There was a press conference yesterday held by the DOD.

Read this: http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdf

If you are too lazy to click, here's some highlights:

"Total U.S. defense spending, including both base funding and war costs, will drop by about 22% from its peak in 2010, after accounting for inflation."

"We did find about $60 billion in new projected savings over FY13-*‐17. Examples include:

Deferral of some military construction to align our facilities more closely with the size and posture of our future force"

(Keep in mind with that last qoute the USMC Force Structure Review which is happening)

AND THE BIG ONE:

The proposed force structure reductions described below also suggest the need for a corresponding reduction in the infrastructure. We cannot afford to sustain infrastructure that is excess to our needs in this budget environment. Therefore, the President will request that Congress authorize use of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process with a goal of identifying efficient savings that can be reinvested in higher priorities as soon as possible.

That's awesome. Thanks (from a lazy guy)

Part of the Q&A period from yesterday's press release:

Q: For Mr. Secretary and for General Dempsey. Mr. Secretary, are you seriously considering asking the President to ask Congress for another round of base closures? Your civilians are still trying to deal with the 2005 base closure with that Shangri-La known as the Mark Center.

SEC. PANETTA: Yeah. It's a -- you know, it's a -- it's a fundamental problem we have to confront. As we -- as we draw down the force, we've got to take a look at the infrastructure that's supporting the remaining force. And the reality is that we are going to have to be able to reduce that infrastructure.

The best approach to reducing that infrastructure politically on Capitol Hill has been to work it through the BRAC process and to develop an approach whereby, you know, we would submit recommendations, the commission would look at those recommendations and then make a complete presentation to the Congress, and it would be voted up or down with one vote. So obviously, the BRAC process provides that kind of process.

I've been through BRAC. I know its weaknesses and its failings. Obviously we will -- we will continue to work to make sure that it's done effectively and that we achieve the savings that we hope to achieve from the process. But I have to tell you there is -- there is no more effective process to make it happen than using the BRAC process.

Uh.......

Does anyone understand the importance of what happened Thursday?

The DOD proposed budget is our saving grace. That with the Marines changing Thier focus from being a second land army...

This thing is very win-able people...

I hope it all goes well, but have you looked at it objectively? base closures elsewhere WILL result in personnel being shifted to bases of current operation. Seems it would make more fiscal sense to move them all to one big base...............with a training area. Not trying to shoot anyone down and I hate playing the Devil's advocate, but we still need to be vigilant. News like this could make a lot of people think they no longer need to be involved since the military is running out of money. Nothing is further from the truth. We need to keep looking at the big picture and the big picture globally says there are about 80K troops not in the US that may be shifted here.

I hope it all goes well, but have you looked at it objectively? base closures elsewhere WILL result in personnel being shifted to bases of current operation. Seems it would make more fiscal sense to move them all to one big base...............with a training area. Not trying to shoot anyone down and I hate playing the Devil's advocate, but we still need to be vigilant. News like this could make a lot of people think they no longer need to be involved since the military is running out of money. Nothing is further from the truth. We need to keep looking at the big picture and the big picture globally says there are about 80K troops not in the US that may be shifted here.

Part of the story you may have missed is the changing role that is a part of this budget plan. The Purpose and Need section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion is not in line with the direction the USMC is for the future.

Training and related places near water sources are more in line with the new direction of the Marines.

I don't doubt for a moment that we should not keep our guard up on this issue, but from a legal perspective, the NEPA document has a fatal flaw.

There is no doubt they are going to continue the expansion.

But now we have several solid arguments for saving JV. Especially when it comes to the purpose and need.

The Marines need to train as they fight. They are no longer fighting as a second land army, so they no longer need to train 3 MEBs at the same time.

With the budget and possible base closures.... That will not even be looked at by politicans right now becuase of upcoming elections. They will not want to lose votes....but to SAVE money, by NOT expanding a base, THAT will not look bad at all on Thier part. Especially if they sell it as "we are not expanding this base to save other bases from closing"

Part of the story you may have missed is the changing role that is a part of this budget plan. The Purpose and Need section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion is not in line with the direction the USMC is for the future.

Training and related places near water sources are more in line with the new direction of the Marines.

I don't doubt for a moment that we should not keep our guard up on this issue, but from a legal perspective, the NEPA document has a fatal flaw.

I didn't miss the changing role. I saw nowhere that they were to be limited to areas of water. As a spearhead against terrorism, they need to go to places where terrorists live. They currently reside in areas of the middle east that are desert and mountain ranges. Never forget that the Marines are a Dept of the Navy and waterborne conflicts are the Navy's forte. I don't see this going away as easily as some predict.

There is no doubt they are going to continue the expansion.

But now we have several solid arguments for saving JV. Especially when it comes to the purpose and need.

The Marines need to train as they fight. They are no longer fighting as a second land army, so they no longer need to train 3 MEBs at the same time.

With the budget and possible base closures.... That will not even be looked at by politicans right now becuase of upcoming elections. They will not want to lose votes....but to SAVE money, by NOT expanding a base, THAT will not look bad at all on Thier part. Especially if they sell it as "we are not expanding this base to save other bases from closing"

you're absolutely right, they no longer need to train as a land Army. However, as a spearhead assault, they need to train as they fight. Nowhere does it say they only take beaches. If they are to be the first into a desert conflict to establish control, then they will need to train as so. Mountainous terrain abounds in the Middle East, they will need to train for this. clearing beaches as we think of it is best left to the people who've done it since the 60s.

I have downloaded and studied countless documents, including USMC training manuals and doctrine.

The need for more space came from major full scale assualts in Iraq. They wanted to train 3 MEBS. AKA being used as a second land army.

Future conflicts will be in the zone of instability... Africa to Asia.... ALL in the littorals...meaning along the coasts. This is straight from the commadant.

All models point to smaller scale conflicts. Plus the American public will not be able to stomach another long drawn out land war. (the commadants words, not mine)

As a middle weight force, they are re-organizing back to their roots, they show up and hold until the army shows up. Then their job is done.

This is NOT how they have been used for the last 10 years.