Panetta Weighs Military Cuts Once Thought Out of Bounds

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html?pagewanted=all

---

And then he backtracks in 3...2...1...

[MADem]

1. I suspect he's just fluffing the pillow, here.

Throw out the idea that will be dismissed, first.

He knows the deal--he can propose, but Congress must dispose. They'll be out of a job if they vote against veterans and retirees.

In his legislative incarnation, Panetta used to represent the CA district that included the once-massive an now-defunct Fort Ord and the NPGS think tank at Monterey. He's not stupid. There are very few people in public life who understand the military better than he does.

[24601]

10. As they should be, n/t

[southernyankeebelle]

18. Tricare health costs have just gone up along with prices for meds.

[MADem]

20. If you can get your meds at a military installation, you should do just that.

They're still free there. You do need to stick to the 'formulary' and call in your refills ahead of time, and get a "yellow card" which details your other insurance (if any), but free is still the best deal going. You pay more at civilian pharmacies (which are not terribly responsive in my experience) and for RX-by-mail, but it's still pretty cheap.

[DJ13]

2. It could be slashed in half, and STILL the budget would be multiples of whats needed for defense

[indepat]

5. For defense, yes; for global hegemony, no and we gotta have global

hegemony to stem the spread of godless communism and everything else not extremely far to the right. :patriot:

[DJ13]

7. Thats right on the mark

What was I thinking?!

:thumbsup:

[Owl]

17. Exactly right. We need to cut in half now, and cut more every year after.

[Swede Atlanta]

3. We need to eviscerate the military......

Their "perceived threat" theater projections are always based on exaggerated scenarios that are simply not credible. We could cut the U.S. military by 70% and still be the most powerful military in the world. We have to keep an eye o China (first) and Russia (second) but at this time China's main focus is to get us by the economic nads. If that fails then they will pursue enforcing their IUUs with military might. I'm not as clear on the military objectives of the Russians.....I probably need to pay much more attention to our friends in Moscow.

[Lint Head]

4. It takes courage to make the changes that are needed and I do not see Panetta as courageous.

[Vincardog]

9. Please name two nationally elected Democrats that have demonstrated courage in the last 3 years.

[24601]

11. There's no such thing as a nationally-elected anything in the US.

Even the Presidential race is a state-by-state (& DC) election for electoral votes.

[Vincardog]

12. House, Senate or President then

[UrbScotty]

23. Who ordered the raid that killed bin Laden? A Democrat.

[Vincardog]

27. Please name two nationally elected Democrats that have demonstrated courage in the last 3 years.

ordering the execution of an bogie man is not courage

[justgamma]

6. Why is there never any talk about

the contractors who gouge the military. Not too long ago I read an article that 1 company was charging the taxpayers $62.00 for a $2.00 screw and I bet they use a ton of them. This is where they should look instead of immediately looking at benefits.

[cstanleytech]

8. We should just close most of the overseas bases and tell any country that wants our troops to remain

that they can damn well pay for the cost of the manning and maintaining the bases and the equipment on them if they want them to stay.

[DallasNE]

13. Our Armed Forces Have Maintained

Roughly 1.5 million active duty forces since 9/11. The budget has grown by $350B in that same period. It should not be very difficult to find $45B per year out of that $350B. Aside from scare tactics I can see no reason it would require base closings, although I could see where it would make sense to consolidate certain operations.

Put another way, dividing the 1.47 million troops by the $710 billion budget comes up with roughly $483,000 per troop. (Where else do you have less that 1 dollar out of 5 going toward personnel costs?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

Enough of the woe is me talk. These cuts are not real cuts anyway as they are only talking about slowing the projected increases by that piddling amount. (Anyone want to bet that the projections were padded so they could have a talking point about cuts that will never happen in the real world).

[Johnyawl]

14. Why would we need to compensate our NATO partners for closing our bases?

...Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries.



The 10 largest military budgets in the world are the US, China, Russia, India, Saudia Arabia, and 5 of our allies. China, India, and Saudia Arabia pose no military threat to Europe. Russia may pose a threat, but both the UK and France have larger defense budgets then Russia. When you add in Germany (#7), Italy (#9), Spain (#14), Turkey (#18), The Netherlands (#19) and Greece (#22)you have a pretty formidible military alliance. I would think the Europeans could pretty well defend themselves against any threat in todays world.

There is no longer any immediate military threat to Europe. Our presence, beyond a laison office in Brussels, is no longer neccesary. It's time to get our troops out of Europe, and turn those bases over to the home countries.

Financially there is no need to close any bases inside the US. There is no real need for that fight.


1 United States $698,105,000,000

2 People's Republic of China $114,000,000,000

3 France $61,285,000,000

4 United Kingdom $57,424,000,000

5 Russia $52,586,000,000

6 Japan $51,420,000,000

7 Germany $46,848,000,000

8 Saudi Arabia $39,200,000,000

9 Italy $38,303,000,000

10 India $36,030,000,000

[Little Tich]

19. The US share of the world's total military spending is 42,8%, according to Wikipedia.

It's too much in a world without terror balance and great threats. Cut the spending in half, and the US is still the biggest.

[SoapBox]

15. Me thinks the military can give up just a few of those HUNDREDS of facilities outside of America...

I'm sick and tired of this Pentagon Pig, shoving Americans out of the way at the trough.

Time for a major diet, Piggy.

[MADem]

21. The next BRAC is in 2015, I suspect you'll get your wish. nt

[on point]

16. Cut it $400 billion per YEAR, that's start. Anything less is a joke

That only gets their budget back to the excessive amount it was when Bush came into office. They really should cut it $600 billion per year, 6 trillion over 10 years. That would get off the 'wrong track' and onto the 'correct track' for th country.

You wage imperialism with the budget you have, not the one you want!!

to paraphrase the war criminal Rumsfield

[soapboxtalk]

22. Nice game

He talks of closing bases in Europe, and dreaming of all of the shining new bases they're intending to build in other countries.

They could cut $450 billion in the next 2 years, it'll take them a decade.

How about some real cuts?

[davidwparker]

24. "cutting the number of American troops based in Europe"

Way overdue.

The EU should be able to protect themselves.

[grantcart]

25. Perceptions are changing

Today I talked with a relative of mine who is an office holder in a non partisan position.

He is a conservative catholic and regularly votes Republican.

I told him that the Republicans were jettisoning Nordquist in preparation for raising taxes with the super committee, that the Boehner painted himself into a corner because if they don't agree defense is going to be drastically cut.


I was shocked when he said, "that would be fine with me, cut it in half". He then went on to say that his constituents, mostly farmers were the "biggest hyporcrites about welfare because even when wheat is high they still demand their checks from Washington even though they all went out and bought Lexus this year".

He agreed that the Republicans put up nobody that will be able to sit on the same stage as Obama in a debate and when they get out of their narrow conservative primaries are going to get creamed.

This was the first time he had ever varried from the party line.

[usrname]

26. There is a global war out there

But the existing military is an anachronism. What's needed is to transfer the $700 billion from building weapons and maintaining a fighting force to building commercial products and maintaining a vibrant labor force. When the US can build cars that can be sold for $3000 each (because they're heavily subsidized by the $700 billion), we will have millions of workers in the plants and millions of cars in other countries. Then our import/export trade imbalance will equalize some. Then we will have people working and having money to spend on things here in the country.

Cars, of course, is just an example. Let's start manufacturing all Apple products here in the US, using some of that $700 billion to create the plants here and pay for employment so that to Apple, there's no economic difference. Let's start manufacturing Dells, HPs, Kindles, Xooms, TVs, washers, all durable goods, furnitures everything here with a heavily subsidized payment from the government (and the subsidy will drop gently over time to wean the companies from sucking on the government teat).

Remember, that $700 billion is not just a one-time amount. That's the ANNUAL budget of the DoD. Imagine if the US spends even 1/3 of the $700 billion every year: $200 billion and change to help subsidize the manufacturing of electronics and durable goods here in the US.

That is a war the US can win. That is a war that the whole world will also benefit. And no soldier will give up his life in the line of this war. No enemies killed. This is a battle that the US can easily win, and the benefits to the US and the whole global economy will only be positive.