The Pentagon today issued a “warning” to the Obama Administration about its proposed budget cuts, which as always were really just decreases in the rate of growth of spending for the military. Officials insisted the cuts were dangerous and might threaten the military’s capabilities.
The Obama plan budgets the savings out through 2023, which makes most of the $400 billion “savings” illusory and contingent on future administrations sticking to the current estimates (which never happens). Even this largely rhetorical exercise has been slammed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who warned any changes in funding would need to reflect “policy choices and not be a budget math exercise.”
Officials said that the cuts needed to involve the administration selecting specific military missions that would be ended. Though it is obviously impossible to predict what the US foreign policy situation will look like in another 12 years, officials seem pretty confident that the US will be involved in a myriad of wars of some form or another and still need money in excess of the already record levels of spending for 2010.
Which of course means that the railing against the current, miniscule cuts serves not just to score points with defense contractors, but also to set the tone of debate on where the military budgets for the next 12 years will be. Record budgets every single year are virtually the expectation at this point (some overly ambitious guesstimates notwithstanding), and the proposed cuts in the size of those records have been framed as “controversial.” This makes any reduction to a sane level of military spending so far out of the field of debate as to be unheard of. It may not be clear who the US will be occupying and/or bombing in 2023, but the current “debate” aims to assure it will be somebody.
America is going to spend itself right into the toilet, just like the Kremlin did.
The prediction by Nikita Krueschev was – "we don't have to worry about America; they will spend themselves out of existence".
Ya know, it's sort of comical watching the Pentagon whining about "alleged" budget cuts and undermining "missions." Brings to mind one Bullwinkle Moose telling Rocky, "hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. Nothing up my sleeve…"
"This makes any reduction to a sane level of military spending so far out of the field of debate as to be unheard of. "
There you go.
"Threaten capabilities?" What pray tell are these goons smoking? It's high time folks took back their country from these military mandarins and execute budgetary drone strikes of their own.
What are they smoking? Probably the same stuff that funds their black ops.
Gates says that "cuts" in the military budget will result in the reduction of the number of missions undertaken by the pentagon. That leads to the question how much would the military budget have to be cut to reduce the number of overseas missions the pentagon could undertake to zero. That number should be the upper limit on the amount of military spending. The only purpose of the United States military should be to protect the lives and liberties of the American people and not go galavanting around the globe in search of monsters to destroy,
"…might threaten the military’s capabilities." And the downside is…? Perhaps if you were a little more specific about what capabilities you're talking about? You say you might have to end the occupations of countries on the other side of the globe and close some of the 172 bases worldwide?? And, what??
As usual the Pentagon and the warmongers don't have a clue and the Pentagon protection racket scheme of; fund US, the Pentagon,for protection or else….! Or else what, 9/11! The point for reducing Pentagon spending is to reduce its ability to commit atrocities and conduct war. The purpose of the Pentagon is to protect the worldwide assets of the WEALTHY PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS many of which pay no taxes. The forced contributions, withholding taxes,tax on labor funds the USG which transfers the wealth created by labor to capital and finances their ability to defraud the world and then having the USG bail the banks out at the expense of the American taxpayers using their forced contributions, withholding taxes, to fund the Wall St., Wash., DC criminal axis of evil.
This is the only way to halt the US war crime missions all over the world.., is like if they could do that to Israel and halt all the services they providing Israel which then would force Israel to understand and act upon the facts that they need to stop killing people.., that US needs to understand.., that Hillary Clinton and her a like needs to understand.., that they can not just go around the world creating wars because other nations speak a different language or dress differently and that they have oil or other minerals that western countries need.
The important question, will there be enough to bankroll Israel and it's crimes?
America needs fewer missions, fewer bases, fewer troops and fewer military appropriations.
I've been banned from Anti war and HuffPo, badges of honor.
I have to admit I agree with Gates that the administration has to specify "how any changes in funding would need to reflect policy choices and not be a budget math exercise".
For example, the administration should have to say the US will:
>truly leave Iraq,
>will give up on the Afghanistan occupation, or
>reduce the size of the standing army.
to name a few.
Stands to reason that the Pentagon would be outraged over the prospect of any cuts. Geez, they can't be put out of business, with all the countries to invade, all the oil to steal land all the brown people to slaughter that would be really bad for business.
Having said that, I heard this morning that they actually stand to make more with the 'cuts' and that is something I can believe. Such is the state of affairs in the Upsidedown Kingdom these days. Cuts mean more money, more money means less money, war is peace, up is down, black is white.
But as long as the pentagon can protect us from that army of Canadian panzer battalions, what the problem?
Oh we cant lose our brave missions. Think of all the colored people we can still kill and the money to be made.
We can't figure out how to cut our national debt and still provide the services which we all need.
The folks in DC must lose all common sense as soon as they get into that heady DC fog, with everyone telling them how great and smart they are….to say nothing of all of the lobbys drowning them in booze, food and cash! We have over a half-million service personnel, stationed in more than 100 foreign countries! Our navy has ships cruising in every deep water on earth! We are broke but we dole out billions each year to every country which hollers "help". ($3 billion /year to Israel, for what ???). We still have 65,000 troops in Germany, 65 years after I left there, at the end of WW II! The "Industrial Military Complex", which Eisenhower warned us about, will finally break us, unless all of us stand up and say: "Enough, Cut this Foolishness Out, NOW"! If we do not, it will soon be too late………!
"Missions" – what "missions"?? – do they mean the waging of aggressive war; of attacking and destroying countries that have neither threatened nor attacked the US; of supplying and supporting the war crimes committed by Israel? – just what "missions" are required by the US Military?
And what about securing and protecting our borders from illegal invasion? – oops – NOT a "mission" – is it?
Do we really need 750 military bases all over this Earth?
Do we really need to spend more on our military tahn all of the rest of the world combined?
Oops – I forgot – got to feed the military industrial complex – don't we? – afterall – war is a profictable racket for all except those who fight and die.
Hillary Clinton – is there a dumber bimbo in America than Hillary?
Oh, darn- you mean we'll actually have to start the drawdown that we're already supposed to be well into?
Make no mistake- Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon to be Pakistan and possibly Iran) are all wars of choice, NOT of necessity. We didn't have to go there to do what we needed to do… but there's so much money floating around unaccounted for, who can resist getting a piece of the action?
As for sane military spending, we already have the best weapons and technology on the planet- why do we need to continue to make more STUFF when nobody else is even trying to match us? Instead of building newer planes and ships, how about let's get the maximum usage out of what we already have? When I was in Boot Camp at Parris Island, I was shooting with a worn-out M-16 just as straight as kids these days are with newer, more expensive m-4's… so why do we need to continue to buy new stuff? Just because it's new? Stationed in with Delta Battery 2/12 we were supplied with M198 Howitzers and- believe it or not- WW2 issue M105 Howitzers. And guess what- we used those M105's just as much as the bigger M198's and to just as good effect.
We have nukes that are old, yes, but perfectly serviceable for their purpose as expensive paperweights- why do we need to 'upgrade' them if our policy is to not use them first? We have B-52 bombers that are older than I am, yet they still perform better than any strategic bomber in the world- it's a proven airframe, so why the need to build bombers that are far more expensive and can't do the same job? A missile boat is a missile boat- so why does the navy need brand-new ships all the time? A boat-launched missile doesn't know if it's on a 1 year-old boat or a 20 year-old boat, and it will shoot just as straight.
There's all sort of ways we can cut the military budget by cutting back on equipment, but the biggest savings we can gain is by cutting back the size of the force all around. We don't need thousands of troops stationed all around the world- deactivate them and reduce the force through natural attrition and bring in just enough recruits to keep the manpower flow going. We need a smaller military, not a larger one., and we need it for the defense of America, not for prosecuting foreign wars where we have no business. How about securing our national borders for starters?
I am for anything that threatens the military's ability to launch more wars of aggression.