Guard Leaders to Congress: Halt 'Flawed' U.S. Air Force Budget Request

[FARRIER]

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/32817/

"The adjutants general from the 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and District of Columbia all signed the letter.

They believe the Air Force used "flawed processes, assumptions and criteria" to develop a budget request in which the Air Guard bears the brunt of proposed Air Force personnel and aircraft reductions. "

[ol'fido]

The St. Louis Post Dispatch ran a story today about all the would be F-35 pilots sitting around Eglin with nothing to do because the DOD hasn't bought any after the first dozen or so and they're only letting the test pilots fly them. If they cancel the F-35 the AF could have it's cake and the Guard could to.

[davidsinn]

The St. Louis Post Dispatch ran a story today about all the would be F-35 pilots sitting around Eglin with nothing to do because the DOD hasn't bought any after the first dozen or so and they're only letting the test pilots fly them. If they cancel the F-35 the AF could have it's cake and the Guard could to.

If they cancel the F-35 what replaces the F-16? I personally do not want to learn Chinese...

[AirDX]

If they cancel the F-35 what replaces the F-16? I personally do not want to learn Chinese...

Block 62 F-16s would do nicely.

[coudano]

it would certainly (in theory) send a message to the designers and contractors about exploding costs and development budgets


...in theory


the super hornets are fairly sweet too... Navy just bought a junk tonne of those brand new

[davidsinn]

If they cancel the F-35 what replaces the F-16? I personally do not want to learn Chinese...

Block 62 F-16s would do nicely.

While those are nice jets, they are not fifth gen. China is building fifth gen fighters.

[PHall]

The ANG whined like this back in the early 90's when the end-of-the-Cold War drawdown was happening too.

Of course Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait solved that little problem...

[davidsinn]

The ANG whined like this back in the early 90's when the end-of-the-Cold War drawdown was happening too.

Of course Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait solved that little problem...

I've got the solution: Draw down the Army and USAF and transfer everything to the National guard. The US is not supposed to have a standing army. The founders would be aghast at the current DOD.

[Extremepredjudice]

The ANG whined like this back in the early 90's when the end-of-the-Cold War drawdown was happening too.

Of course Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait solved that little problem...

I've got the solution: Draw down the Army and USAF and transfer everything to the National guard. The US is not supposed to have a standing army. The founders would be aghast at the current DOD.

Where does it say we aren't supposed to have a standing army? The founding fathers plagerised most of their work from a man who said "A standing army is the enemy of the people" but nothing like that was put into the constitution.  The articles of confederation I beleive forced the governemtn to get their troops from states, but we abandoned them (for good reason).

[NCRblues]

The ANG whined like this back in the early 90's when the end-of-the-Cold War drawdown was happening too.

Of course Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait solved that little problem...

I've got the solution: Draw down the Army and USAF and transfer everything to the National guard. The US is not supposed to have a standing army. The founders would be aghast at the current DOD.

Where does it say we aren't supposed to have a standing army? The founding fathers plagerised most of their work from a man who said "A standing army is the enemy of the people" but nothing like that was put into the constitution.  The articles of confederation I beleive forced the governemtn to get their troops from states, but we abandoned them (for good reason).

It does not state that we are barred from having a standing army, but, and a big but here....

If you read the writings of our founding fathers, the vast majority of them held a strong idea that a standing military was the greatest threat to true freedom.

Now modern adaptations to the quotes you see floating around in the interwebs uses the word "army" but many historians now believe the founding fathers were thinking more of the Royal Navy when speaking of a standing armed force. You must remember that press gangs roamed London and other major English cities at the time, basically abducting royal subjects and forcing them to serve before the mast in "his/her majesties navy". This was one of the greatest fears of our young nation, a huge military eating up stores of food, always wanting more cash and forcing the will of the few onto the backs of the masses.

I really believe that if our founders and constitutional framers could see the DOD today, they would shake with fright and fury.

[PHall]

The ANG whined like this back in the early 90's when the end-of-the-Cold War drawdown was happening too.

Of course Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait solved that little problem...

I've got the solution: Draw down the Army and USAF and transfer everything to the National guard. The US is not supposed to have a standing army. The founders would be aghast at the current DOD.

Where does it say we aren't supposed to have a standing army? The founding fathers plagerised most of their work from a man who said "A standing army is the enemy of the people" but nothing like that was put into the constitution.  The articles of confederation I beleive forced the governemtn to get their troops from states, but we abandoned them (for good reason).

It does not state that we are barred from having a standing army, but, and a big but here....

If you read the writings of our founding fathers, the vast majority of them held a strong idea that a standing military was the greatest threat to true freedom.

Now modern adaptations to the quotes you see floating around in the interwebs uses the word "army" but many historians now believe the founding fathers were thinking more of the Royal Navy when speaking of a standing armed force. You must remember that press gangs roamed London and other major English cities at the time, basically abducting royal subjects and forcing them to serve before the mast in "his/her majesties navy". This was one of the greatest fears of our young nation, a huge military eating up stores of food, always wanting more cash and forcing the will of the few onto the backs of the masses.

I really believe that if our founders and constitutional framers could see the DOD today, they would shake with fright and fury.

Well, we didn't have a large standing Army (military) until after Korea, when we vowed to never get caught unprepared again.

[NCRblues]

Well, we didn't have a large standing Army (military) until after Korea, when we vowed to never get caught unprepared again.

I am not saying I agree with it, or even if it is a viable idea in a modern day an age (its not). I am just saying what was NOT put on paper, but what the common held belief at the time was.

[coudano]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

For what it's worth, they can barely appropriate for longer than about 6 months, as it is...
2 years would be a dream


That said...


The originalists generally argue that Congress was only authorized to do those things specifically enumerated (and nothing else).  Therefore, the only 'permanent' military service authorized is a Navy (and by extension, probably understandably, its air and amphib/land components).

And that Armies were only to be raised, on an as-needed basis, and disbanded after their job was done.

There had always been a distinction between the 'Army' proper, and the militias of the states.  But when the militias are called to federal service, then POTUS is their commander in chief.

Naturally the air and space (and cyber /cough) [and nuke /edit] domains were not in the scope of reason for the founders at the time.  The originalist argument would be that the proper procedure to 'change with the times' is a properly done Constitutional amendment.

[Extremepredjudice]

I know the navy is the only thing authorized by the constitution, but could you imagine what'd happen if the army and the airforce were disbanded? Assuming NG took over the duties of both, NG wouldn't be a part time job anymore. It'd be a full time job. Forcing some Guardsmen out completely.

NG as of now, are part time soldiers. History has shown part time soldiers aren't as good as full time troops. I respect NG as much as active duty, but that is a fact, so I'd appreciate it if I don't get my head torn off.

What'd happen to our bases? We couldn't protect everything with NG troops.

You are basically going to go back to the Articles of Confederation, which almost destroyed our war effort in the revolutionary war. It'd be pointless and ineffective.

[cap235629]

I know the navy is the only thing authorized by the constitution, but could you imagine what'd happen if the army and the airforce were disbanded? Assuming NG took over the duties of both, NG wouldn't be a part time job anymore. It'd be a full time job. Forcing some Guardsmen out completely.

NG as of now, are part time soldiers. History has shown part time soldiers aren't as good as full time troops. I respect NG as much as active duty, but that is a fact, so I'd appreciate it if I don't get my head torn off.

What'd happen to our bases? We couldn't protect everything with NG troops.

You are basically going to go back to the Articles of Confederation, which almost destroyed our war effort in the revolutionary war. It'd be pointless and ineffective.

nearly 50% of the ground forces deployed to SW Asia in the past decade have been NG and Reserve.  I would love for you to show your evidence of fact concerning your opinion of NG units.  You don't have a clue.

[Major Lord]

The main voice against Standing Armies as I recall was James Madison, the principal architect of the U.S. Constitution. His views are expressed in the Federalist Papers, the authoritative source for understanding the legislative intent of the Constitution. Here are a couple of quotes:

    "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

    "Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war — the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security, to institutions, which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free."

Haji has his prophets, and I have mine. I am with the FF on the dangers of a standing army, and a wide regular and irregular militia.

The very fact that America has entered into a series of undeclared wars, without benefit of a vote of Congress as required by law, is elegant proof that the founding fathers ( and certainly not just Madison) feared the totalitarian and corrosive results of unchecked political (executive branch, primarily) power. Personally, I think most of the work done by our various branches of the military could be handled by a couple of Ninjas with suppressed .22 pistols, and a few ICBM's......i.g, Hugo Chavez? .22's ala' Mozambique.  ( by the way, Kudos to CIA for zapping him with enough Gamma rays to let nature take its course-excellent work guys!) Iran? Melt it into a big glass parking lot. Congress should make these determinations, not a dictator President.


Major Lord

[lordmonar]

The ANG whined like this back in the early 90's when the end-of-the-Cold War drawdown was happening too.

Of course Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait solved that little problem...

I've got the solution: Draw down the Army and USAF and transfer everything to the National guard. The US is not supposed to have a standing army. The founders would be aghast at the current DOD.

Well....when it took 3 weeks to send mail across the pond and months to mobilise and move an army.....that made sense.
Since Sputnic the war has been 30 minutes away....we can't affor 18th century thinking to drive today's government.

[davidsinn]

The ANG whined like this back in the early 90's when the end-of-the-Cold War drawdown was happening too.

Of course Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait solved that little problem...

I've got the solution: Draw down the Army and USAF and transfer everything to the National guard. The US is not supposed to have a standing army. The founders would be aghast at the current DOD.

Well....when it took 3 weeks to send mail across the pond and months to mobilise and move an army.....that made sense.
Since Sputnic the war has been 30 minutes away....we can't affor 18th century thinking to drive today's government.

How does having several hundred thousand REMFs sitting around on the federal payroll defend against that? If the war is over in 30 minutes, having a standing army won't help anyway. Make soldiers belong to the states. If the president didn't have more than a token force at his command we would not be getting into so many "conflicts."

I'm actually on the fence about totally killing USAF in favor of a larger ANG, because it's almost closer to the Navy in terms of needing training currency, which is the reason the Navy is constitutionally authorized.

[coudano]

I'm actually on the fence about totally killing USAF in favor of a larger ANG, because it's almost closer to the Navy in terms of needing training currency, which is the reason the Navy is constitutionally authorized.

The reason the Navy was constitutionally authorized and sustained was to protect US shipping interests on the high seas.

[davidsinn]

I'm actually on the fence about totally killing USAF in favor of a larger ANG, because it's almost closer to the Navy in terms of needing training currency, which is the reason the Navy is constitutionally authorized.

The reason the Navy was constitutionally authorized and sustained was to protect US shipping interests on the high seas.

We are a primarily maritime nation so a strong navy protects our borders. The threat of on invasion in force is almost nil because the Navy and USAF would smoke it before it got here. Also it was authorized because the founders recognized that it takes longer to train up sailors than infantry.