Despite the fact that we are still fighting two wars, even many Republicans (especially some of the new Tea Party members) in Congress seem ready to contemplate serious cuts to the defense budget. That means the armed services are almost certainly going to have to make do in the future with even fewer resources than they have in the past few years. And that is going to put even more of a burden on our solders, sailors, airmen, and marines, who have already been pressed to the breaking point by the need to have so many of them deployed overseas.
While the media generally approaches this problem from the standpoint of a human-interest story and the terrible problems of service personnel and their families, there is another angle to this dilemma that may have an even worse impact on national security: the deployment of individuals to war zones who have no business being anywhere near the enemy or sensitive information and equipment. That appears to be the case with the infamous Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier believed to be responsible for the leak of hundreds of thousands of sensitive reports and diplomatic cables to the WikiLeaks organization.
According to a report in McClatchy newspapers, Manning’s supervisor warned higher-ups that the soldier had demonstrated unstable behavior and ought not to be sent to Iraq, where his job would put him in contact with classified material. While the ensuing screw-up saw a few different officers punt on the question because they thought someone else would address it, it appears that the main factor that lead Manning to be sent to Iraq where he would be in position to create the largest single security breach in American history was that the Army was short of qualified personnel. According to the McClatchy story:
The findings in the Manning investigation likely will renew concerns that commanders once again refused to address signs of a troubled soldier because they needed his skills to deploy a fully staffed unit to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Time magazine’s Swampland blog treats this as yet another example of how people who are potentially disturbed are being sent to war and speculates that it “kind of makes you wonder what other surprises await us, either overseas or when these folks return.”
But, as Swampland puts it, the need “for bodies on the front lines” is not just a matter of mean or stupid military officials exploiting or mistreating poor, downtrodden privates. Rather, it is a question of how the armed services have increasingly become starved for resources and personnel even as we ask them to fight the war on Islamist terror in two countries as well as to perform humanitarian, peacekeeping, and other non-military missions.
The price for budget cuts isn’t just paid in unneeded Army or Air Force bases or superfluous high-tech weapons that cost more than we ever thought they would (though we probably have more than a few of both of those kinds of boondoggles). Defense budget cuts primarily affect the ordinary Army, Navy, and Air Force members who are forced to do more for longer periods with even less help. And it also could sometime mean that unqualified people or those who ought never to be put in harm’s way or near an important document are going to get shuffled into those posts. Bradley Manning’s personnel file isn’t just a scandal that will probably get some middle-level officer cashiered. It’s a standing argument against draconian defense cuts.
Obama owes Caroline and Ted. Caroline will slob Obamas political knob and get a couple extra billion for NY, which is a good thing. That dog Andrew Cuomo lose’s out as well. Additionaly, it causes diversion within the NY democratic machine. Heck, its only for two years. Can’t wait to see the re-election fiasco. My (downstate) NY is a nepotistic bastion of liberal democrats and it aint gonna change anytime soon.
Paterson had an answer, it seems to me. It was to announce that he intended to appoint a placeholder who would commit to not running for the office in the 2010 special election. The state is harmed enough by having a governor who began in office as not having been truly elected and a comptroller who was elected by the state legislature after his predecessor was forced to leave office after being convicted of stealing state money.
In my view, Andy would do himself a favor by announcing that he recognizes that he is the only statewide official in state office who has actually been elected by the people and will remain in that position for that reason.
The entire notion of Caroline as Senator is offensive to me but, frankly, once the Dems decided to anoint as their senate candidate the spouse of a soon to be ex-president, they can hardly complain that Caroline’s victory in the DNA lottery is not an appropriate qualification for coronation and elevation to a NY Senate seat.
Hillary was anointed? Are you nuts?
Yes, she entered the race in 2000 holding all the high cards. But she was willing to face voters after spending the previous 8 years as the most hated presidential wife since Eleanor Roosevelt.
Dislike Hillary all you want but stop claiming she lacks ability and willingness to work hard. She clearly isn’t in Bill’s league as a politician, but who, besides Obama, is?
Caroline certainly isn’t. There’s no evidence she has any political chops whatsoever. As evidenced by her bungled answer to the question whether she would support a Democrat running against Bloomberg.
I like her but I don’t want her to be given a Senate seat. It’s finally disrespectful of our deepest, most profound political values. She comes into the game holding all the high cards. Make her play them to get that Senate seat. In other words, Caroline needs to put herself out in front of voters and get their support.
The most qualified candidate is Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton has problems with honesty and morality, which ought to matter to us.
I agree that Paterson’s continued delay doesn’t make him look good. Is there any reason why he should delay? I’m sure there are several highly qualified public servants who could properly represent New York in the Senate. Right now Kennedy isn’t one of them.
But can he appoint a replacement before Clinton is confirmed? Just curious, since I don’t know the law in this regard. Technically, Clinton is still the second Senator from New York until the Senate at large confirms her for SecState, right?
I don’t like Hillary, I think she was a carpetbagger, but she deserves credit for taking her case to the voting public. If Caroline really wants to be a Senator, she should mount a primary challenge to whoever Paterson appoints. The voters might decide nepotism is okay with them, but that’s where the decision should lie.
Sorry to break it to you, Cssh, but Hilary was indeed anointed as the Dem candidate. You may recall that Nita Lowey was the expected candidate and she stepped aside when Hilary decided to run. There was no Dem primary. I call that anointing as the Dem candidate.
By the way, not real tough in NY State for a Dem; they outnumber Republicans by 5 to 3.
Naturally, Kennedy’s nepotistic line cutting has outraged non-Camelot contenders for the open Senate seat – including those whose claims to the seat are only slightly less nepotistic (see Cuomo, Andrew). But even Democrats who seem wholly uninterested in the appointment are starting to questionnice blog
Regards
Timothy
http://amc-exam.com
Kennedy’s ultimate contribution to the party.