About time, although if Gates suddenly ends up a two-to-the-head ‘suicide,’ will anyone be surprised given the profits so many will lose because of him? Now if only he has the balls to cut unneeded, make-work weapons systems that exist only to get votes for Congressmen and Senators, then some real reductions can happen. That would be change we could believe in!
Facing growing pressure to cut military spending, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Monday ordered the closing of a major Pentagon headquarters, restrictions on the use of contractors and reductions in the number of generals and admirals.
The belt-tightening moves were aimed at eliminating duplication and reducing overhead, Gates said at a Pentagon news conference.
[…]
Pentagon officials would not supply estimates of the cost savings from the steps announced Monday. They admitted that the savings were a minuscule part of the $712 billion in defense spending that the Obama administration has requested for fiscal year 2011. After a decade of rapidly increasing defense spending, the Pentagon is facing growing calls from outside commissions and some members of Congress for cuts in its budget.
[…]
In inflation-adjusted dollars, the administration defense budget request for fiscal year 2011 is at the highest level since World War II. Gates has warned for the last year that the era of ever-increasing defense budgets that began after 2001 is coming to an end. But he has also said that fighting ongoing wars and purchasing needed weapons systems will require annual growth of 2% to 3% in defense spending, more than many analysts think is likely in coming years.
Sec of Defense says he is going to cut the fat from D.O.D.
It’s deja vue all over again.
The teabaggers are always screaming about making the government smaller and cutting spending. Well, here ya go teatards, rejoice!
Gates is smart and reasonable. We are now spending more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined. If any, and I mean even a percentile, cut leads us to defeat aren’t we hopelessly screwed already?
Put another way, if the entire world and some aliens besides are going to gang up on us, we shouldn’t expect hard power to save us.
Sgt. Porkins?
This is windows dressing, not real spending cut.
To cut spending for real, all bases in foreign lands should be closed (and sold) and forces brought home, except for ongoing wars. Than new policy should be put in place that if any country wants us there, they need to provide infrastructure for free and pay all costs of deployment there. Now, that would be a cut.
True dat, #5. And the savings are superficial compared to the massive spending on Homeland “Security” (i.e. http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/projects/america039swarwithin) since 2001.
If this process can be repeated for the next 6 years that Obama will be president, we will make some real progress. Find places to cut in the military, and cut some every year. Every year a little more, until it becomes the “Lean, mean, fighting machine” that we really need.
The US military is a bloated bureaucracy, full of ‘weapons systems’ that serve no purpose in modern warfare. The M1 Abrahms tank for example. Does anybody really think there will be a tank battle ever again, with smart munitions that can rain down and wipe them out from 10 miles away? Or fighter jet dogfights, when missiles can take out any plane via satellite guidance?
The Soviets got their asses kicked in Afghanistan by some simple shoulder launched missiles shooting down helicopters, yet we still think there is a need for heavy tanks. We have been getting our asses kicked by simple buried munitions by the side of the road. So much for WW2 style warfare.
Start by outright canceling shit that doesn’t work and nobody wants, like that damn Osprey helo-plane.
For a NATION that cant AFFORD to have 1 % of its people in the military..
we spend ALLOT on TOYS. Every year, even if there is NO WAR.
WE Buy up Supplies and EXPECT the corps to HOLD them until the next war. WE goto war, and THERE’S NOTHING STORED..
A tumor is similar. This one has been growing since WWII.
While Cheney’s away, Gates will rule the day. Apparently this cost cutting proposal happened while Dick C. was having his heart re-chromed.
Is this current level of military spending really that much worse than what it was during the Reagan years? Cheney was around at the time, back then too.
#9 – Good point. I remember in the movie “Bowling for Columbine”, when Moore speculated on a possible connection between Colorado’s missile contractor, and those kids going on s shooting spree. Not much positive commercial industries there either. All defense contractors. And they probably have to hire from outside of the state, to get enough qualified engineers to screw together those missiles. So kids with mere high school diplomas aren’t going to get work there. So what jobs are these Congressmen and Senator saving, for their state’s citizens? Probably very few.
If Gates/Obama are successful in actually reducing military spending, I guarantee you the Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin-etc crowd will be on Obama’s butt in a heartbeat, accusing him of gutting our country’s defense and leaving us vulnerable to any attack. They used the same attack on Clinton when he actually did cut military spending as part of his balance the budget plan; then when 9/11 happened the Republicans were more than happy to go on a huge defense spending spree, leaving us in the situation we are in right now, starting two wars while lowering taxes at the same time.
For a minute there I thought this was another picture of a tea bagger guarding the border.
It really pisses me off that the same people who say we can’t afford to extended Unemployment Benefits, School Lunch Programs or a simple, bare bones, Government Provided Healthcare System to everyone, freak out when you mention doing ANY cut backs to the Military.
Our country has three separate ways it can currently deliver Nuclear destruction to the world. These three systems include, by land, sea and air. They were developed during the Cold Was to provide three layers of redundancy. Each cost our country billions of dollars a year. If we cut out just one of them, the savings could go a long way to offset our national debt and pay for some of these social programs that we keep hearing are so wasteful from the far Right.
7, Awake,
Counting your chickens before they hatch, eh? I think any chance he has for re-election will hinge on whether or not this economy actually improves under his “leadership” and whether or not he can stop playing a shell game with unemployment numbers.
Hopefully his re-election won’t hinge on telling people that a vote for a Republican will be a vote on GWB spending. 🙂
8, ECA,
We are one of the smaller militaries of the world. Our larger enemies are continually improving their militaries and trying to close the technological gap we have over them. If they succeed, then warfare is essentially reduced down to a numbers game that we’d likely lose.
When a military engagement is called upon, high tech equipment just don’t get defecated on demand.
13, Ggore,
That’s because the U.S. military in fact got weaker under the Clinton Administration. Those aren’t attacks. We did more with less and he over-used the military for police actions.
Morale was low; people wanted out. It got so bad the CNO wasn’t letting people get chaptered out for failure to maintain weight and fitness standards. Women were deployed aboard warships and squardrons. But since they could not physically keep up with the minimum physical work standards of the men, the fewer remaining men had to do more work to pick up the slack.
Pay raises were very low until the last year of his administration (a sort of peace token for Gore running in 2000). You do realize those cuts do affect families too?
The military went through a lot of this under the Clinton administration and subsequently Bush inherited a weaker military. Much of the military spending under the Bush administration was to modernize our forces for the engagements we were doing.
Obama is no doubt benefiting from this modernization, but he wishes to go back and choke it. Whoever comes in after Obama will inherit a weaker U.S. military (and potentially weaker economy).
15, JMRouse,
National defense is a Constitutional obligation. Government entitlements are not.
Looking at it from a economic perspective, those cuts will affect many blue collar workers and suppliers.
12, Glen,
With few exceptions, no one considers a high school diploma demonstrative that you have the skills to work a high paying job.
Those engineers you speak of regardless of where they come from pump money into the local economy and the state. Everyone benefits.
16,G
“We are one of the smaller militaries of the world. Our larger enemies are continually improving their militaries and trying to close the technological gap we have over them. If they succeed, then warfare is essentially reduced down to a numbers game that we’d likely lose.
When a military engagement is called upon, high tech equipment just don’t get defecated on demand.”
So you are agreeing with me?
we paid for and it was SUPPOSED to be stored, Bullet proof jackets..NOT 1 WAS MADE until the war..PAID for and supposed to be in storage/stock.. This is just 1 thing. there were MANY. It took 2-6 months to get 1/2 of WHAT WAS, supposed to be in ready stock.
All those goods we paid for, AND paid to STORE, we paid every year. Until the war. Then it was THERE.
Also my point on the number of people in the military. 1% is not a large number. 3 million people.
Im also not a BELIEVER in military TECH. at LEAST not the costs of it.
Mil pays $10,000 for Night vision Goggles..
On the Street price in < $1,000.
Training a person NOT to depend on TECH is the best thing you can DO FOR THEM.
In a Squad of 10 people, 2-3 will carry TECH, and be of SOME USE.. The others will use Common sense and the OTHER 5 senses.
18, ECA,
In today’s day and age, you need to be prepared. You don’t wait for a war or engagement to happen to all of a sudden decide equipment is needed.
This is why you spend on things that aren’t necessarily needed in the short run. This is why Clinton did what he did.
It takes time to make things. The lack of bullet proof vests is but one example that Bush inherited from well-intentioned (but naive) policies coming from the Clinton administration when they were trying to minimize costs.
You don’t know what we had ready in stock. And even if you did, that would be classified information.
We paid to have things manufactured to expedite getting it to troops AFTER Bush got into office. It takes time to manufacture things and as Rumsfeld astutely pointed out when challenged by a National Guardsman, you go to war with what you have and not what you’d like to have. If we had it, then we would have used it. The fact that we weren’t using those things at first only underscores how the Clinton administration weakened our military and shows what Bush inherited with Clinton’s short-sightedness.
Like it or not, the ONLY reason why our military stands a chance against numerically superior forces is strictly because of our superior technology (which the Chinese and Russians want to steal daily).
To maintain a technological edge, spending will be non-linear. That’s the cost of national security whether or not you approve.
If you allow others to reach technological parity with us, then we will no longer be able to defend ourselves or our allies against hostile forces who would out number us.
The military is the one who footed for the upfront costs of things to allow for street prices of less than $1,000. That and the fact that military grade stuff is built to a higher standard and is continually improved. So what?
You’re living in a dream world if you think our military can engage larger hostile forces without superior technology. Superior technology was the ONLY reason why the USSR didn’t try to take us on in Europe during the cold war. No one really knows who would win between a technologically superior force versus a numerically superior force.
If China or Russia reaches parity with us and we end up having a hostile conflict with them, what sort of common sense do you suppose you’d recommend to our troops? Running?
According to Wikipedia,
China has an estimated 7.5 million troops.
Cuba has 1.2 million troops (not a typo).
Iran has 11.7 million troops.
North Korea has 8.4 million troops.
Pakistan has 1.5 million troops.
Russia has 3.8 million troops.
United States has 3.4 million troops.
Vietnam has 6 million troops.
Jesus that tank in the picture is well camouflaged. It looks just like a guy.
Wait…. what? Oooooooooohhh.
Incidentally, the UK only has 435,500 soldiers total. Which doesn’t sound much, but do bare in mind we spend less time shooting each other by accident.
We should cut the military by half.
Ironically, reduced military capacity would make America safer because we would be less inclined to use it for stupid wars like Iraq.
23, Greg.
To a point.
BUT, why not just GET OUR SOLDIERS OUT OF..
Japan,
Korea,
Vietnam,
China,
Philippines,
…
WE have more bases around the world, then any other country. WHY?
Why are MOST of our wars based on CORPORATION PROTECTION and OIL countries..
There has been WARS, in countries that had NO major corps or OIL, that we could have HELPED protect people…we didnt do ANYTHING. from Tibet to S. Africa. BOTH were having a Genocidal wars.
#20. It would be much more informative if you talked about the ability to project military power beyond a country’s borders. Cuba with 1 million troops who cannot get off their Island are a much smaller threat than say Canada. China has a large army that has very large internal security responsibilities. Veitnam has a very large army because China does and they do not trust China. Pakistan has large difficulties dealing with the much smaller Taliban in their own country. Iran has an extremely large military but would have major difficulties beyond their immediate neighbors.
Raw number of men alone is a very poor indicator of military strength or effectiveness.
Payouts for this system are in simple terms, pay per click. Ever legitimate click an advert receives you will be eligible to earn a % of the advertising cost.