In a bold statement of bureaucratic overreach, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seemed to supersede his authority on Thursday, telling lawmakers he would not accept large military cuts under a debt deal. He compared the possibility of increasing the expected defense cuts – $350 billion in projected spending over 10 years – to a “doomsday mechanism” that would weaken America.
Such cuts "I believe would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families and our military’s ability to protect the nation," Panetta said. His newfound concern for “our troops and their families” seems implausible given his refusal to take them out of harm’s way in the various countries in which they are deployed.
The resistance to cutting the defense budget is perverse after a decade of excessive increases in military expansion. Since September 11th, defense spending has gone from $432 billion in fiscal year 2001 to a $670.9 billion request for cash currently before Congress. Furthermore, current proposals would not actually cut spending, but instead would allow the defense budget to continue to grow, merely at a less aggressive rate.
As further proof that Panetta’s statement is more political posturing than anything else, the language of the bill does not specify how much of the defense budget will actually be cut. The $350 billion number being thrown around came from a fallacious White House statement. Cuts may be directed at defense, but are likely to be spread throughout separate budgets for homeland security, intelligence, nuclear weapons, diplomacy, and foreign aid – none of which the Defense Secretary has authority over.
The minuscule defense cuts being contemplated could easily target areas of waste. As a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments found, while the source of growth in annual defense budgets since 2001 has been mostly (54%) due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, much of the rest has been spent on wasteful superfluous weapons technology, bloated salaries and benefits plans, and expensive peacetime operating costs for the 900-plus military bases in 130-plus countries around the world. Still, ending the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone would free up billions of dollars.
The United States could cut defense spending by half and still outspend every other country in the world. Panetta voiced concern that any decrease in spending would make it harder to face threats from Iran and North Korea, two countries with comparatively pathetic defense budgets and which present no credible threat.
Probably referring to China, Panetta also mentioned the responsibility “to project our power in the world in order to make sure rising powers understand that the United States still has a strong defense.” This adheres closely to imperial grand strategy, which insists on a foreign policy actively militarist enough so as to prevent military competitors and keep all the world’s nation’s dependent on the U.S. as military superpower. Clearly, this has nothing to do with defending the country.
Thus spake SecDef Piñata, "thou cans't cut my Legions oh hell no! Why, the Picts will come a crawling over yon fence."
Sic Transit Gloria, Leon, . .sic transit gloria. . . .
These tax-fattened swine, and their pet projects, need to be culled.
What money Leon? We are all washed up.
Maybe we could close the hospitals and schools so you can kill brown people?
There will be no change and will continue as business as usual. The debt will continue to rise till we see the fate of Russia and slowly Europeans will distance themself from america.
I think america has earned it due to illegal killing they must also die.
Panetta logic: “to project our power in the world in order to make sure rising powers understand that the United States still has a strong defense….”
True logic: The corporate rich who rule Empire USA need an excessive military to protect their excessive wealth — and to give them an excessive deadly ability to generate excessive profits.
This is the voice of the MIC and it has nothing to do with keeping America safe and everything to do with lining the pockets of fat cats.
Thanks to sites like this and others, more and more people are understanding this everyday.
Yeah ! Sometimes its almost like there is a competition to see who says the biggest deadly whooper, or the most deadly, outrageous statement in lame defense of the fascist amerikan empire !
The next presser the Pentagon gives will include the clincher accusation that anyone who longs for the reduction of the Pentagon's budget are terrorist sympathizers and unAmerican. The pols will all fall neatly in line and amend the legislation – when they come back from vacation…because they know the "Stupor Committee" is not going to come up with anything that they can agree to and those automatic cuts are going to kick in.
But basically what the Pentagon is telling Congress is that next time you yahoos get together to screw with then way things are done, we need more not less.
By "our troops and their families" he means to allude to the first areas which he would cut should the Pentagon be forced into cutting something. Things like the VA. Things that aren't directly related to blowing up brown people.
CNN thought it was being cute yesterday when it reported that a general said that Congress should be sent to 'boot camp' in order to be disciplined to make budget cuts. Hell the generals themselves should be the first ones sent to that boot camp.
We have never had a more stupid Secretary of Defence (War). Another Obama mistake. Our killing in other countries will only stop when our governments have no more money for anything, even the Pentagon. Then the wealthy will have their own private armed contractors to protect them in their gated enclaves while the rest of us starve. Then they will kill us if we resist.
It is blasphemy to even suggest that the sacred cow needs to go on a diet.