From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Military Cuts (was: New Carrier Plan)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:09 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bvyqqp.5vt@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

This has been responded to by quite a few people already, but i want to add a
few points, since i don't entirely agree with what's been said.
> 
> - There is little interest in talking about what sort of cuts are
> needed in the military.  I'm not sure if this is because the people
> don't think the cuts are needed (yet they will happen) or if this is
> because people think that the politicians will do the cutting with
> regards to politics and not military matters (so why worry about it).

You're kind of right, and kind of wrong.  There is a *lot* of interest in
talking about what sort of cuts are needed in the military.  You just happened
to propose making a cut that is ``wrong'' for the current strategic situation. 
The Marine Corps is set up just for the situation we find ourselves in now. 
The time to have cut the Marines would have been during the height of the cold
war-- the Marines were never set up to fight the Soviets, our main adversary. 
Now that we find ourselves in a fluid, relatively unpredictable international
situation, the Navy/Marine Corps just happens to be our most valuable asset. 
There was a Navy News Service posting that contained the new Navy Department
white paper _...From the Sea_ -- read that, and you'll get a better idea of
where the military wants to go (at least, from the Navy Department's point of
view).

However, if you had proposed getting rid of the B-2, or Seawolf, or other
programs that were designed around a strategic `total war' with another
superpower, i'm sure you would have found a more receptive discussion.  i would
have supported reductions in strategic nuclear forces, and heavy mechanized
Army (active duty) units that i think can best be kept in a reserve status. 
However, those cuts, in my opinion, better reflect the strategic situation the
US finds itself in, coupled with the financial necessity to make some cuts
somewhere.

> 
> - Most everyone likes the approximate status quo.  I'm sure that
> everyone has their pet change.  However, no one likes my proposed
> change, and very few wants to propose anything themself.
> 
The status quo of the military as a whole never really came into question.  In
fact, in my original post on this subject, i stated two or three areas that
should be cut.  ``However, no one likes my proposed change,'' is accurate, at
least as far as sci.military is concerned.  ``and very few wants to propose
anything themself.''  is not.  In the past few days, i've seen lots of proposed
cuts, ranging from Air Force to Army to Navy assets that aren't as useful as
they once were.  You're just paying too much attention to your pet change, to
the exclusion of others.
 
However, you did make a big splash, and hopefully will start some meaningful
discussion on where the military as a whole should be cut.  We will be forced
to cut something, whether the military establishment wants to or not.  The
question is what we want to do, and what we need to do it.

> - There seems to be a strong sense of "I primarily care about my
> service".  For instance, if the Marine Corps needs air supprt, and the
> Air Force is inadiquate, then don't worry too much about the Air Force,
> just give me planes.  There have been people who complain about the
> Air Force, but everyone seems more concerned keeping tha Marine Air
> Corps than fixing the Air Force.
> 
This isn't true.  If you pay attention, a lot of the people that responded to
your cut in a negative way were not Marines.  Also, `fixing the Air Force' isn't
really an issue.  As i said in my first post, if you look closely at the
mission statement of the Air Force, it is meant to fight a protracted air war,
and support the Army in fighting a protracted land war.  Naval/Amphibious CAS
missions are *not* the job of the Air Force.  The Air Force does a generally
outstanding job of taking and controlling air-space.  They also do an exellent
job of bombing things behind the front lines- look at the F-111F, or the B-1B
in a conventional role.  Outstanding pilots and aircraft, with very good
results indeed.  The Air Force is not `broken'- it does it's stated job very
well.  The Army does have a beef though, as the Air Force has neglected it's
role in supporting the Army with CAS.  The Navy/Marine team has solved it's CAS
responsibilities rather neatly.  The Navy and Marine squadrons work well
together, and are interchangeable to a certain extent while maintaining the
benefits of specialization.  Rather than forcing another mission on the Air
Force, perhaps the Air Force should drop the CAS mission entirely, and leave
that to the Army Air Corps and Marine Corps Aviation.

> - Few people seem to think that the military needs to be cut that
> much.  Perhaps a program here, or a program there, but not any major
> forces.  This seems to be a huge mistake to me.  IMHO, the total
> budget *will* be cut substancially no matter who the next president is.
> 
Just because the budget will be cut, and we know it, doesn't mean we have to
like it.  I don't think you could say it was a mistake to not want a cut.  It
would be a mistake to propose cuts in vitally important areas however, such as
Marine Aviation.

There are plenty of proposals to cut major forces.  Ask any Army Captain who
happens to have an armor MOS what his chances of making Lt. Colonel are.  The
Army was set up for the big fight, and now is being hit hard by the cuts.  If
that's not reducing ``major forces'' i don't know what is.  Before the cuts are
done with and the military stabilizes at some `optimal' size, i'll bet money
that the Army loses more people than the entire Marine Corps had in 1990- if
they havent already!

> -Randy

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu