Defense Budget Cuts and "Transforming America"

[Pilgrim]

Behold, Barack Hussein Obama's vision for the US Military:

"A recently released report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “Strategic Choices: Navigating Austerity,” argues that allowing some hollowing out of our military forces is acceptable.

The report is raising eyebrows around Washington, mainly because it is so at odds with what Pentagon leadership is saying.
The individuals who published this report—retired military officers and independent policy experts—are normally a voice of reason, bringing reality where sitting officials are at times driven by political concerns. They have the opportunity to apply historical context and experience without the pull of day-to-day issues. In this case, they seem to have reversed course. The “experts” have completely divorced themselves from any historical experience and have cavalierly made up their own facts.
The report calls for sacrificing training and “current readiness”—i.e., allowing the force to hollow out—in order to somehow be prepared for a future conflict. The money saved would be used to buy things that would make us ready for future challenges. The idea seems to be retaining personnel, but not training or equipping them to do their missions.
Apparently, none of the experts remember the disasters at Kasserine Pass in North Africa during World War II. Nor do they seem to remember Task Force Smith in the Korean War, when brave but woefully ill-prepared Americans died because they had neither the training nor the equipment to fight an enemy who had not been polite enough to allow the U.S. military enough time get up to speed before the fight.
The report’s authors also inexplicably seem to have forgotten the post-Vietnam period, when the combination of public antipathy and low funds caused military installations to become dangerously undisciplined and filled with crime.
Also ignored was the post–Cold War drawdown that had Army units doing little besides physical training and road marches. There was simply no money to do anything else. The people were there, but the levels of training, discipline, and professionalism dropped off precipitously. It was only the Herculean efforts of the leaders at the time that turned the military around in time for the first Gulf War and made our enemies die for their country rather than the other way around.
To use the wise adage of old soldiers, this report “briefs well.” Shrinking the force in this way sounds like a reasonable solution to budgetary woes. The truth is that if this path is adopted, Americans will die. It is the road to weakness, hollowness, and danger. Either American civilians will pay because our military is unable to stop an unexpected attack, or American military personnel will die because they were sent to do a job for which they were unprepared and ill-equipped.
The type of strategy outlined in “Strategic Choices: Navigating Austerity” should be rejected out of hand. Its appeal to those who see the military as an expensive anachronism will be huge, and the chance that it will be embraced is high. One hopes that leadership in the Pentagon will be successful at fending off this monumentally bad idea.
Those “formers” who are now “experts” seem to have horrendously short memories. They should be ignored for the sake of those young men and women wearing the uniforms of our nation today."

Defense Budget Cuts Not Acceptable

We have an egomaniacal man-child just re-elected as POTUS, who thinks he can keep us out of military conflicts with simple minded rhetoric and drone attacks. The Islamo-facists, Chinese, Russians - all our enemies are sitting back rubbing their hands with glee and watching Obama transform America and its military.

 

[RLENT]

What would you expect from a former "Military Assistant" to Rummy The Dummy ?

More knee-jerk hysteria ... usually decrying any "cuts" (which essentially means any reduction in the increases) to defense spending as simply intolerable.

Oh the sheer horror of it all !

Newsflash: We're broke ... so be glad you're getting the 500 or 600 billion you're getting ... and now go sit down and **** *** **** ** ...

On the other hand:

"The report is based on the insights developed through a series of exercises that CSBA conducted during the summer of 2012. The exercises sought to inform the debate on the way defense resources are allocated in light of declining budgets, the evolving threat environment and the changing DoD’s priorities.

The participants of these exercises included congressional staff from both parties and chambers; DoD civilians and former military officers from all Services; defense experts from industry; and thought leaders from other think tanks. They were organized into teams and asked to adapt DoD’s strategy and mix of capabilities over a ten-year game period in light of emerging security challenges while implementing cuts of the magnitude required by sequestration.

Because a straight application of sequestration would not present the opportunity to make meaningful choices, exercise participants were given a plausible alternative to sequestration calling for roughly the same level of total cuts over ten years but with the flexibility to target the cuts in a thoughtful manner. Teams were also provided with DoD’s current strategic guidance as a starting point for their initial discussions. Teams were asked to identify ways in which they would recommend modifying the defense strategy given the new fiscal guidance and their individual team assessments of future security challenges.

To facilitate the exercise and help ensure players focused on their strategic choices rather simply meeting budget targets, CSBA developed a rebalancing tool—a database of more than 300 pre-costed budget options to cut or add in each move. The budget options in the tool included new and legacy weapon systems, major force structure elements, basing, personnel, readiness, and key capability areas, such as space and cyber."

Yeah well ... who the heck would ever want to consider exactly how, in light of present fiscal circumstances, all that military money is being spent ... when we can just throw gobs of money (which we don't have) at the military instead ...

Strategic Choices: Navigating Austerity | CSBA

Gawd ... it really must suck to be a perpetually terrorized neocon militarist freak ...

 

[RLENT]

A somewhat more entertaining read on the matter of cutting defense spending:

The 'Red Dawn' Case For Cutting U.S. Defense Spending

Posted by: Charles Kenny on December 02, 2012

Like the vast majority Americans, you may have missed the release last month of Red Dawn, a remake of the 1984 film of the same name in which a bunch of teenagers led by Patrick Swayze fought off an invading Soviet army in Colorado. The new version stars a collection of C-list actors and cost $65 million to produce; so far it has made less than one-third of that back at the box office.

Only 11 percent of people who’ve seen the movie gave it a favorable review on the review-aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes—compared with 53 percent for the original and 92 percent for the latest outing of that other Cold War holdover, James Bond.

Despite its less-than-blockbuster performance, Red Dawn turns out to be surprisingly trenchant —though probably not in the way the film’s creators intended. In particular, the movie makes a powerful case for why the U.S. should take a sledgehammer to its military budget.

The new version of Red Dawn, like the original, centers around a foreign invasion of the U.S. The country that manages to invade this time is North Korea, a pariah state with a military budget generously estimated at $9 billion, compared with about $650 billion for the U.S. The North Korean economy is so battered that famines are a regular occurrence. This inadvertently lends the movie’s plot a smidgen of plausibility, since any North Korean invasion of the U.S. probably could be defeated by a misfit band of teenage dropouts.

Red Dawn was originally going to star the Chinese as the bad guys, which would have made a little more sense but also doomed sales prospects in a growing export market for Hollywood. Yet even China currently has but one aircraft carrier, which doesn’t have any aircraft stationed on it. It’s a third-hand boat, a hand-me-down from the Soviet Union to the Ukraine, which China picked up at a yard sale in 1998. Meanwhile, the U.S. has 20 carriers—all of which come with actual planes.

In fact, the relative success of movies like Independence Day and the Men in Black franchise suggest it’s far easier to imagine enemy forces arriving from outer space than it is from Russia, Japan, China, or (especially) North Korea. And that says something quite comforting about the state of American security.

As Tufts professor Michael Beckley points out, the U.S. now “formally guarantees the security of more than 50 countries,” which means the U.S. has more allies in the world than at any time in its history. More broadly, war between nation states has been incredibly rare since 1945. Europe is the most obvious beneficiary of Pax Americana: Before today, the last time the Rhine had gone this long without being crossed by armies with hostile intent was more than 2,000 years ago, according to economic historian Brad DeLong. The painful and often violent process of building independent nation states out of colonies was often stoked into civil war by the competing powers of the Cold War. But with the decline of that global struggle, and the growing legitimacy of the new countries, even civil wars are on the wane.

It’s not just land wars that are relics of the 20th century. There’s little incentive for the Chinese to block sea lanes in Asia, for instance, since much of the traffic going through is on the way to or from China itself—the world’s largest exporting nation. Similarly, blocking the Straits of Hormuz would be economic suicide for the Iranians—if they could even manage it. That leaves pirates, operating off rubber dinghies using knockoff AK-47s off the coast of Somalia. How many new $7 billion guided missile stealth-destroyers does the U.S. need to take them out?

The American public appears more clear-eyed than its politicians about the true threats to national security. The 2012 Chicago Council Survey found that the top three foreign policy goals of the U.S.—mentioned by more than two-thirds of people as very important—are protecting the jobs of American workers, reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Combating international terrorism was rated as only the fourth-highest priority. “Maintaining superior military power worldwide” came in fifth.

And all that may help explain why cutting the Pentagon’s budget is becoming more popular. In Harris polls since 2008 the percentage favoring defense cuts has risen from 35 percent to 42 percent. Of five areas of expenditure—Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid, and defense—the military was only area where a majority (60 percent) suggested spending should be cut to reduce the deficit. In a YouGov poll, when asked if they would support a tax increase to maintain America’s current military advantage over rising powers such as China, only 30 percent of respondents suggested that they would—with 50 percent clearly stating they would not.

The wisdom of crowds when it comes to U.S. security is that the nation is safe from military invasion and that the defense budget can shrink. This is a perfect moment to start that process, of course, because all the president and lawmakers have to do to cut the Pentagon budget is not do anything at all. The automatic spending cuts due to come into force at the end of the year as part of the “fiscal cliff” would reduce the defense budget by about $55 billion, or somewhere less than 10 percent. Even after those cuts, multi-tentacled aliens would still be by far the most plausible military threat to the nation. And future taxpayers might have a little more money to spend watching movies about them.

The 'Red Dawn' Case For Cutting U.S. Defense Spending - Businessweek

 

[Tennesseahawk]

"Of five areas of expenditure—Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid, and defense—the military was only area where a majority (60 percent) suggested spending should be cut to reduce the deficit."

Military was the only area? Shoulda been more. It might have if they added welfare into the list. But datta been racist.

 

[Humble2drive]

Behold, Barack Hussein Obama's vision for the US Military:

Your post is regarding a recent CSBA report.

Per your link it was an exercise done with participation from:

"congressional staff from both parties and chambers; DoD civilians and former military officers from all Services; defense experts from industry; and thought leaders from other think tanks."

And the purpose:

"inform the debate on the way defense resources are allocated in light of declining budgets, the evolving threat environment and the changing DoD’s priorities."

You could have just provided the report yet you decided to post an extremely biased, inaccurate opinion of the report by Steven Bucci that draws ridiculous conclusions and then based on that you state "Behold, Barack Hussein Obama's vision for the US Military:"

Do you even read some of the things you post before you hit the submit button to see if they sound the least bit intelligible?

 

[Pilgrim]

Your post is regarding a recent CSBA report.

Per your link it was an exercise done with participation from:

"congressional staff from both parties and chambers; DoD civilians and former military officers from all Services; defense experts from industry; and thought leaders from other think tanks."

And the purpose:

"inform the debate on the way defense resources are allocated in light of declining budgets, the evolving threat environment and the changing DoD’s priorities."

You could have just provided the report yet you decided to post an extremely biased, inaccurate opinion of the report by Steven Bucci that draws ridiculous conclusions and then based on that you state "Behold, Barack Hussein Obama's vision for the US Military:"

Do you even read some of the things you post before you hit the submit button to see if they sound the least bit intelligible?

Obviously your opinion conflicts with that of the author of the report. However, I'll bet his opinion is considerably more educated and informed than yours. Had you been paying attention to Obama's campaign promises prior to his first term, you would have been aware of his pledges to cut back our military capabilities.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I am glad for one they might cut the budget....The Pentagon and military contractors are very protective of their nice cushy funds....there is NO need for the US to be first in any minor altercation...I have no doubt there is huge waste of tax dollars written into the budgets already...we already have an armed militia of almost 10 million strong in every registered hunter out there....

 

[layoutshooter]

I am glad for one they might cut the budget....The Pentagon and military contractors are very protective of their nice cushy funds....there is NO need for the US to be first in any minor altercation...I have no doubt there is huge waste of tax dollars written into the budgets already...we already have an armed militia of almost 10 million strong in every registered hunter out there....

The military budget needs cut, but it must be done correctly or we will end up with a mess like Clinton left us that directly lead to the attacks on 9/11. Obama/Panetta are not interested in doing this correctly. They are only interested in weakening the Nation and leaving us open to attack. Policies such as theirs always leads to more, not fewer, wars.

There is no such thing as a 'registered hunter'. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. There is no national gun registration nor should there ever be. Obama is going after this in his hell bent quest to destroy the Constitution. He is STILL pushing to have all privately held firearms in the U.S. registered with, not only the Federal Government, but a foreign power as well. The United Nations. This president is evil.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The military budget needs cut, but it must be done correctly or we will end up with a mess like Clinton left us that directly lead to the attacks on 9/11. Obama/Panetta are not interested in doing this correctly. They are only interested in weakening the Nation and leaving us open to attack. Policies such as theirs always leads to more, not fewer, wars.

There is no such thing as a 'registered hunter'. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. There is no national gun registration nor should there ever be. Obama is going after this in his hell bent quest to destroy the Constitution. He is STILL pushing to have all privately held firearms in the U.S. registered with, not only the Federal Government, but a foreign power as well. The United Nations. This president is evil.

I just knew you'd jump on registered hunter....that is why I left it instead of deleting it....LOL....

what I meant to say "known" as per hunting tags purchases thru out the country....

as soon as someone buys a "tag" they are in the system...unofficially registered

 

[layoutshooter]

I just knew you'd jump on registered hunter....that is why I left it instead of deleting it....LOL....

what I meant to say "known" as per hunting tags purchases thru out the country....

as soon as someone buys a "tag" they are in the system...unofficially registered

Not all hunters use guns, though most do at sometime or another. Some only hunt with bows. A very few use falcons. Some even hunt with spears. There are far more gun owners than hunters. Also in some states a trapping license is included on a hunting license. Also many hunters hunt in multiple states so the figure itself is not accurate.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Not all hunters use guns, though most do at sometime or another. Some only hunt with bows. A very few use falcons. Some even hunt with spears. There are far more gun owners than hunters. Also in some states a trapping license is included on a hunting license. Also many hunters hunt in multiple states so the figure itself is not accurate.

Government can get a rough idea tho....cross bow is a very formidable weapon...

 

[layoutshooter]

Government can get a rough idea tho....cross bow is a very formidable weapon...

The government may have a rough idea, but it would be VERY rough. It would be about as accurate as everything else that they do. Besides, who owns guns and how many or what kind is none of the Federal Governments business. ANY bow is a very formidable weapon in the hands of a skilled archer. In many respects a high draw weight compound is a better choice over a cross bow. It has more range. It is a "Newton" thing.

 

[Humble2drive]

Obviously your opinion conflicts with that of the author of the report. However, I'll bet his opinion is considerably more educated and informed than yours. Had you been paying attention to Obama's campaign promises prior to his first term, you would have been aware of his pledges to cut back our military capabilities.

Steven Bucci is not the author of the report. He is the writer of the poorly done opinion. That is why I suggested that you just copy and post the report vs one of many opinions.
The point that you are missing is that you tied Obama's defense policies to the opinions put forth from Bucci which is a false correlation and is completely misleading.
It is apparent that you did not pay attention to the facts during the campaign as Obama never pledged to cut back our military "capabilities". His plan calls for reductions in Defense spending. One purpose of the report is to explore ways to reduce spending without effecting capabilities.

 

[layoutshooter]

Clinton said the same thing. Obama cannot be trusted with the safety of the Nation. He is dangerous. What he is doing to our troops should be investigated for criminal activity.

 

[davekc]

We are BROKE. Every program and budget needs to be cut. EVERY PROGRAM.
And that fool we elected is now asking for another stimulus program. OMG. They better start waking up.

 

[layoutshooter]

We are BROKE. Every program and budget needs to be cut. EVERY PROGRAM.
And that fool we elected is now asking for another stimulus program. OMG. They better start waking up.

It's too late for anyone to wake up.

Yes, every program needs cut. Some entire departments need to go. Defense can absorb large cuts, if done in a responsible manner. They are not cutting smart, as per normal. The Sec of Defense also has no respect for the troops nor do many respect him. Many in the rank and file do not trust or respect Obama either. Moral is low and dropping as foolish cuts are done. This will continue as long as Obama is in charge.

A very large part of the problem with defense spending is the congress and their pushing projects that are not needed to keep this or that factory running in their districts. Part of it is in the bidding process. Low bid is not always the best value. It takes some very creative work to insure value for dollars spent in a required low bid environment. Then there is also a LOT of just plain, old, every day fraud and waste. It all needs fixed and it is not going to happen. Not as long as we have this congress and president.

 

[RLENT]

We are BROKE. Every program and budget needs to be cut. EVERY PROGRAM.
And that fool we elected is now asking for another stimulus program. OMG. They better start waking up.

Possibly a throw-away item ... to be offered up in negotiations ...

 

[layoutshooter]

The negotiations themselves are a farce. This mess was created by the Congress not doing their jobs and not accepting the responsibility for their actions. It was created by the People refusing to hold the government responsible for their actions. Nothing good nor substantial is going to come of this. The election is over, it is business as always again.

 

[RLENT]

You could have just provided the report yet you decided to post an extremely biased, inaccurate opinion of the report by Steven Bucci that draws ridiculous conclusions and then based on that you state "Behold, Barack Hussein Obama's vision for the US Military:"

Ya can't make it up ...

Do you even read some of the things you post before you hit the submit button to see if they sound the least bit intelligible?

... seems to assume that the individual that the question is being posed to is capable of recognizing and differentiating intelligible from unintelligible ...

 

[Pilgrim]

Steven Bucci is not the author of the report. He is the writer of the poorly done opinion. That is why I suggested that you just copy and post the report vs one of many opinions.
The point that you are missing is that you tied Obama's defense policies to the opinions put forth from Bucci which is a false correlation and is completely misleading.
It is apparent that you did not pay attention to the facts during the campaign as Obama never pledged to cut back our military "capabilities". His plan calls for reductions in Defense spending. One purpose of the report is to explore ways to reduce spending without effecting capabilities.

We're talking about opinions here - and yours is obviously oriented from an Obama perspective, not only based on ignorance but also naivete. Obviously, Obama didn't directly say he was going to intentionally reduce our military capabilities - he just stated his policies that would have that effect. Reference his speech to the Caucus4Priorities, which has been posted many times on this forum. You can dwell in a world of your own facts if you choose - it's not connected to reality.