I have read with interest Secretary Hagel”s proposed defense funding.
Given the remarks from the Pentagon over the last years (no boots on the ground and an emphasis on raids not wars; no future massive battles; emphasis on a littoral navy rather than a deep water; use of material inventories not continual replacement; and such).
I feel he has a long way to go. “Get along with (only) 11 carriers?”
Retiring the A10s that have long since been too costly to maintain, marvelous aircraft though they are and nothing else?
And how about the number of elderly officers hanging around for their courtesy promotions so they can retire at a higher pension?
Recently I read there were (now) one commissioned officer for (just) 12 enlisted personnel. And, in these days, how effective are such bases as Okinawa and Augsburg?
With the transfer of the Coast Guard to Homeland Security, the only military outfit still actively serving the U,S. no longer is in the defense budget, but hopefully the HS will face reality and give it the funds needed to do the job we expect from them.
Be interesting to have some more clarity and explanation about all proposed expenditures on a line-by-line basis.
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
