Seems someone in the US Army has had their Wetabix

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Guns, Sep 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Guns

    Guns LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. The Royal Navy

  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]
     
  3. Rumsfeld sacked his predecessor for being candid. Let's see if he will try it again.
     
  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.
     
  5. A superpower with a budget of 138 billion dollars? Hah, we spend more than that on Quangos! Er, hang on...
     
  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?
     
  7. PTP they are talking about the U.S. Army!
     
  8. They do it as well????????????? :twisted:
     
  9. 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
     
  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. 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. 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

    The times reported


    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

     
  15. 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...