Where do you draw the line, budget vs meltdown, the CIC I believe does not cancel the program, the military leadership does, eg you have this much money to spend...you decide.
History books are great, but usually the author has a view that they are trying to get across.
Try "Seven Deadly Scenarios" by Krepinevich, sub title...A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21rst Century.
Its always been a balancing act with the budget.

 

So when the CIC proposes a $130 billion budget cut from 2009 to 2010, what choice does the military leadership have? They have to deploy, train, pay the military payroll, buy gas, sail ships, etc. Your analogy is really weak and is not based in reality. The President definitely is accountable, he is THE CIC, yet you pawn off the responsibility to "military leadership". Uh huh..... Who is the CIC, and what does that mean? Geez Lillian.

Using your statement and logic, if the CIC proposes giving the military 1 billion, they will cut virtually every weapon, training, and simply pay the military to stay on the payroll. Don't bother showing up to work. The military leadership didn't have the money for you to do anything. They chose to stop doing anything. But I guess we could blame the 'military leadership" and not the CIC. Hmmmmmm

 

You can blame whom ever you want...there is still only so much to go around.

 

Well then mark me down as funding only federally constituted requirements. Most of the current proposals are not constitutionally required. Then budget wouldn't be a problem. Misplaced priorities is no excuse. I'll blame people that have misplaced priorities and hold elected officials accountable.

 

Agreed...that's what elections are for.

 

... like Truman gave the military. Here's your money.. and no more. The US went from the end of WWII with more than 60,000 airplanes and by 1948 in the whole of Europe there were less than 300.

That is no secret. But getting a point across does not invalidate the premise. We were very strong and in a few years we became remarkably weak. And when Korea came, we were woefully unprepared. Writer's bias or fact?

I will see about it. I remember reading a USAF AU study in the mid 80s that war would become a series of provocati0ns just short of all out war.. war without boundaries and without uniforms. The writer's point was that hijackings and bombings would occur and often there would be no specific power to react to. 2 decades ago...

And yes, the guy in the field does with what he has. The old saying.." I have done so much for so long with so little that I can now do the impossible with nothing." And when it is done, some politico will jump up and be in the front row of the success picture.

 

Apparently not, they just keep printing more. The only problem is they refuse to give any to the military.

 

YouTube - T 38 vs F-22

Gizmodo - King of Fighters F-22 Gets Killed by Humble T-38 Training Plane - T-38


Maybe we should bring back the F-20.

 

AF leaders want to end the F-22 program to push the F-35 into production.

AF Leaders Voice Support for F-22 Cuts

 

Sometimes I questioned the need the for the F-22 but at the same I understand that the US leads the way in Fighter Aircraft Technology and there is a reason for that. The US always looks for ways to improve its current fleet. I disagree with the current commander n chief on many fronts but I personally found there to be some cost effective problems with the F-22 program. I am however not an authority on Military Aircraft
My two cents......