Pentagon: More Money for Weapons, Less for Troops
Pay and Benefit Hikes Unsustainable, Officials Warn
A decade of massive annual increases in military spending have given the Pentagon record budgets, but officials are warning that, as financial problems make more hikes unlikely, the pay raises and benefits packages Congress has given to troops are “unsustainable.”
Instead the Pentagon is pushing Congress to decrease the amount of money set aside for troop pay and benefits, and increase the amount it spends on weapons and operations.
Though in practice the Pentagon hasn’t had to balance the enormous health care costs from all its casualties and all the other expenses associated with its two major wars, officials seem convinced that sooner or later those costs will have to be reckoned with instead of being funded with emergency spending and budget hikes.
Undersecretary Clifford Stanley warned in March that the rising personnel costs, already around 1/4 of overall Pentagon spending, could eventually “dramatically affect the readiness of the department.”
Stanley’s comments were controversial, and sparked an angry reaction from VFW leaders, who insisted that there was no link between costs and readiness, and argued that Congress could always be prevailed upon for a larger budget.
Stanley’s comment seems to be indicative of the overall sentiment among Pentagon leaders, but the VFW opposition aside the real issue will likely be with recruitment.
Military recruiters have thrived in the economic downturn, particularly with the promise of generous benefits packages to entice recruits. As the Afghan War continues to worsen, Vice Admiral Ferguson says that the “extremely generous” pay has encouraged recruits to stick around longer than they had before. If the Pentagon leadership manages to have its way, recruiting may again become difficult and the military may once again have to turn to “stop-loss” en masse to fill its positions.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Four Killed as Another US Drone Strike Hits Pakistan - February 8th, 2012
- Food Prices Soaring in Iran as US Sanctions Miss Regime and Hit Civilians - February 8th, 2012
- House Hearings on Balochistan: Pakistan's Kosovo? - February 8th, 2012
- Syrian Opposition Claims Massive Deaths in Homs, Clashes Reported in Daraa - February 8th, 2012
- Egypt PM: US Aid Threats Won't Stop NGO Prosecutions - February 8th, 2012





E. A. Costa
May 8th, 2010 at 11:29 am
And the next Nobel Peace Prize goes to–Drones Without Borders.
"Military Industrial solutions at your doorstep."
emsnews
May 8th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Nuclear war requires few soldiers…or civilians…to survive. The powerful guys who hide in caves (a la Osama) can always use robots afterwards.
E. A. Costa
May 8th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
There is no doubt that there are in the US military and a few others segments of government a few lunatics thinking exactly along such lines.
Whether they are wrong or right about their own survival capabilities is a moot point. And what does it really matter?
The fact that these Strangeloves exist, however, is a firm suggestion to the rest of the US population, in and out of government, to identify them, remove them from power, destroy most of their facilities and weapons (save what is needed for legitimate self-defense), then get on with the business of trying to disprove Oscar Wilde on the United States, to wit, that it is the only known country in recorded history to have progressed from barbarism to decadence without going through civilization.
E. A. Costa
May 8th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Don't forget the extraordinarily high mortality rate among veterans of the First Gulf War under Cheney and Bush, including–a real favorite–radioactive sperm, which caused increased rates of cervical cancer among their wives and girlfriends, and increased rates of miscarriage and birth defects.
Clearly Bush and Cheney, like Rumsfeld, figured out that veterans are much cheaper dead than alive and had their VA proceed accordingly.
One supposes that Obama and Biden, given enough time, might arrange a draft by engineering another Pearl Harbor.
But the Japanese apparently aren't interested, and the Pacific is out of Iran's reach.
Most of the rest of the world have got very bored with the US, and at the same time very cagey.
Garrick
May 9th, 2010 at 12:41 am
The US faces no real military threats, so the military industrial complex has been turned into a business model.
In order to afford big capital expenditures, they cut overhead expenses such as employee pay (soldiers and health care for veterans). I can assume there are a lot more MBA's in the Pentagon than 20 years ago.
Garrick
May 9th, 2010 at 12:41 am
The US faces no real military threats, so the military industrial complex has been turned into a business model.
In order to afford big capital expenditures, they cut overhead expenses such as employee pay (soldiers and health care for veterans). I can assume there are a lot more MBA's in the Pentagon than 20 years ago.
THE BREAKING…HER MILITARY(WHO IS SWORN TO PROTECT) IS CYPHONING OFF HER RESOURCES « Hiram's 1555 Blog
May 8th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
[...] NOW CHECK THIS OUT: “ Pentagon: More Money for Weapons, Less for Troops [...]
E. A. Costa
May 8th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
There is no doubt that there are in the US military and a few others segments of government a few lunatics thinking exactly along such lines.
Whether they are wrong or right about their own survival capabilities is a moot point. And what does it really matter?
The fact that these Strangeloves exist, however, is a firm suggestion to the rest of the US population, in and out of government, to identify them, remove them from power, destroy most of their facilities and weapons (save what is needed for legitimate self-defense), then get on with the business of trying to disprove Oscar Wilde on the United States, to wit, that it is the only known country in recorded history to have progressed from barbarism to decadence without going through civilization.
E. A. Costa
May 9th, 2010 at 1:13 am
No doubt both Israel and the US are thinking in terms of the delivery of very small nuclear weapons by drones–kind of like flying suitcase nukes–and especially against Iran's nuclear facilities.
No doubt they also want Iran–and others–to feel vulnerable to that mode of attack, thus the continued blasting away at meaningless targets in Pakistan with drones, and also all the public talk, including Obama's "joke" on the subject.
Merely by the way, that so-called joke solves a psychological enigma.
One pegs Obama as not the type to learn about drones from newspaper reports or third hand.
And if he did not want drones shot off in increased numbers they would not be used or even heard of because of the PR downside in the US and abroad.
Thus it is obvious that Obama is behind the increased drone attacks and approves their use in hitting unlucky, profiled civilians in Pakistan.
Has Obama shot off and guided a drone or two himself as a special guest at Langley?
The chances are a hundred to one that he has.
Strider55
May 8th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Well, the military is already welshing on soldiers' care by claiming their PTSD is a "pre-existing condition" and drumming them out with no VA benefits. Look for them to do the same with broken bones, amputated limbs, ruptured spleens, pollution-scarred lungs, etc.
Combine that with the inevitable mass exodus triggered by repeal of DADT, and the Maobama regime will have the pretext it needs to both revive the draft and drastically increase stop-loss.
E. A. Costa
May 9th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Drones, needless to say, are a two-edged sword, in more ways than one.
Packing up a drone with a small tactical nuke is absolute lunacy–including the obvious possibilities for a target nation to pirate the drone electronically and deliver it back upon the aggressor.
If the Russians can score a Stealth with Radio Shack technology, as they did in Yugoslavia, there can be no doubt that they and the Chinese and others are researching how to pirate US and Israeli drones and return them to the sender.
E. A. Costa
May 9th, 2010 at 1:48 am
Pakistan must be doing land office business in high tech tourism.
Your Plutocracy is Showing « The Vigilant Lens
May 9th, 2010 at 8:11 am
[...] reconsidering its stance on killing innocent brown-skinned children. It’s actually because new weapons systems, the next wars and buying teevee time cost’s more than it used [...]
MoT
May 9th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Clearly "bean counters" recognize that corporate profits would be impacted should flesh and blood soldiers need those dirty green backs.
Bring on the Terminators!
E. A. Costa
May 9th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
The Corporatist Capitalists are merely treating their "volunteer force", and its supplemental military contractors, in the same way all Capitalists (allowing for a few anomalies perhaps) treat all labor.
And it is, however the "volunteers" and contractors wish to delude themselves and others, "their"–the Corporate Capitalists'–force, not anyone else's, and certainly not the American people's.