Adios JFCOM...

[M2]

I wouldn't get too excited about JFCOM "going away," because in the long run this will most likely only amount to them no longer being a COCOM and a few of their functions being eliminated. But for the most part, the folks there aren't getting too excited about this impending doom just yet...and just to caveat that, JFCOM controls the program I am currently working on, and was to be the new owner of the organization I work in.

[SuperWSO]

I wouldn't get too excited about JFCOM "going away," because in the long run this will most likely only amount to them no longer being a COCOM and a few of their functions being eliminated. But for the most part, the folks there aren't getting too excited about this impending doom just yet...and just to caveat that, JFCOM controls the program I am currently working on, and was to be the new owner of the organization I work in.

Except Ray Odierno was just given the job of closing down JFCOM. This is the guy who wore down the Iraqi insurgency. I think he can take on the Virginia congressional delegation. If money wasn't so tight, I would agree with you. Some elements may remain, but I don't think they are going to get away with keeping all the pieces under a different name/label.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Finally Gates is getting to the core of waste in the DoD...the superfluous levels of staff that seem to be duplicated everywhere. Point in case, at CAFTT in Iraq, the number of people I ran into were 3 to 1 staffers versus actual operators doing the training. I belonged to a squadron that was owned by a group, a wing and then CAFTT/MNSTC-I staff. Amazing that we had three-four levels of staff to control a handful of squadrons. It appeared that many jobs existed merely to get O-5s deployment experience. Some guys didn't hardly ever set foot on an Iraqi facility.

My last issue with this round of cuts is that unfortunately, we aren't going to simply make these cuts and see any overall savings in our federal budget. The money will only be shifted elsewhere, likely to fund the ever-increasing number and scope of social programs.