CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET RIGHT NOW

Vice Lord wrote:
I've been all over the world from the jungles of Paupu New Guinea to the back streets of Calcutta, the camel pits in Dubai and in the board rooms of New York City and people are the same wherever you go.

Science Chic wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: So I will agree that the U.S. could certainly cut the DoD budget. Unfortunately, even if we cut the $963.7 billion DoD budget to zero that STILL would not cover the entire, ever-growing deficit.

The DoD budget is low hanging fruit to lots of folks who want a quick payoff on balancing the budget, but it doesn't take an economic genius to figure out (looking at the numbers above) that there are other areas the we could possibly trim the fat and I'm not hearing much talk about that other than the whining that goes on when someone in Congress suggests a cut in one of the sacred cows outlined in the "mandatory" portion of the U.S. budget. I wonder what makes some of those programs "mandatory"? I wonder if we can take a surgeon's knife to some of those programs too?

Since this thread was started about the DoD, I myself dealt with it only, but yes, cuts are required across the board in all dept's in order to balance the budget and rid us of debt. I've brought it up previously, but no one was too interested in talking about it. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6102 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6102<!-- l -->

Another point I haven't really heard mentioned so far in this discussion is the reality that America's global reach in commerce requires us and nations like us to have land forces and sea power to maintain our access to the world market. Without our Navy, for instance, it's very likely that pirate operations like the ones found off the Coast of Somalia would pop up in many other navigational choke points around the world. We enjoy free access to much of the world's market because the bad guys in the world (yes, contrary to VL's purist perspective of the world there are evil people out there) know we are willing to insure that access with military might. It's fun to talk about bringing ALL our military home but it's unrealistic. America's current business posture in the world requires some military might. It sounds like VL is a business person and has benefited from this posture. There will always be a cost associated with our world trade unless we are prepared to shrink the economy by a heck of a lot.

That's a good point, and yes, we do need protection for our commerce. But I wonder how much that costs compared to, say the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? I'm certianly not mandating that we eliminate our military altogether, that would be suicidal, I'm just saying that we need to stop the continual increases and lose the waste.

So sure, let's talk about cutting the evil DoD budget, it's clearly low hanging fruit, but I hope you are equally motivated to make those tough cuts in some of the other mandatory and discretionary programs too.

We should also be prepared to accept the fact that cuts in the DoD budget, and any other programs we go after in our effort to balance the budget, will be putting Americans out of work and adding to that economy killing 9-10% unemployment rate. This is going to be a tough pill for America to swallow no matter what but the cuts must begin before the whole country tanks its economy on debt.

Yuppers. See http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/f ... 1_2010.pdf Yes, the only way out of this mess we're in is to cauterize the festering infection - it will be painful (more jobs lost, businesses failing, etc), but better in the long run for the health of the country as a whole.

Navycpo7 wrote: SC, as I posted earlier on this thread, this contractor issue is one of the biggest issues that if corrected could save alot of money. Gates already ordered the closing of the Joint Task Force Command in Norfolk VA, of course both the Repub and Demo VA delegation are already up in arms about it. Most of those duties could be transferred to another command and have the same results. The DOD budget has increased I think it was approx 7% each year for the past 20 years or so. Think that is what I read. Gates is trying to bring it down to around 1 percent. But I whole heartly disagree with your one article about the war in Afgan. We, the military do not want to be there. We are there because of our Civilian Government that ordered us there. So long as they decide we are going to be there we do not have a choice. It is not the military that makes these choices. We serve under the President of the United States and the people of this country. Lionhead said it best.

Navy - I'm absolutely not trying to be snarky or disrespectful here, just wondering: did you read just the part I quoted, or the whole article? I didn't quote the statements prior to that part about it coming about because of Bush pushing for it. I didn't want the usual "It's all Bush's fault" automatic response coming back at me, but yes, you're right, it was our politicians actively pushing for it. You can't fight terrorists with ground troops within the confines of a border. However, and I understand if you disagree, I don't doubt that higher ups in the Pentagon, CIA, and civilian defense contractors were all for it too. You can't keep justifying a huge budget for the DoD/Pentagon when you aren't at war, and they want to keep hold of their power.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/17-6

After Eisenhower, it became clear that the alliance of militarist interests included not only the military services and their industrial clients but civilian officials in the Pentagon, the CIA's Directorate of Operations, top officials at the State Department and the White House national security adviser. During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, that militarist alliance succeeded in pushing the White House into a war in Vietnam, despite the reluctance of both presidents, as documented in my book Perils of Dominance. But in mid-1990 they got an unexpected break when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait. George H. W. Bush - a key figure in the militarist complex as former CIA Director -- seized the opportunity to launch a war that would end the "Vietnam syndrome". The Bush administration turned a popular clear-cut military victory in the 1991 Gulf War into a rationale for further use of military force in the Middle East. The 9/11 attacks were the biggest single boon to the militarist alliance. The Bush administration exploited the climate of fear to railroad the country into a war of aggression against Iraq. The underlying strategy, approved by the military leadership after 9/11, was to use Iraq as a base from which to wage a campaign of regime change in a long list of countries. Instead of reversing the ill-considered use of military force, however, the same coalition of officials pushed for an even more militarized approach to jihadism. Over the next few years, it gained unprecedented power over resources and policy at home and further extended its reach abroad:
* The Pentagon embraced the idea of the "long war" - a twenty-year strategy envisioning deployment of U.S. troops in dozens of countries, and the Army adopted the idea of "the era of persistent warfare" as its rationale for more budgetary resources.

* The military leadership used its political clout to ensure that U.S. forces would continue to fight in Afghanistan indefinitely, even after the premises of its strategy were shown to have been false.

The author does not document in this article (maybe he does in his book) what evidence of military leadership was responsible for this so I can't say that it's absolute fact, but it does make sense. Of course the bulk of the military, those actually fighting over there, don't want to be there - they see firsthand that our methods aren't working and we're not reducing the threat of terrorism to ourselves.

SC yes I read the whole article, and no I did not take your comments as snarky or disrespectful. It is all good. I do though agree with LionHead on what he has stated.