When someone works in the actual office that is making the decisions and has first hand knowledge of the process and is willing to share it here on APC - maybe you should put a little less stock in the MEDIA and possibly take a second breath on the standard political hit parade and listen.
You are utterly misinformed if you think canceling the schedule was a last minute decision or to think that the team wouldn't keep practicing until the very last minute in case the show season continued.

I think that is fair and reasonable. But please note I didn't go off half-cocked. Let's ask that someone...



I'm prepared to believe you. Can you please explain this statement (from the article I cited, dated 20 May, 2012):

Was the Times lying, citing a specific DoD spokesperson/department? Doesn't this statement run counter to what you are telling us?

I never said it was, and Lt. Col. Morgan's comment was "The White House budget office “has not directed agencies, including [the Defense Department], to initiate any plans for sequestration.”.

Can you explain these statements...


As I said, I am prepared to believe you. However, it's not like the Times was pulling these statements out of thin air, and a identified DoD spokesperson made official comments than run counter to your own.

Why would that spokesperson lie?

Strategic communication wasn't born out of a vacuum. A spokesperson for DoD doesn't owe the general public the first bit of granularity or even have knowledge as to what specific planning guidance was or wasn't being directed at a lower level by the service chiefs. Prudent planners plan and help leadership make decisions.

Yes I would say the spokesperson was misinformed if she thinks DoD takes its budget programming or planning budget (stated another way) directly from the WHBO. Can the services read between the tea leaves based on political rhetoric? You bet and in this case that is exactly what the CNO directed, planning based on what he knew to be true at the time, and guess what, the service chiefs were right in doing so. In the grand scheme of things the Blues and TACDEMOs were tough decisions to make but when faced with real impacts to training and readiness given the cuts the services were facing on top of CR, their collective hands were tied, regardless of what some O-5 PAO has been directed to say.

I didnt come off half cocked, I came at you with facts and ground truth data when told what I said was utter BS, and this seemingly coming from someone who based their assumptions off what they read in the Washington Times or other media sources. In the end, leadership across the services are being forced to make some tough decisions. You might think its posturing, I do not.

And again you are assuming that Commander's are actually going to sit back on their hands and ACTUALLY DO NOTHING knowing that full well the cuts may have to be made and that their Commanders are going to ask for plans.
Who is too say that the "officials", "one participant", and some "Army officer" aren't playing with the words?
I just imagine someone at work telling me that I wasn't allowed to plan for what sequestration might bring down on our heads; yeah - - - that isn't going to happen. NO ONE can stop planning. I'll bet *sharing* those plans or making them public would be what certain politicos are afraid of in the long run.

One more thing....did you actually end your post with "Why would a spokesperson lie?" I'd ask - why would you believe one?

No sir. I didn't say you did. I said I didn't think I went off half-cocked, based upon what I had read, which seemed (<---please note the qualifier) credible, given that it was an official DoD spokesperson (I'll speak more to this point below).

Also, thank you for your response. It greatly relieves a grave concern of mine, namely...

No sir. That's what I feared, not what I assumed.


Yes sir, in fact the article makes it very clear that was the case, and exactly why, too:


This ^^^^ is entirely accurate. The sequester was the WH's idea. Said idea was to theoretically put the House of Reps (which controls the gov't purse strings) into a position it would never consider: allowing the sequester to kick in...and in particular deep and painful cuts to the DoD budget. But the House called the WH's bluff, and the WH reaction was to "make the cuts as painful as possible"....or, as the analyst put it above "in the worst way"...and this in SPITE of the House attempting....TWICE....to give the WH latitude in WHERE the cuts took place (and how).

This latitude was rejected by the WH, and so we were treated to things like the FAA threatening to close 149 control towers (which also backfired on the WH when the Gov. of Texas said the state would self-fund it's towers, which in turn caused a LOT of people to wonder how Texas could afford to keep them open when a blue state like CA was bleeding fiscal red....questions that the WH does NOT want to have asked nor be forced to answer, hence ALL the FAA closures were halted).

In short, sir, the WH is playing political games with the national defense and it's state of readiness. This is not a political rant...merely the pointing out of fact. And no, it does not invite discussion about past administrations or anything of the sort. It is merely pointing out fact and giving background to the main topic of discussion in this thread which is the cancelation of the Blue's tour this year as well as the AF's drawdown of forces pointed out in the second post to this thread.


Let's just say I am naive enough to think that a DoD spokesperson is a tad bit more trustworthy than any other type. At least, that's what I'd like to believe, anyway.

So tell me Bdgerjmn, how much of the sequestration cuts did Procurement, RDTE, and MilCon absorb?

Very little, with the exception of MilCon specifically maintenance contracts (e.g. Newport News Naval Shipyard etc)...why?? Because it's the law...its the very reason sequestor monies were to be taken out of OMN or Ops/Maintenance budgets(service monies to man, train and equip vice the items you speak of). The services asked for the ability to move monies around to do just that, rob from peter to pay Paul..in some cases it was granted, in others it wasn't. There are really two separate discussions here...sequestration in and of itself, got it, its a political football. But the impacts of it to the services are a known and finite quantity and that is not posturing, which was my original reason for responding. Should we buy less or spend less in the areas you speak of so we can operate/train more given less money? Sure, but ultimately that comes at a price, you can't have one without the other.

Absolutely not in my opinion.
It is ALL politics at that level.

BDGERJMN, USMCFLYR,
No idea what the details of your backgrounds are but just HAD to say, YOU gentlemen articulate your facts/views/opinions so darn well - cooly,succinctly, eloquently and with precision - wish i had that ability. Always educational and a pleasure to read your posts.
r/s
NattyD
"The enemy never watches until you make a mistake" [Anonymous]