Sequestration is already hitting. It’s no longer about trimming the fat, but rather about undercutting U.S. national security. I was supposed to head off on the USS Harry S. Truman tomorrow as it began its deployment toward the Persian Gulf. I just received the call now not to bother. From the press down at Hampton Roads, Virginia:
U.S. officials say that budget strains will force the Pentagon to cut its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf area from two carriers to one. As a result, the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman won’t deploy from Norfolk on Friday as planned.
Officials say Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has formally approved a plan to keep just one carrier in the region. There have been two aircraft carrier groups there for most of the last two years.
The expected announcement is the biggest indication yet that looming defense cuts have affected the way the U.S. military operates – an effect that will only grow as the cuts materialize. It was a highly symbolic move with lots of practical consequences for Hampton Roads.
It affects more than 5,000 sailors assigned to the carrier, its air wing and the ships that were to accompany it to the Gulf. Sailors routinely put their cars in storage, give up their apartments and sometimes move their families closer to loved ones while they’re gone. Carrier deployments now last around 8 months, meaning the crew likely planned to be gone until October.
It’s time to put aside the political posturing and have a serious conversation about national security. The implications of the past months’ games are no longer theoretical: They will undercut our strategic position in the region at a time we can least afford to be absent.
Given that the US isn't going to attack Iran, why bother with even 1 carrier in the region?
Gee, something the POTUS and Dems should have considered before their (once again) irrational and emotion-driven agenda led their decisions.
It seems kind of inconsiderate to the sailors to tell them at the last minute that they will not be going. n
This is just political posturing. Really there is no waste at the Pentagon to be cut other than cutting carrier deployments? Don't they have armies of lawyers and people looking to comply with environmental regs? Don't they pay consultants god awful sums of money? Can't they cut civilians employee salaries? They did this to try to make a point that sequestration hurts national security when in fact they are the ones hurting it for their own political posturing.
Right on Max, it's a ploy to force the House to fall in line with the aministration on debt, defict and budget.; Not only is it inconsiderate as Michael said, it puts that single carrier in the position of doing the work of two and doubles its danger of being a target of the bad guys. Panetta is no friend of the military and I don't think Hagel is either. The life of every soldier, sailor and airman is threatened under this group of yahoos.
Don’t they have armies of lawyers and people looking to comply with environmental regs? – It’s called obeying the law
Don’t they pay consultants god awful sums of money? – For example, the USMC (and US Army) employ retired federal special agents and detectives to embed with units in Afghanistan and mentor US forces on the organized crime nexus to insurgency, forensic investigation, etc., including taking part in operations. It is dangerous work and something for which the military does not have a pool of talent. Perhaps Max and Gramps would like to volunteer for this duty?
One can always nitpick but the bottom line is that it’s absurd to have a 50/50 split between cuts for aircraft carrier operations and Department of Education programming on “Heather has two mommies”.
Right on again Max, nIf they can't cut 50 bill out of 600+ bill we should just pack it in anyway.
Reading the article Michael…you have got to be kidding!! This is the same democratic move every governor and mayor pulls. nWe have to lay off cops and fireman and teachers FIRST!! There is no other way to save a dime. n nAnd all the defense expert possuers of course follow the same mantra (dem and GOP). nIt is not going to affect our readiness unless were are lead, and administered by Moes – which is entirely plausible.
So, Mr. Rubin is upset that the nation is not having a serious conversation on national security. Unfortunately, he's wrong about that. n nOur nation did have a serious conversation on national security and it's called the election of 2012. It was then that the candidates laid out their views and Mr. Obama came down squarely against defense while Mr. Romney seemed to support our national defense. Our nation went to the polls and voted back Mr. Obama for another four years. A tragedy, yes. At least to my mind, and I guess Mr. Rubin would agree with me. But we had that discussion and the nation voted for what we have now. There is no greater conversation about government than our elections. n nWe may not like it, we may see the dangers, and we may fear for our friends and allies. But what we need to keep in mind is that the country has spoken and we are at this point because of that decision. n nAnd make no mistake, our nation will have to live with the consequences of the election long after Mr. Obama exits politics for other fortunes. Our nation will suffer, our allies will suffer, and the world will be the worst for it. But to think that the nation has not decided is delusional. We all have to live with our collective decision. It won't be good but it's reality.
This is out of context. There have been several carriers suddenly needing major repairs, change in deployment schedules, and now this? n nI bet this has more to do with Obama's big trip in late March; or maybe the Pentagon is being so pressured to keep the troubled F35JSF and Navy's Littoral Combat Ship programs funded that someone decided to distract us with 'news' that includes the name Harry S. Truman (hopefully not turning in his grave). n nReally sad, but too quick to know what is really happening. nGood thing Hagel promised to keep all the shipyards in New England open for more business
I don't understand where the savings are. n nThe ships of the task force have to be maintained whether they are at sea or in port. The men must be fed and be paid in any case. The air wing must continue its training flights whether from off the deck of the carrier, or land. There is a fuel saving, but is that really substantial relative to the overall costs? n nI would think it is a little like the costs of a hospital which, when the beds are largely empty still has expenses over 80% of full occupancy. n, nWhat is the difference in cost of a ship at sea and in port? Five percent, ten percent; does anyone know? n n