Obama's defense budget sacrifices U.S. primacy

That said, it is not at all clear that that the administration will be spending what it needs to in order to maintain our current defense posture.

That's an easy one. We can't afford our current defense posture. We can't afford it, so we can't maintain it. We can't maintain it, so we have to change it.

We should not forget that, even if China's GDP is no longer growing at 8-9 percent each year, even a five percent annual growth will enable Beijing to continue to modernize and expand its military capability over the medium to long term

The United States should spend what it needs to on defense, be it 3, 4, 5 or 8 percent of GDP.

Do you see the contradiction here? The more of our GDP we siphon off for the military, the less is left for the civilian economy to grow with. If we put 4% into the military and grow at 3%, if we could somehow survive with no military at all that might amount to 7% growth. (This is a little simplistic, but only a little. Military spending slows economic growth by some multiple.)

Of course we can't manage with no military spending. But the more we spend, the more our economy falls behind and the faster china grows relative to us, and the more they can afford to catch up to us militarily.

We can't afford too large a military. If it turns out that we need more military than we can afford -- that's tough for us. We can spend the resources we don't have and lose, or we can fund the military too little and lose.

Since we can't afford what we're doing, it looks to me like the remaining choice is to pay what we can afford and hope it's enough. We might do OK that way, maybe, and the alternative is is certain defeat.

While the administration is certainly funding short-term military needs, it appears willing to sacrifice long-term U.S. military superiority. We should not forget that, even if China's GDP is no longer growing at 8-9 percent each year, even a five percent annual growth will enable Beijing to continue to modernize and expand its military capability over the medium to long term, while the current U.S. defense budget clearly limits our capability over the same time frame.

While I have a healthy respect for the potential of Chinese military power, and I believe that conventional warfare supremacy must be at the forefront of US military strategy, I do need to point out that it's not just a matter of money; there are serious institutional and infrastructure problems with the PLA that limit its effectiveness. Mechanization, for example, is only a thin veneer on most of the Chinese military; most of their troops are in the form of infantry divisions that march into battle.

In fact, personnel and operations and maintenance costs will squeeze procurement and research and development programs, and do so at a time when the loss of engineering jobs will run counter to the administration's job creation policy.

While the jobs issue is the least of my concerns, the over-emphasis on adding new personnel and operations while gutting R & D and procurement is a major concern of mine. It's as if these people never looked at the actual costs of an army and realized that the biggest costs are having lots of soldiers and using them.

That's an easy one. We can't afford our current defense posture. We can't afford it, so we can't maintain it. We can't maintain it, so we have to change it.

Hardly. The US defense budget represents a very small fraction of overall US spending, and could easily be doubled (it was much larger back in the Cold War days, for example). Money is not the primary constraint.

As for military spending taking away from civilian spending - the US spent the equivalent of 10% of its GDP on the military back in the 1950s, yet the economic situation was hardly dire.

Your comments that defense spending are a drag on US economic performance is only true if that money is left in the private sector. If it is merely redirected to welfare or condom handouts (a near certainty under Obama) then I disagree. There is vastly more economic benefit to the US industrial base in the manufacture of advanced planes, ships and armored vehicles than there is with ANY of the nonsensical "stimulus" spending or entitlements growth of this administration.

As for China, you would be hard pressed to find a bigger foreign policy hawk than I am, but China is still decades away from being a peer competitor militarily anywhere but in their directly adjacent "near abroad" and we should modestly reduce our expenditures on current production systems while maintaining R&D on more advanced systems that could be brought online if needed (albeit only over a period of 10-20 years). I think we should stop asking our "allies" to contribute and force them to by simply pulling back in Europe. Russian is Dead Man Walking as long as oil is under $60 a barrel.

That said, it is not at all clear that that the administration will be spending what it needs to in order to maintain our current defense posture.

Our current defense posture is not maintainable. And it's not 2, 4, 8 or whatever it takes - because you're using our money for it.

China's military budget is about 10% of the US's and only half the US as a percent of GNP. China will not be a military threat to the US for at least 20 years.
Will China be a threat to its neighbors?
China had confrontations with Russia, India and Vietnam in the past 50 years. I believe China settled their differences
with Russia and Vietnam lately. India still claim land ceased by Britain in the 1700's. India and China had a border war in the confronted area in the 1960's. China withdrew from this area after Indians were pushed out of the confronted areas. To this day, the problem had not been solved. This may be a problem for future generations. Now both China and India are too busy trying to develop their economies and they are very good trading partners: India's trade with China is three times its trade with Japan.
Japan fears a strong China, Japan knew what it did to China in WWII, although Japan did not admit it and tried hard to forget it. Japan fears a strong China will repay it.
Will China invate India or Japan? Why? China will most likely overtake Japan's economy in about three years. Is China going to distroy all the hard work and development the past 30 years just to settle a score? Besides China does not want to appear as an evil nation to Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Australia as well as the rest of Asia
by invading other countries.
All China want to do is not be a victim, again.

I reject the contention that cancellations of several major programs will threaten our current of future Defense superiority. Factually the abundance of funding has justified some programs with less than an adequate or critical Defense Business case review.

A little over a year ago Lawrence Korb conducted a comprehensive review of the array of major programs in the services as well as our overall Defense posture and concluding there were many areas where cancellations were more than appropriate.

Our Air, Land and Sea systems are far superior today and unchallenged by any threats and that will not erode over night or in the foreseeable future. The fear that any nation or potential enemy will technologically surpass us is not supported by any facts. Our mechanized forces, tactical aircraft and submarines are the best in the world, coveted by our allies and feared by our enemies. Spending billions of dollars for at best incremental improvements is wasteful and in some cases denies funding for less sexy yet critical programs such as Military Housing and training.

While many of our programs on paper are 30 years old, almost all have been modernized on a continual basis and if they suffer from poor maintenance those points to a management problem more than system obsolesces
Rather than pushing the technology to advance the state of the art in unmanned aircraft we are looking to spend billions on new fighters and bombers does little more than perpetuate the status quo. The same is true for the Army’s FCS program that is years behind, billions overrun and questionable in need. The rationale for 2 new nuclear submarines instead of 1 is unknown, as is the need for another new Aircraft carrier.

It is the job of the Secretary of Defense to propose a budget with programs that prudently and effectively assures our troops can defend this country with the training and tools they need to do so. The contention that Defense spending needs to serve as a jobs program either within the Department or by Industry is firmly rejected. The jobs implication is a political problem and not one for DoD.

For far too many years the amount of funding that has been made available for basic science and technology to explore and truly advance the state of the art has been reallocated to pay for the development of systems that over promised, were ill considered and have been significantly over budget.
The Defense budget can be significantly reduced without harming our National and International prominence however the lobbing efforts by industry and those who equate money with results have stood in the way of in fact making our National Defense stronger.

Military spending has never totally focused upon constructing the best National Defense possible. It was always been a business and political tool. We have a force structure, bases and weapons that are there to create jobs often with little regard to its contribution to our national security and that is fact.

We have a large number of bases that are under utilized, poorly maintained with marginal need solely because of their economic contribution to a community. We have weapon systems that are of marginal utility justified on the basis of job creation or less than honest need more because of exceptional lobbying than contribution.

The Military itself is a political structure that at times is more consumed with justifying their role based on history rather than future need. Weapon systems based on threats of old continue to be touted as essential for our future, when in reality what is being proposed is building a better slide rule or 8 track player.

We defeated the Iraq Army twice on the ground in under 3 weeks, have air superiority, and are unmatched in submarines and missiles. Selling programs and a force structure is done appealing to fear rather than pragmatism.
Our role and losses in Iraq were more a matter of political cirumstances than military inferiority. We not only cannot afford a military larger than what we have, we do not require it to maintain our national security. Expansion of the Army so that we do not have to be dependent on the ready reserves makes sense. The continual expenditure on over blown marginally effective and expensive systems is what is at issue.

The public is upset at bail outs but our Military just packages its problems as cost overruns which cost us billions and deliver little. There are at least 20 military installations in the US that should be closed and consolidated who continued operations is wasteful. The number of members in the Military that are in non-combat positions is wasteful and expensive but justify the status quo.

Defense spending is more of an emotional issue than it should be but expecting any dramatic change is unrealistic. There is however no doubt that we are not underfunding our Military, just making poor choices.