According Congressional Quarterly, the Pentagon wants a $450 billion budget increase over the next 5 years. On Thursday, in Washington, Pentagon officials released a new estimate for recommended defense spending.
It is clear that, despite the recession and the ongoing national economic crisis, the Department of Defense wants to make sure that their slice of the budget pie remains as large as possible.
It’s time to say no to these outrageous increases in the size of the military-industrial complex. U.S. military spending currently accounts for 45% of the world total. Our closes competitors (the UK, China, France, and Japan) make up 4 or 5% each.
We cannot afford this. Military spending should drop from 3.7% of GDP to 2.5%. It’s time to reframe the question entirely. The military abroad, in large numbers, needs to be brought home, demobilized, and converted for peace-time investment in education, infrastructure, green technology, etc. If we don’t, we will have no money for the critical investments we need at home. Eisenhower was right. Senators Kerry and Kennedy, members of our Congressional delegation, are you listening?
Maybe these numbers finally include the tab for Afghanistan and Iraq?
<
p>Is it a little odd to be proposing reducing the budget while those conflicts are ongoing? How do you propose to get all of that stuff back home?
<
p>Even if every American soldier and sailor is back home, hugging their families before President Obama finishes the oath of office, how are we to replace and repair all of the equipment that has been broken or worn since 2001? Are you proposing to just let the now broken Army stay broken? Are we assuming that, with the coming liberal realignment, nothing bad will ever happen again?
<
p>It is my hope that the Congressional delegation and President Obama have more sense than to squander their newfound credibility on national security with a return to 1980s “disarm!” liberalism.
<
p>Do you think we’re dumb? Do you think that equipment replacement isn’t in existing budgets? Duh… We’re talking about growth of budgets here, not the existence of budgets.
<
p>We ought to spend a reasonable amount on our defense. Increases of 450B over the next few years is not reasonable.
<
p>
<
p>Sometimes you have to go to war with the army you have… not the army you wish you had… Oh, wait…
<
p>The army is broken through extended tours and poor recruitment numbers. It’s not a budgetary problem. It’s a personnel problem. Don’t over-extend the military and there won’t be a problem. Bring ’em home and give them a good long rest. Then, if you re-assure the civilian population that you won’t send them to invade countries that don’t need invading, recruitment numbers will rise. Problem solved. Army fixed.
<
p>simple minded expansion of budgets is just a stupid stupid way of announcing that you think the rest of us are stupid.
<
p>
A couple of points: first, while I doubt that there is waste in the military, one should be careful to overestimate this. Talk of cutting waste in the “bloated military-industrial complex”, as Charley suggests, sounds a bit similar to the facile calls to cut the “bloated” MA state government by the extreme anti-tax hacks pushing Question 1. Cutting military spending from 3.7% to 2.5% of GDP might cut some waste, but it might cut legitimate expenditures as well. So we need to be careful of this.
<
p>Second, while there’s no doubt in my mind that we must demobilize troops currently in Iraq, Afghanistan is in a truly disastrous position right now, and stabilizing the situation there will require a substantial influx of troops, in my opinion. This, of course, will entail a certain amount of expense.
<
p>Given that the goings-on in Afghanistan affect US security far more than Iraq ever did, I think this is a wise investment. Given the serious (and deteriorating) situation in Afghanistan, I find it difficult to say that we are truly in a peace-time situation warranting dramatic military cuts.
“…first, while I doubt that there is waste in the military, one should be careful to overestimate this.”
<
p>I would like to emphasize the point that just having a big, bad-ass military encourages war-mongering. Unless the War Powers Act rises from the ashes as an actual, honest-to-God law that gets enforced, there isn’t much to stop the warmongers from fulfilling their perverted dreams. That’s bad for everybody.
Whoever posted this: Do any reading re geo political, military, industrial/commercial prognostications throughout the world? How about climactic progs regarding agricultural production/food availability.
<
p>Your arguement is simplistic and naive.
<
p>As CMD accurately pointed out. The US Army and US Marine Corps now have tons of junk on their hands after it has been ground up in the Iraqi and Afghany deserts. Aircraft
are tired, parts are not available.
<
p>Bill Clinton saved a lot of money by decimating the military. Now we have this fiasco with the US military having to be backed up by Blackwater, Halliburton/Brown&Root
because all the other folks were “let go” fifteen years ago. You don’t think that others aren’t watching this with interest.
<
p>Other countries throughout the world presently have no stomach for armies to be facing off—-for a number of different reasons—-. Other countries are well aware that it is very easy to destabilize USA politically ( via the media, college activists, and left leaning) which quickly and decisively results in a military collapse. Worked well in the Vietnam era and since. The result is that adversaries have only to “threaten” and quakes result in the US press and congress and college campuses. USA will no longer stand and fight as it did in World War II. In my opinion, and this is only opinion and 28 years of military experience, the only thing keeping the lid on is that Russia, China, et al are wary of throwing the dice regarding the Joint Chiefs and the service heads. They aren’t absolutely certain that the Joint Chiefs will not act independently of the president should “the big one” arise.
<
p>The largest issue that USA now confronts is now ensuring the continuous flow of oil out of the mideast. Without oil—the game is over—that fast. In 24 hours we become slaves—literally.
<
p>Another issue is Israel. If the Iranians make a strategic attack on Israel—or the Israeli’s think the Iranians will act—the Israeli’s will act peremtorily and they will do it big time. This will convulse the entire world and will have dramatic consequence likely much like Sarajevo.
<
p>Either cheerfully pay for a reasonable military , considering worlwide threat potential, or get used to living in a third world enviroment or worse.
<
p>From Here.
Perhaps the current economic realities will spur the public to rethink defense spending. It isn’t just one political party that shares the blame for defense costs. Were the government to stop feeding the voracious appetites for tax dollars of Raytheon, General Dynamics, United Technologies, how many congressmen would start to howl? How many jobs on the line?
<
p>We have to get new thinking going. The cold war is over. We won. Time to call the troops stationed worldwide home. NATO was a great tool to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe. It worked. That threat is gone. Time to pull out of NATO. NATO is like a tool on your workbench that is obsolete and no longer used. At best, it rests there. At worst, it becomes used as a hammer.
<
p>If we have a legitimate need for military force, we should have the where-with-all to initiate force and end the problem quickly. We should not reduce our military to level of a Task Force Smith, but neither do we need enough military to police the world.
<
p>With politicians yammering for “Change!”, let them put your money where their mouths are. Let’s bring the troops home, end the imperial wars, bring the costs of defense down.
<
p>
First of all, the Pentagon budget does not include the costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan, as those are included in supplementary appropriations.
<
p>Although I hate to do it, because the cost of war goes far beyond the economic issues, we can measure the financial costs more easily. However, it is not only the appropriations that contribute to the cost, but the effects on the rest of the economy. We must consider the premium we all pay for foreign oil as a result of the Iraq war, and that alone probably exceeds the direct military expenditure. And then there is the lost opportunity of funds invested more wisely, and the personnel costs in the aftermath of war. I would submit that the primary focus of cost savings should be in the arena of firm policy and good judgment so that we never again enter an unnecessary war.
<
p>And as for the military-industrial complex itself, there are obviously opportunities to save money. However, I would hesitate to use the “bludgeon” approach by dictating 2.5% of GDP (another prop 2 and 1/2!). As Justin has pointed out, the pressure to preserve jobs in the home district comes from both sides of the aisle. Recently the Globe carried an article saying that the FY 2009 defense budget that recently passed Congress included the purchase of 20 more F-22 Raptor aircraft than the Pentagon had requested. And the Navy’s decision to cut off the new destroyer program met stiff resistance from Senators Kennedy and Snowe, each having substantial work in their districts. We so often hear of deficient programs that are in cost overrun, but seldom pay enough attention to whether the program made sense in the first place. The Defense Department would operate much more efficiently if they properly vetted all new requirements emanating from the Services to make sure first that the requirements were not only valid, but the best use of funds. And for those efforts with substantiated requirements, they must invest in wise cost and benefit analyses before starting any big program if they are to avoid the later problems of deficient systems and cost overruns.
<
p>Bottom line is that we are spending way too much in the Defense Department, and the most effective step in the process of reducing those costs are firm foreign policy and wise decisions. That is where Barack Obama is far superior to John McCain.