View Full Version : Obama to trim military
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0105/New-Pentagon-strategy-recasts-military-in-Obama-s-image
Well, this is certainly a good start. I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism cause, well, the man can't get out of bed without criticism. But, things do take time, and now he has started this. I'm glad. :)
Long overdue. If I recall correctly, the military budget has doubled since 9/11, so despite the testimony of the joint chiefs to Congress that they could not reduce their budgets by even a penny without dire consequences, I think it's time to limit their missions and limit their funding.
gimmethesimplelife
1-5-12, 8:20pm
Long overdue. If I recall correctly, the military budget has doubled since 9/11, so despite the testimony of the joint chiefs to Congress that they could not reduce their budgets by even a penny without dire consequences, I think it's time to limit their missions and limit their funding.I couldn't agree with you more!!! Rob
I am supportive of this attempt, though I think we need to cut far far more.
It is going to be a tough fight to trim anything from the military budget. Too many special interest groups make too much money off of the military. They can buy as many congress people as necessary to stop the trimming.
It is a good thing - that said it's kind of anticlimatic coming right on the heels of him signing the NDAA.
ApatheticNoMore
1-5-12, 10:14pm
It is a good thing - that said it's kind of anticlimatic coming right on the heels of him signing the NDAA.
Hahaha :laff: Really nothing matters after that (possibly some of the internet bills SOPA, PIPA as if passed they may make even getting the word out on things like the NDAA harder - but how can even those compare really?). People are already becoming afraid to speak on the internet due to the NDAA, but me I can't shut up. Still ... Now really I'm a person that thinks a lot of things matter, and some of them matter a LOT. But right now ..... this nuclear superpower has just gone rogue.
But besides becoming a person that just screams "NDAA!" all the time (which frankly everyone should be doing to all those who don't know about it, the word needs to get out, but which is quite pointless as a discussion here as it has already all been said for the most part - in most every thread by me at this point! :)). Support bills that seek to limit it's power is all that remains to be said.
So cutting 1/2 trillion from the defense budget = good, very very good. Every penny taken from the pentagon and the military industrial complex pretty much IS A GOOD GOOD THING. Pretending this has larger implications for war making proclivity right now = no you have to look at this in a larger context of everything else that is going on in U.S. policy. The context of how we are currently upping the chances of war with Iran etc., and we are. Plus you can even take the statements in that nearly contentless article that was linked to (the only factual statement I got was 1/2 trillion) as evidence they are still saber rattling (which is how politicians broadcast to you their intent to make war - if you can read the early warning).
Hahaha :laff: Really nothing matters after that (possibly some of the internet bills SOPA, PIPA as if passed they may make even getting the word out on things like the NDAA harder - but how can even those compare really?). People are already becoming afraid to speak on the internet due to the NDAA, but me I can't shut up. Still ... Now really I'm a person that thinks a lot of things matter, and some of them matter a LOT. But right now ..... this nuclear superpower has just gone rogue.
But besides becoming a person that just screams "NDAA!" all the time (which frankly everyone should be doing to all those who don't know about it, the word needs to get out, but which is quite pointless as a discussion here as it has already all been said for the most part - in most every thread by me at this point! :)). Support bills that seek to limit it's power is all that remains to be said.
So cutting 1/2 trillion from the defense budget = good, very very good. Every penny taken from the pentagon and the military industrial complex pretty much IS A GOOD GOOD THING. Pretending this has larger implications for war making proclivity right now = no you have to look at this in a larger context of everything else that is going on in U.S. policy. The context of how we are currently upping the chances of war with Iran etc., and we are. Plus you can even take the statements in that nearly contentless article that was linked to (the only factual statement I got was 1/2 trillion) as evidence they are still saber rattling (which is how politicians broadcast to you their intent to make war - if you can read the early warning).
The detention piece may have actually been a bit of bipartisan genius - that is the only thing being discussed. The $662 billion they committed in the appropriation with wide bipartisanship with no fighting over cutting or not cutting this huge amount or how it will be paid for is not even being discussed in the media. I just find it amusing this commitment to cutting spending comes right after signing such a huge spending bill.
ApatheticNoMore
1-6-12, 1:13pm
Was this NDAA vastly more than the usual amounts? I just kind of assumed it was typical amounts. Typical is far too much? Well yes, but there is no belief in either party that defense should be cut really so it is not surprising. I might as well expect trees to grow upside down as to expect serious defense cuts. ALTHOUGH .... it is getting to the point that sooner or later the U.S. military will have been at war with every country in the middle east. So maybe there will be no need for more oil wars? Even that has a logical endpoint right? When you have conquered the whole terrority more or less, there is no need for more conquer maybe. >8)
As for the media considering how silent they were on the indefinite detention parts of the bill until it was completely passed. They are useless. Hardly better than Pravda in the Soviet days. I mean really profoundly useless.
There are other scary parts of the NDAA (besides the potential indefinite detention and extrodinary rendition of American citizens). Of course it makes closing Gitmo near impossible. The current NDAA also means American drones will start flying over American airspace (scary). It also means more cyberwar, whatever that even means, and who they are targetting I don't know (the thing is like thinking U.S. citizens need to be indefinitely detained there seems no REAL enemy to be worried about here). Parts of the NDAA are also upping the chances of war with Iran IMO.
But the actual spending itself, well it's just money, and again no expectation it would be different. Yes one can argue that money matters but ... is the U.S. really going to go bankrupt? Is that even possible when the U.S. is trying to control much of the oil in the world? And perhaps if the U.S. does go bankrupt that is a very good thing for the world afterall :). Not for the American people perhaps. And yes all the spending will mean social programs will be cut (if not eliminated) in the future. But hey they threw you the American citizen over the bus when they said they could indefinitely detain you (they made what they think of you kinda clear I think), do you think they care that much if you are eating cat food? For now they pretend to care, I'm just saying, in the end ....
By the way trying to figure out where the 1/2 trillion in cuts will come from. It seems they are mainly cutting troops. Now yes I really am of the opinion that any defense cuts are good, but I'd way rather cut what could really be referred to as the military industrial complex than troops (because it is way more dangerous for one thing and it's all corporatist and produces a lobby that can not be fought). I don't think troops really have a huge lobby per se, they are kind of like employees, can be laid off you know. But the defense companies living off pork, that is a lobby.
I haven't seen all the details, but does "cutting troops" mean cutting contractors/mercenaries, some of whom are making $100,000+/year? Another example of outsourcing and privatizing that actually ended up costing taxpayers much, much more, not to mention disguising the true headcount of all those doing military-type duties.
I haven't seen all the details, but does "cutting troops" mean cutting contractors/mercenaries, some of whom are making $100,000+/year? Another example of outsourcing and privatizing that actually ended up costing taxpayers much, much more, not to mention disguising the true headcount of all those doing military-type duties.
I don't have figures to support it, but would estimate that the high salaries of mercenaries or contractors still cost less than the all considered cost of government soldiers or employees. When you consider costs of employee benefits, training, overhead, and the layers of administration I would wager that private enterprise is far more efficient than the military or government and can make a little profit to boot.
What I think we will see is a "more agile" military with less ability to fight a land war but more, or the same, emphasis on sea and air including automated systems like drones and status quo expensive hardware like expensive carriers and subs.
i like how there was a news story that said "the military reports that we will still be able to fight multiple wars if needed despite military cuts"
oh thank god! i am so glad we will be able to be involved in many wars still.
it is like carrying a credit card vs. cash. if you have the credit, you'll spend.
if we have a big huge military, of course we'll be at wars.
if we have a small military, we'll probably pick and choose things better.
I don't have figures to support it, but would estimate that the high salaries of mercenaries or contractors still cost less than the all considered cost of government soldiers or employees. When you consider costs of employee benefits, training, overhead, and the layers of administration I would wager that private enterprise is far more efficient than the military or government and can make a little profit to boot.
What I think we will see is a "more agile" military with less ability to fight a land war but more, or the same, emphasis on sea and air including automated systems like drones and status quo expensive hardware like expensive carriers and subs.
the thing about the military soldiers verses the mercenaries is, the government 'owns' the soldier but not the other guy. So the government can order the soldier to 'storm the hill' or whatever even though everyone knows it's suicide for the stormer! With the mercenary, well, he can just look at the hill and say 'not so much!' This is the reason we have 'the military' as opposed to hired guns. I'm not saying good or bad, it's just the reason. You can reason it both ways. There have been times in the past where a free agent might have kept us from doing foolish things, but there have also been times when we needed to storm the hill, whatever the outcome.
I'll tell you where I fall on this. If Iraq, and other wars of the recent past have taught us nothing else, it's shown us that there will always be those who will do anything for money, including risking death. Of course you then get into the sticky area of WHO you are hiring from shady pasts to desperate people, but we have that conversation now days anyway. I think we need a small force that the government 'owns', but hire the rest. But overall, we need to slowly, but steadily back out of the job of world police. slowly, because it's just naive to think we can just stop, but we can back out, bit by bit. I think this is a good start, and hopefully will continue no matter who is in the white house in years forward. Hopefully, if a republican wins, all this saber rattling over Iran is just that, a lot of noise and no action. Gingrich would absolutely go to war, Ron Paul would not and I don't think Romney would, although I don't know.
ApatheticNoMore
1-8-12, 4:56am
I think we need a small force that the government 'owns', but hire the rest.
I don't favor "privitizing" the military. For one thing I think the mercenaries will do things more brutal than soildiers will (I'm not arguing armies are always saints of course, too much history argues otherwise). But I still think in general those hired killers are way more hardened than those 18 year old boys. Crony capitalism truly is the worst of both worlds in every sense imaginable. It creates entrenched interests that can not be reduced (Kellogg Brown and Root) and those entrenched interests lobby congressmen. And those entrenched interests could go so far as to lobby for war. But military generals could do the same thing and even with financial self interest? Yes sure, but honestly I really don't think the motive is there to that degree. Many high up in the military have actually come out against bad policy. Some in the military are actual patriotic in many ways (is there is anything left to be patriotic about, ho hum we will drop that topic now). But you want killing to be a purely capitalistic rather than a patriotic exercise? Just purely killers who kill for money rather than any possible patriotic bone in their body. I don't think that is going to end well .....
But overall, we need to slowly, but steadily back out of the job of world police. slowly, because it's just naive to think we can just stop, but we can back out, bit by bit. I think this is a good start, and hopefully will continue no matter who is in the white house in years forward. Hopefully, if a republican wins, all this saber rattling over Iran is just that, a lot of noise and no action.
We can hope yes (hope and pray). But I think sabering rattling is very often "signaling" and not just for show. So 4 years ago, I'm watching the Obama McCain debates (live on the net because I don't have tv :)). And Obama is saying how he will wind down troops in Iraq (so far so good) and he says he will increase them in Afghanistan. "Uh oh" I think. This is NOT an anti-war candidate. More war in Afghanistan - ugh. Now Obama hasn't necessarily been great on keeping promises but his policy there exactly followed his "signaling" (what he said he would do). Candidates signaling war with Iran - run don't walk in the other direction!!! No war with Iran! Why is a country that is supposedly so in debt that debt ceiling bills get stopped for days thinking of another MAJOR (and this one won't just be a few drone bombers) war anyway? We now have economic sanctions on Iran (yes part of that bill that shall not be named). I'm inclined to believe that sanctions are indeed an act of war or the first step in a war. Because well that's the exact sequence of events followed in Iraq. I mean history seems to be repeating and not just rhyming at this point.
You make several good points, and overall I agree with them, although we have seen the result of patriotism as motivation, in Iraq. "Kill'em there before they kill us here' reasoning, which actually doesn't make any sense at all. And yes, there are some cases in the military where someone will 'speak truth to power' but unfortunately these cases are too rare. Patriotism can carry the day, but false patriotism, like the kind fed our young men and women running up to and during Iraq, can destroy. Young people are very impressionable, and malleable, coupled with lack of maturity and experience. There is a reason we send 18 year olds to war. Perhaps we should instead put a lower age limit on our fighting forces. Still young and strong and physically able to do the job, but old enough to have at least a little experience and maturity of thought.
Sanctions against Iran don't really mean war. We have sanctions against a great many countries at any given moment without the desire to go to war. However, and I'm not just speaking as a liberal, but there are a frightening number, mostly on the right, who are itching for war with Iran. Of course the republican candidates, sans Paul, who rattle the saber in an ever louder escalation of the 'he's right? Well I'm righter than him!" But it's hard to know who in fact is serious in this because of the circumstance. We have to just guess given the pasts of each candidate. But folks just need to keep in mind, if they elect a republican to office, then they will have to live with what they bought. If a republican, any republican talks war with Iran, or anyone really, then believe them.
Sanctions against Iran don't really mean war. We have sanctions against a great many countries at any given moment without the desire to go to war. However, and I'm not just speaking as a liberal, but there are a frightening number, mostly on the right, who are itching for war with Iran. Of course the republican candidates, sans Paul, who rattle the saber in an ever louder escalation of the 'he's right? Well I'm righter than him!" But it's hard to know who in fact is serious in this because of the circumstance. We have to just guess given the pasts of each candidate. But folks just need to keep in mind, if they elect a republican to office, then they will have to live with what they bought. If a republican, any republican talks war with Iran, or anyone really, then believe them.
Peggy, I really can look you straight in the eye and tell you that Republican, and/or conservative, and war-monger are not synonymous terms. I, for one, am glad the military will be scaled back as are a lot of the other conservative voices in here and in this country.
No, sanctions don't mean war, but Iran is a country that needs to be watched very closely regardless of our leaders political affiliation. Their economy is on the verge of collapse and we all know what that can do to a society. About the only way they can shore up their economy is to drive the price of oil higher and we all know what that can do to OUR economy. Iran has a 'supreme' leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) who just lost a lot of credibility on the world stage and also faces upcoming parliamentary elections so needs to do something to show strength at home. They have a President (Ahmadinejad) who by all appearances has no palate for diplomatic solutions to any problem. Iran has a strong military and intelligence community. There are people in the know that seem to believe Iran is far more dangerous if they launch a cyber attack than if they try to do anything nuclear. Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is 10 times the organization al Qaeda ever was and wouldn't hesitate to strike in the US or Europe if it met their needs. A lot of people are now just assuming Iran and Israel will end up in a war. The US ends up in a very difficult position regardless of whether Israel attacks Iran to take out nuclear sites or Iran attacks Israel, well, just because its Israel. Iran is a pretty messed up place right now. I haven't heard anyone calling for a war with them, but at the same time I'm scared of anyone who blows them off.
For one thing I think the mercenaries will do things more brutal than soildiers will (I'm not arguing armies are always saints of course, too much history argues otherwise
And there will be no accountability for those acts. Everyone in the armed forces is subject to the Military Code of Justice which governs legal behavior and punishment for military members - everything from court marshals and demotions to jail time and executions for treason - things that aren't part of a civilian legal code. Those laws and penalties are great incentives to fulfilling your miltary contract and abiding by the rules of combat. Without that in place, there will be no legal way to hold hired mercenaries accountable for any of their actions. Be they derelection of duty by refusing to "storm the hill" as Peggy pointed out (and perhaps causing an even graver danger to others by refusing those orders), harming civilians and fellow service members, selling military secrets (weapons technolgy, troop movements), or just walking off the job and not fulfilling their mission. How many of us in the service said "gee I wish I could just quit" . We couldn't without severe legal ramifications, where as a civilian contract employee could.
In the same vein, with a hired military who's only loyalty is to the highest bider, there is no guarentee that that kind of secret info and intell won't fall into an enemies hands. Would you want to trust your countries defense to hired guns who will sell out to the highest bidder? And what's to stop a corporatation from hiring it's own mercenary force to defend it's interests - maybe against the USA's own interests?
Then there is the chain of command issues. Right now each armed force works in conjuction with each other. There is chain of command that is intact for each member of each service as well as between the different services. Everyone knows who to follow, and what structure to follow, when they work together. They train together constantly and share technology and resources. Even the Coast Guard (the unloved and forgotten step-child of the armed forces ;-)!) is constantly training with the other services. Every ship is reguired do annual "war games" training with both the Navy and Marine in Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) for several weeks. When at war, as now, they join in mixed service expedianary forces with the other service and fall under control of the Dept of the Navy. They know where to go, what to do, and have a chain of command in place to obey. But will the people from the various groups - be they hired professionals who are funded by corporations and/or the US government or ever privately funded militias with far right or left wing agendas put together for altruistic reason (think Minuteman type organizations) - follow the same sort of chain of command? Will they even be able to? Will the Black Water mercenaries follow commands from some Texas Minuteman Militia? On a large scale, with a variety of groups formed for different reasons, agendas, and ideaologies i see a mess.
As for reducing military spending - that also reduces civilian jobs. base closures wreak havoc on the local employment of even large towns. Noth only does small businesses suffer - restaurants, shops, etc.. - but housing values plummet too. The same thing happens when large civilian defense contractors shut down and lay off huge numbers of workers. My sister, who has worked for Northrup-Grumman for the past 17 years as security to one of the countries largest advanced weapons testing facilities (used by Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and many many others beside Northrup) was recently laid off along with hundreds - and thousands nationwide - when they started closing various sites because of cuts in defense funding. And it's not just weapons development places. Northrup is closing several of it's other large facilities - one a shipyard that builds ships for the Navy and Coast Guard - in Louisiana. 5,000 people will be laid off and approx. an additional 7,000 jobs from local suppliers will be lost.
Besides the lay offs of many American workers, there is a couple of very bad side effects of reducing military defense funding to civilian contractors. One is that much of the new weapons technology being researched and developed is technology that will eliminate the need for more people to be placed in harms way in a war zone. Much of it just requires one guy with a computer, often times hundreds of miles from any war area. Therefore reducing the need for more people in the service, thus reducing costs as well as causalities. The newer technologies also allow for great pin-point accuracy of a target - eliminating many, if not all, civilian causalties at a target site.
Another bigger problem I see is that corporations like Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, etc... are not going to close shop on weapons research and development because of lack of US funding. They will just ship that reseach and development overseas to a country that is willing and able to pay for it. Some place like China - BFF to North Korea, Russia, Iran and a few other "not-so-friendly-to-the-USA" countries (and a country who's military development and political and social ideology frankly scares the crap out of me) . We will fall far behind in weapons technology and development while others will reap the benefits of our engineering knowledge and expertise. And while I would love to live in a world where all our troubles could be handle in a peaceful manner, I don't think that world will exist anytime soon and I'd like to be better prepared rather then lag behind the rest of the world.
Also wanted to add that when you do away with military jobs, you are also doing away with one of the largest (probably the largest) government "socialized" program for employment, training and education opportunities in this country for millions of young people who have no hope for any other opportunity. Many impoverished kids join the service as a way to better their lives and their futures. To not only have a paying job but to gain invaluable on-the-job-training in almost every job catagory you can think of. Jobs that can translate into a well paid future in civilian life. Joining the service also allows them to earn money for college - something many poor kids could never hope for without joining the service. So remember that when you are talking about reducing military spending, you are also talking about reducing job and educational opportunities to millions of people in this country who's only civilain job opportunity may be order taker at the local Micky D's - and who's only furture job opportunities may be about the same.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.