-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Jamie M. Fly
Friday, April 15, 2011 - 10:33 AM
Share
On Wednesday, in response to Rep. Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity," President Obama announced sweeping cuts to the budget to pay down the deficit, including significant defense cuts. In contrast, Paul Ryan's budget proposed last week did not significantly decrease defense spending, indeed it matched President Obama's FY12 request submitted in February.
House Republicans seem to realize that defense is different. President Obama appears to believe that defense is a large part of the problem.
His proposals would cut $400 billion in security spending from the budget by 2023. Two months ago, the president submitted a budget to Congress that already included cuts to defense. The president now seems to think that those were not significant enough.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that during the run-up to the administration's FY12 request, Secretary Gates made clear that the $178 billion in cuts forced upon the Pentagon by the White House during the budget process left "the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary, given the complex and unpredictable array of security challenges the United States faces around the globe: global terrorist networks, rising military powers, nuclear-armed rogue states, and much, much more." Gates went on to say that proposals for major reductions in defense spending would be "risky at best, and potentially calamitous."
Instead of listening to Gates, Obama now is following the lead of Deficit Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. They, at least, were honest about their goals. Their proposals released last December included "Keep America safe, while rethinking our 21st century global role."
Ongoing unrest in the Middle East and U.S. involvement in an unexpected war in Libya, extensive humanitarian operations in Japan, and continued threats from rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran, should remind us that "rethinking our 21st century global role" is not possible. Just addressing current challenges, let alone preparing for the threats of tomorrow, will be difficult at current funding levels.
Secretary Gates seems to realize this, saying this in January:
For more than 60 years, the United States, backed up by the strength, reach and unquestioned superiority of our military, has been the underwriter of security for most of the free world. The benefits in terms of stability, prosperity and the steady expansion of political freedom and economic growth have accrued not only to our allies and partners, but above all to the American people. We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril, as retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later -- indeed, as they always have in the past."
The cuts announced by President Obama this week repeat the mistakes of past presidents exploiting "peace dividends" that in the end never paid out.
Obama's defense gambit should present an opportunity for Republicans in Congress and 2012 aspirants. In recent months, Republicans have rightly focused on fiscal responsibility, but now is the time to remind the American people that there is a way to cut the deficit and restore fiscal sanity without bankrupting our national security.
I have no doubt that resistance to any cuts in any defense programs will be one of the two legs on which the Republican campaign position for 2012 will rest. The other will be resistance to any tax increases.
Though a stool with two legs is inherently unstable, and anyone sitting on one is bound to look a little funny, I am certain that Bush Republicans will fight for both principles with great zeal and determination.
The Cold War ended twenty years ago. The rise of new military powers, most of whom are important economic and diplomatic partners of ours, only means that we don't need to fill the vacuum anymore. We currently make up 40% of global arms spending and spend six times as much as the Chinese- this is absurd. We can have a high-quality military with global reach for much less than we're spending now, and frankly it'd be irresponsible of us to continue slashing our domestic spending in order to maintain a bloated armed forces.
Also, I'm curious as to what situations Gates is referring to when he suggests that military cuts "always lead to tragedy."
I would have to agree that our current defense budget is bloated in certain respects. However, assuming you can even trust what the Chinese release as their defense spending, a greater percentage of their funding can be spent on RnD (I wouldn't be surprised if their defense budget wasn't pushing 200 billion USD); they aren't fighting 2 different major wars (possibly a third) and they also lack the global network of bases we have (this is what really needs to be stripped from the budget). I assume you realize this but a majority of our defense budget doesn't actually go into propagating a "high-quality" military. It goes into creating a military with global reach. Therefore, comparing our defense spending to anything but, quite frankly, the rest of the world is ludicrous. Whether you agree with the reasoning behind it, no other country in the world polices with such strength and power over such a large scale. If you truly wish to see "a high-quality military with global reach for much less than we're spending now" expect to redefine global reach itself, because the current breakdown of funding is what makes it global, not necessarily"high-quality".
Gates is pandering to the bleeding hearts out there and I would have to in this case argue the contrary; dismantling much of our global military infrastructure would reduce "tragedy" for American soldiers but would likely have a negative effect for locals. Constitutionally this is just thinking, but in a modern world it's benign neglect at it's prettiest.
Obviously we can retain the ability to deploy anywhere in the world within a reasonable timeframe without maintaining every single one of our current sites, or, for example, having some half a million servicemen stationed in stable and peaceful Western Europe. Our defense commitments to South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are obviously much more vital and relevant, but in much of the world our defense presence is largely superfluous (we do little in Africa and South America, little is expected of us in Europe, and in western Asia the value of a permanent military presence is debatable). There's no barbarians at the gates and given our current domestic situation, we should reexamine what our priorities are in a way that hasn't really been done since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What security are we bankrupting exactly?
Let's be real here, when you add up all defense-related spending between the DoD and other departments, the total comes out to around $1 trillion annually. Given that the Cold War has been over for twenty years and that the probability of another "Great War" any time soon (if ever) is pretty low, this figure is pretty ridiculous.
The DoD's own recent documents list something like 700 "sites" overseas. Do all of these really secure some vital interest to the US? What major existential threat do the dozens of bases in Europe protect us from, for example? Do we really need to hand out blank checks to every development project from the defense industry when they routinely come in late, overbudget and often don't work out as advertised? Would this money not be better spent on things that would benefit everyday Americans, like schools, roads and infrastructure or health care?
We need a strong, efficient military, no doubt; but when you're in debt by the trillions and have numerous social problems at home, it doesn't really make sense to spend over half of your discretionary budget on weapons and getting involved in other people's problems that don't immediately threaten you.
Gates position that we be the underwriter of security for most of the free world is contentious at best. Free market economy forces alone will control any of the major world powers ambitions. In the new Global market economy it is generally accepted that invasion and aquisition by force is a recipe for econmic disaster. This is a draconian concept that is no longer valid in modern times. He sounds more like a typical cheeleader for the military industrial complex.
"In the new Global market economy it is generally accepted that invasion and aquisition by force is a recipe for econmic disaster. "
It seems to me you are getting ahead of yourself. Generally accepted doesn't mean unanimous, and therefore disregarding past ideals seems a little naive. Any governing body that attempts to reign in the entire planet must decide when it is appropriate to intervene and when not to; the free market works to change and control only so quickly and intervention, whether it is military or political, is a key medium. The United States needs to shrink our military borders for sure, but there is nothing contentious about claiming to be the underwriter of security when it is true.
Gates is wrong on our "need" to maintain a military empire..
Gates must feel the need to defend the generals (who will be pursuing employment with corporate weapon merchants as they "retire") and the bloated, unneeded corporate "defense" establishment...but he couldn't be more wrong.
We need a new advocacy group in the tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower called Ex-Generals Against Military Empire. Why? Because at a time when Republicans and many Democrats are calling for drastic, austere spending cuts to needed poverty reducing programs like Medicare and Medicaid...it is clear, because of our national debt, that we can no longer afford our exorbitantly costly and manifestly unneeded military empire with $800 billion budgets that sucks up half of the federal budget... the Cold War is over and we live in a peaceful neighborhood, Canada and Mexico are not about to invade.
Our military has become big-business...it is the Wall Street military industrial complex which exerts far too much influence over our democracy's priorities and spending.
Highly questionable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is a natural outcome of our a globe-spanning imperialistic military...will not change unless we demand that our unnecessary, extremely costly empire consisting of hundreds of bases around the world, 12 aircraft carriers, thousands of jets and bombers is dismantled...our nation's military and its far too militarized foreign policy will not become more peaceful and less costly as long as bombing via jets and drones or waging undeclared war is so easy...dismantling the costly, wasteful, globe-spanning military empire is long over due.
The real cost won't come in programs and won't be borne by the defense industry - it will be on the backs of Soldiers.
That argument that the GOP will mindlessly defend the defense budget is just a narrow minded as the one waged by the Democrats. We all know the answer lies somewhere between responsible cuts and responsible tax reform. People will pay more to be sure, but you can't expect to tax your way to a better budget. Also - the entire Defense Department doesn't spend enough money to "fix" the debt problem.
There are no other "military powers" with our capabilities. No other nation has the ability to project power that we do, and those that are "up and coming" aren't exactly the sort of nations we want running the show. To suggest the opposite is a little worrying. Even our "allies" are drawing down from what little they had before.
The argument that states won't grow by force anymore displays a profound level of arrogance; a belief that somehow we've solved a major world problem. The only way one could even begin to make this argument is by stating that nuclear weapons are making war too costly... that's probably true - at least until someone actually builds BMD.
Our military is not a big business - it is the victim of a government looking to protect itself by creating jobs in as many districts as possible. It's why budget cuts never go to systems (or rarely do) and almost always go to end strength and benefits. Further - someone made the argument about 20 years ago that if we had a smaller Army we'd be less likely to use it; it's worked out so well. Today less than 1% of the population is in uniform (and that includes the reserves), but the defense contractors and federal workers unions are doing as well as ever. It sure as hell isn't troop strength eroding our budget, but it will be troop strength sacrificed to lower the budget. I also don't think shutting down our commitments to other nations is the answer either. In some cases it is probably useful, but in many - it'd just be bad for everyone. Imagine if, for example, we suddenly informed Japan we wouldn't be there anymore. They would, without hesitation, re-arm and go nuclear; the same for South Korea. How does that help preserve our security?
@NATEOMC - you're partially right I think - we do spend too much on weapons and the like. But I don't think that any cuts to defense will actually cut money spent on needless systems. No - I imagine we'll still buy those because decision makers aren't going to want to explain lost jobs. Instead, we'll cut Soldiers and we'll cut benefits. The problem is compounded by what appears to be a decision to construct weapons in as many districts as possible - raising the cost and lowering efficiency.
"I also don't think shutting down our commitments to other nations is the answer either. In some cases it is probably useful, but in many - it'd just be bad for everyone. Imagine if, for example, we suddenly informed Japan we wouldn't be there anymore. They would, without hesitation, re-arm and go nuclear; the same for South Korea. How does that help preserve our security?"
Excellent point.
What is the author talking about? Our military adventures abroad , especially in the mideast, have made us much less secure, not more. Everything our military or CIA has touched has turned to c*&p. The military-industrial-security complex is totally out of control and bleeding us dry for virtually no benefit to the US. It is time for someone to take a stand and point out that the emperor has no clothes. At a minimum 75% of our defense/security budget is total waste if not corruption. Let's get our priorities straight.
This is blatant hyperbole. You realize we have 3 million servicemen and some 700 global installations, right? There is waste in our military, but it's mostly negligible compared to the basic costs of maintaining such large overseas troop presences and such sophisticated weapons systems. My main concern about the budget is that it's become accepted wisdom that the defense budget will never shrink and they'll never have to do anything on the cheap. I won't pretend to be familiar enough with the budget to know how much definitely should be cut, but I think the current environment, in which the defense budget is never put under any serious scrutiny by civilian leadership, is hazardous.
You completely missed JKLAIRWIN's point. In multiple wars, the US military is killing people, directly and indirectly, that have no history of being a threat to the US. In doing so, it is recruiting enemies to take up arms against the US, and teaching them that killing innocent civilians is part of the US way of war. In the Cold War, the aggressive US nuclear weapons policy threatened all in the US and the rest of the world.
The US military budget is not only used to recruit enemies of the US, in economic terms it is a form of economic warfare against the US. As a practical matter, al-Qaida and the US military establishment are allied in waging an economic war against the US people, and they are clearly winning.
I didn't miss his point, I isolated a specific statement of his that was inaccurate and I explained why it was. Also consider that the expenses for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are paid for outside of our regular defense budget, so however unwise and costly those wars have been they are not representative of the bulk of our spending and bringing those operations to a close won't shrink the official budget by much. And while Islamists might resent our presence in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel, the vast majority of our overseas armed forces are stationed in western Europe or in Japan and South Korea, due to our long-term security agreements with those countries. In the places where our military presence has been the most pervasive, it's done a lot of good. Even in OIF and OEF most of our failures have been the result either of idiotic civilian leadership (Debaathification) or the actions of individuals (Abu Ghraib). Dismantling a global military empire over such things is a terrible idea.
this is asinine. the historical analogies rest upon an absurd counterfactual - that retrenching states would have been better off had they failed to correct their strategic overextension. retrenchment never occurs when things are going well for a country - it's a painful choice forced upon leaders by difficult circumstances. to look at a country's post-retrenchment problems and attribute them to the retrenchment policy itself is borderline disingenuous.
not to mention the broader point that Obama's cuts would in no way "bankrupt our security." this type of argument is identical to the fear-mongering on fox news. the guy should be ashamed of writing it.
I oppose the Iraq and afghan mini wars
I oppose the Iraq and afghan mini wars. I think we would be much better off by invading Iran and combining Iraq and Afghanistan into one large general war. More bang for the buck so to speak.
Otherwise Islamists are just picking our troops off and laughing.
http://islamist.com/p205847-afghan-footage-showing-attack-on-us.cfm
http://svideos.com/p205960-us-army-night-vision-on-sale.cfm
dr.k.
The wrong kind of bang, for bucks we don't have
As crazy as the mullahs are, we actually have a decent image with Iran's younger generations and so long as no major conflict occurs, the theocracy's hold on the country will only get weaker with time. Dropping bombs on them without adequate provocation is a pretty sure way to reverse this process. And it's not like we have the men we need even for Afghanistan right now, and Iran is a very big and populous country by comparison.
Define Decent? I could say that as far the Middle East goes we have a decent reputation with the Kurds in Iraq, or with the Sunni on our payroll (formerly), or really with anyone. The view of young Iranians towards the United States could probably be described best as cautious. They know we have money and resources, but they do not want the strings that come (especially in that part of the world) with being seen as an American ally.
Next - the Iranian clerical regime is not crazy - far from it. That's the problem. They have an agenda and are rationally pursuing it while making rational calculations about risk and cost/benefit along the way. Right now, their agenda runs counter to ours - that's a problem.
If we did start "dropping bombs" on Iran - we would do it no matter the size of our military or defense budget. The sort of red lines that would illicit that reaction are going to remain regardless of our budget (short of going to 0). The costs of war with Iran are high, very high in fact. That's why I believe our red lines won't move, because as a result of these costs - we've already moved them as far as we can.
As for your comment about troop strength being insufficient - we could defeat Iran. We could not hold it against an insurgency. Iran knows this and considers it in its calculations.
But to the point - what I see here among the folks who want to cut our defense budget is a belief somehow it will keep us out of war(s) we don't need or want. That's the problem though, define "need" and "want". A study of history will show that even when we have a small military, we still go to war. Further - studying every draw down since the Cold War will show that the defense industry, the group folks seem so worried about gouging the tax payer, never takes it on the chin; the Soldiers do.
Think about it - if you shrink the military you have to answer concerns to the electorate about ability to defend the country - so you buy uber expensive equipment that makes up for a smaller military. It helps this equipment is capital intensive and creates jobs. However - if you grow the military, then people are worried about combat readiness rates and old equipment for our Soldiers, falling behind rising powers, etc. So we buy new stuff that ideally corrects these issues - also capital intensive and also creates jobs. Either way - congress gets their hands on it and either spreads the work out to as many districts as possible or the companies bidding for the contract design it that way to garner more support. You see - end strength of military makes no difference to the actual problem.
If you want to really fix the issue - make companies produce equipment as centrally as possible. Require them to pony up the money to make proto-types. Have the military say we are interested in "this" and let the companies produce their version of "this". Finally - if a company wants an edge (which they will), they'll work aggressively to outdo everyone else - to be the company that gets the contract. Right now, everyone gets the contract - even when the plane says Boeing - it is still built by all of the defense contractors. They know this and if effects cost, competition, and end results.
Is your first name Henry or is that just a fake name for an AIPAC troll? Why is it that every US citizen with dual citizenship with Israel think's it's their God given duty to lobby for war against Iran? That's another reason for huge amounts of US money being spent; merely because the Israeli tail wags the US dog.
We sell them equipment, which makes us money. We've never intervened on their behalf in anything other than a diplomatic way. How much are they costing us again?
Most of this is a big fat cat lie
"For more than 60 years, the United States, backed up by the strength, reach and unquestioned superiority of our military, has been the underwriter of security for most of the free world. "
It's itme "most of the free world" i.e. Europe, and also the BRIC countries stepped up and did their part in "underwriting security" for awhile, instead of whining whenever the US doesn't step in and complaining whenever we do.
Secondly, people who area against defense cuts seem not to believe in a law of diminishing returns. I don't believe for two seconds that we are spending this money wisely; given how the VA treats military personnel, especially once they get out, and the standard of living that enlisted service members have to exist under, meanwhile I'm sure I can't begin to imagine how rich military contractors are getting off of the absolute cutting edge of technology and BS research.
Our defense policy needs to start focusing a lot more on actual defense and quit rationalizing meddling with foreign governments in the name of "protecting American interests," and the defense budget needs to reflect this policy.
I agree that particularly in Europe, our allies have more than enough military strength of their own to handle whatever local threats there may be. I think our military presence in the Pacific does a lot for stability so I'm less eager to see it cut, but I definitely think our presence in Germany in particular and the EU in general should be scaled back considerably.
But serving as an enlisted man is actually one of the best jobs you can get right out of high school in terms of pay and benefits (base pay alone is higher than a full-time minimum-wage job, not including food and housing allowances, insurance benefits, and the like). The young and uneducated get a good bit more out of the military than they probably would in the private sector, so although many VA services are lamentable the standard of living for a typical enlisted man is really not bad at all. I do have a serious problem with the DoD's reliance on overpaid contractors, and their eagerness to throw out wasteful R&D contracts, but I suspect that these may have a relatively small impact on the budget in real terms.
Gates, a committed bureaucrat, is defending turf
namely the DOD.
Career men such as Gates conflate institutional and clique loyalties with patriotism.
I think that it is crazy that Obama wants to do this; however I do understand that he has to make some changes especially when our society is so far in debt. As far as the choices that he has made by raising the taxes for the wealthy and using the defense cuts as a method to save on money.
I was am a veteran and I spent over 4 years in the military. It is difficult enough to try to make ends meet in the military; especially since they do not get paid a lot of money. I understand that when people get out of the military there is not enough money to get health care or any other type of care. As a matter of fact when I was in Germany I got a virus that made me struggle with warts on hands and I had to dig deep into my pockets to get the treatment that I needed.
I know that we all have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to get our country back on track; however I am sure that there are other ways than digging into the defense department.
Whatever Obama decides to do; I am sure that no one is going to be happy with the outcome. In my personal opinion I do not think that we should be in this boat to begin with. Hopefully we will get out of the debt that we are in; I would definitely hate to see my children have to pay for the problems that we created.
A little late to the post, but was this article meant as a sarcastic joke? The last I heard, we had 55 Generals assigned to NATO. The military has 230 golf courses scattered in bases in the US and around the world. Do we still have fighter jets stationed in Romania and Bulgaria? Why were we trying to create some sort of missile defense system in Europe? Why then did we give the Poles the Patriot anti-missile defenses? Why do we allow defense industries and the complicit Generals to work for years on projects that don't work now and billions have been wasted (think Star Wars missile defense and also the Laser cannon in the nose of a 747)? Why do we have the Defense Secretary trying to force the Iraqis to keep our troops in Iraq. They hate our guts and want us out along with any personnel in a deliberatly bloated staff at the US Embassy. Our Navy is so arrogant that they think the Air craft carriers would survive more than a week in a real shooting war with either the Russians or Chinese. Too much of the flag waving and crys to protect the mothers and US babies is about protecting the turf of the Generals and Admirals and has very little to do with US defense.
While the American military has been the strong arm of American foreign policy for the last sixty years doesn't mean it has to be. Research, the one easily supported aspect of the US military spending is often misguided. The military industrial complex that was talked about by Washington and Eisenhower has become far too real. Obama and Gates cross the globe promoting US military technology. As noted in previous posts, the US continues to retain bases in dozens of countries across the globe.
Its great that we believe in our "mandate" to protect the world. The simple reality though is that we are missing a lot of our potential. China is building roads in Africa to access oils and materials. US food AID is great but African loyalties will go to the nation that has inspired African stability and at the moment, that is China. By focusing on the physical threats to the United States. We have ignored the far more important economic and spiritual threats to our nations. We have become a nation afraid. Are there vast dangers in the world around us? Yes Are there terrorists and scary people? Yes. Is this the biggest danger to America security? God No
Obesity causes 300,000 deaths a year. Alcohol is linked to another 75,000 and tobacco causes another 443,000 deaths. 9/11 was a tragedy of immense proportion. The reality though is that our nations health crises kills an equivalent to the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 a day. Our healthcare costs are rapidly rising due our inability to put money in the right place.
2010-2020 needs to be a decade of American Prevention. Our long term problems whether they be budgetary, public health or education need to be solved quickly. Is the American Military a proud and vital institution? Certainly. At the same time though even the Pentagon is begging for brains over bullets. Its a clear message when it demands the greater funding of the foreign service and soft power.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(26)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE