Obama and Gates Gut the Military
-
This is going to be worse than what Clinton did, we will be left open to a attack from anywhere.
Obama and Gates Gut the Military
The secretary's new budget will leave us weaker to pay for the president's domestic programs.
By THOMAS DONNELLY and GARY SCHMITT
On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a significant reordering of U.S. defense programs. His recommendations should not go unchallenged.
In the 1990s, defense cuts helped pay for increased domestic spending, and that is true today. Though Mr. Gates said that his decisions were "almost exclusively influenced by factors other than simply finding a way to balance the books," the broad list of program reductions and terminations suggest otherwise. In fact, he tacitly acknowledged as much by saying the budget plan represented "one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity" -- the "necessity" of course being the administration's decision to reorder the government's spending priorities.
However, warfare is not a human activity that directly awards virtue. Nor is it a perfectly calculable endeavor that permits a delicate "balancing" of risk. More often it rewards those who arrive on the battlefield "the fustest with the mostest," as Civil War Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest once put it. If Mr. Gates has his way, U.S. forces will find it increasingly hard to meet the Forrest standard. Consider a few of the details of the Gates proposals:
- The termination of the F-22 Raptor program at just 187 aircraft inevitably will call U.S. air supremacy -- the salient feature, since World War II, of the American way of war -- into
question.
The need for these sophisticated, stealthy, radar-evading planes is already apparent. During Russia's invasion of Georgia, U.S. commanders wanted to fly unmanned surveillance aircraft over the region, and requested that F-22s sanitize the skies so that the slow-moving drones would be protected from Russian fighters or air defenses. When the F-22s were not made available, likely for fear of provoking Moscow, the reconnaissance flights were cancelled.
As the air-defense and air-combat capabilities of other nations, most notably China, increase, the demand for F-22s would likewise rise. And the Air Force will have to manage this small fleet of Raptors over 30 years. Compare that number with the 660 F-15s flying today, but which are literally falling apart at the seams from age and use. The F-22 is not merely a replacement for the F-15; it also performs the functions of electronic warfare and other support aircraft. Meanwhile, Mr. Gates is further postponing the already decades-long search for a replacement for the existing handful of B-2 bombers.
- The U.S. Navy will continue to shrink below the fleet size of 313 ships it set only a few years ago. Although Mr. Gates has rightly decided to end the massive and expensive DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer program, there will be additional reductions to the surface fleet. The number of aircraft carriers will drop eventually to 10. The next generation of cruisers will be delayed, and support-ship projects stretched out. Older Arleigh Burke destroyers will be upgraded and modernized, but at less-than-needed rates.
The good news is that Mr. Gates will not to reduce the purchases of the Littoral Combat Ship, which can be configured for missions from antipiracy to antisubmarine warfare. But neither will he buy more than the 55 planned for by the previous Bush administration. And the size and structure of the submarine fleet was studiously not mentioned. The Navy's plan to begin at last to procure two attack submarines per year -- absolutely vital considering the pace at which China is deploying new, quieter subs -- is uncertain, at best.
- Mr. Gates has promised to "restructure" the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, arguing that the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have called into question the need for new ground combat vehicles. The secretary noted that the Army's modernization plan does not take into account the $25 billion investment in the giant Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles. But it's hard to think of a more specialized and less versatile vehicle.
The MRAP was ideal for dealing with the proliferation of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Iraq. But the FCS vehicle -- with a lightweight yet better-protected chassis, greater fuel efficiency and superior off-road capacity -- is far more flexible and useful for irregular warfare. Further, the ability to form battlefield "networks" will make FCS units more effective than the sum of their individual parts. Delaying modernization means that future generations of soldiers will conduct mounted operations in the M1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles designed in the 1970s. Finally, Mr. Gates capped the size of the U.S. ground force, ignoring all evidence that it is too small to handle current and future major contingencies.
- The proposed cuts in space and missile defense programs reflect a retreat in emerging environments that are increasingly critical in modern warfare. The termination of the Airborne Laser and Transformational Satellite programs is especially discouraging.
The Airborne Laser is the most promising form of defense against ballistic missiles in the "boost phase," the moments immediately after launch when the missiles are most vulnerable. This project was also the military's first operational foray into directed energy, which will be as revolutionary in the future as "stealth" technology has been in recent decades. The Transformational Satellite program employs laser technology for communications purposes, providing not only enhanced bandwidth -- essential to fulfill the value of all kinds of information networks -- but increased security.
Mr. Gates justifies these cuts as a matter of "hard choices" and "budget discipline," saying that "[E]very defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk . . . is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in." But this calculus is true only because the Obama administration has chosen to cut defense, while increasing domestic entitlements and debt so dramatically.
The budget cuts Mr. Gates is recommending are not a temporary measure to get us over a fiscal bump in the road. Rather, they are the opening bid in what, if the Obama administration has its way, will be a future U.S. military that is smaller and packs less wallop. But what is true for the wars we're in -- that numbers matter -- is also true for the wars that we aren't yet in, or that we simply wish to deter.
Mr. Donnelly is a resident fellow and Mr. Schmitt is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. They are co-editors of "Of Men and Materiel: the Crisis in Military Resources" (AEI, 2007).
-
As long as the top officers of our military agree that these cuts can be made, I don't mind.
But the F-22 thing bothers me. It's as if Obama is ordering us to be a good bit helpless to
carry a big stick so other unfriendly countries will like him.
Obama is already worse than Jimmy Carter, and already more a liar than Bill Clinton.
-
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
-
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
-
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
-
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
What'd Chris Farley say? "Don't I feel like a horses pah-toot."
However, if we didn't have the same character(s) on our side of the fence*, I probably wouldn't have taken the bait.
*I believe that I've got the political fence post lodged squarely in my behind, yet a few instances of trade winds may push over to the right on occasion.
-
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
What'd Chris Farley say? "Don't I feel like a horses pah-toot."
However, if we didn't have the same character(s) on our side of the fence*, I probably wouldn't have taken the bait.
*I believe that I've got the political fence post lodged squarely in my behind, yet a few instances of trade winds may push over to the right on occasion.
What'd Chris Farley say? "Don't I feel like a horses pah-toot."
However, if we didn't have the same character(s) on our side of the fence*, I probably wouldn't have taken the bait.
Heh heh.
Oh I could be wrong; that was just a guess.
I figured if he was really that looney he'd be over on the HeckShep Obamarama board.
WSS
-
Again, I know facts don't matter on this board, but Obama is "gutting" the military by ...wait for it ...increasing the amount spent on the military by 4% over what George W. Bush spent on the military. That's your "gutting the military". Taking what was spent on the military, and then adding an additional $14 billion dollars to it.
Some gut.
The increase also happens to be the same amount that the Bush administration budgeted for 2010. (I'm sure if Bush were still president you'd all be here screaming about him gutting the military too.)
Oh, and the Bush administration cut defense spending in 2007 and 2008. Obama is raising it by 4%.
Or as you hysterics say, he's "gutting the military."
Sorry, fellas. I know you want it to be one way, but it's the other way. Those are just the facts.
As for the F-22, we already have 135 of them. The Obama plan calls for making that number 187 before ending the program. Cutting that program will cost 24,000 jobs.
Note that the F-22 is not being used in Iraq or Afghanistan. We've spent $65 billion dollars on a plane that's never been used in battle once. We've got two wars going on, and 135 F-22s can't be used. This is why many people inside the military and out of it want to shift those resources elsewhere - to a plane we can, you know, use.
I'd ask you guys why you want to continue to build a plane that hasn't fired a shot to help our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why wouldn't you want to shift that money elsewhere?
Well, someone does. The Obama administration instead wants to build more F-35s. And that will add an additional 44,000 jobs. So yes, jobs will be lost on the F-22. 20,000 more will be produced through the manufacturing of the F-35s.
Again, some gut.
Notice that the article above doesn't even mention the additional F-35s in the Gates plan. Or that it's also a stealth Joint Strike Fighter like the F-22. (And that it's made by the same company.) And that the Brits also prefer the F-35 to the F-22.
I'll leave you all with a quote from a big time socialist who had the top tax rate at 90%. (Obama wants it to be 39%, mind you.)
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I'll let you figure out who said that, and if he's talking about you.
-
Again, I know facts don't matter on this board, but Obama is "gutting" the military by ...wait for it ...increasing the amount spent on the military by 4% over what George W. Bush spent on the military. That's your "gutting the military". Taking what was spent on the military, and then adding an additional $14 billion dollars to it.
Some gut.
The increase also happens to be the same amount that the Bush administration budgeted for 2010. (I'm sure if Bush were still president you'd all be here screaming about him gutting the military too.)
Oh, and the Bush administration cut defense spending in 2007 and 2008. Obama is raising it by 4%.
Or as you hysterics say, he's "gutting the military."
Sorry, fellas. I know you want it to be one way, but it's the other way. Those are just the facts.
As for the F-22, we already have 135 of them. The Obama plan calls for making that number 187 before ending the program. Cutting that program will cost 24,000 jobs.
Note that the F-22 is not being used in Iraq or Afghanistan. We've spent $65 billion dollars on a plane that's never been used in battle once. We've got two wars going on, and 135 F-22s can't be used. This is why many people inside the military and out of it want to shift those resources elsewhere - to a plane we can, you know, use.
I'd ask you guys why you want to continue to build a plane that hasn't fired a shot to help our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why wouldn't you want to shift that money elsewhere?
Well, someone does. The Obama administration instead wants to build more F-35s. And that will add an additional 44,000 jobs. So yes, jobs will be lost on the F-22. 20,000 more will be produced through the manufacturing of the F-35s.
Again, some gut.
Notice that the article above doesn't even mention the additional F-35s in the Gates plan. Or that it's also a stealth Joint Strike Fighter like the F-22. (And that it's made by the same company.) And that the Brits also prefer the F-35 to the F-22.
I'll leave you all with a quote from a big time socialist who had the top tax rate at 90%. (Obama wants it to be 39%, mind you.)
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I'll let you figure out who said that, and if he's talking about you.
Again, I know facts don't matter on this board, but Obama is "gutting" the military by ...wait for it ...increasing the amount spent on the military by 4% over what George W. Bush spent on the military. That's your "gutting the military". Taking what was spent on the military, and then adding an additional $14 billion dollars to it.
But I thought the bar was set by calling an increase in social prorams less than desired "slashing" over the last few years.
We back to the old definition again?
WSS
-
Well, there's some typical cherry picking. The F-22 is now, has been since 2005.
The F-32 DOES NOT GO INTO SERVICE until 2011. That's sceduled at 2011.
The F-22 costs about 138 million bucks a piece. The F-32, about 86 million a piece.
Because the F-32 comes in several versions, not a do a whole lot comprehensive design like the F-22.
Who said the F-22 can't be used? Why? Where is the reasoning behind this? Reference?
-
I agree with you both. On the one hand, Steve is right. This is a well-worn tactic used by both sides to complain about budget cuts.
On the other hand, as danamal says, what does this have to do with anything? It's certainly not proof that Gates' plan isn't worth doing, unless you believe that every defense expenditure is worthwhile - and not only that, that they're all so worthwhile that we should give the Joints Chiefs every single dollar they ask for or else you're "gutting" the military.
And to go further, often times when you're talking about social programs you have to keep up with population growth and inflation, so a cut in the growth of, say, school funding is often a real cut on a per pupil basis even though the actual budget got bigger.
That's less of an issue with military spending.
And so much of the noise on the right isn't because people are interested in maintaining the most efficient and powerful military in the world, but about admiring/adoring the military above all else.
And much of the noise you'll hear from the left is simple parochialism - House and Senate members defending jobs in their districts. (See: Dodd, Chris.)
Again, that is all somewhat irrelevant. It's about what's best for the military and the country, not what's best for the Pratt Whitney factory in Connecticut.
-
@danamal said:
But I thought the bar was set by calling an increase in social prorams less than desired "slashing" over the last few years.We back to the old definition again?
WSS
TRANSLATION
When confronted with facts that prove you wrong,Change the subject.......
Well I did quote from the post and commented on it no?
So since the subject had to do with just what I mentioned am I right or not Dan?
IU'll make it clearer.
Didn't the administrations opponents call actual increases in social spending slashing for the last 8 years?
Yes? No?
Pick one.
WSS
-
Heck is correct, Obama will actually spend a little more than Bush did. BUT:
Obama wants to CUT the budget in 2010:
Defense Official: Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts
Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.
FOXNews.com
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.
Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.
Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.
Obama met Friday at the White House with a small group of military advisers, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman, and Gen. Jim Jones, National Security Council chairman.
-
Is someone in here going to claim that there's nothing to be cut in the Defense Budget? That every single weapons program, no matter how outdated, is a worthwhile expenditures? Every defense contract is a good one? That every single dollar in the $500+ billion dollar Defense budget must be upheld?
If so, I'd love to hear that argument. Otherwise, this is all an exercise in bluster.
10% cut - BAD. 4% increase - GUTTING. 20% increase - F'CK YEAH!
Does it matter what's being cut? Or does it only matter who is doing the cutting?
In other words, what's being cut? The F-22 program, which has been a huge cost that has yet to return any benefit whatsoever? (Unless you count air shows and Toby Keith's hard-on as a benefit.) Sounds good to me. Let's make better use of our limited resources.
The Defense budget is monstrous, fellas. Absolutely monstrous. And bloated. And the reason it's so big and bloated is that no one ever has the political will to cut it in any meaningful way. Not Democrats or Republicans.
Guess why?
-
Is someone in here going to claim that there's nothing to be cut in the Defense Budget? That every single weapons program, no matter how outdated, is a worthwhile expenditures? Every defense contract is a good one? That every single dollar in the $500+ billion dollar Defense budget must be upheld?
If so, I'd love to hear that argument. Otherwise, this is all an exercise in bluster.
10% cut - BAD. 4% increase - GUTTING. 20% increase - F'CK YEAH!
Does it matter what's being cut? Or does it only matter who is doing the cutting?
In other words, what's being cut? The F-22 program, which has been a huge cost that has yet to return any benefit whatsoever? (Unless you count air shows and Toby Keith's hard-on as a benefit.) Sounds good to me. Let's make better use of our limited resources.
The Defense budget is monstrous, fellas. Absolutely monstrous. And bloated. And the reason it's so big and bloated is that no one ever has the political will to cut it in any meaningful way. Not Democrats or Republicans.
Guess why?
Is someone in here going to claim that there's nothing to be cut in the Defense Budget? That every single weapons program, no matter how outdated, is a worthwhile expenditures? Every defense contract is a good one? That every single dollar in the $500+ billion dollar Defense budget must be upheld?
If so, I'd love to hear that argument. Otherwise, this is all an exercise in bluster.
I'd be shocked if any government run monolith couldn't be trimmed and made many times more cost efficient.
The Defense budget is monstrous, fellas. Absolutely monstrous. And bloated. And the reason it's so big and bloated is that no one ever has the political will to cut it in any meaningful way. Not Democrats or Republicans.
Guess why?
Keep the money in circulation?
Keep from even more staggering unemployment numbers that would happen if we bring everybody home?
Bad PR?
You tell us, sarge.
WSS
-
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
-
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
BTW I may be mistaken but I seem to recall arguing that govenment programs are inefficient and didn't you use the military as example to attempt to prove me wrong?
WSS
-
In and of itself, I have no problem with cutting the Pentagon's budget to make it more efficient, productive, cost effective, and better prepared to fight wars in the new world order of rogue states, etc.
In fact, I have questioned the need for the Air Force, itself, and suggested that a lot of money could be saved by having only the Army, Navy, and Marines (part of the Navy, any way) - all of which have air assets and competencies.
What gives me the most pleasure, however, is to see the CT liberal Dems come to the defense (no pun intended), whenever cuts are possible for submarines, fighter planes, helicopters - all manufactured by United Technologies Corporation, based in the State of Connecticut.
The hypocracy is transparent and, at least to me, laughable.
-
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
BTW I may be mistaken but I seem to recall arguing that govenment programs are inefficient and didn't you use the military as example to attempt to prove me wrong?
WSS
BTW I may be mistaken but I seem to recall arguing that govenment programs are inefficient and didn't you use the military as example to attempt to prove me wrong?
WSS
Yes, because there's a difference between the actual military being a government organization that is efficiently run (hence the term "military-like efficiency") and the political problems with how the government funds the military, which often involves defense contractors and firms that aren't part of the military. They're two different things.
danamal just touched on one of those problems above - defense contractors in Connecticut. Find an old liberal House rep from CT named Sam Gedjenson and check out his thoughts on military spending. Then check his thought on military spending on submarines. Then find out of Electric Boat and General Dynamics were in his district.
This is what we're talking about.
Plus, I'm not going to argue that all government programs are efficient. I'd argue that blanket statements like "all government programs are inefficient" are useless because there are some that are total wastes of money, some are great programs that are run well, and everything in between.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login