By Ed O'Keefe
Reid made the comments in remarks that reopened the Senate after a week-long break. He urged GOP senators to consider how their decision affects U.S. national security and that further delay "sent a dangerous message to Russian leaders."
"Since a few Republicans blocked these important sanctions last work period, Russian lawmakers voted to annex Crimea and Russian forces have taken over Ukrainian military bases," Reid said. "It's impossible to know whether events would have unfolded differently if the United States had responded to Russian aggression with a strong, unified voice."
The comments came just a few hours before senators voted 78 to 17 to proceed with debate on the aid package. All the votes in opposition came from Republicans, most of whom are concerned that the package includes changes to how the U.S. provides money for the International Monetary Fund....
The Republicans really don't care about this? Seriously there are members that voted against aid to the Ukraine? That is like sending defense forces to Europe. I am surprised.
Politics and the President. The Republicans are playing with the USA's national security.
...But the deal also includes changes long-sought by the White House that would shift about $63 billion in IMF money from a crisis fund to a general account. Doing so would make good on a 2010 pledge by the Obama administration and ensure greater U.S. influence over the world body....
The Huffington Post
by Sabrina Siddiqui
Posted:
Updated:
Boehner told reporters at his weekly briefing that the IMF boost, which was requested by the Obama administration, was irrelevant to the current crisis in Ukraine.
"Let's make sure we all understand something: The IMF money has nothing to do with Ukraine," he said....
Here we go, the precious military spending.
...Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the Senate proposal "looney."...
Buck McKeon needs to go back to the drawing board and stop the assault on American troops and end some pork military projects. By out the contracts for 10% of their face value in one lump sum and end the stupidity of the military spending that should be spent on troops. By doing that the USA will be saving huge amounts of money because contracts are never brought in under the appropriation of the contract. The cost overruns are ridiculous.
The problem with the military budgets is that a lot of money has already been wasted on projects the military never wanted. The military needs to seriously examine the integration of computerization into it's forces. While some closed systems are necessary, the larger deployment of computerized combat vehicles simply aren't a good idea. Placing computerized weaponry where it needs to be would trim acquisition costs and leave more room for personnel.
By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
Posted: March 5, 2014 10:23 AM
...In ground systems, (click here) the budget would fund, at a lower level, planned improvements to the aged AAV7 assault amphibious vehicles, which must remain in service because of the cancelation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and delays in its planned replacement, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV). It would provide $106 million to continue research on the ACV, as the Corps looks for a vehicle with the high water speed promised by EFV but at an affordable price....
The personnel needed can't be that controversial. There is such a thing as military science which provides principles for combat engagement and national security. The question I have is what missions the Marine Corp is engaged in are not truly necessary?
Not saying any commander is wrong, what I am saying is President Obama has been seeking more spending by allies to provide their own military infrastructure 'on site' for better preparedness to disasters as well as a heightened national security for their sovereign country. How much of that movement to autonomy can contribute to better missions for our Marines? Is there a good chance the USA military can trim back their forces in foreign theaters by empowering allies with stronger and better prepared forces and I am not thinking Afghanistan either. These are major allies of the USA that are taking on more and more of their own national security strategies. Where does the USA require presence and where can the USA cut back with the increased competence of allies?
...On the personnel side, the budget would continue the slow reduction in Marine Corps end strength, proposing a drop from the 190,200 Marines expected by the end of this fiscal year, to 184,100 by October 2015, with a projected drop to 175,000 by fiscal 2017. That number, which is well below the 182,000 Gen James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, said was the minimum needed for the Corps to carry out all of its missions,...
Our military leaders should never be a part of politics within any country. Our deployments should always make sense to our commanders all the way up to the Joint Chiefs. These people have been in our national defense infrastructure for a long time, they have knowledge of how best to place our assets to protect our country and allies. I would think of allies accepting more of their own national security as an expansion of potential, not a decrease in it. I don't think NATO is going anywhere. If anything NATO will be more vital than ever.
With allies like France taking on their own initiatives, that is an enhancement to USA capacity. It means competency within the French military that no USA military has to worry about so much as count on to be a strong ally. That level of comfort has to spell relief, not just to the USA military budget but also to the military leadership that can turn their attentions to areas sacrificed for policing in the past.
If I can be so bold, part of what I think Harry is upset about is that of 'allied potential.' The best example is the current needs in the Ukraine. How is the Ukraine to develop better national military competency if their hands are tied because of debt. The IMF is a vital area where these nations can resolve their debt to a reasonable and prudent levels and build their military competencies to sustain border tensions.
If the IMF doesn't have the funds it needs to move these nations along, what good is USA emergency funds doing? That isn't where the need exists. So, while the GOP likes it's political rhetoric about the USA military budget, the actual application of policies at the IMF is nearly more important in expanding the USA's best interests.
The USA military likes to have control and I realize that is a matter of sincere and sustained trust between allies and other nations and the USA. In part that is what is so disappointing about Russia's agenda for the Crimea and why it does not need to be part of the G8 anymore. If a country is seeking to violate the 'trust standards' the USA what good are they to our national strategy and TO THEIRS.
The reality of the agenda of Russia in the Crimea has compromised the national security of Russia even if it doesn't want to admit it. Russia's nationalism with the Crimea has destroyed or diminished more relationships than Putin will ever admit. Begin first with the post soviet nations and work out from there. Russia, in it's "Friendship Pact" with China can no longer provide reassurances it enjoyed as part of the G8. There is a lot Russia lost with this agenda.
But, with this new movement to build competencies of allies, the USA military has every right to set standards for sincere trust relationships in order to be assured of national security of the USA. That, after all, is what allies are for. Allies sincerely aren't allies if the USA is doing all the policing. That is a weaker military profile than having a global structure of strong allies. Part of that movement is also allowing cultural difference to act as strengths to that relationship. The USA allies don't have to be "Little America." They do have to be strong countries with strong economies and citizens that appreciate their importance in the larger picture.
Basically, the USA military have to be good listeners to the people of our allies as well as their friend in military strength. It is called 'feeling safe.'
