The Army suffers too. I remember all to well the Clinton days in the mid 90's. #41 started the draw down of the military, and Clinton took it to the extreme. Equipment maintenance suffered due to lack of parts, morale was down because of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), training was watered down because of the costs of moving all the equipment to the field. I fell victim to this. My annual reviews were all top notch, I passed my PT test every six months with no problem, I was of the top 10 in my job, but I was a few pounds overweight, and they booted me with a 10K severance package. Pissed me the hell off. All the Army cared about back then was that you were thin, that was it. I saw the biggest most illiterate pieces of shit stay in because they passed height/weight. And now in about two or three years, it is going to happen again. It has already been announced that there will be draw downs again. Hopefully the Army will recognize sub-par soldiers and start with them first instead of guys like me.
C. Hatton Humphrey wrote: >> > > Having been at sea when the last Democrat President decided to cut > budgets, I can tell you with all sincerity that an aircraft carrier > becomes nothing more than a steel island if the brass are worried > about being able to afford jet fuel. Bruce might even be able to > remember round rationing. > > Let's reduce things to make it easier. You have $1500 per week. It > costs $75 to fly an air wing for a day and $50 to keep a missile boat > on station for a day. Pilots have to train at least once a week and > the boats have to be on station 7 days a week. There are 3 active air > wings in theater and 4 missile boats. To run all of them for the > minimum need will cost $1625. That doesn't take in to account fixing > any problems with planes, performing required maintenance and feeding > the crews. > > It's not just a matter of "spending money wisely" (not something our > Federal government has any grasp of now anyway) it is, in fact, a > matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. If James comes looking for his > share, you're screwed. > > If recruiting levels are scaled back, units are disbanded and ships > decommissioned then the only logical answer is that it will be more > difficult for any military branch to provide extended support for a > growing number of operations, regardless of branch or location. > > It *is* true that there are always three Fleets on active operation - > Pacific, Asian and Atlantic. That's one Battle group - a carrier > supported by subs, destroyers and fast frigates. The "small boys" are > the floating missile platforms that would need to provide "missile > defense" from sea and a carrier doesn't support anything as large as a > 747. > > But all that costs money. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:304487 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
