View Full Version : Pentagon To Present Vision Of Reduced Military
This 'new' strategy proposal sure sounds a lot like the post-Cold War 'Fight-Hold-Fight' strategy to me. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget
NYT, 2 Jan 2011
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is set this week to reveal his strategy that will guide the Pentagon in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from its budget, and with it the Obama administration’s vision of the military that the United States needs to meet 21st-century threats, according to senior officials.
In a shift of doctrine driven by fiscal reality and a deal last summer that kept the United States from defaulting on its debts, Mr. Panetta is expected to outline plans for carefully shrinking the military — and in so doing make it clear that the Pentagon will not maintain the ability to fight two sustained ground wars at once.
Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to “spoil” a second adversary’s ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone.
Pentagon officials, in the meantime, are in final deliberations about potential cuts to virtually every important area of military spending: the nuclear arsenal, warships, combat aircraft, salaries, and retirement and health benefits. With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, Mr. Panetta is weighing how significantly to shrink America’s ground forces.
There is broad agreement on the left, right and center that $450 billion in cuts over a decade — the amount that the White House and Pentagon agreed to last summer — is acceptable. That is about 8 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget. But there is intense debate about an additional $500 billion in cuts that may have to be made if Congress follows through with deeper reductions.
Mr. Panetta and defense hawks say a reduction of $1 trillion, about 17 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget, would be ruinous to national security. Democrats and a few Republicans say that it would be painful but manageable; they add that there were steeper military cuts after the Cold War and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.
(Cont'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/pentagon-to-present-vision-of-reduced-military.html
I agree, and I advocate the same for Italy. UN's just a big and outdated waste of money.
Task Force Smith
Ever notice how it's the polititians who never pay the butcher's bill?
Thats just a few Subs and Fighter Jets right?
MTN Medic
01-03-2012, 13:37
This seems eerily similar to the issues in interwar England. Churchill was the only (public) proponent of keeping/building the military despite looming aggression from a Germany whom was defying the treaty of Versailles. Churchill almost ended his political career because of his pressure to build the military as Lord of the Admiralty.
Currently, we are in a war, just finished one and we have increased instability in dozens of countries all around the World. I am as much for creating a balanced budget as the next guy (likely more so) but this reeks. The old adage, "Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it" rings loudly in my ears right now.
Get ready boys, I am sure that our future adversaries are watching the news just as much as we are.
The Reaper
01-03-2012, 19:19
This 'new' strategy proposal sure sounds a lot like the post-Cold War 'Fight-Hold-Fight' strategy to me. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I thought our current strategy was Fight-Flee-Fight-Flee.
Don't need much military for that.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
01-03-2012, 19:39
I thought our current strategy was Fight-Flee-Fight-Flee.
Don't need much military for that.
TR
Fight - get tired - quit - suffer the consequences - try to regain credibility, again
GreenSalsa
01-04-2012, 06:04
I thought our current strategy was Fight-Flee-Fight-Flee.
Now that is some ironic humor--sad, but funny stuff!
........3) So the administration and Left are calling right now to seriously cut the defense budget. If government spending is truly stimulative, if anything, we ought to seriously gun up defense spending as part of a stimulus, meant to re-build the military.
But one will never hear such a proposal from the Democrats it seems.
Because the Democrats think extending unemployment and expanding food stamps & other welfare payments is the way to grow the economy.
greenberetTFS
01-04-2012, 06:37
Fight - get tired - quit - suffer the consequences - try to regain credibility, again
Excellent Consigliere,your right on target .........;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-04-2012, 20:38
Attempting to reap some sort of "peace" dividend.
It's a false economy, sacrificing the future for the present.
The bill will come due when different politicians are in office.
The interest will be paid in blood.
Surgicalcric
01-05-2012, 07:24
Because the Democrats think extending unemployment and expanding food stamps & other welfare payments is the way to grow the economy.
And balance the budget.
So here's hte logic I don't get:
1) The Administration keeps pushing for more stimulus. The Left keep wanting more stimulus.
2) Historically, the only forms of government stimulus that ever seem to have worked was when defense spending was gunned up (World War II, 1980s under Reagan); it is very debatable whether such spending actually stimulated economic growth during either of those times, as there were various other reasons why the economy turned around in those periods, but I mean, there's a correlation there that one would think the proponents of big stimulus would notice.
3) So the administration and Left are calling right now to seriously cut the defense budget. If government spending is truly stimulative, if anything, we ought to seriously gun up defense spending as part of a stimulus, meant to re-build the military.
But one will never hear such a proposal from the Democrats it seems.
I believe the economic rewards is a charade to achieve an end....it has more to do with 2008 campaign promises, the re-election of Obama, the anti war movement and the idea that if we quit waging war the world will become a happy friendly place and all our neighbors will love us.
Badger52
01-05-2012, 11:25
...and the idea that if we quit waging war the world will become a happy friendly place and all our neighbors will love us.Because the initial "Bow to Others/Apologize for America" campaign didn't work.
Not my first "era" so Plus ca change...
:rolleyes:
The collective American attention span is very short and it takes major drama to hold it for 20 minutes.
I wonder how many people are catastrophically uninspired by Americas elected leaders...
blacksmoke
01-09-2012, 01:42
This reminds me of Ron Paul's speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHfdSi-GDo
And Micheal Sheuer's CNN appearance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MleqV8CVv4Y
I was just a regular soldier, but I don't agree with them.
GratefulCitizen
01-27-2012, 17:20
Picture worth a thousand words.
Defense spending is not the problem.
Horned Frog
01-27-2012, 17:56
Who are the individuals represented in that graph? I understand that public officials' salaries are limited by an Executive schedule and yet are still pretty high. Are there so many public officials at that pay rate that we are spending more on them than on the defense budget?
EDIT: Also, are military members' salaries, including officers O-7 and higher (whose salaries are limited by executive schedule) registered in that graph as defense spending or payments to individuals?
Who are the individuals represented in that graph? I understand that public officials' salaries are limited by an Executive schedule and yet are still pretty high. Are there so many public officials at that pay rate that we are spending more on them than on the defense budget?
EDIT: Also, are military members' salaries, including officers O-7 and higher (whose salaries are limited by executive schedule) registered in that graph as defense spending or payments to individuals?
The graph isn't the clearest regarding subdivisions, but:
"Payment to individuals" stands for individual entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc...
Public officials are certainly paid well (such as the POTUS or Congress) and receive lifetime salaries and benefits regardless of time in office.
Military Salaries, including those of high ranking officers, would presumably go under DoD spending.
Here's a useful data set with more of a breakdown (FY 2011) and some light reading from admittedly libertarian/right leaning think-tanks:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/default
http://www.cato.org/federal-budget-policy
The graph isn't the clearest regarding subdivisions, but:
Public officials are certainly paid well (such as the POTUS or Congress) and receive lifetime salaries and benefits regardless of time in office.
That's not correct. Congress receives a percentage of salary depending on how many years they stayed in office. However, once we hear that statement, our dislike for Congress is such that we are inclined to believe it.
That's not correct. Congress receives a percentage of salary depending on how many years they stayed in office. However, once we hear that statement, our dislike for Congress is such that we are inclined to believe it.
I must've miscommunicated. You're right though. I just meant that they receive some type of salary compensation for the duration of their entire lives.
I am kind of surprised that the first government employees we are going to fire in order to lower spending come from the military.
There aren't other government employees drawing a paycheck that aren't contributing we could get rid of first?