Russ Read reports for The Daily Caller that during a hearing yesterday, April 5, 2017, the House Committee on Armed Services was told by the vice chiefs-of-staff of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy that their respective services all suffer from a lack of readiness.
In the case of the Army, Vice Chief-of-Staff Gen. Daniel Allyn said:
- Only 3 of 58 Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) would be available to respond to an enemy attack if one hypothetically happened tonight. Since a BCT usually numbers anywhere between 4,400 to 4,700 soldiers, that means the Army has only about 13,500 troops ready to fight an enemy in the event of an emergency.
- To make matters worse, “only about two-thirds of the Army’s initial critical formations — the formations we would need at the outset of a major conflict — are at acceptable levels of readiness to conduct sustained ground combat in a full spectrum environment against a highly lethal hybrid threat or near-peer adversary.”A “lethal hybrid threat” or “near-peer adversary” includes countries like Russia and China.
- The current state of Army unreadiness means much of the force would be unable to properly respond to an emergency threat. Gen. Allyn warned that the end result of such an emergency situation would include “excessive casualties, especially to civilians.”
The solution to the problem, according to Allyn, is the immediate repeal of the Budget Control Act of 2011, an Obama-era law that put artificial caps on defense spending. A potential repeal of the law has bipartisan support across the committee. However, Congress has thus far been unable to remove it, forcing them to pass continuing resolutions to keep the military funded.
Some good comments from Daily Caller‘s readers:
“Hey! Obama had to get the Army’s priorities straight first. Like homosexual marriage, women in combat, transgender accommodation, etc. Everyone knows a real army can’t fight without those. Just ask the Greeks and the Romans at the end of their empires.” -Neitherleftnorright
“How many of these combat-effective units are in the United States? Defending the US was once the primary role of US military forces. Bleeding off military power in foreign wars makes us that much more vulnerable to attack. It’s expensive to keep an army in the field, but much less so if it stays on native soil, where lines of supply and communication are shorter and more secure.” -Rossbach
“That used to be called a pocket division. 13,000 troops???? Not even enough for a spitball fight.” -Sgtsnuffy
“It isn’t true. There are over 6,000 Special Forces troopers alone on top of 3,500 Rangers. That would leave just 6,000 guys capable in the standard army. The army has to be questioned why it is spending $140 billion a year just to have 14,000 guys capable for battle.” -Gregory Dittman
“Improve that, sure. But let’s not panic. The countries that are a ‘lethal hybrid threat’ or ‘near-peer adversary’ are not any more ready than we are. Not even close.” -Alec Dacyczyn
Meanwhile, as the vice chiefs of the Armed Forces all say the U.S. military is not ready to fight a war, President Trump seems to have succumbed to the neo-con warmongers and is threatening war against Syria.
CNN just reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said “steps are underway” to get rid of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Steve Bannon is booted from the National Security Council, while Trump’s Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner wields increasing power as a de facto secretary of state (New York Times). And we all know Israel wants Assad out. See:
- Pact with the devil: Israel gives weapons and free medical care to Syrian jihad
- ISIS: Allah commands us not to fight Israel & Jews
H/t FOTM‘s Anon
- Military analyst: What two-front war? U.S. can’t fight even one war
- U.S. military goes transgender
- Survey finds U.S. military plagued with low morale
- Observations on life in the military under Obama
- Here’s The Real Reason For US Military’s Declining Morale
- Christians are leaving the U.S. military
- Senior NCOs are leaving the U.S. military