Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Elections Have Consequences

    Posted by Jonathan on March 2nd, 2013 (All posts by )

    Worst case is that the sequestration cuts kick in on a month-to-month basis, as the fiscal stand-off between Congress and the president drags on. In early February, in anticipation of having to “operate down” to this worst case, the Navy cancelled the scheduled deployment of the USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75) strike group, which was to be the second of two carrier strike groups hitherto maintained on station in the CENTCOM AOR. Secretary Leon Panetta announced at the time that the U.S. would cut its CENTCOM-deployed carrier force to one.
    A strike group brings not just the carrier and its air wing but an Aegis cruiser and/or Aegis destroyers, all with Tomahawk missile load-outs. In multiple ways, U.S. combat power has now been cut in half in the CENTCOM AOR due to the long-running fiscal stand-off. The level of carrier presence is insufficient today to execute a limited-strike campaign against Iran while containing the potential backlash.

    -J.E. Dyer, Dead in the water: Obama’s military and the Iran nuclear threat


    9 Responses to “Elections Have Consequences”

    1. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Given the likelihood that Obama would not authorize any of the options that the depletion of readiness funds would allow, the fact that we are less capable of doing something is less a matter of concern than the inclinations of the administration. AS they used to say in Vietnam, “if it’s not worth doing, it’s not worth doing well.”

    2. Jonathan Says:

      Obama’s actions not only tie his own hands, they destroy important options for future administrations.

    3. grey eagle Says:

      When next unemployment rises or the economy falters – Obama will claim that his policies were rescuing the economy and ending unemployment but the Sequester destroyed everything and has plunged the economy into ruins that only He can fix.

    4. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Grey Eagle, I am sure you are correct. I don’t see what else the Republicans can do. They have to rely on the common sense of the people, a weak reed these days.

    5. Tim Says:

      I was complaining at the train station that my department of the Federal Government was requiring everyone in the department to take a mandatory 3 hour sexual harassment in the workplace class despite the sequester.

      My friend has been a government manager for over 30 years and is going to retire in the next year or two. He is being forced to take a 10 hour management course plus renew his security clearance (not DOD or intelligence). The FBI told him the security clearance would cost the government $150,000. I guess they’re not totally out of cash.

    6. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Jonathan: I am with Mike on this one.

      Obama reaffirmed his policy of deference to the Iranian regime by making the Iran apologist and Jew hater Chuck Hagel his SoD.

      DoD could have found the funds to send the Truman to the P-Gulf in between the couch cushions. They didn’t because the “Commander in Chief” (actually the political ops) told them not to. Hussein is engaged in executing a “close the Washington Monument” strategy in hopes of getting a second round of tax increases this year.

      I share your concerns about the long term effects of Hussein’s war on the DoD, but I don’t see the sequester as being very relevant. Obama and Hagel were going to do what they could to destroy those capabilities with or without the sequester.

    7. flatlander Says:

      Neru fiddles while Rome burns.

    8. Mrs. Davis Says:

      Hussein is doing much more to destroy the military in his personnel moves than in his fiscal. Stalin in 1938.

    9. Michael Kennedy Says:

      I was told that the DoD plans to RIF many officers at the LTC and major level in all services and replace them with new recruits. The US army has always had too many officers but I don’t think this is intended to do anything but reduce personnel costs. A few years ago, many were lamenting the loss of junior officers who were resigning. Now, the plan is to deplete the ranks of the next leaders and send them out to a bad economy to look for jobs. The hell with the future.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.