts other than Afghanistan.

Source

The USS Truman was solved by the sheer level of 'you've gotta be kidding me' embarrassment it caused almost overnight to sideline a United States Aircraft Carrier for budget cuts ...in a Pentagon burning over a half trillion a year. However, as that notes...it wasn't a fabricated issue. The sailors assigned to her had gotten their word of a cancelled deployment.

I figured word from one of the top Army commanders was more credible, not less so....but that's PBS. They're about as non-military as it comes in most cases.

As noted...I'd be much happier to see the U.S. leave Syria to the Syrians...Leave Iran to the Iranians and leave that whole region to those who live there. It's not our fight to join or meddle with. It never has been our place. If we are going to "play" in the Sandbox though, we better have the tools.

Funding tanks the Army is BEGGING Congress to stop making..while cutting training? Is flat wrong. Funding other new programs while training is being cut? Is wrong. In over a half trillion dollars of places to cut, I was afraid it would come down to cuts right on the heads of the men and women tasked to do the work. It would appear that is bearing out for truth.

(In full disclosure ...I HAVE family in the United States Armed Forces...and it's why this is more than 'just another story' to me)

The simple fact is the US has such a disproportionately huge military to start with......
What with MAD...and the state of the forces around the world which they may face, id say they have the tools and then some to do whats nessessary.
Intelligence budgets are the ones that need a trim.....but they have the politicians by the short and curlies......
Theres just too many cops, cooks and bakers, and not enough producers.....

JP-8 is $4 a gallon, Obama ordered military aircraft to use "green fuel" at $59 a gallon. This is just one decision that causes budget issues.

When politicians make military decisions for political reasons and not tactical reasons the military preparedness suffers.

Originally posted by Carreau
JP-8 is $4 a gallon, Obama ordered military aircraft to use "green fuel" at $59 a gallon. This is just one decision that causes budget issues.

When politicians make military decisions for political reasons and not tactical reasons the military preparedness suffers.

JP-8 is just as cheap as desil fuel? I find that hard to believe really. My F-16 used JP-8 fuel.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Carreau
JP-8 is $4 a gallon, Obama ordered military aircraft to use "green fuel" at $59 a gallon. This is just one decision that causes budget issues.

When politicians make military decisions for political reasons and not tactical reasons the military preparedness suffers.

JP-8 is just as cheap as desil fuel? I find that hard to believe really. My F-16 used JP-8 fuel.

What does JP-8 fuel cost per gallon?
Answer:

In the seven months ending in March, the Pentagon's average monthly cost for its most-used jet fuel, JP-8, rose 34 percent, from $2.34 to $3.13 per gallon, according to the Defense Logistics Agency. The cost of JP-5, used primarily by Navy jets operating at sea, increased from $2.22 to $2.94 per gallon.

--Taken from ArmyTimes

Source

That was before the forced switch to "green fuel".

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


My rotation to the National Training Center was the last rotation due to budget cuts. My unit has had to cut flight training hours so new crew chiefs won't be flight ready by the time we are called upon. Does money get wasted in the military? Hell yes it does. But these budget cuts are cutting deep into important training exercises and we are seeing major reduction in available funds for simple things like spare freakin parts and support equipment.

The military budget isn't just some blob of money we drop on crap. It gets divided up among priorities. That's before there is waste. If they are gonna send us to Syria or anywhere else they'd better make darned sure we're trained up and properly equipped to go. Otherwise we need to stay the Hell out of it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


JP-8 is cheaper than regular unleaded in some places.

My Hawks use JP8. Though Jet-A, JP4 and other super clean diesels are usable.

I'm so sick of hearing about buffoons being in charge. They cut troop pay, VA benefits, now training? Yet Congress forces them to buy tanks every year that the military says they don't need and don't want. It's a bit scary to see that our military runs the same way government and corporations run... always cut from the bottom and hey since you saved so much cutting from the bottom, here's a bonus and a pay raise!