Interesting SWJ thread on cutting the DoD budget

[rednblacklumberjack]

Very specific, highly informative. Unusual in both regards for this topic.

[skyhook77sfg]

In 1961, President Eisenhower said, “As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” There is a very sad irony in those words. We need to let those who have followed Ike’s footsteps to the halls of power in Washington know that we understand the relevance of those words to today’s economic and military crises.

The United States accounts for almost 50 percent of the world’s total military spending; yet our share of the world’s GDP is less than 25 percent. This official budget does not take into account the money that is secretly allocated in the “black” budgets of the Pentagon, CIA, and other clandestine operations.

We must all ask ourselves:
How can a nation that prides itself on government “of, for, and by the people,” justify hiding these black budget allocations from taxpayer scrutiny? How can a nation continue to prosper by ignoring its own long-term demise at the hands of a militarized economy?

If we truly want a real democracy to survive for generations to come, then we must demand extensive military reductions. We must demand a peaceful and sustainable path for our country and for the world at large. We must bring our soldiers home.

[CgDs]

[skyhook77sfg]

gee the no bid school of defense procurement losing ground?

the old boys revolving door doesnt need this kind of bad news.

somebody will pay dearly for saving some money.


wait till dov zakheim finds out.


gotta take a little trip for a bit.

happy trails till next time.

[rednblacklumberjack]

[Mr. Perfect]

Democrats controlled the gov't completely for nearly two years with near record majorities.

They did not touch defense spending.

I hope you all can figure the rest out.

[Tinker]

That is good. Hopefully the increased scrutiny of a highly informed society will decrease waste like that. And I don't even mean like people like me will watchdog military spending, but that it will be more difficult to hide the spending from other people within the military and government who will be in a position to disapprove of that kind of pork spending.

[Mr. Perfect]

Do you know why the Democrats did not cut defense spending when they easily could have? I have an answer if you are ready for it, if you folks can handle some truth.

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

Drop in the bucket. When anybody is ready for some truth, let me know.

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

Ok. Then stand by helplessly as defense spending increases as far as the eye can see, and gnash your teeth and clench your fists in frustration the rest of your days, doesn't matter to me.

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

Not in any meaningful way.

[Tinker]

[Mr. Perfect]

[rednblacklumberjack]

[Mr. Perfect]

I believe Obama was going to pull out of Iraq and close Gitmo too. Hold your breath on this, tell me what happens.

Barack Obama has proven to be the weakest person in history in terms of dealing with realpolitic.

[rednblacklumberjack]

Interesting that the AEI is speculating this. If these are truly uniquely bad economic times, then there are some uniquely persuasive arguments to aid Obama in his goal.

Obama could have escalated Iraq somehow, for some purpose. And because this hasn't happened, it reminds me that ours isn't the worst of bad scenarios.

Just like Nixon perceived in Viet Nam, Obama may simply anticipate that a messy, hasty withdrawal, performed as per requirements from political opponents is undesirable. If America is perceived as weak and hasty, this may hurt the partnerships that we REQUIRE going forward, especially in the parts of the world we no longer want to so closely administer. I'm not saying I like this situation, but it seems ruled by pragmatism - although perhaps its a pragmatic solution to a strategic mistake. I don't really know.

[Alexis]

Here is it:


US Total defense spending during the last 20 years, expressed as a percentage of GDP


And here is the link to


To sum it up:
- William Jefferson Clinton moved total defense spending from 5%+ to 3.5% of US GDP
- George Walker Bush moved it from 3.5% to 5%+ of GDP
- Barack Hussein Obama moved it from 5%+ to about 6% of GDP

As far as defense spending is concerned, Obama is Bush on steroids

[Mr. Perfect]

[rednblacklumberjack]

Interesting overview of "How" you'd do it. R&D intended for the future is first up to the chopping block. Then a dial down in weapons production. Then the gordian knot of all the private contractors that we've outsourced tasks to.

[Mr. Perfect]

Next thing you'll be posting articles on how to let the Bush tax cuts expire!

[Alexis]

What could be a worthy aim for total US defense spending, after reduction down from 6% of GDP to sustainable level?

3.5% - Like at end of Clinton presidencies - Savings 375 billion / year
Note that the US at that time had 11 carrier groups, along with a huge network of bases, along with generally all other superior numbers of military hardware. This was the time when the word "hyperpower" was coined to describe US margin of military domination. The US could keep being a military superpower at 3.5% of GDP

3% - Like Russia - Savings 450 billion / year
Russia has a relatively high military budget because of its quite small GDP compared to population as well as compared to landmass. Having the largest GDP in the world, the US would remain a military superpower at this level of spending. However some choices may need to be made: Would it be base closings in Europe or Japan, arguing that the locals are wealthy enough to defend themselves? Or serious cutting of surface / subsurface fleet?

2% - Like France or Britain - Savings 600 billion / year
Having 5 times France's GDP, or 6 times Britain's, the US would remain a very large military power at this level of spending. Whether it could be classified as "superpower" is debatable: in any case, it would remain by far the most military powerful nation, able to project large scale military power anywhere on this planet. The fact that the majority of other militarily significant nations are US allies (France, Britain, Japan, Germany) would continue to reinforce US margin of security.
From the sea control point of view, the US could probably continue to maintain a Navy more powerful than the sum of the following two largest Navies: that's the criterium which Britain used when she was at the very height of her power

1.5% - Like in 1930 America - Savings 675 billion / year
America would still remain the most military powerful nation... even with total defense spending divided by a factor of 4. At this level, overseas bases would be scarce if any, Navy and Air Force would have been cut thoroughly. Of course Europeans, Japanese and all the other South Koreans would have well understood that they are to defend themselves. This budget would be compatible with a neo-Isolationist America. It would also be compatible with an intermediate position between Isolationism and Interventionism where interventions would be much rarer and the US would position themselves as the most powerful element in a global network of pro-stability allied nations (NATO + East Asia essentially)

[NapLajoieonSteroids]