• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Seems someone in the US Army has had their Wetabix

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#1
#2
Quoted in the article: "504,000 army personnel of which 400,000 have done a tour of combat duty."
How does that compare with us Brits pro rata? do we have more REMF's than the septics?
[edited for mistake]
 
#4
I hope he does. Schoomaker has been a disaster for the Army. He implimented a manning plan that is not sustainable with the present OPTEMPO. As a result much of the Army is unable to deploy in a crisis for lack of equipment and personnel.
 
#6
Tom,

Who put Schoomaker in that position in the first place? Bearing in mind that being candid and honest seems to get you fired or smeared or both?
 
#8
They do it as well????????????? :twisted:
 
#10
Always nice to see a leader with balls to equal the gold braid he wears.. :) You have to respect the fact that he's telling it how it is. You want the job done....give me 41% more budget.

As a leader should.

How much more disappointed would it have been if he'd said "Well we're stretched... but not overstretched....) ?

I believe they used to issue a little red book at Sandhurst called "Serve To Lead". I would wager there are those who need to give it a dust off and re-read its contents.
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
Schoomaker is Rumsfeld's man. But coming from the SF world he has been a disaster for the army. We have hundreds of tanks,IFV and other vehicles sitting around for lack of spare parts.

As for Shinseki his 4 year term was at an end, he wasnt fired. Schoomakers term ends in 07, thank god.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/pop/articles/25infantry.html
Schoomaker is not the only on at fault here....The US Military is suffering because of a number of reasons:

1. The number and types of msns it is undertaking.
2. Tight management of money by the DOD, i.e contracts that don't meet the current Op Tempo...and contracts that are not achieving there aims..i.e. Biosheild.
3. Political management of money, i.e emergency contributions rather than increases in direct funding to pay for IZ and AFG....which means that DoD has to manage supplementary cost out of existing budgets and then receives the emergency funding in arrears.
4. The development of the DHS and the function of NorthCom in homeland events.
5. A divided nation and a widely distrusted Head of Shed.

The medicine for both our Armed Forces and yours is solve either IZ or AFG. Contain Iran (for the US), establish a sustainable steady state and then review ALL the planning assumptions and then measure the needs of the Armed Forces again them.

Taking Rummy round the back of the pentagon and giving him a 'traditional' re-education would be a suitable alternative :wink:

p.s. Are your boys back home yet?
 
#12
tearsbeforebedtime
said
"$138 Billion, we spend more on Quangoes"
Er memory says £134.
john
Yes Mucking disgusting, and troops short on the front line.
 
#13
tomahawk6 said:
I hope he does. Schoomaker has been a disaster for the Army. He implimented a manning plan that is not sustainable with the present OPTEMPO. As a result much of the Army is unable to deploy in a crisis for lack of equipment and personnel.
PartTimePongo said:
Tom,

Who put Schoomaker in that position in the first place? Bearing in mind that being candid and honest seems to get you fired or smeared or both?
Tomahawk6 said:
Schoomaker is Rumsfeld's man. But coming from the SF world he has been a disaster for the army. We have hundreds of tanks,IFV and other vehicles sitting around for lack of spare parts.

As for Shinseki his 4 year term was at an end, he wasnt fired. Schoomakers term ends in 07, thank god.

www.nytimes.com/learni...antry.html
I think what PTP means is who put Shoomaker in the position where he has had to make the choices he has. It's the agent-structure problem. Perhaps you can help us all out by elaborating on why exactly this is Shoomaker's fault and not the civilian leaderships, and why he's been a disaster for the Army. I'd love to hear your "insider's" opinion. :wink:

There's a saying- "The only common feature of all your failed relationships is you."
 
#14
tomahawk6 wrote
We have hundreds of tanks,IFV and other vehicles sitting around for lack of spare parts.

The times reported
He has told congressional appropriators that he will need $17.1 billion next year for repairs, nearly double this year's appropriation — and more than quadruple the cost two years ago. According to an Army budget document obtained by The Times, Army officials are planning repair requests of $13 billion in 2008 and $13.5 billion in 2009.

In recent weeks, however, Schoomaker has become more publicly emphatic about budget shortfalls, saying funding is not enough to pay for Army commitments to the Iraq war and the global strategy outlined by the Pentagon


It seem to me that the congress has address the Army's needs in the 2006 budget by appropriating more money in the form of a $70 billion emergency supplemental "bridge" fund . This of course means that in 2007 and 2008 this issues will be similarly contentious. The 20 billion above the 2006 budget request by the Pentagon could go towards the Army, They need to get the money appropriated to them by the Pentagon. Schoomaker is just trying to get the public to recognize the need for the extra money .
The public and the congress ,I think ,does support the Army with its need for a bigger cut of the defense appropriations.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=35079&dcn=e_gvet

In addition to traditional spending accounts, the $447.4 billion bill includes a $70 billion emergency supplemental "bridge" fund -- $20 billion above the Pentagon request -- for wartime operations. The additional funding will help fill Army and Marine Corps coffers to repair and replace equipment lost or damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan
 
#15
NEO_CON said:
tomahawk6 wrote
We have hundreds of tanks,IFV and other vehicles sitting around for lack of spare parts.

The times reported
He has told congressional appropriators that he will need $17.1 billion next year for repairs, nearly double this year's appropriation — and more than quadruple the cost two years ago. According to an Army budget document obtained by The Times, Army officials are planning repair requests of $13 billion in 2008 and $13.5 billion in 2009.

In recent weeks, however, Schoomaker has become more publicly emphatic about budget shortfalls, saying funding is not enough to pay for Army commitments to the Iraq war and the global strategy outlined by the Pentagon


It seem to me that the congress has address the Army's needs in the 2006 budget by appropriating more money in the form of a $70 billion emergency supplemental "bridge" fund . This of course means that in 2007 and 2008 this issues will be similarly contentious. The 20 billion above the 2006 budget request by the Pentagon could go towards the Army, They need to get the money appropriated to them by the Pentagon. Schoomaker is just trying to get the public to recognize the need for the extra money .
The public and the congress ,I think ,does support the Army with its need for a bigger cut of the defense appropriations.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=35079&dcn=e_gvet

In addition to traditional spending accounts, the $447.4 billion bill includes a $70 billion emergency supplemental "bridge" fund -- $20 billion above the Pentagon request -- for wartime operations. The additional funding will help fill Army and Marine Corps coffers to repair and replace equipment lost or damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan
You're making some sense, and it sounds but bear in mind that you should never take for granted the Pentagon's earth shattering ability to make a pig's breakfast out of what at first glance appears to be the most mundane and simple task. There's a deeply rooted bureaucratic mindset where each service needs to be seen to be getting their share of the pie. And if anyone thinks this is just a petty game, you really have no idea.

I really can't be arrsed to go through each line of the supplemental appropriations bill, but it might be interesting to see what this additional $20bn is being used to appropriate. For all I know Ted Stevens might finally be getting his bridge to nowhere...
 
#16
Mr_Bridger said:
Always nice to see a leader with balls to equal the gold braid he wears.. :) You have to respect the fact that he's telling it how it is. You want the job done....give me 41% more budget.

As a leader should.

How much more disappointed would it have been if he'd said "Well we're stretched... but not overstretched....) ?

I believe they used to issue a little red book at Sandhurst called "Serve To Lead". I would wager there are those who need to give it a dust off and re-read its contents.
I agree Mr Bridger - I only wish once CGS and CDS would say the same thing - CGS nearly did when he talked about balancing priorities when he first came in to post. So many of the threads recently have a link to the lack of money, be it eqpt on ops or the review of boarding school allowance. I have no idea if this general is a tosser in other areas, but it would be great if we too could have such tosser whos is prepared to say to the gov't, it is more money or fewer ops - not when given less money (when taking inflation into account) and made to do more with it just spouting sh*te like 'stretched but not overstretched.'
 
#17
tomahawk6 said:
I hope he does. Schoomaker has been a disaster for the Army. He implimented a manning plan that is not sustainable with the present OPTEMPO. As a result much of the Army is unable to deploy in a crisis for lack of equipment and personnel.
I'm not entirely convinced that a man who hasn't been 'in charge' all that long has brought the US Army to the state he is saying it is in.
 
#19
exile1 said:
Quoted in the article: "504,000 army personnel of which 400,000 have done a tour of combat duty."
How does that compare with us Brits pro rata? do we have more REMF's than the septics?
[edited for mistake]
I think you would find it illuminating to read some other threads i've seen lately. Stuff like dishing out gongs to ground crew at Lakenheath for example.

2 elements to this, perhaps.

1. Higher ratio of Spam REMFs in the sandbox.
2. Very elastic view of what constitutes 'in-theatre' and 'on ops'

Something about medals and cornflakes packets is lurking in my :D mind.
 

Similar threads

Top