GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Defense secretary: Navy, Air Force may need to subsidize Army soon

• 51684
  

  I find Skeeter's use of the term "feather merchant" amusing considering his preference of contractors over our dedicated civil service employees. A little research shows many sources for the term and practically as many meanings; including one on marine trainees I disregard. While current use indicates a person short or of slight build (as in feather or light weight) or in a comfortable or easy assignment such as headquarters duty or some staff billet; and is often used for civilians working for the military.

  The term evolved "[d]uring the early days of the US Army, perhaps as early as the Revolutionary War, [when] it was used to describe unscrupulous merchants who would include rocks and other heavy objects to add weight to the feathers sold to the government that were used for soldiers' pillows, mattresses and such, so to increase the contractors profits." Perhaps these were precursors of Halliburton? While I can attribute the civilian reference to ignorance in our role and duties; the actual origin strikes me as particularly appropriate considering the reports coming from the front.

  Regardless, the balance between fighting the lame duck and making a righteous stand to end this police action is a delicate action requiring thoughtful and measured steps. On one hand you have a conflict erroneously called a "War" and a virtuous fight for freedom; and on the other you have people tried of dying for "daddy's war". No one doubts that Saddam was a despicable despot, but who made him built him into such a power? History students recall the Party Pacaderm providing him with support in the 80's. Rummy, as the special envoy for the President Reagan, negotiated with Hussein in '83 and '84; even after Saddam conducted a preemptive attack on Iran and used gas on the Iranians and the Kurds. 'On 9 June 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George H.W. Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became, and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted - and frequently encouraged - the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."' (Wikipedia)

  And we didn't know what they had?!

  Tip off Posted June 3, 2008 10:46 AM
• 51489
  

  "..there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11." - excellent point! The money should be taken from DHS, which has only achieved long and demonstrably failure-prone airport security lines. Move the money where it pays off.

  B Reveab Posted May 29, 2008 4:42 PM
• 51295
  

  Your statement that "we" didn't murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis begs the question. Yes, they were murdered by insurgents / Jihadists / Mujahadeen (or whatever you want to call them) precisely BECAUSE we invaded. Saddam was a despot, but Iraq was at least stable under his control. Things are much worse now for most Iraqis than they ever were under Saddam. I would recommend you see a DVD entitled INSIDE IRAQ: THE UNTOLD STORIES. You can order it from Amazon.com. It will give you a true glimpse of the mess we've made.

  As for the statement that we need to stay in Iraq because there are terrorists there: I'm afraid that's a non-sequiter. Yes, there are terrorists in Iraq. There are many more in Pakistan (a place where they have found safe-haven). Most of the 9/11 hijakers were from Saudi Arabia. Most of the strife in Iraq today is between Shia & Sunni tensions, although that's a gross over-simplification. It has nothing to do w/terrorists planning attacks against the U.S. The whole premise for the U.S. invading Iraq has long been discredited (although the Bush administration has constantly tried to alter the impetus for the invasion to fit the facts). As Sun Tzu would say, gerrymandering does not count as a military strategy.

  As for the GDP argument, that's beside the point. We're borrowing billons from China (among other places) to fight this fiasco. It's like a person running up their credit card; eventually, the bill will come due. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying it off. You can try to spin that any way you like, but the fact still remains the same.

  Also, implying that people who disagree w/you are not so well informed as you is nothing more than a cheap, ad-hominum argument. It's far easier to simply say you know mroe than other people about a topic & leave it at that, rather than engage the topic itself.

  DSR

  David Posted May 27, 2008 9:24 AM
• 51238
  

  David, I have to disagree with your thoughtful post, because I interpret these events differently. First, I never said that Iraq had anything directly to do with 9/11, and most people realize that. I also question your statement regarding the number of Iraqis killed since our troops arrived there. Most Iraqis who have died have been murdered by the insurgents, and by the foreign Jihadists who have flocked there to join Al Queda in Iraq. Osama Bin Laden himself has also pointed out the significance of fighting against the U.S. there, which makes Iraq an important battlefield in the War on Terror.

  I try to stay informed on what is happening in the world, and it seems quite apparent to me that the fighting in Iraq is simply another front in the War on Terror, which is also being fought simultaneously in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and other places as well. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we declared war on the Japanese Empire. When Hitler and Mussolini subsequently declared war on us because of their alliance with Japan, we fought them as well. Both World War 2 and the Global War on Terror were fought against multiple enemies on multiple fronts. And thanks, George, for the information on how much of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is being spent on this war, as compared to World War 2. There is a lot of misinformation and partisanship involved in this important issue, and I'm sure many people are unaware of important facts like this.

  9/11 Survivor Posted May 23, 2008 5:19 PM
• 51146
  

  Those who argue that the Iraq war is not a "fiasco" because we have not been attacked are simply missing the point. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Cheney is about the only one left who is still trying (unsuccessfully) to convince people that it was. No question Saddam was a despot and deserved what was coming to him. Problem is, things have been much WORSE in Iraq than when he was in power. He murdered tens of thousands of people, but hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered since we destabilized the country. Iran has grown stronger and more influential in the reason as it no longer has Iraq as a counter-balance.

  Afghanistan, on the other hand, is a different story. I don't know anyone who says that invading Afghanistan was a bad idea. They DID attack us on 9/11 (by "they" I mean the terrorists located there). By all means, we need to stabilize Afghanistan.

  Lumping the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns together is quite simply a misnomer. Saddam was an awful person, but he wasn't worth the hundreds of billions of $$ it has taken to knock him off his perch. The chaos of Iraq has weakened, not strengthened both our repuation and influence in the region.

  David Posted May 22, 2008 12:03 PM
• 51099
  

  I strongly endorse MAJ Bowman. I am not in the Armed Services and am proud of those who are. I would rather have my tax dollars go to the young men and women serving our country than to pay for all the special interest groups/people who won't take care of themselves.

  RED58 Posted May 22, 2008 7:01 AM
• 51085
  

  Maj Bowman states "Do not hold the the US Service Member responsible for accomplishing the job ordered by the civilian Leadership" why shouldn't we, it's your job? I'm a retired Marine and I know that military officers must "solemnly swear (or affirm) that "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." If you think you dont have to support the constitution which gave us a bicameral system of government you should get out, we don't want or need you. I served from the 60's to the 90's so quit your whinning and be happy you are serving in a time when you have a significantly higher standard of living than any military person has ever enjoyed throughout our country's history.

  John W Posted May 21, 2008 6:34 PM
• 51074
  

  Thanks to this "fiasco", there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. How do you put a price tag on our national security? We have killed and captured many terrorists, including many of their top leaders, removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, made Bin Laden a fugitive who hides in a cave, removed Saddam Hussein and his murderous Baath Party from power in Iraq, supported other nations in the fight against terrorism, and in general have made this nation and the world safer as a result of our actions. Does it cost money to fight a war? Of course, but you can't do this cheaply. Have mistakes been made, and could things have been done better? Sure, but hindsight is always 20/20. The bottom line is this - like most things in life, you get what you pay for!

  9/11 Survivor Posted May 21, 2008 3:00 PM
• 51072
  

  I find it amazing that DOD personnel again have to worry about a furlough.For 18 years I worked in DOD services and no one works harder than the people there. Civilians are as mission driven as the military, 24/7. Now with an election coming up, our military and those supporting them have to worry, and suffer because of political enfighting. Where would our country be if we did not have our military and civilians doing their best to keep our country free? Can't we put politics aside and needs first? Just So Sad

  Just So Sad Posted May 21, 2008 1:49 PM
• 51066
  

  Sir(s) and Ma'am(s),

  Apologies as I do not have exact #s, but I recall reading (possibly an AFA Magazine) that a comparison of war spending of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during WWII and GWOT were/are APPROXIMATELY as follows:

  WWII - approx. 47% GWOT - approx. 8% (only 3 or 4 % going towards Iraq/Afghan)

  These #s should speak loudly to our failure to appropriate appropiately!

  R, GEORGE ALVARADO Jr.

  GEORGE ALVARADO Jr. Posted May 21, 2008 12:46 PM
• 51064
  

  Stop sending $2.3 billion dollars(or more) every year to Israel. It's just that simple.

  Mike Posted May 21, 2008 12:29 PM
• 51045
  

  Why don't the oil companies in Iraq start funding more of the bill?

  SA Posted May 21, 2008 10:40 AM
• 51044
  

  This isn't a surprise, Pelosi and Reid promised change and for them this is change. Instead of doing their job we have hearing after hearing over nonsense. The Constitution requires that we provide for the National Defense, not extend unemployment benefits, added benefits for illegals or pay peoples mortgages. If congress is unable to perform its duties than Bush has no other remedy than to start furloughing the feather merchants who provide minimal support to the troops. The solution would be to contract out all CS functions in DOD and then I won't have to read all the whining over NSPS

  Dan ketter Posted May 21, 2008 10:33 AM
• 51043
  

  Marie, I fully disagree with you.

  I am a civilian working for the AF (15 yrs) and I know for a fact that AF troops are deployed and have been deployed for about 1 year or if extended then at the end of that extenstion.

  Some of the folks I was working with were right there on the road with the Marines and Army troops on the way to Bagdad.

  The AF does have a part to play in this war Marie, they support the Army and Marines by flying supplies, troops and equipement to them as well as support from the air. They are also keeping all those planes and jets in working order so the support will continue. You may not think the AF has any role Marie, but they are doing as much as the rest of our military servies are.

  DoD Civ Posted May 21, 2008 10:26 AM
• 51034
  

  When is this administration going to concede that this failed effort MUST BE ENDED. We are no closer to achieving "mission accomplished" than we were back in 2003, when this fiasco started. If the services require more funding, then a good first step would be for George, Dick and the other elected officials who voted for this fiasco should donate their current and all future salaries, until the war bill has been paid in full. The current problems that this country is facing all revolve around our failed effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are spending the future of current taxpayers, our children and our childrens children, and will have NOTHING worthwhile to show in the years ahead. I work for a defense contract administration agency, and I am seeing billions of dollars being spent for duplicative weapons systems that are not needed, nor will provide any advanced protection against terrorists or similar threats--but are being purchased to continue the support of the military industrial complex. I have a few more years left before I will be able to retire, and once I can, I plan to move my family out of this country. I do not like the path this country has taken the past 8 years, and I do not see any change coming anytime soon.

  JD Posted May 21, 2008 8:25 AM
• 51029
  

  Once again, "November political fever" is putting in jeopardy miltary readiness. It's unfortunate but true that Congress' concern if far more focused on 11/4/08 than on the needs of our troops. The principal "usual suspects" again are Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, who see no problem in whipsawing the military if it can be seen as squeezing out a drop of political advantage. A sad but not unsurprising commentary.

  jeremiah Posted May 21, 2008 8:06 AM
• 51027
  

  Here we go again with "...furlough civilians..." How the worker bees hostage.

  Let me suggest that DOD junk the NSPS right now. Stop pouring hundreds of millions down a rat hole that the next administration will junk.

  Wise Old Owl Posted May 21, 2008 8:02 AM
• 51026
  

  This is the perfect time for DOD and Congress to move the Air Force back under the Army and give the Army member much needed rest. You have 300,000 members under contract (Active Duty) with the Air Force that could be trained in about 3 months to deploy to war zones. This would do many things for the Army out right...give much needed funds, provide the much needed relief to soliders that have been deployed 2 and 3 times in 5 years for up to 17 months at a time..most Air Force member have never been deployed and the few that have; have never been deployed longer than a few short months....what a manpower pool!!!!!! After all the Air Force has little to no war mission at this point so help the Army soliders out and give them the relief they need!!!!

  Marie Posted May 21, 2008 7:34 AM
• 51021
  

  Sometimes the Bush administration doesn't get and some times the Congress doesn't get it. Our defense spending isn't an open checkbook. In fact, the war in Iraq has led to major deficit spending. Congress keeps telling "W" no and then promptly passes another war spending augment. Maybe this time, when Congress shot down the war spending authorization recently, "W" got the message. Now comes the threat of furloghing civilian employees, not paying the troops, etc. We'll see whether or not Congress falls for the same old tired lines.

  Ken Hjerpe Posted May 21, 2008 7:12 AM
• 51015
  

  While I understand the need for Public review and oversight, as usual, the non-political US Service Member will pay the price for a Bureaucracy that leaves them hanging on the sharp end with out the ability to adjust policy themselves. Not supporting the Defense budget only hurts us all. Whether the Public wants US Service Members deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan or not, they are. The Public has the duty and responsibility to support the US Service Member while holding the elected politicians tasked with guiding our country on our behalf responsible for their actions. Do not hold the the US Service Member responsible for accomplishing the job ordered by the civilian Leadership, (the aforementioned bureaucracy and politicians). Hold the Leadership responsible to act appropriately in a timely fashion instead of padding Bills w/ pork barrel projects leasing gas guzzling cars on our tax dollars and making sure they receive their vacation time. We all all have a responsibility. The US Service Member to follow the orders of the duly elected Government, the Leadership to employ and fund the military appropriately, and the Public to properly elect the best leadership we can to make this great Nation greater.

  MAJ W J Bowman, US Army Posted May 20, 2008 11:06 PM