How, exactly, would a lack of funding impact the troops on the battle field?

Question

Please explain how a spending bill that limited money for the war would leave the individual Marine or Soldier in danger? I mean would they not have enough bullets or bombs or what? I don't understand how it would hurt the individual engaged in a firefight. In other words how is it that the bill doesn't support the troops?

Interesting. So you actually beleive that troops would be sent into battle without enough feild supplies such as Ammo, Food, Medical Supplies, etc.? I seriously doubt that but you are talking about the U.S. Government, so you may be right. It seems to me that this issue of supporting the troops is being used by both parties to hold up the process.

Answer 1

Well you are all wrong. The ammunition, food, parts, contracts that are for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue. The military will just go into the general defense fund. First they reduce or eliminate social and recreation funds. The next is facility maintenance and construction funds. Then research and development funds. These are not directly in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can be redirected to those operations. Family support structure deteriorates, then the buildings deteriorate, then equipment that were under contract, or development will stop. The troops still on bases will be doing the lawn maintenance, new equipment needed can be put on hold, contractors won't be paid. This will cause contractors to lay off workers, which will increase the stress on the local social welfare and unemployment. D.O.D. jobs will be reduced or eliminated, more stress on the local welfare system. Yeah Democrats have an idea for getting the troops home, but at who's expense?

Answer 2

Im Glad you ask right now im in IIraq an trust me my batallion has a lot lots of bullets and spare part and alot of junk that are basic needs in combat. In the part that we as troop will feel the efect of lack of funding will be on the civilian contractors such as KBR and LOCAl. Food will be one that will affect the most we have alot of MRE for 4 years but we dont have a daily hot chow as we will like too. Water supply will be another issue since this is opperated by civilians not the army or marines.Fuel,New medical supply, General Supply from Class 1 to Class 10. that includes new gear for soldiers plus that is not including what else the goverment will consider not important at the moment so it will affect everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan but I really will love to stop coming over here this is my second tour so do what ever it takes to bring us back home God bless

Answer 3

No funding means our troops are less prepared, with substandard equipment, less ammunition, no replacement equipment or means to fix broken equipment, medical supplies, etc. Not to mention their pay which is supposed to support their families at home who subsequently use said pay to send those soldiers supplies because our government says they don't have the funding to give them enough simple toiletries, etc. to last the trip.

What I didn't see anyone else mention is also the lack of care after the war. They send our men and women off to battle and what happens when they return? Some are denied medical benefits from trauma suffered during the war because it wasn't physical!

Answer 4

The hardest part of fielding an army (used generically for the military) is logistics. There are a constant supply of personnel, equipment, food , and other supplies going into the theater.

Pay comes from a separate system, but the add-on pays such as family separation, hostile fire pay, etc. (all mandated by law) would come from this bucket.

The military truly never sleeps.

Answer 5

No money means less of everything needed to fight.
It means new soldiers will have less training. It means current soldiers would have less bullets for the range. It means that there would be fewer replacement parts. It means that there would be less aircraft fuel for rotating the troops, including much needed R&R leave as well as fresh troops to replace them. It would mean less ammunition on the battlefield. It would mean less of everything required to live in a hot, arid environment where people are shooting at you.

It would mean *longer* not shorter tours of duty, since it costs a LOT of money to get people halfway around the world and back twice a year with the gear they need to do their job.

Answer 6

Duh!! Bullets, bombs, weapons, tanks, trucks, bulletproof vests, etc all cost money. The government buys all of this stuff from private industry, and if those private industries don't get paid, then they don't send what is needed to the troops in the field. If the congress does not pass a bill to provide what the troops need, then the troops will NOT get what they need.

Answer 7

Because they need their paychecks and 20000 plus rack up a lot of funds in a year. Not to include bullets fuel for vehicles and such

Answer 8

Less food, less fuel, less ammo, less medical supplies, less equipment, etc, etc...

The quickest way to defeat an enemy is to cut off his lines of supply. That is what a lack of funding would do to the individual soldier.

Answer 9

In Iraq, probably not a whole lot. Sure there wouldn't be some spare parts and fuel, but as far as food and weapons go, the Iraqis might supply them with that, for the same reason you want to feed and water your guard dogs. The military might not destroy the weapon caches either.

Answer 10

Can you fight a war with a paper napkin on your head and a paper plate on your chest?? You are thinking OUT as in bullets to kill them bombs to kill them. What about what's coming at us. We don't have body armor, we don't have head gear. And we don't have psychic ability to see where the IUD's are or eyes behind our head to see what's coming so if you have a better idea let us know, cause we are getting killed over here. We bail out car companies and spend money to convict and send Enron criminals to spa city but...soldiers die.