Hillary's E-Mail (Breaking News: Smoking Gun Officially Announced)

I know Robert Gates has issues with the cuts, has said so. Barrackmed hung him out to dry.

 

You should probably re-read it and understand what rapid response means and the lgocitics of what is actually in the field with regards to NATO.

Once again. You might as well rename NATO to United States Charity Military service.

 

I dunno, "Crooked Hillary" has a certain ring to it.

 

Not totally sport. Here is an article on a new sub the Russians have deployed. It has tremendous capabilities to upset the strategic balance of power while our ASW capabilities have degraded.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russ...il&nr_email_referer=1&utm_campaign=post_email
Likewise they have introduced a new main battle tank, are catching up in 5th generation fighter development and building on their very advanced anti air defense.

The Russians have been investing in modernizing their armed forces for over 10 years. The evidence abounds. Are we stronger? No doubt. Do we have a much stronger economy to outlast them? We do.
The problem is twofold. First is momentum. The Russians are pushing forward with a singular intensity that we don't have. It's not where we are today but where things stand but where they are if and when Putin decides to really test us.

This brings up the second point. Putin is an aggressive sob. He wants to create the "Greater Russia" that existed before 1990. He is testing us and our allies responses and finding them weak willed and poorly led by the president. IMO this is the greatest threat. Hell balance of power means little when a leader is determined to go to war. Ask the Confederacy, ask Hitler, ask the Taliban. Our weakness doesn't mean that the Russians or Chinese could out muscle us. No integral with the quality of forces is the intent and determination of leaders. There we have been proven sorely lacking these past 8 years.

 

if I remember correctly, gates had a problem with fluctuating budgets and recommended a consistent decrease in dod funding.

 

Logistics is exactly the area that we excel at above all others. Mostly because we have so many geographically important allies and all of the airfields, ports, and rail networks we need. NATO has Russia under control and always has. You are easily frightened by russian propaganda.

 

Sure, nothing is static. But count them. And we are upgrading, too.

They are overreaching with a singular intensity we have not seen since Kruschev. How well did that go for him? Putin did not expect the blowback from Ukraine which they considered very much their turf. He will not be testing NATO. He is worried that we will take Kaliningrad or close the Turkish straits and the anti-missile system we are deploying in eastern Europe threatens them. Consider that his is very much a reaction by Putin. Russian very much wants to be viewed as a Superpower again, that is what this is all about. He is talking the talk, but . . .

How? Not an inch of NATO has been taken. Putin bullied a smaller nation, big deal. They aren't our allies or our problem. But it cost them a new NATO military buildup and economic sanctions they can't afford. What has he done lately to beat his chest at Europe?

Putin is now desperately trying to prop up his only ally in Syria and that is not looking too good either. We are pounding ISIS and allowing ISIS, Hezbollah, Syria, Russia, and the non-ISIS jihadi rebels to all kill each other and forcing the Iraqis to fight their own fight. We overreached in Iraq and Afghnaistan. We are playing this one much smarter.

What weakness? We are holding all of the cards.

 

I should not have to spell things out for you.
Maybe you are this dense, or you didn't read all of it.

Page 28:

Senator Manchin: So I guess I would ask, can you tell the subcommittee what exactly are we sacrificing by now focusing more on readiness than Army modernization? And does the Army have the capability and force structure to confront our modern- day threats? And can you discuss some of the differences in force structure and capability between today's Army considering today's challenges, Russian aggression, Syria, et cetera, and the Army at the end of the Cold War? So, you know, I guess hindsight being 20/20, what would we 9 change?

Followed by a lengthy answer, though summed up by:


I think we could not do it, sir.

But the problem with the emergent demand in Iraq, Europe, they become enduring.They do not become one-time-in like Liberia and out. They become enduring requirements.

I mean, are you wrong in classifying our logistical capabilities as one of the best in the world? No, but the problem is that the bulk of our forces would be needed and the bulk of our forces are NOT in NATO.

Which has been my entire point that Nato counties outside of the US and maybe 1 other are utterly useless and Russia would sweep them in days.

IF you keep reading, the Generals point out this math problem. In other words, rapid response. It would take months to get the units NEEDED up for a major world conflict.

 

Disarming is holding all of the cards?