U.S. Army Fears Major War in 5 Years But Lacks Money to Prepare For It

I get a kick out of the liberals who say, "Make peace!  Not War!" or "No more war!!"

When interviewed on TV they will say things like, "We just don't like war.  Why should our politicians send our young men off to die someplace?  What good does it do?"

By now I'm screaming at the TV saying, "It prevented you from speaking German right now and living under a totalitarian system!!"

Team Obama doesn't "like" war either.  He got elected saying he would bring all the "boots on the ground home."  Of course ISIS rose up and filled the vacuum he created by abruptly pulling out all US boots on the ground....and now Team Obama has had to send "boots on the ground" back to Iraq....but he calls them "Special Forces"....so as not to tarnish his image of not deploying any "boots on the ground" back to the Middle East.

So what happens if Russia invades Europe?  How about if China goes at it with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea or all of them and we have to defend our friends?  What if North Korea goes streaming in South Korea and runs over 30,000 U.S. troops stationed there in the process?  Should we send all our liberals to North Korea so they can march around Pyong Yang saying "No more war!"

Do you think liberals with signs actually does anything to stop an evil dictator?...or a nation hell-bent on taking more territory or controlling trade routes?  Did liberals with signs stop Hitler from marching into Poland?  Did liberals with signs punish Imperial Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor?

Nope!  Only big men with big guns, big ships, big tanks and big planes actually stop those kind of men. And this requires BIG MONEY to buy all those things and train all these soldiers.

Nothing focuses the mind like fear. What’s focusing the minds of U.S. Army leaders right now is the fear that they will be in a major war within five years. They know they’ll be fighting terrorists and insurgents for the foreseeable future, but what really preoccupies them is the likely return of large-scale conventional conflict — maybe with Russia in Eastern Europe, or Iran in the Middle East, or North Korea in Northeast Asia. Maybe in all three places.

Senior Army officials are circumspect about discussing the danger in open forums — they don’t want to advertise U.S. vulnerabilities — but it seems clear that the Obama administration’s “pivot to the Pacific” announced in 2012 has created a geopolitical vacuum stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf that Russia and Iran are trying to fill. Meanwhile, the unpredictable government of North Korea continues its bellicose behavior toward the South, which the U.S. is pledged to defend.

There isn’t much appetite for new wars in Washington, but U.S. leaders would have little choice if these countries sought to impose their will by force in neighboring nations. Whether aggression took the form of subversion or outright invasion, the U.S. would have to respond, because success for the attackers would drastically alter the global landscape to America’s detriment. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what it would mean if Russian forces were back in the heart of Europe, or Iran controlled most Middle East oil, or North Korea overran the South.

What worries Army planners is that their service isn’t adequately prepared for any of these scenarios — much less a situation in which more than one unfolded simultaneously. Not only have U.S. ground forces been drawn down in Europe and Asia as Washington sought to rely more on air power and sea power for regional security, but investment in new technology for land combat is at a low ebb. The Army’s entire budget for developing and producing new equipment, from tanks to missiles to helicopters to howitzers, amounts to barely two days of federal spending annually.

The level of spending is almost unbelievably low. The Army spends less on procuring wheeled and tracked vehicles in a year than General Motors GM -0.27% generates in sales each week. Its $3.6 billion budget request for helicopter procurement, about eight hours worth of federal spending at current rates, is focused mainly on upgrading Reagan-era rotorcraft because it can’t afford to buy new ones. Its ammunition budget ($1.5 billion) isn’t much more than what Americans spend on fireworks each year (around $1 billion).

The simple fact is that the Army has spent all its time since 9-11 fighting foes who look a lot different from the more capable enemies it might encounter in the near future. So it needs more money than it is currently getting from Congress to make some quick investments in technology areas where it is deficient. Moving money around within an already under-funded budget isn’t the answer. The Army needs additional funds to buy better equipment fast, not only to avoid defeat in a near-term war with Russia, Iran or North Korea, but also to deter aggression and thereby make war less likely.

Here;  http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/08/24/u-s-army-sees-major-war-within-five-years-but-lacks-the-money-to-prepare/2/#3f0cd4b9e3e2

You know, bankruptcy just isn't much fun!  USA has already spent $1 trillion more than it makes every single year since Obama was elected.  We need to have a well trained and prepared military because the wars are coming....but we simply don't have the money to spend.

When a family is broke, they need to make choices...."Should we buy food this week or clothes?  Should we fix the car or the water heater?  Should we have the kids play soccer or hockey?"

So what's it gonna be America?  Would you rather have an army that would protect the American way of life?....or would you rather have a 48,000,000 people on food stamps?

"We want both!"

Sorry.  You have to choose.