Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Last month, Congressman Barney Frank called for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget--approximately $150 billion in annual spending--saying, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."
Predictably, the Republican backlash was swift. House Minority Leader John Boehner called Frank "incredibly irresponsible." House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee ranking member John McHugh (R-NY) labeled the proposed reduction "unconscionable." Democrats--especially those on the House Armed Services Committee --didn't exactly embrace Frank's target, either.
But Congressman Frank isn't backing down. In an e-mail to me yesterday he wrote, "Much of the reduction will come from ending the war in Iraq and from cutting unneeded weapons systems. I believe that it's appropriate to reduce defense spending, and this is a goal I wanted to set. I don't have specific details at this point, but I will be working with my colleagues to identify weapons systems that we can reduce, and I also want to look at drawing down the number of our overseas bases."
Even a senior Pentagon advisory group--the Defense Business Board --recently concluded that the current budget is "not sustainable." And according to the Boston Globe, "Pentagon insiders and defense budget specialists say the Pentagon has been on a largely unchecked spending spree since 2001 that will prove politically difficult to curtail but nevertheless must be reined in."
The current budget allots over $500 billion to defense, and an additional $200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a recent editorial in the New York Times tells us, the budget is "nearly equal to all of the rest of the world's defense budgets combined." It represents 57 percent of the total discretionary budget.
In Unified Security Budget for the United States, FY 2009, research fellow Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies, and former US Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, outline not only cuts that need to be made to implement a sane defense budget, but also the shift in priorities required to confront the real security challenges of the 21st century. The Unified Security Budget (USB) pulls "together in one place US spending on all of its security tools: tools of offense (military forces), defense (homeland security) and prevention (non-military international engagement.) This tool would make it easier for Congress to consider overall security spending priorities and the best allocation of them."
In a recent DefenseNews op-ed, Pemberton and Korb write: "The balance between our spending on military forces and other security tools--like diplomacy, nonproliferation, foreign aid and homeland security--needs to change."
For example, the USB demonstrates that forgoing the scheduled increase in the troubled F-22 fighter jet for FY 2008--$800 million--would be sufficient to triple the amount spent on debt cancellation in the world's poorest countries. Or increase by 50 percent US contributions to international peacekeeping operations. Or triple the amount allocated in FY 2007 for domestic rail and transit security programs.
Along the same lines, canceling the Bush administration's initiative to build offensive space weapons could provide the $800 million needed to double the originally requested annual budget for the State Department's Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization.
The report offers $56 billion in cuts to spending on offensive weapons, and $50 billion in new expenditures on defense and prevention. It transforms the Bush administration's 9:1 ratio of spending on offense as compared to defense and prevention, to 5:1. According to the report, "This budget would emphasize working with international partners to resolve conflicts and tackle looming human security problems like climate change; preventing the spread of nuclear materials by means other than regime change; and addressing the root causes of terrorism, while protecting the homeland against it."
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts also released a report last year-- Just Security--which details how $213 billion could be cut from US military spending. Even with this cut the US would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries.
Look for an inside-outside strategy to reframe the debate on the defense budget to emerge in the coming weeks. This week, the new American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation (of which I'm a board member) will coordinate a meeting between progressive thinkers like Pemberton and members of the Progressive Caucus to discuss the issue of unsustainable defense spending, alternatives to the status quo, and tactics and strategies on how to win this debate.
Progressives are under no illusions as to the obstacles to making a real and meaningful shift in the way the US approaches the defense budget. As Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information told the Globe, "The forces arrayed against terminating defense programs are today so powerful that if you try to do that it will be like the British Army at the Somme in World War I. You will just get mowed down by the defense industry and military services' machine guns." Or, as even the Bush Administration's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said of the scant resources devoted to the diplomatic corps as compared to military equipment, "Diplomacy simply does not have the built-in, domestic constituency of defense programs."
With increased public awareness of the misplaced priorities of the past eight years--runaway defense spending being no exception--and the growing demands and dangers of our cratering economy and broken healthcare system, now is the moment for citizens to seize and organize around an alternative vision that reflects our determined idealism and grounded realism.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
If Congressman Frank is looking to "reduce" the millitary budget, then the first priority should be our overseas bases. The amount of money we spend there is huge. I know our bases are an economic boon for the locals, but I think it high time the Europeans step up to the plate in defending their own backyard for awhile. I know putting more money into their own millitaries will take a bite out of the social programs, but they're a union now, so they should be able to absorb the cost. After that, they can work on dismantling NATO. They can handle agressors like Russia.
Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 10:17am
Don't count on it. Any "peace" dividend will be used to rebuild the military - as promised by Obama.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 10:54am
"nearly equal to all of the rest of the world's defense budgets combined." It represents 57 percent of the total discretionary budget.
It's no wonder the U S is bankrupt. But there is a certain comfort in reminding oneself that that which is not sustainable will not be sustained. By definition.
Posted by mikecope at 11/18/2008 @ 10:58am
It'll get trimmed, but not too much.
LOTTA defense industry employees, in Democratic districts....and cutting their jobs in the middle of a recession...isn't good politics.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 10:58am
If we don't rein in our military spending in this unsustainable way, we'll fall just like the unsustainable Roman Empire. Of course, at the point where their spending became unsustainable, they were importing all of their wheat, lumber, and other necessities from distant provinces held by their military. If we lose our control over the middle east, we need to be prepared to finally kick the oil habit. Unlike Rome, we still have everything we need within our own borders.
Posted by johnfournier77 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:09am
"Invest in security tools that reflect Regressive Ideas?
Why would we want to do that? :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/18/2008 @ 11:35am
It's too late to do anything about "runaway military spending". What we're witnessing is an inevitable conclusion of Keynansian based economy. Progressives are reinvigorated with the grass-roots movement today reminiscent of the Sixties but, already by then the Military Industrial Complex embedded itself strongly enough to assassinate figureheads of the opposition. If Obama does take on major demilitarization surely they won't sit idly by. He'll be done with like JFK and now it's more convenient because Obama's black and they have an obvious scapegoat. No my fellow progressives I'm afraid the only way we're going to win a truly democratic nation is for hubris to run its course. I'm afraid that the violence and injustice we see in places like Iraq are nothing compared to what our own government is prepared to do to us. They have had eight years to scheme. If they didn't have an alternate plan already set they would have stole this election too.
Posted by OccidentalPeninsular at 11/18/2008 @ 11:40am
Don't forget dynasty after dynasty in China that spent all of their wealth building and rebuilding the great wall to keep out foreign invaders, only to suffer a collapse from within. The collapse was usually prompted by the lack of funds left to maintain the economy because they had spent everything they had on construction of the wall.
Posted by IndianaJohn at 11/18/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by IndianaJohn at 11/18/2008 @ 11:40am
Not sure that's the sum total of the reason for the collapse of the Manchus.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 12:08pm
Great wall:
True, but the combination of a unipolar view and wasted money on the "Chinese Maginot Line" brought down the Mings, according to:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R34SV4MHIK830K
Perhaps we could eliminate our need for middle eastern oil by closing our bases and investing the money in alternative energy sources. We could then leave defense of the gulf sea lanes to the Europeans and Japanese who are dependent upon gulf oil. Or would that be unacceptable because it would mean the end of the American imperial expansion?
Posted by IndianaJohn at 11/18/2008 @ 1:19pm
While I consider myself a Progressive, I have always regarded national defense as non-partisan. However, I am in general agreement with many of the points made in this article. Over the years, I have come to appreciate the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Washington's advice against entangling alliance, in his farewell address, resonates with me. For example, NATO was fine as a defensive alliance during the Cold War, but I question it's offensive moves into Russia's Sphere of Influence. I am ready to leave that alliance and pull our troops out of Europe. It would save money, but it is more a policy issue for me. During the Gulf War a temporary alliance was formed for that war, which is more in line with Washington's advice. Purely on the money side of things, I want to get rid of those worthless "Star Wars" Missile Defense Systems,and the private contractors that infest the Defense Department, along with the rest of the government. These programs are only corporate welfare, designed to help the bottom line of those parasites. You would save a bundle eliminating those programs.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/18/2008 @ 1:22pm
Missile defense (Star wars II), CUT
Military bases abroad, CUT (not only Europe, all around)
Iraq War, CUT (though I am afraid you may end up with bases in Kurdistan, still the operating costs of a Carrier group permanently in the Gulf and of all the troops around there can be cut)
The F-22 CUT. Pilot safety is a bogus argument. We use F-16s in Greece and they work fine. All planes face stresses and need eventual repairs. We still use F-4s which with renovations have become safe and potent weapons. You only need the F-22 if you want to go to war with China and dominate the Su-27s. But if you go to war with China the Su-27s will be the last of your problems.
USS San Antonio class Amphibius assault ships, CUT (the overruns and problems with the original ship are horrid and the Tarawa class can do the job just fine)
Littoral ships, CUT (more useless concept cannot be imagined, unless you are interested in 19th century gun-boat politics)
And if we are really serious:
Nuclear sub fleet, CUT in half.
Carrier groups (CUT by 2/3)
B-52 fleet, CUT/phase-out (you have so many ICBMs and SLBMs that you do not need them really)
Then Invest in hiring soldiers to do the haliburton and black water roles and thus save money and give people jobs. In fact you could send people with light sentences in prison to do army cooking, cleaning, driving and other such jobs which now go to private contractors, thus de-congesting prisons and slowly reintegrate otherwise productive members of society.
Just some ideas
Posted by dimik72 at 11/18/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by IndianaJohn at 11/18/2008 @ 1:19pm
Well, you might also want to throw in an isolationist culture and stagnated reform of their autocratic government and bureaucracy. Which led to them being technologically backwards and prone to disunity, compared to the Europeans who came in and dominated their country in the 19th Century.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 1:58pm
I have to say I agree with Barney Frank, we need to make some BIG cuts in our Military Spending Budget. Unlike Obama's plans to beef up our military I feel we need to deflate it and quite a bit at that. We do NOT need to be investing in any more Hi-Tech weapons than what we already have. I mean how do we ever plan to achieve PEACE if we continue to make sophisticated killing tools?! Have we not learned yet that you can NOT have peace through the barrel of a gun. We can NOT force our "Democracy" with violence. It is wrong and We as Americans are sick and tired of this bully mentality and the world over is sick of us acting this way. In reality though, we are NOT trying to spread Democracy and Peace, we are trying to Grow Our American Empire, Imperialism, Corporatism and Militarism around the world. We do Not have bases in other countries to protect their backyards, as someone mentioned in an earlier comment, those bases are strategically set up so that we can be prepared to strike any "enemy" at anytime and anywhere in the world. We are not in Iraq because we feel sorry for them and want to give them democracy, if that were the case we wouldn't be killing them and destroying their country. We are there so we could set up bases and be in place to make strikes against Iran or Pakistan or whoever else our government deems the enemy! These are the same reasons our government despises Latin America so much. It isn't because they are "Socialists" like thats a bad word, it's because they are independent enough and brave enough to tell us they do not want American corporations on their land or American Military bases or our form of Dictatorship telling them how to live to benefit America while running the people of their own native lands into poverty. Wake Up!
Posted by kristofeR! at 11/18/2008 @ 2:24pm
Remember the "world" electoral college?
We are now the darlings of the globe now that Obama is our leader.
So why would we need a military at all?
Melt it!
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/18/2008 @ 2:58pm
i hear canada's got some used tanks for sale....
china and russia, america's "enemies", lend the money so the u.s. can "buy" more bombs.
hmmmm.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/18/2008 @ 3:28pm
WHAT KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL OMITS
Last year's spending in Iraq was just half of what Americans spend shopping at Wal-Mart. It was 1 percent of GDP. Total defense spending was around 4 of GDP.
Compare that to the 14 percent of GDP during the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War.
KVH is cheaply evoking virtuous pavlovian growls to a war budget.
It is demagogic to pretend our defense spending is out of control and a significant factor in our economic woes. Even were it were cut in half, the impact on our economic situation would be insignificant.
Because we have spent much more on defense than others the world has known peace for the last sixty years. America's puissance has permitted the most rapid and radical improvement in humankind's size and well being, since the beginning of time.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
I feel we need to deflate it and quite a bit at that. Posted by kristofeR! at 11/18/2008 @ 2:24pm
In reality we should be cutting defense spending to no more than 20% of TDB to even begin to become fiscally responsible. Even at 20% we would be outspending any other country in the world.
I realize however that this will never happen in a country that put all it's eggs in the one basket of Death, Destruction and Imperialism.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2008 @ 4:11pm
"Because we have spent much more on defense than others the world has known peace for the last sixty years."
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Assume you mean the world between the 49th parallel and the Rio Grande.
That of course wouldn't include Lebanon...
Cuba
Thailand
Laos
Congo(Zaire)
Vietnam
Cambodia
Iran
El salvador
Libya
Grenada
Colombia
Bolivia
Peru
Panama
Bosnia
Liberia
We are only counting places that aren't getting shot up by American firepower. Right?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 4:17pm
Among the things that make a country truly strong are Free Education, Infrastructure, Decent Wages, Healthcare, Investments in Science and Technology, A strong Manufacturing Base and a Sense of Morality. IMHO.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/18/2008 @ 4:25pm
LOL
If only Mr. Frank had led the charge to control the housing/mortgage market before the bottom fell out...
If we put all the criminals in the congress and the senate in jail for their crimes, we wouldn't have anyone left to 'run' the country!
Cutting our ridiculous spending on the military should get nothing but a big "DUH!" not praise for those doing the cutting...
Things are gonna be different now that Obama is president! What a joke lol.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 5:03pm
we need...
to develop energy independence, nay, autarky. this should be achieved by a balanced set of policies concentrating on clean, wasteless, new technology that will create jobs and build a new infrastrucyure as well as vaulting our country into a leading world role in such technology...
as this is in progress we need to reduce our foriegn commitment AND reduce the size of our regular military. maintain a strong, quickly mobilizable reserve cadre, a la old prussia and a technologically top notch, professional, highly mobile military capable of coordinating the kind of missions we may decide to undertake in the future, hopefully in the name of the united nations...
without closing ourselves off too much, develop economic autarky and reduce our dependence on the world market. this is only possible if we don't have to secure gobs of vital resources and is therefore as dependent upon development of energy independence as well as reducing our military role/bill somewhat.
as awesome as we are, we cannot continue to burn our candle at both ends and remain a first rate power. regardless, even if we do everything right, we delude ourselves in thinking we can remain the sole undisputed, uncontested, super power in a world of rapidly developing and emerging alternate powers...unless the world agrees to PAY us to run around policing their own back yards...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/18/2008 @ 5:24pm
Malcontent
It took only 21 years after the 1914 - 18 Great War, the bloodiest fight in history, to stumble into the even more disasterous 1939 - 45 conflict
The new weapons available after WWII made it likely that humankind would soon slip into even worse horrors. What prevented that was an America armed to the teeth.
To contradict that by pointing to flare ups in Bolivia, Lebanon, Korea etc., etc., is idiotic and worthy of you.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 6:16pm
"Flare ups" = peace???
Guess those dead folks don't mind. As long as it was just a "flare up".
Maybe you meant 'tiny wars that we always win, from the air'?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 6:54pm
While I strongly oppose the usual defense spending for many years the lack of scrutiny applied to DOD enabled them to pay for research including speech recognition, the internet, aircraft design and much else. If you want the remainder of American innovation to disappear then simply cut. Defense spending does need to be cut but research simply has to be done elsewhere to compensate.
Posted by mike1947 at 11/18/2008 @ 8:34pm
America's puissance has permitted the most rapid and radical improvement in humankind's size and well being, since the beginning of time.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
what an ugly comma.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/18/2008 @ 11:28pm
America's puissance has permitted the most rapid and radical improvement in humankind's size and well being, since the beginning of time.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
WHEN CAPTAIN HUGO THROWS HIS MIGHTY SHEILD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE HIS SHIELD MUST MUST MUST MUST YIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/18/2008 @ 11:29pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/18/2008 @ 11:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
war is a racket - major general smedely butler.
yup...peeps all throughout latin america and a large chunk of the rest of the resource vomitting third world are aver grateful for our high minded, selfless, freedom bringin' hammer of puissance...
i guess if you look at ww2, gulf war 1, bosnia, and maybe the korean war, sure - bloody freedom bringin' yummy goodness.
but thats just part of the story (the only part flag waving red, white, and blue rah-ra'er rightwing american fascists ever look at).
but then america hatin' lefty everything suxers DO ignore the yummy goodness too...
soooo like i say...
better than bad - its good! lowered expectations, the secret of happiness!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/19/2008 @ 12:00am
I think the GOP smells a pathway back to power. Next election, there will be ads depicting terrorist attacks, horrible explosions, white children enslaved, etc...and all this will happen because the Democrat Party cut defense spending.
The only way the ridiculous defense budget will be reduced is if people wise up and don't give into this kind of bullshit.
Posted by koroviev at 11/19/2008 @ 12:35am
Oh, thank you so much for this article and all you're doing Katrina. I'm not an expert to comment in any way, but I'm stuck over here in Europe-reading.. The US bears the brunt of protecting NATO/European countries but with all the money we spend and troops we send, and all the savings Europe thus gets to invest in their economies, they don't use the money well for even their own people. They're going more "right"!
As 2 other people commented, the timing is PERFECT for taking action to establish new priorities concerning NATO. If anyone does a little research, there's already recognition that NATO and the EU are working at cross-purposes and causing additional conflicts (Kosovo, Georgia, Ukraine, missile defense). There were meetings with ambassadors from NATO countries in Brussels in Feb. '08, the summit in Bucharest in April over Afghanistan, David Cameron at the same time talking about an EU Army and spelling out some clear failures of continental European NATO members (telegraph.co.uk/news 2 April). De Hoop Scheffer went to the UN about Kosovo in May '08. The independence of Kosovo has gone to the UN's ICJ now. Then I read from Stephen Castle at truthout.org on 16 July '08 that NATO has hired an ex-Coke executive to help with rebranding NATO! I just read through the Huffington Post about Rupert Murdoch making speeches claiming NATO needs to expand and include countries like Australia! Cyprus is an EU country not in NATO and it's "occupied" in part by Turkey, a NATO member but not EU. Albania and Macedonia want to join NATO, then the EU after! If anyone cares about European unity, they'd have to conclude something's @#$# backwards. They're thinking of adopting the US private army ideas here. It's time for change. NATO needs to be phased out..
Posted by Nicolette at 11/19/2008 @ 04:59am
Great article Katrina. After reading a few books showing how the Bush administration circumvented the joint chiefs of staff and instead chose to follow the advice of the American Enterprise Institute for the surge in Iraq, we evidently are putting too much money into national defense and our military experts at the pentagon.
Perhaps the rought tough talking John Wayne types of the Cato Institute, AEI,the Heritage Foundation and their most famous and prestigious think tank, the KKK are the generals and advisors the president should turn to as George W Bush did.
The neocons believe the world is theirs to carve up. They also believe that the U.S. military is at their disposal to do with as they wish, ie, our Navy's job is to protect the sea lanes against pirates going after their precious shipments. (Look at what recently happened to the Saudi's oil shipment).
The DOD is the department of defense, not the department of unilateral deployment anytime any where in the world at the commander-in-chief's pleasure. Our military has become an offensive business weapon and has played only a small part in our national security lately.
Congress needs to cut the purse strings to the pentagon and revise our defense spending, get rid of the Dept. Of Homeland Security money pit, and yes, we need to shut down a bunch of overseas bases.
The world is safe remember? They got Saddam, and Bin Laden has been chased into Pakistan and has been taken out of the game.....or do people not believe Bush and Cheney anymore?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 10:41am
Wolfgang, in case you haven't noticed, the Surge worked.
Posted by jimmylove at 11/19/2008 @ 12:47pm
Wolfgang, in case you haven't noticed, the Surge worked.
Posted by jimmylove at 11/19/2008 @ 12:47pm
Two points here Jimmy. 1) Since the surge worked so well, then why the hell don't we leave? Maliki would like us out pronto. Perhaps you can shed some light on why we need to remain if the Iraqi leaders want us out?
2) So, you think that politically motivated think tanks should have access to top secret military information and also be advising the president on military and national security matters over the joint chiefs of staff, DOD and pentagon personnel?
Geez, Gomer, and here I thought the military was the end of the friggin rainbow for you neocon types. I guess I was wrong. So, politicizing, privatizing and allowing the highest bidder access to the president and our military control is just fine with you?! Why bother electing presidents when Halliburton could just appoint one or better still, the American Heritage Foundation or the Amercian Enterprise Institute could be in charge to do as their corporate masters wish....woops, we already tried that the last eight years, and it didn't work too well did it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 1:23pm
The deep penetration of American culture by the military-industrial-academic complex started in WWII necessarily. However, since 2001 to has accelerated at an alarming pace. It is worrisome that President-Elect OBAMA might be subjected to the same types of blackmail by the "Complex" that President Clinton suffered. The writings of Chalmers Johnson, most recently "Nemisis" while not getting it all right on the complex mostly does. As does the so-called "American Empire Project." Should the penetration continue a fully militarized nation will result that has no real capacity for civil government, international affairs and diplomacy based on anything but military action, and ultimately the same collapse occurring from the resultant greed of the complex as we are now suffering from the greed of the "Masters of the Universe" on Wall Street. Ego and hubris will again lead to the reappearance of the Goddess Nemisis.
Posted by OnVacation at 11/20/2008 @ 02:11am
Ego and hubris will again lead to the reappearance of the Goddess Nemisis.-------Posted by OnVacation at 11/20/2008 @ 02:11am
"Okaaaaaay" (smiling while slowly backing away)
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 10:13am
Mask- You might want to read Chalmers books. Obviously the goddess Nemisis reference that OnVacation stated was an analogy. Chalmers Johnson blows the whistle on the military industrial complex. For example; there's a part of the B-52 bomber made in every congressional district. That's not efficient but, it means that the B-52 program is embedded so deeply that if ever cut representatives would howl across the country. Now imagine that sort of wide spread embedding with every military contract.
And, whoever touts the praises of "The Surge" I think you're over simplifying the issue. There were a host of other factors going on during that time. The major reason for a periodic quelling of violence was that the Iraqi government had more money coming in. during that time crude oil was climbing ever higher and the Iraqi government was flooded with petrol-dollars, money much needed for domestic programs. Building schools and shelters all under the supervision of an Iraqi police force. It was the domestic programs funded by oil money that made any head way. Most of the insurgents are native Iraqis. We stupidly disassembled the Iraqi army leaving thousands of military men without a job or means to provide for their families. Of course there's an insurgency. Not only did we bomb their homes but we took away their their means to make a living. Why didn't we just salt the earth while we're at it.
Posted by OccidentalPeninsular at 11/20/2008 @ 12:12pm
Could save a "few bucks" just by cleaning up corruption in defense contracting. Overuns, no bid contracts, war profiteering, campaign contributions returned with interest to contractors, etc.........yikes......how much of our defense budget goes to just plain old greed and fraud.
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/20/2008 @ 2:36pm
Probably most of it.
Too bad it is all too "top secret to, not only not tell Americans what is being done with their money, in their name. But, too "top secret" to even disclose how much is being spent in general.
Not only do some people forget to include the secret funds, "for national securty and protecting our freedoms", that are making us less safe and free. But they forget all the illegal money and drug trade funds, generated by our "top secret", "Intellegence" agencies.
Bond/Smart 2012!
Posted by Malcontent at 11/20/2008 @ 6:39pm
Doesn't anyone here think it is odd that NOT ONE story in The Nation has discussed the merits of Hillary as Secretary of State?
The most important cabinet pick but not a peep out of The Nation.
What's REALLY going on, KVH?
Posted by Metteyya at 11/20/2008 @ 7:38pm
Not only do some people forget to include the secret funds, "for national securty and protecting our freedoms", that are making us less safe and free. But they forget all the illegal money and drug trade funds, generated by our "top secret", "Intellegence" agencies.
Bond/Smart 2012!
Posted by Malcontent at 11/20/2008 @ 6:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Evo Morales just booted out DEA (front man for CIA) with accusations of fostering the drug trade. These "black" budgets are largely off limits from oversight. What a recipe for disaster.
Can never really know for sure because so much of it is......"classified." I'll venture to say that we could save at 25% - 30% just by cleaning it up.
What ever happened to those billions lost by Rumsfield after 9/11? Unbelievable.
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 11:04am
As an engineer at a defense contractor, I've seen how large military programs are set up to make them hard to cancel. Layers of subcontracts are used to spread the wealth around the country and benefit as many Congressional districts as possible, to make sure the votes are there to keep contracts funded.
Take the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an example. Lockheed Martin in Ft. Worth, TX is the prime contractor (the same plant that gave us the F-111 TFX disaster when it was run by General Dynamics, and also today's F-22 prime). They subcontract to another LM division in Eagan, MN for an avionics rack, who in turn subcontracts to my employer in Camden, NJ for a security module. Right there they've ensured the votes of Reps. Kay Granger, John Kline, and Rob Andrews for keeping JSF funded. But this political strategy comes with horrendous inefficiencies. Every design or status review for that security module requires air travel and hotel stays for a score of engineers and managers, all billed to the contract (i.e., the taxpayers). The employees don't complain, because they get Frequent Flier miles which they can keep for personal use. A few years ago, it was disclosed that the plane's design exceeded its weight requirements. Rather than being penalized for a bad design, the entire contract team was fully funded while they redesigned the plane. Since the contract is cost-plus, they even got to make a profit on it. If these companies tried working this way on a commercial product, they'd go bankrupt.
The GAO calls the F-35 program "unexecutable", yet it continues to be funded. In terms of national spending priorities, JSF should probably be canceled, but how do you overcome this huge array of stakeholders that the military has bought off?
Posted by rmcmahon at 11/21/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by rmcmahon at 11/21/2008 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Or how about this bogus missile defense system proven to ineffective and counteracted by Russian TOPOL - M missiles that employ a relatively simple and infinitely less costly decoy guaranteed to fool our most advanced and expensive technology? How many billions have we squandered?
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 1:58pm
Because we have spent much more on defense than others the world has known peace for the last sixty years.
and this passes for rational discourse? hahahahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:35pm
Because we have spent much more on defense than others the world has known peace for the last sixty years.
and this passes for rational discourse? hahahahahahahaPosted by Wolfgang1 at 11/19/2008 @ 10:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
the dept of defense used to be known more accurately as the dept of war.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:40pm
Wolfgang, I'm terribly sorry. a mistake was made, just the last part is a comment on your post.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 7:00pm
I get the feeling that we here, and the entire country if not the world are spinning our wheels . this interregnum is killing us. two more months of goddamn Bush. he's not even the pres any more, he has retreated into his shell, and is only a ceremonial leader. god help us should a crisis occur. er, oops.
we can thank our lucky stars the new pres get inaugurated in january rather than march.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 7:04pm
Still enjoying the moment!
O beautiful for halcyon skies, For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties Above the enameled plain! America! America! God shed his grace on thee Till souls wax fair as earth and air And music-hearted sea!
Posted by winyahn at 11/21/2008 @ 10:57pm
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/AmericasDefenseMeltdownFullText.pdf
Center for Defense Information just published a review advocating preciesly that same cut. Authored by Winslow Wheeler, Chuck Spinney and several others with impeccable credentials. (That means people the republicans and defense contractors cant claim are "liberal")
One of the first things pointed out in the study is that any attempts to reduce spending on bogus projects will generate a full court press from some congressman, the defense industry and certain others.
A very good read.
Posted by CaptainStormfield at 11/22/2008 @ 09:01am