Sbsp affirmative- arl lab- ndi 2011
Download 1.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Funding Tradeoff
- Only new funding solves Air Force readiness – the force is out of emergency funds
- Freeing up funding key for base operations and Navy readiness
PerceptionLarger budgets improve credibility and military leadershipCarafano 8 (James Jay - Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, “Prepping the military for defeat,” The Virginian-Pilot, 8/27/08. AFTER the Vietnam War, respect for the military sank to an all- time low. In one survey, sanitation workers were the only profession Americans thought less of - and some considered that an insult to sanitation workers. Defense spending plummeted. The armed services "hollowed out," lacking the budgets to sustain modernization, training and readiness. By the end of the 1980s, however, after the Reagan-era military build-up, the military polled as the most admired institution in the nation. Even today, despite the political debates over the Long War on Terrorism, the armed forces remain highly respected. For that reason, many Pentagon experts believe that after Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the White House won't abandon the military they way they did before. They won't put readiness at risk again, right? Wrong. There are already plenty of troubling signs. The Navy is talking about tying up ships because they don't have enough sailors. The Army has artillery and engineer battalions that haven't practiced firing cannons or breaching a minefield in a long time. The Air Force might well have just lost its service secretary and chief of staff, not because of their alleged failure to exercise leadership but because they chaffed at accepting unrealistic budget projections. Washington officials probably will use the same excuses they did after Vietnam to justify reneging on their obligation to "provide for the common defense." They will argue that they can spend less on defense because they're so smart. They know exactly what the future holds, what the threats will be, how to handle them - and, miraculously, the cost of this defense will be exactly the paltry amount of money they're willing to spend. Such "smart spending" was what the Pentagon offered after Vietnam. Rather than rebuild the military and match the Soviets' conventional power, President Carter's Pentagon opted for an "offset" strategy. They would replace boots on the ground with smart weapons to offset Soviet numbers. This would be more effective - and coincidently cheaper. As Yale scholar Paul Bracken put it, "They got away with it because President Carter didn't want to buy anything. He was very interested in innovation as long as it didn't require purchasing military equipment." Some old Carter hands even have the temerity to argue the offset strategy helped win the Cold War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the technologies they promoted never matured, or were fully deployed only after the Cold War ended. Indeed, Council on Foreign Relations defense analyst Stephen Biddle cogently argues much of the success of rebuilding of U.S. conventional forces had to do with the robust training and doctrine instituted in the 1980s, part of the Reagan-era effort along with growing the forces and buying new equipment that resulted in the war-winning Desert Storm military. There are already signs, however, that the old Carter arguments are coming back. Very smart people will argue that Washington can gut budgets, ignore the need to buy next generation platforms and short-change training and maintenance because they know exactly what to cut. Of course, first they will cut the things they don't want - politically incorrect systems such as missile defense, space-based weapons and modernized nuclear forces. Then they will wish away the wars they don't want to prepare for - insurgencies and conventional conflicts with regional powers. Finally, they will assume that America's enemies will be blinded by their brilliance and not prepare for exactly the kinds of wars Washington does not fund the military to fight. They will wind up preparing the military for defeat. The one initiative brilliant budget-cutters will not undertake is to provide robust, sustained funding of the armed services that will pay for current operations; maintain a trained and ready military for a range of missions; and modernize forces for the future. But that's exactly what needs to be done to keep the nation safe, free and prosperous in the 21st century. Funding TradeoffNew funding key for modernization and new techBennett 11 (John T, editor for the Federal Times, “Defense Industry dodges bullet, but more cuts could be coming,” Federal Times, 1/14/11. http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110114/DEPARTMENTS01/101140301/) The secretary told reporters the White House reduction proves the days of "endless money" flowing into Pentagon weapon programs are long gone. If DoD wants more money for procurement and development, it will have to squeeze it from elsewhere in its budget, he said. "There won't be any more money for these programs coming in from outside," he said. And if some lawmakers have their way, the defense budget might actually shrink. After Gates' announcement, some Democrats instantly called for bigger cuts. House GOP leaders recently said defense cuts will be on the table as part of deficit-reduction efforts. And many new lawmakers of the tea-party ilk have yet to clearly state their positions on things like Pentagon spending. Cord Sterling, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association, said industry supports Gates' efficiencies drive but is "very concerned with any proposals to cut or eliminate programs that would increase costs in the future," adding such moves could "negatively impact the U.S. industrial base and impair" combat capability. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., and other congressional advocates of bigger budgets will have their say on the EFV termination and Gates' plan to push the STOVL F-35 variant to the back of the production schedule. McKeon has already signaled his disapproval of Gates' decisions. "These cuts are being made without any commitment to restore modest future growth, which is the only way to prevent deep reductions in force structure that will leave our military less capable and less ready to fight," McKeon said in a statement. "This is a dramatic shift for a nation at war and a dangerous signal from the commander in chief." Mackenzie Eaglen, a former Senate defense staffer and now a Heritage Foundation analyst, said the $78 billion cut will leave the military challenged in future fights. "Yes, the military is buying a handful of next-generation systems, but those plans are constantly being scaled back because of ongoing spending cuts," Eaglen said. "Simply recapitalizing legacy systems will not be enough in five to 10 years, particularly if the military remains engaged around the world as it's likely to do." Only new funding solves Air Force readiness – the force is out of emergency fundsBrannen, Cavas and Majumdar 11 (Kate, Christopher and Dave, staff writers for the Federal Times, “2011 Budget delay causes issues for Defense Department,” Federal Times, 2/6/11. The delays and uncertainty are causing all sorts of problems throughout the military services. For example, Air Force leaders worry they will run out of money to pay troops. The Air Force's military personnel budget is $1.2 billion short, and the operations and maintenance budget is facing a $4.6 billion deficit. "If we don't get some degree of relief, as the Congress continues its work, those will impose significant real implications on Air Force operations," said Jamie Morin, assistant Air Force secretary for financial management. Morin said the service is operating under a $7 billion shortfall compared with the White House budget request. The service also is hamstrung when it comes to awarding new contracts, increasing production rates for needed equipment, or funding military construction projects, he said. A bow wave of deferred aircraft maintenance, facility maintenance and military health care costs is building up as the service operates under constraints of the continuing resolution. Air Force Vice Chief Gen. Philip Breedlove said in a Feb. 3 e-mail that the CR "has negatively affected Air Force modernization programs. Production rate increases and new production — which includes military construction — have been prohibited." He added that day-to-day operations are constrained. "Funding shortfalls in military pay and health care will affect training and readiness," he said. The Air Force has responded by shifting around what funds it can under the law, but the service is running out of room to maneuver. "Our ability to mitigate is basically fully used up now," Morin said. The service had been raiding procurement accounts to stave off a breakdown, but those funds are running dry, said Maj. Gen. Alfred Flowers, the Air Force's deputy assistant secretary for budget. The result is that deployed troops are not getting the equipment they need, Morin said. Morin said one example was the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft. Under the proposed 2011 budget, the Air Force was planning to purchase 48 Reapers this year as it attempts to increase the number of combat air patrols in Afghanistan to 65 orbits. However, Morin said, the Air Force is prohibited from buying more than 24 aircraft because of the budget impasse. "Which means we're going to delay getting capability to Afghanistan," he said. Another program affected is the F-15E active electronically scanned array radar upgrade, Morin said. If the contract for the upgrade is not awarded this year, the service may have to ground the aircraft "down the road" as spare parts are no longer available for their current radar sets. If a budget is not passed at all this year, the impact will also be felt by the F-15C fleet, which is also receiving new radar. Flowers said other affected programs include GPS satellites, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, Joint Strike Fighter, new tanker and the Wideband Global SATCOM system, among others. Freeing up funding key for base operations and Navy readinessBrannen, Cavas and Majumdar 11 (Kate, Christopher and Dave, staff writers for the Federal Times, “2011 Budget delay causes issues for Defense Department,” Federal Times, 2/6/11. The cash crunch will be particularly challenging for personnel, shipbuilding and other procurement accounts: • Yearlong support and maintenance contracts for base operations can't be signed. "Hundreds of contracts have been broken into short installments," the senior Navy official said; • Personnel travel has been cut by 25 percent; • Hiring freezes have been put in place in the Marine Corps and Navy; • Security clearance investigations have been curtailed; and • Permanent-change-of-station (PCS) orders are being slowed. Other effects of prolonging the CR, the Navy source said, would be: • Cancellation of 29 surface ship overhauls; • Deferred maintenance on aircraft, aircraft engines and equipment; • Deferred certification of weapons; • Cutbacks in training and exercises, ship and aircraft operations, and combat support and combat service support. Navy budget director Rear Adm. Joe Mulloy said that dealing with a few months of the CR can be managed, but problems grow as the second quarter of the fiscal year begins in January. "We can hold our breath," Mulloy said Feb. 3. "Typically, a lot of contracts are not designed to be let in the first quarter of the fiscal year. But when we go into the second quarter and there's still the potential of a yearlong CR — which has never happened to the entire Department of Defense — you reach a point where you're limited by dollars and by quantity. "And the dollars become extremely difficult in the operations and maintenance world, and in the manpower costs," Mulloy added. The shipbuilding accounts could be especially hard hit if the CR is extended. "I'm about $6 billion out of whack in ship construction," Mulloy said. For 2011, the service wants to spend money on a new aircraft carrier, a second Virginia-class submarine, a new destroyer and the upcoming refueling overhaul of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. About $1.7 billion is available for a new amphibious ship — the Navy received that much for a 2010 ship — but the service doesn't need one in 2011. But without the specific authority to move money between ship accounts, the Navy's hands are tied. "I have dollars in the wrong place," Mulloy said. This was to have been the first year since 1989 that the Navy hoped to order two submarines. A contract to start work on one of the subs was awarded in January to General Dynamics, but no money is available for the second sub. GD agreed, however, to hold the price for the second ship until March 21 so, should the money come by then, the Navy can still take advantage of the price benefits of ordering two at a time. But the impacts on ship maintenance won't be cured that fast if the CR continues, as the fleet looks for overhauls that can be put off. None has been canceled so far. But if enough shipyards don't get that maintenance work, and similar work on 70 aircraft and 290 aircraft engines is deferred, up to 1,300 private sector jobs might be lost, the Navy source said. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.74 Mb. Share with your friends:
|