What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

President Trump's first 100 days...latest policy proposals in first post (1 Viewer)

Sand said:
Now Saints, you know as well as I do "shovel ready" was a fantasy.  As was "jobs created".  As was "green jobs."  

I'm gonna stop there.  I could keep going all night.
Click to expand...
I have a question for you Sand - if the GOP isn't conservative what are they then? A Democrat could play this nationalist / spending for popularity game as well and maybe better.

 
There is another possibility. And that is that Trump is only threatening tariffs, and that before they go into effect Mexico and/or China, fearing the effects on their economies, will give Trump trade concessions, some real, most for show. Then Trump can call it a victory.

This result will, I imagine, make Trump's popularity go way up and vindicate him to his followers. But I'd be willing to take that over the actual effects of tariffs.

 
timschochet said:
There is another possibility. And that is that Trump is only threatening tariffs, and that before they go into effect Mexico and/or China, fearing the effects on their economies, will give Trump trade concessions, some real, most for show. Then Trump can call it a victory.

This result will, I imagine, make Trump's popularity go way up and vindicate him to his followers. But I'd be willing to take that over the actual effects of tariffs.
Click to expand...
This sounds like 1st year FF owners who think a 3-1 trade offer for Antonio Brown is really clever.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
IMO yes, that's what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Got ya...thanks.

Actually, I replied to one of you other posts earlier this week (don't know where or when) about Trump's Russian goals...something about Harry Potter and Trump playing the role of Snape.  Well, it was mainly sarcasm, but I have long believed that he was just the kind of person who would be special  enough to actually think that way....make sense?

And Tim's theory falls into the same category imo.

If any of this is true, the question then becomes; is DJT a special enough genius to pull it off?  I know I'm way out there on this, but man...what a story if true!  

HA! Contemplate the absurdity at ones own risk! ;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
Got ya...thanks.

Actually, I replied to one of you other posts earlier this week (don't know where or when) about Trump's Russian goals...something about Harry Potter and Trump playing the role of Snape.  Well, it was mainly sarcasm, but I have long believed that he was just the kind of person who would be special  enough to actually think that way....make sense?

And Tim's theory falls into the same category imo.

If any of this is true, the question then becomes; is DJT a special enough genius to pull it off?  I know I'm way out there on this, but man...what a story if true!  

HA! Contempt the absurdity at ones own risk! ;)
Click to expand...
Ha yaknow I've been trying to figure out that post ever since I read it... makes more sense now.

I guess we all think dumb trades are dumb until someone takes it... then you think damn I can't believe he took it... then you start to wonder if the offer was dumb on your part because why the hell did he take it.

In reality this is a little like the Russia situation with Trump & his supporters. What are they really gunning for? What are we going to get? 

Seriously for 50 years we tried to drive China out of imperialism, then we spent 50 years to push China out of communism, now we've spent 20 years to push China into global trade agreements and give us access to their markets.... and they're finally almost there. So say he pulls it off - ok what do we get?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ha yaknow I've been trying to figure out that post ever since I read it... makes more sense now.

I guess we all think dumb trades are dumb until someone takes it... then you think damn I can't believe he took it... thenbyou start to wonder if the offer was dumb on your part.

In reality this is a little like the Russia situation with Trump & his supporters. What are they really gunning for? What are we going to get? 

Seriously for 50 years we tried to drive China out of imperialism, then we spent 50 years to push China out of communism, now we've spent 20 years to push China into global trade agreements and give us access to their markets.... and they're finally almost there.
Click to expand...
Amen.

I know that I am a loon in many ways, but all this potential Mind F##k going on lately has my spidey sense tingling.

Or...maybe I just need to adjust my meds.  

<checking dosage now>

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just need to add one other thing:

If DJT is a supra-genius, my bet would be that it is in the Mink F##k arena.

EDIT: LOL...that's one typo I won't be changing...do the math. ;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So say he pulls it off - ok what do we get?
Click to expand...
I just now noticed your edit add-on here.

I haven't spent a lot of time thinking on it yet, but it's such a great question...and it is Friday night...you caught me. However, it will be in note form.  

1) China is now appearing to step up as world leader in speaking in favor of the open/free trade agenda.  Seriously?  Wow!

2) Trump will take/make whatever he can for the country, but it still hinges so heavily on his brand.  This would up his brand...if successful...bigly.

3) It will show not only his supporters, but more importantly his detractors, that he does have action. 

4) Politically, it would hurt the dems.

5) In regards to Russia, I see it more as a long play (if our imaginary scenario has legs).  He probably has no specific gain in mind (other than brand), but trusts his ability to make it work for the USA.

6) In regards to the European Union/NATO, SCARE THE SH#T out of them.  Why?  Because he can, and he thinks he can turn it to his/our favor.  DJT has never been adverse to risk/reward ratios that others avoid.

7) You tell me if you see anything...I'm not an expert (or even novice) in many of the things you provide here.  I need to learn more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are so many Trump threads I'm not sure where we are supposed to talk about policies, but this seems like the one for that. So it looks like he has done three things today:

  1. Signed order withdrawing US from TPP - This was already criticized by John McCain. Its so weird and disappointing to me - Republicans against free trade. Frustrating.
  2. Freeze on federal hiring - I read where a previous study found that a hiring freeze was generally disruptive and lowered efficiency and increased costs. I think that makes sense. I understand wanting to lower costs and become more efficient - but a blanket hiring freeze doesn't seem to accomplish those goals.
  3. Reinstate "global gag rule" - A ban on funding any international organization that provide or promote abortions. This is extremely frustrating to me and will undoubtedly have a negative effect.


I think 1 and 3 are clear negatives for the US and the world. And 2 probably is - but I'd like to see more evidence.

 
whoknew said:
There are so many Trump threads I'm not sure where we are supposed to talk about policies, but this seems like the one for that. So it looks like he has done three things today:

  1. Signed order withdrawing US from TPP - This was already criticized by John McCain. Its so weird and disappointing to me - Republicans against free trade. Frustrating.
  2. Freeze on federal hiring - I read where a previous study found that a hiring freeze was generally disruptive and lowered efficiency and increased costs. I think that makes sense. I understand wanting to lower costs and become more efficient - but a blanket hiring freeze doesn't seem to accomplish those goals.
  3. Reinstate "global gag rule" - A ban on funding any international organization that provide or promote abortions. This is extremely frustrating to me and will undoubtedly have a negative effect.


I think 1 and 3 are clear negatives for the US and the world. And 2 probably is - but I'd like to see more evidence.
Click to expand...
Here's the study regarding #2.

It's also an odd choice, at least in theory, for someone who hangs his hat on jobs (obviously it makes sense in practice because his base is conservative and conservatives love to scapegoat government employees).  A hiring freeze is benign in the sense that nobody gets canned without cause, but ultimately it means fewer jobs.  Those are jobs just like any others, jobs that could have helped someone get out of poverty or pay their mortgage or whatever.

And before anyone tries to say that public sector jobs are different than private sector jobs because taxpayers aren't footing the bill ... pretty much any measure taken by the federal government to create jobs results in US citizens are footing the bill.  Legislation funding new infrastructure?  Taxpayers foot the bill, obviously. Tariffs or other restrictions designed to boost manufacturing jobs?  Consumers pay the bill in the form of higher prices.  Even reducing health and safety regulations to encourage private sector activity transfers certain costs to those who get hurt or sick due to the less stringent requirements.  The Clean Air Act and accompanying regs may have resulted in some lost jobs (eg in coal country), but they've also saved lives and saved Americans $22 trillion in health care costs as of 2012.

Anyway, rant over.  Carry on.

 
I'd add that a hiring freeze is a pretty terrible strategy if you think, as a lot of folks seem to, that the current federal employees are crappy.  Bad government employees don't get fired if there's no way to replace them.

 
whoknew said:
There are so many Trump threads I'm not sure where we are supposed to talk about policies, but this seems like the one for that. So it looks like he has done three things today:

  1. Signed order withdrawing US from TPP - This was already criticized by John McCain. Its so weird and disappointing to me - Republicans against free trade. Frustrating.
  2. Freeze on federal hiring - I read where a previous study found that a hiring freeze was generally disruptive and lowered efficiency and increased costs. I think that makes sense. I understand wanting to lower costs and become more efficient - but a blanket hiring freeze doesn't seem to accomplish those goals.
  3. Reinstate "global gag rule" - A ban on funding any international organization that provide or promote abortions. This is extremely frustrating to me and will undoubtedly have a negative effect.


I think 1 and 3 are clear negatives for the US and the world. And 2 probably is - but I'd like to see more evidence.
Click to expand...
1 was mostly a symbolic move stating his intention to leave it. To some extent, who cares. Wake me when he takes real steps. 

2 interesting study. Thanks to you and Tobias for that. It seems at least possible a nuanced freeze could be effective. Trump and nuance are oil and water but it at least seems plausible to take the spirit of a freeze and make it effective. 

3 I disagree with Trump but this is SOP for Republicans these days. If Hillary didn't win it was dying. When a Democrat wins the white house it'll come back. Just as it has with Clinton Bush Obama. 

 
Hilts said:
2 interesting study. Thanks to you and Tobias for that. It seems at least possible a nuanced freeze could be effective. Trump and nuance are oil and water but it at least seems plausible to take the spirit of a freeze and make it effective. 
Click to expand...
How is that a conclusion from these findings?

"Government-wide hiring freezes, regardless of how well they are managed, are not an effective means of controlling federal employment. The government-wide hiring freezes had little effect on federal employment levels and it is not known whether they saved money. Because they ignored individual agencies' missions, workload, and staffing requirement, these freezes disrupted agency operations and, in some cases, increased costs to the government. Since these hiring freezes disregarded agency workload requirements and did not cover all personnel resources used by the government, they created an incentive for managers to use alternative sources of labor. Any potential savings produced by these freezes would be partially or completely offset by increasing overtime, contracting with private firms, or using other than full-time permanent employees. Decreased debt and revenue collections also occurred as a result of hiring freezes. Government-wide hiring freezes bear no relationship to the workload that agencies are responsible for carrying out. However, GAO recognizes that there may be unique circumstances which may be beyond an individual agency's control. GAO believes employment reduction should be targeted where it can best be absorbed. Improved workforce planning and use of the budget as a control on employment, rather than arbitrary across-the-board hiring freezes, is a more effective way to insure that the level of personnel resources is consistent with program requirements."

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
How is that a conclusion from these findings?

"Government-wide hiring freezes, regardless of how well they are managed, are not an effective means of controlling federal employment. The government-wide hiring freezes had little effect on federal employment levels and it is not known whether they saved money. Because they ignored individual agencies' missions, workload, and staffing requirement, these freezes disrupted agency operations and, in some cases, increased costs to the government. Since these hiring freezes disregarded agency workload requirements and did not cover all personnel resources used by the government, they created an incentive for managers to use alternative sources of labor. Any potential savings produced by these freezes would be partially or completely offset by increasing overtime, contracting with private firms, or using other than full-time permanent employees. Decreased debt and revenue collections also occurred as a result of hiring freezes. Government-wide hiring freezes bear no relationship to the workload that agencies are responsible for carrying out. However, GAO recognizes that there may be unique circumstances which may be beyond an individual agency's control. GAO believes employment reduction should be targeted where it can best be absorbed. Improved workforce planning and use of the budget as a control on employment, rather than arbitrary across-the-board hiring freezes, is a more effective way to insure that the level of personnel resources is consistent with program requirements."
Click to expand...
I meant if they were not necessarily government wide and ignored various agency specifics. Across the board freezes I agree are dumb. Targeting specific agencies with nuance seems at least plausible. 

 
I guess the hiring freeze doesn't apply to all the federal employees that the Trump administration is trying to hire?

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
1) China is now appearing to step up as world leader in speaking in favor of the open/free trade agenda.  Seriously?  Wow!
Click to expand...
Just a follow up on this single point.

It was hardly maybe never discussed in the TPP public debates or in the campaigns... but I think this was always one of the big factors in the runup to creating the TPP, and really I think our leaders on both sides were afraid to discuss this aspect. I always had my own reservations about the TPP - the lack of debate, free speech, IP, honesty about what jobs would be lost and how many - but geopolitically there is now potentially immediately a void in global leadership and influence in trade. China may just rush in. Being a protectionist globally could make us the US a 'bad guy' all of a sudden.

eta - Note, being 'protectionist' is its own thing, it's not the same thing as opposing TPP, that's just an added layer that Trump brings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slight side note. Hillary losing to this guy is so bad. Never show your face again in the political arena, you aren't good at it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Here's the study regarding #2.

It's also an odd choice, at least in theory, for someone who hangs his hat on jobs (obviously it makes sense in practice because his base is conservative and conservatives love to scapegoat government employees).  A hiring freeze is benign in the sense that nobody gets canned without cause, but ultimately it means fewer jobs.  Those are jobs just like any others, jobs that could have helped someone get out of poverty or pay their mortgage or whatever.

And before anyone tries to say that public sector jobs are different than private sector jobs because taxpayers aren't footing the bill ... pretty much any measure taken by the federal government to create jobs results in US citizens are footing the bill.  Legislation funding new infrastructure?  Taxpayers foot the bill, obviously. Tariffs or other restrictions designed to boost manufacturing jobs?  Consumers pay the bill in the form of higher prices.  Even reducing health and safety regulations to encourage private sector activity transfers certain costs to those who get hurt or sick due to the less stringent requirements.  The Clean Air Act and accompanying regs may have resulted in some lost jobs (eg in coal country), but they've also saved lives and saved Americans $22 trillion in health care costs as of 2012.

Anyway, rant over.  Carry on.
Click to expand...
(eta - admitted segue here...) - Tobias, I can't find it but IIRC you had (I thought) a great post talking about why Trump doesn't visit other agencies like he did the CIA.

And you also had (I thought) another great post about the band of Juche-style clappers and hooters at the CIA event.

And I would think ordinarily it would be great to have a president come and visit my agency at the beginning of a term, to welcome, to show off, to make plans, to cement good will... but under these circumstances - hiring freeze, Juche band in tow - I'd be scared shtless if I did not clap and cheer, or if my team in attendance did not, for fear he might resent it if they did not. I'd probably hate the visit and feel a ton of pressure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
(eta - admitted segue here...) - Tobias, I can't find it but IIRC you had (I thought) a great post talking about why Trump doesn't visit other agencies like he did the CIA.

And you also had (I thought) another great post about the band of Juche-style clappers and hooters at the CIA event.

And I would think ordinarily it would be great to have a president come and visit my agency at the beginning of a term, to welcome, to show off, to make plans, to cement good will... but under these circumstances - hiring freeze, Juche band in tow - I'd be scared shtless if I did not clap and cheer, or if my team in attendance did not, for fear he might resent it if they did not. I'd probably hate the visit and feel a ton of pressure.
Click to expand...
Don't think that was me, GB.  Sounds like someone smarter.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just a follow up on this single point.

It was hardly maybe never discussed in the TPP public debates or in the campaigns... but I think this was always one of the big factors in the runup to creating the TPP, and really I think our leaders on both sides were afraid to discuss this aspect. I always had my own reservations about the TPP - the lack of debate, free speech, IP, honesty about what jobs would be lost and how many - but geopolitically there is now potentially immediately a void in global leadership and influence in trade. China may just rush in. Being a protectionist globally could make us the US a 'bad guy' all of a sudden.

eta - Note, being 'protectionist' is its own thing, it's not the same thing as opposing TPP, that's just an added layer that Trump brings.
Click to expand...
I agree with the above, and I want to note, that I listed this as a positive IF DJT was/is  playing super deep mind games in order to draw China into this role intentionally, thus setting up his next supra-genius move.

If DJT is not playing this game (the more likely scenario imo), then this could be trouble.

Great analysis SID. Thanks.

Now, I am going to put my tin hat back on & wait for Darth Trumpious to make his move. ;)

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
I agree with the above, and I want to note, that I listed this as a positive IF DJT was/is  playing super deep mind games in order to draw China into this role intentionally, thus setting up his next supra-genius move.

If DJT is not playing this game (the more likely scenario imo), then this could be trouble.

Great analysis SID. Thanks.

Now, I am going to put my tin hat back on & wait for Darth Trumpious to make his move. ;)
Click to expand...
I was listening to Spicer's press conference and he said that (I'm paraphrasing) Trump doesn't like multilateral trade agreements because they give everyone the same bargaining power. And while he does not want the US to be part of the TPP, he plans to negotiate individual trade deals with the 11 other countries that are a part of the TPP. He did not say when these negotiations will begin.

That seems like a lot of individual negotiating but who knows? I guess we shall see.

 
whoknew said:
I was listening to Spicer's press conference and he said that (I'm paraphrasing) Trump doesn't like multilateral trade agreements because they give everyone the same bargaining power. And while he does not want the US to be part of the TPP, he plans to negotiate individual trade deals with the 11 other countries that are a part of the TPP. He did not say when these negotiations will begin.

That seems like a lot of individual negotiating but who knows? I guess we shall see.
Click to expand...
Ahhh. THANKS!

I see a clearer path now. Just got home from work, still catching up on the new motions in plates.

 
World leaders from Australia and Japan are "signing up" with China now. Would have preferred to sign up with the U.S., but we walked away. 

You all realize that all of the concessions in the deal were made by China, Japan and the Asian countries to open their markets, right? Our markets are already open. : :wall:

 
bigbottom said:
I guess the hiring freeze doesn't apply to all the federal employees that the Trump administration is trying to hire?
Click to expand...
Yeah he's targeting the working man here.  What is dangerous is that 80% of federal employees live outside the greater DC area and the majority of them vote Republican.  Another thing is that about 2/3 of all federal employees work in either defense or public safety, so it will be interesting to see how he handles that with his declaration that we are going to wipe out both ISIS and gangs.

By 2018 30% of all current feds will be retirement eligible, meaning there is some room for attrition and cutting the fat.  I'm for that and also for making it easier to fire a federal worker which can be arduous with only the most dedicated supervisors taking the required steps.  Absolutely no cuts to the benefits should be tolerated however, the retirement system is funded through 2075 and with the new influx of employees paying more into the system, they are saying you can add on 3 years of solvency for every year that passes. 

Another thing about all this is that if they hold the hiring freeze and it they start cutting manpower budgets, operational government is going to have to still accomplish their mission.  So how is that done?  Through contracts.  Who benefits from contracts?  Lobbyists, contract business owners, and politicians.  Who doesn't?  The taxpayer because a contract employee almost always costs more to the taxpayer, sometimes the person doing the contract work (because they are getting say 60% of what the contract pays and their benefits are sometimes shaky), and the agencies who have to do missions without key personnel. 

Hiring freezes are nothing new, Obama had them also.  So did Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc.  I think it is prudent for a new president to do it in his first few weeks to get the lay of the land while he prepares his budget.  Then they send out budget, cut into the agencies that need cutting (instead of a sequester which does not work) and then those agencies need to cut as needed.  The agency will come back and say they can only do one of X, Y, and Z and then the cabinet level appointee needs to make recommendations to the president and Congress. 

I'm for cuts to programs, excess, and fat but the federal government is not like running IBM.  It isn't, wasn't, and never will be and he will figure that out quick.  He does have two Bush and one Clinton personnel manager to run this though so they probably should have some sense. 

 
And just for example here are some states with a lot of federal employees:

Texas 200k

Florida 130k

Georgia 100k

Pennsylvania 96k

Ohio 75k

Arizona 60k

New Mexico 35k

And those employees have families too.  Start cutting benefits to fund your walls, and it's gonna be a ####storm.  And I'm not talking about unions either. 

 
Mattis speaks with NATO chief, highlighting importance of alliance

U.S Secretary of Defense James Mattis, on his first full day in office, spoke with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to highlight the importance he places on the military alliance, a Pentagon spokesman said on Monday.

President Donald Trump has said that while the military alliance was still very important to him, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was nonetheless obsolete because it had not defended against terror attacks.

Trump added in a recent interview with The Times of London that many NATO members were not paying their fair share for U.S. protection.

"The two leaders discussed the importance of our shared values, and the secretary emphasized that when looking for allies to help defend these values, the United States always starts with Europe," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in a statement regarding the call.

"Both pledged to consult in the months to come and look forward to meeting in person during the NATO Defense Ministerial in February," Davis said.

The Pentagon said Mattis also spoke with his counterparts from Britain and Canada.
Click to expand...
These two links seem important to the bold: 

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77646.htm

http://observer.com/2017/01/donald-trump-intelligence-community-kremlin-spy-alliance/

Mattis understands how important NATO is, so hopefully he can persuade the President of its importance. 

FYI, link to NATO report: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

The 2016 numbers are estimates, but if the estimates hold true, that means that US, Greece, UK, Estonia, and Poland all made the 2% defense spending mark. Estonia pulling it's own weight is one of the many reasons why I was disturbed by Newt Gingrich's comments a couple months ago about "Estonia being in the suburbs of St. Petersburg." Perhaps he just worded it wrong, I don't know, but I thought that was a poor comment to make. 

These comments by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates back in June of 2011 almost seem prophetic at this stage: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/europe/11gates.html

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates bluntly criticized NATO nations on Friday for what he said were shortages in military spending and political will, warning of “a dim if not dismal future” unless more member nations scaled up their participation in the alliance’s activities.

NATO has struggled for a generation to define its place in a post-cold war world, and its member nations have frequently quarreled about the scope of the alliance’s commitments and their individual responsibilities.

With little indication of any change in policy among the more reluctant member nations — notably Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Turkey — Mr. Gates’s harsh words seemed likely to increase pressure on an alliance already deeply strained by differences over sharing the burden in Libya and Afghanistan.

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Gates issued a dire warning that the United States, the traditional leader and bankroller of the alliance, is exhausted by a decade of war and and its own mounting budget deficits, and simply may not see NATO as worth supporting any longer.

“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” Mr. Gates said.

Mr. Gates complained of what he called a “two-tiered” membership structure, “between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership but don’t want to share the risks and the costs.” He added that some NATO partners are “apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.”

He criticized NATO nations for failing to meet their commitments in Afghanistan — or for imposing sweeping restrictions on those forces they do send — which he said hobbled the effort.

And despite NATO’s decision to take command of the air war in Libya, the alliance is running out of bombs after just 11 weeks, he said. The operation would fall apart without a continued large infusion of American support, Mr. Gates added, since other NATO nations have not invested in the weapons required to carry out lengthy combat operations.

While Mr. Gates made his case Friday in strong language, his complaints were not entirely new. Last year he warned of the dangers of the “demilitarization of Europe,” and there are long-standing American frustrations at the discrepancy of military capabilities and spending on the two sides of the Atlantic.

That theme has been echoed by NATO’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has called on European allies to spend more on “smart defense” by pooling resources and cooperating more effectively.

“There is clearly a longstanding concern about the transatlantic gap in defense,” said Oana Lungescu, NATO spokesman when asked Friday about Mr. Gates’s comments. “There is a risk that European allies may fall further behind in terms of technological development because of low levels of defense spending.”

Mr. Gates has spent his final weeks before retirement speaking forthrightly on issues that ranged from preserving Pentagon spending to sustaining combat forces in Afghanistan. But his address on Friday to the Security and Defense Agenda, a Brussels policy center, was among the most pointed and challenging ever delivered by the former C.I.A. director who has served eight presidents of both political parties.

Despite signs of real progress in Afghanistan, the mission has been weakened by “the inability of many allies to meet agreed upon commitments,” Mr. Gates said. The war effort also has been hobbled by “national ‘caveats’ that tied the hands of allied commanders in sometimes infuriating ways,” he added.

The defense secretary was even harsher in his critique of NATO’s command of the Libya operation. After an initial bombing campaign run by the Americans, the alliance took over the air war and Mr. Gates warned that NATO may not be up to the task.

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” Mr. Gates said.

While the Libya war was unanimously endorsed by NATO nations, less than half are participating, and less than a third are carrying out strike missions.

“Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t,” Mr. Gates said. “The military capabilities simply aren’t there.”

The Libya operation has proven the alliance is desperately short of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as aerial refueling planes — all are crucial to modern combat. The United States still is supplying the largest share of all of those to the NATO effort, even thought it pulled most of its strike aircraft out of the operation.

Mr. Gates said the problem has been lack of military investment on the part of too many NATO nations. “For all but a handful of allies, defense budgets — in absolute terms, as a share of economic output — have been chronically starved for adequate funding for a long time, with the shortfalls compounding on themselves each year,” he said.

Mr. Gates did offer a prescription. “Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities — in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment,” he said.
Click to expand...

 
Huh.  Looks like on inauguration night, at the ball, Kellyanne Conway punched some guy in the face a few times.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

playin4beer
Any real estate experts in the house?
Replies
11
Views
450
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
wazoo11
Buying a car for the first time
Replies
14
Views
638
Sullie
Sullie
ChiefD
First Time Sending Kid To College Panic Thread
Replies
21
Views
1K
Brunell4MVP
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top