Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
This is pretty much nonsense, Delt - no matter what occurs, there is still a 'budgeting' process that can make the most efficient use of resources . . . and no matter how 'unfriendly' the world may be, a constant updating of this budgeting will still produce the most efficient method.
|
OK, fine. What happens if the North Koreans decide to cross the DMZ? Do we ask them to wait until we increase our "budget?" When that happens, efficiency and budget go out the window.
We can't staff the present conflict(s) we're in without putting a huge strain on the Reserves and National Guard. From a purely money "budget," the administration doesn't even include it in the Federal fiscal budget, but has spent tens of billions of dollars in special funding.
It took months to build up forces for Desert Storm.
I'm not a Hawk by any means, but there are some situations that won't wait.
We used to staff our military with the idea of being able to react to two separate major conflicts in different parts of the glove. With the cutbacks we've put in place, we're hard pressed to handle one -- assuming we can agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much the same place.
Sorry if you think that nonsense. It seems more like reality to me.
Clearly, we can't "budget" for every contingency but must try to be as efficient as possible, on the other hand, we have to be able to react quickly with some amount of force without depleting other missions.