Pentagon board says cuts essential--tells Obama to slash large weapons programs

[Kolesar]

Source: Boston Globe

WASHINGTON - A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable," and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.

The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body. It contends that the nation's recent financial crisis makes it imperative that the Pentagon and Congress slash some of the nation's most costly and troubled weapons to ensure they can finance the military's most pressing priorities.

Those include rebuilding ground forces battered by multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan and expanding the ranks to wage the war on terrorism.

"Business as usual is no longer an option," according to one of the internal briefings prepared in late October for the presidential transition, copies of which were provided to the Globe. "The current and future fiscal environments facing the department demand bold action."

The briefings do not specify which programs should be cut, but defense analysts say that prime targets would probably include the new F-35 fight er jet, a series of Navy ship programs, and a massive Army project to build a new generation of ground combat vehicles, all of which have been skyrocketing in cost and suffering long development delays.
...much more, including details of specific cuts...


Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/10/pentagon_board_says_cuts_essential/

---

I have long felt that spy satellites need to be cut, the Joint Strike Fighter is a white elephant that will soon be obsoleted by pilotless attack aircraft. Missile defense does not work and is another gravy-train* for the aerospace industry.

*No, make that pork barrel.

[onehandle]

1. Why spy satellites? Isn't that more about intelligence than weaponry? nt

[Lerkfish]

3. "but... why would you need a spinning targeting mirror"?

[LiberalFighter]

40. Popcorn

[Lerkfish]

43. heh.."Kenneth...this is God speaking..."

:)

[Kolesar]

22. The aerospace industry has been selling incredibly advanced and overly expensive spy satellites ...

... that have a poor return on investment. We would get more effectiveness by hiring translators to read foriegn periodicals and paying a few people to snoop around in countries that are of interest. They would collect economic and social information in order for us to be able to assess developing threats in "other countries".

[melm00se]

25. the problem with human intelligence is that

they are unattractive to the career bureaucrat. the person who will betray and spy on their own country probably has other character flaws which make really good headlines and can kill the career of the person/people who fund/control them.

[14thColony]

32. The imprecise phrase 'spy satellite' covers a lot of ground

SIGINT sats can also collect similar intelligence to the on-the-ground HUMINT network. ELINT sats look at non-communications signals like radars in real-time, something HUMINT can never provide. IMINT sat (picture-snappers) can show you what's really on the ground versus what the SIGINT birds say they SAY is on the ground, and the HUMINT nets have managed to see on the ground.

SIGINT and HUMINT are great sources, and can tell you what 'they' are thinking or discussing, but ultimately decision-makers are most comfortable with pictures confirming the SIGINT and HUMINT. The reality is you need all four primary INTs (ELINT, HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT...hell I'll add OSINT and MASINT too...) to get anything like the whole picture.

And there's also the issue of response time. 'Re-tasking' a HUMINT operation to focus on a new 'previously off the radar' country can take months, if not years. An imaging satellite can be tasked for a shot and have it to an imagery analyst's screen in under an hour. It's hard to beat that for fast-moving situations where you don't have significant intelligence capability on the ground (which for us is much of the planet).

[Mz Pip]

2. Good.

How many more aircraft carriers do we really need? There are a lot of high ticket items than seem pretty unnecessary at this point.

[maxsolomon]

4. did they recommend a 2/3 cut?

demo the outer 2 rings of the pentagon & plant a vegetable garden.

[Tempest]

5. Stop giving away military hardware to Israel and other countries

Make them pay market rate for it.

[msongs]

6. no cost overruns - you bid the cost, you pay the overruns nt

[sharp_stick]

7. Did they ever cancel the Crusader program?

I remember this was supposed to take over from the relatively new and fully functional Paladin artillery systems. It was a huge cash cow to the defense industry and a true waste of every dime spent on it.

There are so many of these way overpriced and basically useless weapons systems right now.

[Posteritatis]

27. Rumsfeld killed that in '02 in one of his broken-clock moments (nt)

[VaYallaDawg]

8. Wonder why those morons didn't have the cojones to tell Bush that??

[louis-t]

18. I'm sure they did.

Even though he "listens to his generals", ideology trumps all.

[OwnedByFerrets]

38. Actually, according to Monkeyboy, money trumps all.

[Posteritatis]

23. Bush would probably toss them out on the spot

I somehow doubt Obama will be in the practice of firing or ignoring anyone who says something he doesn't want to hear, by comparison.

[ben_meyers]

9. How about shutting down all foreign military installations

and untangling our alliances. Why do we need to be the worlds policeman? Let someone else go broke doing it for a change.

[aquart]

12. All? No. That's isolationist insanity.

Not to mention that we don't have a single job for a returning vet.

[ben_meyers]

17. Isolationist for sure. Insanity? Not so much.

Those military jobs should be brought back to our country. Kind of a reverse outsourcing as it were. President Obama's call for universal service should benefit the American taxpayer directly and not Japan Germany and S.Korea. Spend the money on the home front and defend ourselves not the entire world.

I could really care less if China moves in on Taiwan or N.Korea attacks S.Korea. I spent 18 months of my life "protecting" S.Vietnam from the North, and where did that get us? 60,000 American dead and millions of dollars later what have we got.

[Plucketeer]

28. I'm with you on that!

ONE base in Europe and ONE base in the western Pacific. Bring the rest on home! :kick:

[glinda]

10. Definately clear out the pork and invest

in more effective defense. I am not for getting rid of defending ourselves. Also work globally to stem the need for polluting and violent weaponry.

[aquart]

11. Never thought I'd hear that from them.

Did they say this to George? And what was his answer?

[Metta]

13. Mazel freaking tov. This is a good start.

Get rid of the costly toys, I say, and the good old boy networks of looking the other way for horrendous overruns and sweetheart deals.

[vinylsolution]

14. Just reducing some of the Pentagon's....

... colossal waste would be enough to pay for universal healthcare.

I hope our new President has the will to do this.

[Bushies gotta go]

15. Ya may want to bookmark this story....

so that the first time you hear your rethuglican friends say "see, the GD dems slash our military..." you can refer them to this and say.. "that was a request straight from the Pentagon".

[Overseas]

20. I agree. Was thinking the same.

He'll do his best to make things their most efficient and Republicans will say -- AHA, there go those Dems.

I guess that's why some Dems put Republicans in as Secretaries of Defense. I don't like doing that because it feeds the Republican PR myth that they are better on defense. Republicans are worse on defense and end up weakening our country and breaking international laws. But they've got more aggressive PR teams.

[Raschel]

16. Enough money to bail out banks etc., but not enough to run the Defense Department?

[louis-t]

19. And if he does, repugs will

use it against him.

[Posteritatis]

26. Which is why, as someone else noted, we should bookmark this (nt)

[TaranAlvein]

21. Man, forget all that...

You know what we need to slash first?

Our nuclear weapons program. Do we REALLY need to make a "better" nuclear weapon? I highly doubt that. So nuclear weapons and zero-results SDI should definitely be the first under the axe.

I don't quite agree that unmanned fighters will replace all fighter jets any time in the near future, though. There are some things you just can't do with a UAV, and those craft have their limits as well. For example, I don't think they can go supersonic yet. That's a major issue, given the style of modern warfare. I personally believe that it'll be some time yet before we have supersonic UAVs.

Of course, that could also, in part, be my own prejudice. I LOVE fighter jets, and have been enamoured with fighter craft in general for a long time.

Perhaps we could deal with contractors in a way like in the movie "Dave"? =D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. YESSSS!

The Pentagon budget has long been the sacred cow in the living room. Even as Republicans have raged against "runaway government spending," they have consistently pumped up the Pentagon budget beyond all reason, and the Democrats have been little better, not wanting to appear "soft on defense."

[groundloop]

29. I can hear it now....

Well golly, the first thing President Obama did was cut defense spending. You betcha. (Not that it doesn't need cutting, but the next republican candidate will sure the heck try to use it against us.)

[melm00se]

30. while there are certainly

weapons programs that can and should be cut, we, collectively, as a nation need to keep our military moving forward technologically. The USA should not be the world's policeman but, as was seen twice in the 20th century, there were wars that expanded well beyond the borders of the original nations. When the USA eventually were drawn into the conflicts, the US military was well behind the curve from an equipment, personnel and training standpoint which caused more casualties than was absolutely necessary.

Staying ahead of the curve when not absolutely necessary (while difficult to swallow and justify) is far better than having to play catch-up when it is absolutely necessary when folks are dying using outdated and obsolete equipment, training and tactics.

[Posteritatis]

31. Staying ahead's fine, but being fiscally sane about it is better

Some ridiculous number like five percent of the Defense Department's budget is lost every year to corruption. That means it misplaces, every year, double what Canada spends on its military. Note that's what vanishes, not what's reported and just happens to be more money than should have been spent on something.

A whole lot of sane could be clubbed into the financial structure of the Pentagon while still allowing it to remain technologically preeminent.

And at the same time, whatever else is going on with the new systems, they still need boots that fit, small-arms ammunition, decent housing, proper hospital facilities, proper treatment for veterans both injured and not, proper pay for the typical soldier (and enough soldiers to deal with operations), and logistics that aren't degraded to the point where the military 'needs' to hire mercenaries who charge orders of magnitude more than they should for their work.

Personally I want to make sure those are met first and foremost. The US is ahead from an equipment standpoint, and as often as not a training one, but I'd really like to see them ahead from a personnel standpoint more than they seem to be. The armed forces are the people, not their gear.

[OwnedByFerrets]

37. We spend more on "defense" than all the other countries

of the world combined. There is little reason to fear that we will "fall behind". And if we didnt CAUSE wars, we wouldn't have to fucking worry about "when folks are dying using outdated and obsolete equipment, training and tactics."

[GuvWurld]

33. Start by eliminating depleted uranium

The US has been using WMD called depleted uranium. Yes, nuclear weapons, in the field, contrary to international laws of war.

* * *

LEGALITY TEST FOR WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

TEMPORAL TEST – Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.

ENVIRONMENTAL TEST – Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.

TERRITORIAL TEST – Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.

HUMANENESS TEST – Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanly.

See: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR407A.html

[KakistocracyHater]

34. Yep 50% cut is a good start

we'd still be #1 in military spending, just not on 'junk defense'.

[Ghost Dog]

35. Some good creative ideas here, thanks guys. Bookmarked.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
(Does not include the "Black Budget"...)
... Byzantium, anyone?

[OwnedByFerrets]

36. Why havent they told Monkeyboy to do this.....

I smell something and its not perfume. The military budget needs to be slashed by at least 50%, but they will cut out SS and every other social program before they touch the sacred cow.:puke: :puke:

[ozone_man]

39. How about ending the war(s)?

That's got be a 20% savings right there. I think a 50% cut is achievable in the short term, more in the long term.

Either that or cut Main Street. Where do want your tax dollars going to Main Street or down the military toilet?

[Peace Patriot]

41. "...expanding the ranks (of the US military) to wage the war on terrorism." Doesn't work.

For every civilian you kill, a hundred furious "terrorists" spring up vowing revenge. The Bushwhacks have slaughtered one million innocent people in Iraq to get their oil, and are daily killing dozens of civilians in Afghanistan, for what I don't know. (--cuz they want to reverse Alexander the Great's record of defeat in the one place that no one has ever conquered?).

Do the math. 1,000,000 x 100 = the number of additional people who now hate us (added to billions of others who hate us for "free trade" or other horrors).

We would be FAR more secure from "terrorism" if we mothballed the entire U.S. military and put even a quarter of those resources into, a) eliminating poverty, and b) good police work and good foreign relations.

I'm reminded (and I'm certainly not the first) of the late Roman Empire, and the Germanic and Keltic hordes they were forever invading and slaughtering--and guess who won, in the end?

Militarism never, ever, ever, EVER works! It is the death of democracy. It is certainly the death of empires. And, in current circumstances--global warming, nuclear weapons proliferation, and this latest Financial 9/11--it may bring about the end of Mother Nature's awesome experiment in intelligent, creative, flexible-minded, far-thinking, freely migrating, adaptable, dexterous critters: the human race.

90% cut in military spending, down to a true defensive posture. No more wars of choice! That's my prescription. We have suffered more from the overwhelming temptation of "wars of choice" that our monstrous war machine presents, than we have from any "enemy." The threat is INTERNAL.

Ike said it--that thorough-going Republican--long before me: "Beware of the military-industrial complex!" And the other thing he said, that isn't so often mentioned, is that it will be the death of American democracy, if we do not curtail its power.

We have now seen the MIC go completely out of control, with virtually all of our politicians in thrall to its power. Will we be the first intelligent, creative, flexible-minded, far-thinking, freely migrating, adaptable, dexterous critters to confront this fatal mistake, and reverse it?

It's POSSIBLE, yes, with democracy and TRANSPARENT elections. But guess what we don't have at the moment? And guess WHY we don't have transparent, verifiable vote counting in half the voting systems in the country that don't even have a paper trail, and barely transparent vote counting in the rest of them?

The Congressional bill that did this to us (the so-called "Help America Vote Act") was passed in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution (Oct 02). And don't tell me about Barack Obama. I like the guy. I really do. But HIS plan is to move the Forever War to Afghanistan. With our now nearly completely non-transparent vote counting, run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations, NO CANDIDATE who doesn't approve of the Forever War can ever be elected President, and Congress will NEVER have a majority of its members who truly want peace. In Feb 03, nearly 60% of the American people opposed the invasion of Iraq (all polls). And that is why the "Help America Vote for War Act" accompanied the Iraq War Resolution, giving George Bush the power to make war. We may not have noticed those polls--but our war profiteers certainly did. The IWR guaranteed unjust war; HAVA provided the means to shove that unjust war down the throats of the peace-minded American majority.

So-o-o-o, if we want to dismantle the war machine--and return to the defensive posture that is the hallmark of democracy--we need to start with a return to vote counting that everyone can see and understand. Step one. First priority, in my opinion. Doable at the state/local level--probably not at the Congressional level (and beware of federalization/centralization at that level).

[Kolesar]

42. Article by Ron Suskind explains the military bloat and how to restore our moral authority

This great article by Ron Suskind explains how to leverage Obama's obvious worldliness to accomplish peace in the world. He notes the ineffectiveness of our huge military budget and has a message for how to get the populations in "terrorist countries"* to quit fighting us.

*I wish I could come up with a better term.

With tight funds needed for a new generation of priorities, Obama should be thinking about transforming two huge, related kingdoms: defense and intelligence. That'll set the table, institutionally, for the restoration of American moral power.

U.S. defenses are still constructed to fight the last century's land wars, designed for the state-to-state dance of force and diplomacy and armies massed on borders. Though there will be less and less of that on a planet where it is increasingly difficult to secure any territory against the will of its population -- look at Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan's tribal areas -- U.S. defense spending has risen 72 percent in eight years to a whopping $671 billion for fiscal year 2008. The U.S. intelligence establishment ($47.5 billion, fiscal year 2008) is, similarly, still structured for battle against the Soviet menace or for large state-to-state conflicts. We have very little solid espionage occurring and some 1,000 seasoned case officers (spies), most of whom don't have the acuity or language skills needed to operate in countries that might disrupt regions or export damage to our shores. What's necessary is complete reinvention: building a light, fast military, ready for guerrilla warfare and nation-building, and a first-class intelligence service, with proper oversight, that's weighted toward getting actual human intelligence, the gold standard of actionable information.

Though the United States will certainly retain a large military, its prime function may become protecting aid workers as they do good deeds such as building hospitals, schools and stringing electricity while waiting for a native population's goodwill to start yielding assistance, local expertise and precious intelligence. The tough truth: In the age of free will, people have to want to help you help them

...

The lessons of this sort of goodwill action have not been lost on the leading terrorism experts. "When we're hit again by terrorists, and we will be, we need to show a kind of bounce-back flexibility," said former British counterterrorism chief David Omand. "We'll keep right along working on the important issues, the big ones, to lessen the world's strife in ways that are visible and consistent."

Those "visible and consistent" ways -- large development and humanitarian efforts carried forward with renewed moral authority -- are what terrify the terrorists, whose goal is to draw us into forceful overreactions and prove that humanist values are fragile and hypocritical and come only at power's convenience.

During the presidential campaign, I interviewed a London radical with suspected connections to al-Qaeda. He was particularly concerned about how Obama might be the agent of such change. "Obama would be a nightmare for us," he said. "He looks like the world, he knows Islam, his grandfather was a goat herder from Kenya, living like much of the world still lives. As president, he might finally unify the world's Muslim moderates, who outnumber us four or five to one. They know who we are, where we live. They could crush us."

While voters across the United States made their decisions last week, vast nonvoting constituencies around the world were watching, in dusty villages and crowded slums -- as were their wary leaders. That bottom-up attentiveness is this era's greatest force, creating both hope and havoc. The fact that so many people, from South Asia to Africa to South America rejoiced at Obama's election, provides a rare opportunity for the United States to start the slow, steady campaign to win their confidence, their trust and, over time, their support.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110602999.html?nav=slate