Obama unveils plans for pared down military

[maddezmom]

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama traveled to the Pentagon Thursday to unveil his plan for a leaner, cheaper military that will retain the ability to fight terrorism and confront new threats from countries like China and Iran.

"We are determined to maintain a ready and capable force, even as we reduce our overall capacity," the administration said in a summary of its defense priorities released as the president began to speak. "Our global responsibilities are significant; we cannot afford to fail."

The administration singled out China and Iran, pledging to keep sea lanes open and successfully combat missile, electronic, cyber and other threats.

"Over the long-term China's emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the U.S. economy and our security in a variety of ways," the summary noted.

more:http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politics/pentagon-strategy-shift/?hpt=hp_c1

pdf link to 8 page pentagon report
http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

[tabatha]

1. I hope this includes watching the over-spending that the military has done in the past.

[valerief]

28. Isn't that pin money for the ruling class? nt

[Scuba]

36. How about releasing that report on which defense contractors are screwing us? ....

You know, the report that we paid to have done, because we wanted transparency in defense contracting.


The one that was, upon completion, sealed for 20 years.

[lovemydog]

2. I'm delighted

that the President is addressing this.

I believe we can reduce our deficit with a more streamlined military. Less spending on defense. And let the Bush tax cuts expire.

[Zorro]

3. The Defense Strategic Guidance doc is a very interesting read

I see where it does mention development of a new stealth bomber, but there seems to be a specific focus on cyber, a less-traditional warfare environment.

Which only makes sense. A committed adversary can create significant havoc using asymmetric attacks against the infrastructure, since there is no other military capable of mounting a sustained physical challenge against US forces.

[Zorro]

25. There's also an indication of troop drawdown in Europe

which implies base closures in that theater. Very interesting.

[SixthSense]

4. paging George Orwell

Obama just promised military spending will not be cut. That's not pared-down, that's reconfigured - like a shell game.

[TheWraith]

5. Oh really? Where did he promise that?

Particularly given that he's already signed those cuts.

[SixthSense]

7. transcript doesn't appear to be up yet

so here's the news reference:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-usa-military-obama-idUSTRE8031Z020120104

"The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the officials said."

"slower growth" = will grow, not be cut

Guess war with Iran is on the table.

[Skinner]

9. If President Obama proposed slower growth to Medicare, would you say that's not a cut?

Do tell.

[SixthSense]

12. I would

Grow and cut are antonyms. If I grow my hair it gets longer, if I cut it, it gets shorter.

We're so used to these tricks being played on us that simple and clear words are losing their meaning.

[Skinner]

16. We're not talking about your haircut.

We're talking about government spending which has been projected to be at a certain level over time. The president is proposing to decrease that level of spending. It doesn't matter whether we call it a cut or a decrease or slower increase in spending, the results is still the same:

- The government spends less money than it previously planned to spend.

- The government has less military stuff than it previously planned to have.

- In fact, the government in the future will have less military stuff overall than it does now.

Call it whatever you like. Arguing over words does not change reality.

[SixthSense]

20. let me try a different analogy

Let's say I've gotten a 2% raise per year for the past 5 years. This sets a pattern where I now expect to get 2% raises every year, because in the past that's just what I received.

This year, I get a 1% raise.

Did my salary grow or did it get cut?

Clearly, it grew - I now have 1% more money to spend than I had last year. I do not have to cut any expenses, and in fact I have another 1% more that I can decide to spend on new things that I could not afford previously.

[Skinner]

27. If your employer said you would get a 2% raise every year for 10 years...

...then your 1% raise would be less than what you were supposed to get.

[SixthSense]

30. True

but it would still not be a cut, it would simply be a smaller raise than I expected. More money, not less, will go to the military, than presently does.

Moreover. the key problem with the one major war strategy is it still plans to get us into a major war.

What I want is a "no war" strategy. Based on the impressions that Obama the candidate gave us that we had every right to expect him to propose such a thing... in 2009, not in 2012. When he was offered and accepted the Nobel Peace Prize this reinforced my expectation.

The expectation of perpetual growth in the military is predicated on assuming a hard-right view of foreign policy, our role in the world, and our relationships with the other nations on the planet. I believe that if John McCain pursued the identical foreign/military policies as Obama has pursued, you would be at the head of the line to call him out as a right-wing warmonger hell bent on destruction, and you would be 100% correct. I don't see why Obama's (D) should change that assessment of what is right and what is wrong.

To be explicit, the hard right predicate is that we have the right to choose the option of imposing military force on others in their own nations to tell them how to govern themselves, or otherwise force them into compliance with our demands.

In practice these end up being the demands of big oil, big ag, big finance.

Now I realize I may be risking my DUsistence (this place is addictive, dammit) by taking a different point of view but I feel very strongly that we must not accept the imperialist doctrine that underlies our current foreign policy approach, and I strongly encourage you to re-evaluate whether the series of military policies that we have seen - DADT only excepted - deserves our support.

[Skinner]

31. I think your expectations, while noble, are unrealistic. (nt)

[ronnie624]

53. Very well said!

My thanks.

And this place is indeed addictive.

[JDPriestly]

66. You may have 1% more in terms of numbers of dollars, but

whether you have 1% more in terms of what you can buy depends on the rate of inflation in the economy.

It's kind of meaningless to project cuts and increases in defense spending beyond a year or two. Who knows what will happen?

[MADem]

44. Might I add that no one, save someone who is genuinely suicidal, uses the words "defense" and "cut"

in close proximity during an election year, unless the sentence is something like "The Secretary of Defense cut himself while shaving this morning."

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. If you cut your har, but at a slower pace than it grows it gets longer.

Does it not? Yet it still has been cut.

[Skinner]

18. Except it would require some kind of space-age nano-cutter...

...that would somehow only shave off a proportion of projected future growth.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

34. True!

This is what I love most about a forum filled with policy wonks. Even a hair analogy can be used to explain the intricate details of implementing political policy.

[JackRiddler]

42. Metaphors can mislead...

Hair also grows on its own, remember.

What is it in actual numbers?

[JackRiddler]

21. Let's try it with hypothetical numbers...

Assume inflation is minor.

Year 1, Actual Spending: 100.

Year 1, Planned Year 5 Spending: 120.

Year 3, New Plan of Year 5 Spending: 110.

Year 5, Actual Spending: 110.

Did actual spending go up or down from Year 1 to Year 5? Clearly, up. But you could say that Year 5 planned spending was cut in Year 3.

I am of the school, especially with regard to "defense" spending, that it's only a cut if it means significantly less is spent on it (in dollars) than before.

(There are other factors that could back different claims; like if the proportion of spending on an item within the total budget falls, even though the absolute amount spent on it does nt. Or if inflation was such that 100 Year 1 dollars exceed the value of 120 Year 5 dollars.)

[okieinpain]

64. of course war with iran is on the

table if nut case keeps pushing for it. i know you dont think its a good idea for iran to get the bomb.

[SixthSense]

65. The only thing we have to fear

is fear itself

Why, I can't imagine why Iran would want a nuke. They must be completely crazy.

[Skinner]

6. My first impression is that this is a big deal.

Especially this sentence, which is now the second paragraph of the linked article:

The president insisted the new strategy -- which eliminates the military's ability to actively fight two major wars at once -- will allow U.S. armed forces to effectively combat terrorism while confronting any new threats from countries like China and Iran.

I don't think the significance of this change can be understated. The two-war capability has been a cornerstone of American military strategy for years.

And the fact that President Obama is doing this in an election year is very interesting. Maybe we can infer that the White House believes the politics on national security have changed over the years. I think we have a major election year issue here -- In 2012 we are going to draw a contrast between ourselves and the Republicans, rather than playing the "we're just as tough" game.

[SixthSense]

10. wish I could agree

But when you delve into the details, there are no budget cuts to the military, and it's more of a shift of tactics than a shift of posture - we're still going to be imperialistic and belligerent, but instead of troops we're going to use standoff weapons from air and sea, e.g. more drone strikes.

[onehandle]

11. A lot of Republicans are 'railing' against our protracted wars, currently.

Most, just because who our current CiC is.

I think this move will make a nice 'thing we can agree on' soundbite.

[Skinner]

13. Republicans are already attacking the president on this.

Unless the GOP nominates Ron Paul (which they won't) then the Republican candidate is going to do what the Republican candidate always does: Accuse the Democrat of being dangerously weak on defense.

[Veilex]

22. I always thought the "weak on defense" argument was asinine...

Every time some Fascist (read republican) states we're being weak on defense/terror/insert scare buzzword here, we should counter with: No, we're being strong on the US Economy. After all, blowing stuff up adds no value to anything. .

[SlimJimmy]

49. Maybe, but for the average voter, the "weak on defense" meme has worked quite well in the past. (nt)

[onehandle]

24. Yes, they will have to have it both ways.

I'd like to see the President address Congress and declare that gravity is what keeps their feet on the floor.

How many Republicans would jump into the air just to counter him?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. As to doing this in an election year.

I think there's no better time to point out to Americans the expense to each an everyone of them maintaining dual wars has been. Most Americans are more worried right now about the economic stability of the US, their own states, cities/towns/counties and themselves. Linking the debt and the strain the wars have placed on each of these areas makes this cut more likely to be accepted.

Or, so I would think.

[Enrique]

23. Rumsfeld said the same thing

if I recall correctly.

That's fine, but if we're going to give Obama a lot of credit for it, we need to give Rumsfeld the same credit, and go back and see how we reacted when Rumsfeld said it.

All this is assuming that I'm remembering this correctly.

[Robb]

33. Yeah, but his complaint was too many peacekeeping and other non-combat missions

...stretched US forces too thinly. Summer of 2001, here's a DU1 link to a story posted, but no replies.

Warning, DU1 links come and go. More often "go" these days.

[MADem]

45. We were flogging the two war strategy and the win-hold-win strategy back when I was young(er).

It is a change....but it ain't a "cut."

I don't think "strong defense" as a general theme is going away. Leon is no pushover--he hasn't been since he was representing the district that included the now-defunct Fort Ord, the DLI and the NPGS. He's also not clueless--I have very, VERY high regard for his ability to see the forest for the trees. He was talking about what eventually became the Cheney-Clinton drawdown way before anyone in uniform, never mind the media, got their arms around that notion.

He is couching this policy shift as a risk assessment issue. Sort of like going for the higher deductible on your car insurance:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57353032/panetta-smaller-military-means-more-risk/

Panetta said future budgets will mean smaller U.S. armed forces and some greater risk. But he said the country does not have to choose between national security and fiscal responsibility.

Panetta said at this point in history, in a changing world, the Pentagon would have been forced to make a strategy shift anyway. He says the money crisis merely forced the government to face the shift that is taking place now.

The new national defense strategy addresses two issues at once. It streamlines the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassesses defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes.

Overall, the new defense strategy hints at a reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and says Asia will be a bigger priority. It also emphasizes improving U.S. capabilities in the areas of cyberwarfare and missile defense.

[DallasNE]

52. The Two Major Wars

Strategy has not worked because we haven't had the ready manpower to pursue. Think not, why did Bush pull the small number of troops from Tora Bora so he could start the buildup for an invasion of Iraq. Also, while we had two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the war in Afghanistan took a clear back seat while fighting raged in Iraq. It was only after we pulled down our force level in Iraq that we were able to better fight in Afghanistan. What Obama is doing here is to just face reality. We have never had the manpower to put the necessary boots on the ground in two theatre's at the same time.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. He can't close Guantanamo but, if re-elected, he can reduce the size of the military?

[grasswire]

14. would be nice if a jobs program accompanied this...

...so there would be full employment for those who lose jobs, both soldiers and support.

[shanti]

32. nice?

it's imperative.

[Uncle Joe]

15. I believe this to be a needed and sound strategic plan.

Thanks for the thread, maddezmom.

[valerief]

29. I wonder if Congress will allocate the savings to oil subsidies or rich people tax credits. nt

[harun]

35. Pawn to E4

[tabasco]

37. Waaaaaaay to much ass & trash in the military.

Especially the Air Force.

[Marrah_G]

38. My son is in the MA AF guard

I thought most Airmen had to be pretty smart. I'm probably just biased but I think the AF is lucky as hell to have my son on board. He scored a 99 on his asvabs

It's been a great choice for him. They pay 100% of his tuition and fees for college, his GI bill covers his room and board, 20k signing bonus, he did his first year of college in tech school, has top clearance and a bunch of expensive IT type certificates all at the age of 19! I joke that he is like part of the geek squad for the MIB He even worked with the WH SS over the summer when the Prez was vacationing on MV ( at age 18!). He wants to become an areospace engineer so it seemed like a perfect fit. Yes... I am a proud momma. Plus, he looks so handsome in his uniform!

I am all for a smaller, smarter, high tech defense force!

[tabasco]

40. Darn it. I meant to stip up the wingnuts,

not the moms.

[Wait Wut]

46. !

I'm glad I saw this. You almost got an earful from a Marine mom, too!

[Marrah_G]

55. ROFL

I promise I won't hurt you

[Odin2005]

56. DUzy!

[raouldukelives]

39. Great news!

A 30-40% decrease in our military would provide huge savings while still being the most impressive fighting force in the world. I applaud this move.

[dixiegrrrrl]

63. Unless the same amount, or more, money will be going to privatebusiness/ contractors now.

If you read the Strategic Guide, the focus remains on "American Global Leadership"
"military superiority"
"security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific"
while decreasing "military" spending
and "meeting these challenges cannot be the work of the military alone"
yet
while continuing "counter-intelligence" "operating in anti- access environments" and "prevailing all domains, including cyber".
Much less accountability with private business providing what the military used to provide, as we have learned since 2003.

I urge a careful read of the Strategic Guide.
It essentially says we will be in charge of the Middle East/Near East, relying on allies to help us do that,
plus "uphold the fundamental rights of every human being"

and THAT is just the 3 page preamble by Pres. Obama, who has signed NDAA!

[DallasNE]

41. Since When Does

A slowing of the growth in spending become "massive cuts"? Such extreme rhetoric serves no useful purpose. Republicans use large increases in defense spending as a club to sharply scale back America's social safety net -- a move that threatens our domestic security even more than countries such as Iran.

[dreamnightwind]

48. You and SixthSense got it right

They cut the growth rate, not the defense budget. So, they decelerated the growth. It's still growing. One can correctly say they cut the growth rate, one cannot correctly say they cut the defense budget. Surprised to see people in this discussion either not getting this or trying to obfuscate it.

Our defense budget is unbelievably out of control. An order of magnitude too high. I suppose I'm not being realistic to some people. Actually I think it is realistic to acknowledge realities apart from what D.C. group-think says is reality. We have the most overgrown "defense" budget in the history of the known universe. And this while we make draconian cuts to domestic spending. Unbelievable. Our country is in desperate trouble from overspending on defense, while revenues are down, people are homeless and starving, the rich get richer, we're running unprecedented budget deficits, and supposedly there is no money for anything. Yet defense spending will continue (a little more slowly) to grow.

Hearing that Obama is going away from the 2-war strategy is a good thing. Refocusing to cyber warfare is not so good. How about less warfare? Our defense department is all about offense and procurement of resources for corporate profits. Very little of it has anything to do with actual defense.

[fasttense]

54. There will be reductions in pay and health care benefits to our troops.

"As DoD takes steps to reduce its manpower costs, to include reductions in the growth of compensation and health care costs."

This is a quote directly from the DOD report.

Reading the report, it also looks like they will be closing some bases in Europe and reducing the number of active duty personnel.

They need to be very careful about returning troops back to the civilian world. Nothing is more destabilizing to a society than a large group of military personnel returning to find NO JOBS or educational possibilities.

Just think about these strong, well trained fighters being returned to a world were they can NOT find a job and have no future. They were they final straw in the lead up to WWII in Germany.

[rawbean]

43. But if we cut back military growth

Who will help the brown people keep their populations in check?

[DCBob]

47. Good.

This has been needed for a long time. The bloated US military is a tremendous waste of resources.

[unkachuck]

50. "Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow..."

....excellent!....we're rich!

....then over the next ten years, the growth in the Social Security budget should increase....

....remove grandpa or grandma from the work force and create yourself a job! Veterans will need the work!

[Gregorian]

51. Obama takes a distinct liberal stance. This is going to set us apart from the Republicans.

It's a step away from centrism. And I"m delighted.

I predict this is the first in many more steps.

[cyberpj]

57. WHERE IS THE PART that cuts the outrageous costs paid to contractors for common items available at

your local Home Improvement store for about a tenth of the military contrator cost?

Remember the $100 hammers and toilet seats, etc.... ?

Why aren't the no-bid contractors under severe scrutiny for their extremely bloated billings that we pay for?

I'm sad to see that the "leaner, cheaper" military I've heard and read about so far doesn't seem to mention the outrageous over-charging.

The first thing that came to my mind was - oh... more drone attacks and internet warfare. So far I haven't seen anything about contractor charges.

[Zorro]

59. The myth of the $600 hammer

Interesting reading. It points out some of the arcane aspects of the military acquisition process and accounting approach.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1298/120798t1.htm

[cyberpj]

61. Thank you for that. I read it and mostly understand it BUT - it's from 1998 and

I'm sorry but there is now documented proof that costs billed by contractors such as Halliburton and it's spin-off KBR, Blackwater..er, XE...er, Academi and many many others instituted (if not indirectly operated) by and during the Bush years and his wars are charging the US government (US taxpayers) appropriately.

The overpriced Pentagon hammer was an easy example but there are many, much more recent examples to be found and most especially within the Pentagon's MILITARY CONTRACTOR'S billings.

HALLIBURTON'S QUESTIONED AND UNSUPPORTED COSTS IN IRAQ EXCEED 1.4 BILLION
snip-
Reports of Halliburton’s excessive billings have multiplied since the invasion of
Iraq. Former Halliburton employees have described how the company charged
$45 for cases of soda and $100 to clean 15-pound bags of laundry. U.S.
government auditors have also issued dozens of reports finding questionable
billings, including unreasonable fuel prices and charges for meals that were never
served to the troops.

This report, which has been prepared jointly by the minority staff of the House
Government Reform Committee and the staff of the Senate Democratic Policy
Committee, is the first comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of
Halliburton’s unreasonable billings in Iraq. The report also examines whether
officials at the Defense Department gave Halliburton preferential treatment.

The report finds that government auditors at the Defense Contract Audit Agency
have identified more than $1 billion in “questioned” Halliburton costs. DCAA
challenged most of these costs as “unreasonable in amount” after completing
audit action because they “exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent
person.” The auditors found (1) $813 million in questioned costs under
Halliburton’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract to
provide support services to the troops and (2) $219 million in questioned costs
under the company’s Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract to rebuild Iraq’s oil
infrastructure. The magnitude of these questioned costs significantly exceeds
previously known estimates.

The DCAA auditors have also found that an additional $442 million in
Halliburton’s charges are “unsupported.” As a result, Halliburton’s total
“questioned” and “unsupported” costs exceed $1.4 billion.

http://dpc.senate.gov/hearings/hearing22/jointreport.pdf

MORE:
Reconstruction of Iraq contractors and subcontractors
snip-
Expect also a flourishing business in war profiteering consultancies to grease the way for obtaining business opportunities in Iraq, for instance, (Bush's) New Bridge Strategies and (Ahmad Chalabi's) Iraqi International Law Group.

A team of investigative reporters in Iraq have found a pattern of waste, fraud and abuse among U.S. companies receiving multi-million-dollar reconstruction contracts in the country, including massive over-charges for projects; shoddy work or a failure to complete tasks; and ignoring local experts who contend they could do the job better and cheaper. The in-depth report by CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee and Focus on the Global South's Herbert Docena, published in the latest issue of Southern Exposure magazine, is an on-the-ground account of how U.S. taxpayer money given to Bechtel, Halliburton and other companies is being spent. [1]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reconstruction_of_Iraq_contractors

So think of a few of the other Big Boys playing in Iraq and Afghanistan and add those into informed estimates and how much might you guess a total of overcharging might be?

Oh, nevermind, the link above also includes a listing.

[cyberpj]

62. More on Bush Family Empire involvement in 'Defense' Contracting:

The Carlyle Group, "a private equity firm'. Can you say Bush Family?
I knew you could.

If you never heard of them do some Googling, then weep.

The Iron Triangle – The Carlyle Group Exposed

The Bush family, the Saudi Royal family, Osama Bin Laden’s family and Donald Rumsfeld’s inner circle – these are just some of the high profile figures who have played a direct role in the rise of one of the most powerful and influential and secretive firms in Washington. The company is called The Carlyle Group. And in the wake of the events of September 11th and the invasion of Iraq, its power and influence have become significantly stronger. The company operates within the so-called iron-triangle of industry, government and the military. Its list of former and current advisers and associates includes a vast array of some of the most powerful men in America and indeed around the world. This program exposes the history of the Carlyle Group, from it’s inception as a private equity firm to it’s percent status as one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

More at EndtheLie.com -
I don't know if this is a 'good' site or not but you can find this info and video all over the net.
48min video:
http://EndtheLie.com/documentaries-and-informative-videos/the-iron-triangle-the-carlyle-group-exposed/#ixzz1gMu5wKod

[dixiegrrrrl]

58. Thank you! for that Pentagon Report..

Yep..I read stuff like that.
And have a bunch of them covering the last 20 years..altogether, they paint a fascinating picture.

[yurbud]

60. how about the threat to our and world security from the financial sector?

[DCBob]

67. I thought Obama was just a puppet for the MIC??

At least according to many on this site. BTW, where are they now??