Pentagon: Budget Cuts Would ‘Hurt War Effort’
Possible Cuts Would Harm 'Readiness' for Afghan Occupation Forces
Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter met with reporters today to warn that “across-the-board” spending cuts that might conceivably take effect on March 1 would harm the American occupation of Afghanistan if the military wasn’t excluded.
“There will be second-order effects on the war,” Carter said, adding that the cuts would mean less maintenance for weapons and would hurt “combat readiness” for the occupation forces.
Carter says that the Pentagon’s plan would be to give its 800,000 civilian employees an extra day off every week for the rest of the budget year, and that no cuts to actual military positions would even be considered.
Pentagon officials have repeatedly insisted that even the minor cuts proposed would be a huge threat to national security, but this is the first time officials have specifically suggested it would threaten an ongoing occupation. Since the occupation isn’t that popular, it isn’t clear how well this will play.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Judge: Bradley Manning Trial Will Include 'Classified' Portions - May 21st, 2013
- Afghan Officials: Body of US Torture Video Victim Found Near Base - May 21st, 2013
- State Dept Official Says Iranian Troops of Fighting in Syria - May 21st, 2013
- Austria: If EU Arms Syrian Rebels, We'll Withdraw From UN Mission - May 21st, 2013
- UN Mediator: Syrian Govt, Rebels Preparing for Peace Talks - May 21st, 2013





persnipoles
January 25th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Troops is salaried folk, they know that, and the military is all about messing with your free time. If cutting spending means their stuff gets less maintenance, then troops aint self-sufficient i.t.o. maintaining their stuff. What freaks put them in that situation? If they're dependent on civilian contractors to maintain their stuff, it's a good bet troops job experience suffers –and the tech experience is a motive for joining. I say the current glut has been screwing them. If the equipment is so 'sophisticated' that troops can't keep it up, where's the cost/benefit on that 'sophistication?' It's a good bet that aint worth it…more of a function of coddling the manufacturers/R&D. Put them on the diet now, don't put off the 'pain.'
mojo
January 25th, 2013 at 11:27 pm
Good let it hurt the war efforts.., who needs these wars anyway.., free education, universal healthcare, better pension, good jobs, good lasting jobs, good pay, clean environment, helping to eliminate homelessness, all the above needs to be the priority of any city, county, states or the federal government. War.., What is it goody for absolutely nothing.
greenport207
January 26th, 2013 at 4:17 am
Too many troops, too much murderous hardware, too much exceptionalism. Too much BS,
too much u.s.
curmudgeonvt
January 26th, 2013 at 6:10 am
Considering that we are a war-weary nation, this fear-mongering is exceptionally tone deaf.
Avanti
January 26th, 2013 at 6:57 am
Typical squealing by the military-industrial complex hog.
Outraged in Omaha
January 26th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
What war effort? There are only 66,000 troops and 100,000 contractors in Vietnam…..errr, Afghanistan. We shoukld have left there in 2005 when al Quaida moved to Yemen.
byrd_bahls22
January 26th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Cannon fodder. Or Fodderwing ? (peaceful character from the film "the Yearling." I vote for Fodderwing.
byrd_bahls22
January 26th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Cannon fodder. Or Fodderwing ? (peaceful character from the film "the Yearling.") I vote for Fodderwing.
Andrewp111
January 27th, 2013 at 2:08 am
Troops may be salaried, but civilian workers at DOD are not salaried. We have to fill out time sheets and get paid based on an 80 hour 2-week pay period.
Harry
January 27th, 2013 at 2:45 am
Perhaps as a gesture of their sincerity regarding the sanctity of America's defense the occupants of the Pentagon making more than $100,000 a year would be willing to take a 25% pay cut– just to help keep things going.
Or maybe they could just do away with private pantries and stewards for officers and pentagon officials and substitute covered-dish lunches. I'm sure the morale of the men in the field wouldn't be hurt by knowing admirals, generals and bureaucrats were having tuna casserole for lunch instead of lobster bisque.
Or failing that, maybe we could just take our generals out of their Ruritarian Palace Guard uniforms, give them sandals, cell phones and motorcycles and tell them to learn the art of war in the field.