This accidentally went out prematurely when I just sent the email on martial law. Knowing there are so many Republicans/Trump allies, and fans of the Heritage Foundation, let me add what will really rev the aforesaid up:
"A Decade of Decline: The Need to Restore America’s Military Power" (title speaks for itself)
With all of the USG under Republican control, we can really get it on against Russia, Iran, and China now as Wicker, Kent, Roberts, Colby, and Kellogg call for, and are so eager for. Sweep that domestic spending out of the way, eliminate any debt limit so we might even even satisfy these war fanatics on military spending, however briefly, and we finally get what Conservatives always hoped for until Reagan went wobbly "nuclear combat toe to toe with the Russkies."
With this article even describing how to fight it and who we should adopt as a model:
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/trumps-vision-natos-future-streamline-the-alliance-for-modern-war/ "A second reason is not as widely understood:World War IIand its sequel, the Cold War, are behind us, not in front of us. The age of mass mobilization-based armies has given way to limited, high-intensity conventional warfare — an era of integrated, “all arms-all effects” warfighting. . . .
"This new brand of “come- as-you-are” warfare requires highly trained professionals ready to fight effectively when the hostilities begin. The unified application of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, the whole range of cyber and electronic warfare capabilities, widely dispersed joint strike systems, and mobile, armored maneuver forces across service lines cannot be executed on the fly. To effect change in the way Europeans and Americans think about defense, the President must issue new marching orders to the Department of Defense:
Turn US bases in Europe into austere Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) designed to receive deploying forces and then project them into training exercises or combat. Stop the expensive practice of building elaborate facilities for military communities in foreign countries, complete with family housing, schools, and grocery stores, that create jobs for foreign nationals, but do nothing for the U.S. economy.
Establish permanent bases in the United States from which future forces will deploy and where service members’ families can live. End accompanied tours overseas except for the few specialists needed to sustain forces deploying through the FOBs.
Build regionally focused, lean Joint Force Command (JFC) organizations to replace today’s overly large single-service headquarters. These bloated relics of World War II and the Cold War are too slow to deploy and they obstruct the rapid decision-making required in future warfare. Flatten command with the JFCs and exercise them regularly on short notice.
Build self-contained Army formations of 5,000-6,000 soldiers for rapid deployment under joint command. Disband the large 15,000-18,000-man divisions. Extract billions in savings by shedding equipment and organizationsthat are no longer needed.
Invest in new airlift and sea-lift to meet demands that commercial transport cannot. Invest in transportation support systems to off-load military cargo in unimproved locations.
The author of this piece even provides a model to follow for Trump and Republicans: Bombs Away LeMay! (pictured in the article)
"NATO needs these reforms and European military leaders know it. But though these measures would save billions of dollars and dramatically improve the US armed forces’ readiness to fight, America’s senior military leaders will resist them. This, however, is a problem for President Trump, not NATO.
"History provides a model for how to fix this. WhenGeneral Curtis LeMaytook over Strategic Air Command, he discovered that SAC lacked the right operational focus and military capability; there were no detailed war plans, only broad directives. LeMay concluded there were not enough leaders with the elasticity of mind to meet the Cold War’s new demands for fast-paced exercises and deployments. LeMay found the ‘right people,’ he appointed them to command and staff positions, and SAC became the model of warfighting readiness. LeMay’s approach may be helpful to thePresidentas he moves the Department of Defense and NATO in anew strategic direction."
On Dec 19, 2024, at 2:25 PM, Todd Pierce <todd.e.pierce@icloud.com> wrote:
This was shared here yesterday (scroll down for article):
"Republican hawks denounce defense budget caps from debt ceiling deal"
There's a lot of unhappiness amongst Republicans with this $895 billion "mammoth bill": it's not enough!
They, and Quincy Institute's favorite, (no-prefix) Conservative Kevin Roberts and the Heritage Foundation, have been warning us that we needed far more military spending, but the non-Goldwater Democrats (the "communists") serve their CCP Masters (sarcasm) well by sticking to fiscal agreements. But there will be no "Wait 'til next year" with Trump/Vance coming in, and the wasteful domestic spending bill swept out of the way by Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy, to make room for the kind of military spending Roberts, Heritage, Republicans, and incoming Trump administration officials demand, as can be seen here:
A Decade of Decline: The Need to Restore America’s Military Power
"Join us as Sen. Roger Wicker, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, noted grand strategist Elbridge Colby, and former Green Beret Joe Kent discuss how we can reverse a decade of decline and restore America’s military power."
All of these militaristic fanatics are Trump favorites, with the latter two soon to join Kellogg as part of the Trump administration I will predict, as this might be indicative of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL3r6KW-ts0
The Committee for the Republicans are usually silent about the role that Republicans always play at the heart of the Military Industrial Complex, and have since the "Closing of the Frontier" in the 1890s when Republicans immediately clamored for more overseas territory to rule over, beginning with Hawaii, then war on Spain under McKinley, and the proto-fascist Teddy Roosevelt establishing the modern Republican Party's ideological attraction to ultra-militarism, escalating with WW I when Roosevelt and the Republicans immediately and continuously incited entry into WW I, until Germany herself gave cause and we had a bi-partisan war which libertarians and Conservatives have blamed solely on Wilson ever since, when the war became unpopular afterward, as seen once again last night at a Committee for the Republicans event:
Senator Wicker: There is Really No Time to Waste, We Need to Get Started This Year
"Watch as U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the highest-ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to continue the conversation he has started on our national spending priorities on June 5, 2024."
A US marine F-35 Lightning fighter jet lands past an F/A-18 Hornet during the semi-annual Philippine-US military exercise dubbed Marine Aviation Support Activity (MASA) 23, at the airport of the former US naval base in Subic Bay, north of Manila on July 13, 2023. (Photo by Ted ALJIBE / AFP) (Photo by TED ALJIBE/AFP via Getty Images)
Republicans are condemning President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2025 defense spending request for failing to keep pace with inflation, but it’s unclear whether there’s appetite on Capitol Hill to revisit the cap Congress itself imposed as part of last year’s debt ceiling agreement.
The debt ceiling agreement capped defense spending at $895 billion for FY25, ensuring the Defense Department would have to trim certain accounts. But these reductions, including a proposal to buy one fewer Virginia-class attack submarine and fewer F-35 fighter jets, are now generating outcry from lawmakers.Meanwhile, Congress has not yet passed its five-months-overdue FY24 defense spending bill. Andthe $95 billion foreign aid billfor Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan remains stuck in the House.
House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., noted in a statement Monday Biden’s “budget request complies with the mandated numbers of the” debt ceiling deal.
“Unfortunately, this defense top line number fails to keep pace with inflation and our adversaries,” said Rogers. “Our defense budget should be built with the goal of deterring the threats facing our nation. Instead, we are forced to build a budget to meet an arbitrary number. I worry about the long-term impact this budget process will have on our national defense.”
The debt ceiling caps allow for a 1% increase in defense spending from Biden’s $886 billion proposal in FY24 to $895 billion in FY25;the Pentagon’s share of that total is $850 billion. By contrast, inflation rose 3.4% in 2023, according to the Consumer Price Index.
“This is the fourth straight time the Biden administration has turned in a defense budget request that amounts to a net cut after inflation,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the floor Tuesday.
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, saidin a statement “the Biden administration is not moving nearly quickly enough to prevent war with the Chinese Communist Party.” He noted China approved a 7.2% defense budget increase last week.
Conversely, Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a statement Biden’s defense budget proposal “protects the American people, strengthens our defense-industrial base and aligns with the national security and fiscal challenges we face while adhering to the contours of the debt ceiling agreement Republicans demanded.”
The Defense Department had hoped to use the foreign aid bill, which includes an extra $67 billion in Pentagon spending, torelieve some of the budgetary pressuresimposed by the debt ceiling caps. TheArmy, for instance, is calling for passage of the foreign aid billto replenish munitions expended in Ukraine and the Middle East even as it waits on Congress to pass the full FY24 defense spending bill to finalize multiyear contracts.
‘Declining in real terms’
Elaine McCusker, a Pentagon comptroller during the Trump administration who is now a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told Defense News Congress should fund a Pentagon base budget of $893 billion for FY25 instead of $850 billion and immediately pass the delayed FY24 defense spending bill as well as the foreign aid legislation.
McCusker said “money for modernization is squeezed by the increasing costs of must-pay bills and by programs and activities in the defense budget that do not contribute to military capability.”
“We are seeing negative impacts on our security, competitiveness, military force and industrial base from a defense budget that is declining in real terms,” she added. “The use of the procurement budget as a bill-payer will only make program execution and our challenges with the industrial base and supply chain much worse.”
“If such a cut is actually enacted, it will remove one more attack submarine from a fleet that is already 17 submarines below the Navy’s long stated requirement of 66,” Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House’s seapower panel, said in a statement. “This hard rudder turn by the Navy demands the highest scrutiny by the Congress.”
Courtney, whose district includes the Electric Boat shipyard that produces the Virginia-class vessels, said the request would not impact the yard’s goal of 5,200 new hires for 2024. But he cautioned it “will have a long-term impact on submarine industrial base workers.”
Wicker and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., also told reporters Tuesday they support buying two Virginia-class submarines in FY25, instead of one.
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., saidin a statement the request threatens to “devastate our naval fleet and the Hampton Roads industrial base” in his district “by slowing aircraft carrier construction and failing to meet the two Virginia-class submarines per year cadence.”
Additionally, he noted the proposal would shrink Navy force structure “from 296 ships in FY24 to just 287 in FY25,” well short of theservice’s355-ship goal.
Wittman, who chairs the House’s tactical air and land forces panel, said the request “continues to decimate Air Force combat power by reducing the service’s total aircraft inventory by almost 130 airframes.”
The Air Force budget proposes buying 42 fewer Lockheed Martin-made F-35As and 24 fewer Boeing F-15EXs than planned. The serviceis seeking a procurement budget of $29 billion, down $1.6 billion from the prior year, but a research and development budget of $37.7 billion, up $1.5 billion from FY24.
Still, it remains unclear how Congress can increase modernization and procurement given the caps imposed by the debt ceiling agreement.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, told Defense News it’s “very premature” for discussions about circumventing the FY25 defense budget caps.
Those emergency funds are not expected to be in the final FY24 defense spending bill, which Congress has yet to release. Lawmakers have funded the Pentagon at FY23 levels with four stopgap spending bills since the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1. Under the latest short-term spending bill, Defense Department funding will expire on March 22.
If Congress fails to pass a full budget by April 30, the Defense Department and all other agencies would operate on a one-year continuing resolution at a 1% cut from FY23 levels, putting further budgetary pressure on the Pentagon.
Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.
On Dec 18, 2024, at 12:16 PM, Eric Garris via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:
The spending bill passed the Senate in a vote of 85-14, easily
getting the 60 votes that it needed. The NDAA primarily funds the
Pentagon and includes some spending for other government agencies’
military programs, including the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons
program.
While the NDAA is massive, it does not nearly account for total US
military-related spending. According to veteran defense analyst Winslow
Wheeler, based on the $895 billion request by the White House, US
national security spending for 2025 is expected to reach about $1.77
trillion.
Wheeler’s estimate accounts for military-related spending from other
government agencies not funded by the NDAA, such as the Department of
Veteran Affairs and Homeland Security. It also includes the national
security share of the interest accrued on the US debt and other factors.
In recent years, Congress has also authorized massive “emergency”
supplemental spending bills to fund proxy wars overseas. In April,
President Biden signed a massive $95 billion supplemental that included military aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the Philippines.