1 Yes BUT. I am as big a hawk as they come, and I think that the $800B baseline of the defense budget is RIDICULOUS. (That does not even include the warfighting costs that are in supplementals.) Gates saw the writing on the wall and started proposing an $5B cut - but we need to cut $100B off the defense budget. For real.

2

Bwah HAAHAHHAHA!!

Bite me.

3 Your penultimate paragraph makes incorrect logical conclusions. There is no value assigned to the minimum expenditure necessary to defend the country, so it is logically possible to make serious cuts in our defense spending without jeopardizing our national security.

Logically correct, but factually incorrect.

4 He also neglects the unfortunate fact that the U.S. has become the world's policeman and that is why their budget is low compared to ours.

He probably would not support the answer to that though. Drop out of the U.N. and charge the other countries fees for being their "policeman".

Also, I would be in favor of cutting our military budget myself. Cut every socialism program that the Democrats have hidden in the military budget over the years. They have nothing to do with the military and they get stuck there in order to make sure Republicans will vote for it.

5 The United States takes a very pro-active stance when it comes to securing national interests in places other than mainland America. Most other countries don't because they can't.

6 History has shown that every time we cut back on defense we over cut and basically invite military adventurism by other nations.

The outcome of that in the past 100 years has been two world wars that wound up costing trillions and millions of lives.

7 Gabe,

This speaks directly from the leftist assumption that American Exceptionalism is wrong. If you make the assumption that America is just like every other country, than our defense spending should have some relationship to our population; falling somewhere in the middle of the graph of population vs. defense spending for 1st world countries.

Of course you could also use Keynes as an argument for increased defense spending, especially in recessionary times. But for some reason the Keynesians don't like that idea. I wonder why?

8 We also need some serious reforms in military procurement as well as getting congress out of the military procurement process.

What needs to happen there is the military determines they need a new weapon system such as the F-22. It gets submitted as part of the budget and it gets approved or shot down as part of the budget.

No more political games for building weapon systems in some politicians back yard that is not needed.

9 Posted by: Vic at April 12, 2011 07:58 AM (M9Ie6)

It is difficult to predict development costs for weapons systems that aren't simply evolutionary improvements on current weapons.

That being said, the current system is unbelievably wasteful and needs to be overhauled. Simply removing political considerations (where to do the research and build the plants) would save billions.

10 Oh, I think Japan could probably pay more for their own defense than they do now.  Our past experiences with leaving their defense entirely up to them are precisely why we choose to not leave their defense entirely (if even mostly) up to them.  Germany as well.

11 The biggest flaw in citing the defense budget is the fact that for decades now the defense budget has become the favorite hiding spot for lawmakers to put their favorite pork barrel budget, often things that have nothing to do with defense. They do this knowing nobody is going to vote against it.

The second point is what others have said. There is stuff in the defense budget, while defense related are things the defense department neither wants nor needs. An example is the flap over the F-35 fighter jet engines. To appease each other those whiz kids in congress decided that 2 different engines from 2 different manufacturers was just peachy keen since it would mean jobs in their district. No matter it would create a whole set of headaches for the military by not having 1 standard engine.

I am always railing about all the junk they put in the defense budget. We have got to quit letting them hide behind this shield and get it back to just defense.

Just like the transportation bill is another favorite hiding place for pork.

12

No more political games for building weapon systems in some politicians backyard that is not needed.

Ever notice how lefty politicians fight tooth and nail for military procurements if they will be built in their backyard?  And they really hate the military.  But if money and jobs are involved, well that's different.

13 8 We also need some serious reforms in military procurement as well as getting congress out of the military procurement process.

I've done buisness with companies that specialize in military supply and have all but given up. Quoting on low margins only to lose the sale to minority or woman owned buisnesses is no way to run a buisness. Its time consuming and frought with paperwork, source/package inspections and in general-a huge pain in the ass. Add the 3600.00+ per year you have to pay DCAS/ITAR just for the "priviledge" to sell to the military and I might as well be selling copies of Penthouse on Fire Island.

14

The only reason I'm supportive of our intervention overseas is that we're stuck in this position as a result of the action of previous generations. If it weren't for Woodrow Wilson's foolish meddling in WWI there wouldn't have been a WWII and there probably wouldn't have been a Cold War either.

We need to begin a process of gradually transferring responsibility for Europe's defense back to the European nations. 40% of England is on the dole. They can get off their fat butts, get some dental work, and start defending their own damn part of the world again.

15 What is Donald Trump's take on our military spending?

I cannot wait until the Biden/Trump debate in October 2012.

16

Oh man, did I kill another thread??

Ok, dick joke time...

 

17 Liberals are always generous with other people's money, freedom, and security.

18 There is no nation on the planet that poses a real threat to the United States in the way that the USSR during the Cold War.

I'm sure this jizzmop was arguing that the commies weren't really a threat to us during the Cold War, like every other lefty fuck.

19 `Posted by: dananjcon at April 12, 2011 08:12 AM (pr+up)

The entire system is inefficient from top to bottom.

I worked for UPS for years. One of the larger pickups in one building was a defense depot. The thousands of packages each day that they sent was an insult to every taxpayer. Packages of a single screw, dozens of identical small packages going to the same place instead of the much cheaper single package. Receipts sent alone. Waste piled on waste.

I understand that some inefficiency is to be expected; after all, that single screw might conceivably mean life or death for someone. Procurement of vital systems will necessarily cost more in some circumstances. But does everything have to be the most expensive way of doing things?

20 There's no existential threat to the United States because we have the most nukes, which is a position we could maintain even if we drastically slashed (as we should) military spending. As attached as people are to things like a $200 billion/year Air Force, European military bases, "quick" jaunts over to Arabia to make them love democracy and capitalism, that a particular expenditure falls under the category of "military" does not mean that it fulfills some national security need. Your moralizing about risk assessment is silly. Every action has tradeoffs, including military spending. Why don't we spend 80 trillion dollars building gigantic floating armed fortresses to patrol the coast line in advance of the coming Chinese invasion? IT MIGHT SAVE LIVES! DON'T YOU WANT TO SAVE LIVES? Do you really want to look some little girl in the eye and tell her that her daddy is dead because you got all squishy in the pants over floating fortresses? Except, of course, the Chinamen aren't coming over here to invade, and giant floating fortresses, while awesome, and while undoubtedly providing some national security benefit, are probably way too expensive to actually build and man and all that, so there's not a good cost/benefit tradeoff in building them. Likewise with sticking our dick in every bullshit brawl between Bedouin barbarians, defending Europe from an Ivan that, at this point, they probably like more than they do us, and spending trillions of dollars trying to teach savages that it's NOT OK to cut off your daughter's head if she gets raped. It's funny how both lefties and conservatives pretend as though we're not flat ass fucking broke when it comes to the things that they like funding. Harry Reid doesn't want to worry about Social Security for the next 20 years, Republicans want to pretend that we can afford to impose a bullshit Pax Americana on the world. We're fucking doomed.

21 Except the nukes don't do us any good when our president gets out on the world stage and promises never to use them.

22

Want one simple way to reduce military spending?  Radically reduce the number of females in the services.

Females are more likely to use health care resources, more likely to miss duty due to injury or illness, uniquely likely to miss due to pregnancy, more likely not to finish a first tour of duty and more expensive to recruit.

Of course females are very useful for tasks like the female training teams in Afghanistan where they are able to make inroads with the local females that males could not, which is why I say reduce and not eliminate.  But of course, no one would even think of making such a proposal today and hold out any hope of getting elected/re-elected.

Look, there are a million reasons why our services are so expensive-heck there is a post just down the page showing how we train French Navy pilots (sure the frogs probably pay us back somehow, but I guarantee that it is cheaper for them to pay us to do it than to maintain a program to do it themselves).  Every state national guard has a program where they help train the Army of a partner nation, we host programs for the Japanese and Germans at Ft. Bliss, I've seen Brits and Canucks at U.S. bases doing training and on and on-keeping the peace is expensive (we just have to decide if it is worth it).

And bear in mind that a big part of the cost is personnel-Joe expects to make a decent living or he is over the fence when his enlistment ends with all his training and a proven work record to market on the civilian market.  Want to lose all those mid-range NCOs and Officers when you just might need them sooner rather than later?

I expect that we will have cuts in defense over the next few years-we probably can't afford not to.  But we ought to think about where the ineficiencies and redundencies are when we go about making those cuts.  Make sure we cut fat and not muscle.

23 @19 - Would they have been a threat absent an intentionally antagonistic US foreign policy, or would they just have been brutal assholes to their own people, the Europeans that we sold out after the war, and Asians who invited them in? I mean, yeah, the Soviets were fucking murdering assholes, but it's not like they were sending covert teams into Kansas to kidnap Americans. Pretty much everyone they killed, before we decided that it was our job to go and protect people from the Red Menace, was more or less irrelevant to us. I mean, it sucks that they were killed, but it's not our job or responsibility to play World Defender just because we hadn't completely exhausted our industrial base, or lost 40% of our population in WW2.

24 A full list of spending in/nearest 2010.

Spending per capita.

[Wiki also has a NATO spending list that I quickly totalled as U.S. = $667B
NATO Allies = $280B]

25 Defending the military against all the upcoming LGBT law suits will be pricey. Hope they're thinking ahead and hiring a new huge pile of JAG and DoD  lawyers.

26

I would have no problem with closing down ~95% of our overseas bases and restationing the troops along the Mexican border.

27 History has shown that every time we cut back on defense we over cut and basically invite military adventurism by other nations.  The outcome of that in the past 100 years has been two world wars that wound up costing trillions and millions of lives.

Posted by: Vic at April 12, 2011 07:54 AM (M9Ie6)

I don't think WW1 was caused by American military weakness.  In those days we were not eager to get involved in matters outside our own immediate interests.  Indeed, getting pulled into WW1 was a horrible misfortune.  We should have let that event take its course.  It's not like the German Empire was going to win some stunning victory and come gunning for the US next.  It was a stalemate, and should have been allowed to grind down.  Our intervention made things worse.  Had Germany been able to get reasonable terms, there would not have been a WW2, or at least not one resembling the one we had.  If we'd left others to manage their own affairs we'd have all been better off.

I'm not a big fan of military cutting, since I believe we should basically maintain the ability to push around whoever we want.  But I also believe we're overkilling it. 

28 Cut every socialism program that the Democrats have hidden in the military budget over the years.
Posted by: Vic at April 12, 2011 07:51 AM (M9Ie6)

This.

29 but our military is FABULOUS! now.

30 You can't just turn Military spending on when you think you might need it. What we spend today might not come into play for 10 years, but if you wait to spend it 10 years from now, it might be to late.

31

Reactionary.  You'll note we can't push around anybody we want, even excluding potential enemies like China and Russia. 

The rest of the folks, some of it is political. A lot of buttheads are protected from their just deserts by US politics, not military force.  Still, see Libya, it takes something more than a couple of hundred sorties to actually accomplish anything.

A sergeant once said to me that there's never been a war won that didn't have a nineteen-year old with a rifle standing on a patch of ground and everybody's afraid to mess with him.  Or maybe it was a nineteen-year old with a spear.  I forget which it was, but the concept is the same.  And getting spearmen or riflemen into that position is expensive as hell.  But if you don't, you don't have much influence, no matter how many hits a Youtube vid of explosions gets.

32

I thought China has/had nuke missiles targeted at us?

33 Back in the 19th Century, the British Empire had a navy bigger than the next two potential enemies combined, plus an army in India on the scale of most European powers. She was unbeatable, and nobody challenged her on land. Meanwhile Germany had the most powerful army in Europe and joined coalitions to make sure her potential enemies were isolated. Europe enjoyed a century of peace and prosperity. The few wars that did afflict the Continent were short and did little damage to civilian life.

At the dawn of the 20th Century the development of the Dreadnought negated Britain's naval advantage, at the same time that Germany's two main continental enemies (France and Russia) put aside their differences to become allies. In about a decade, the world was plunged into a war more destructive than anything in three centuries, and the misery and instability led to an even more destructive conflict a generation later.

America's huge advantage preserves peace. Reduce it to something a potential foe might challenge, and you will have war.

Liberals want people to die, apparently.

34 What this really proves is how much of a jackwagon, Mataconis, is, he takes up the latest Journolist talking point, almost without prompting

35 Yeah, the Commies were only in all of Asia (west and east sides), Eastern Europe, most of Africa, trying for Western Europe, trying for India, trying for South America and sticking their noses in the Mideast. Them succeeding even more than they did wouldn't have affected North America at all. And if they succeeded in that, they never would have gone after Mainland U.S.A. or used subversion on U.S. soil like funding Leftist groups and insinuating themselves into the bureaucracy or politics to attack the U.S. so everyone in Kansas would be free of Commie kidnapper worries.

36

Would they have been a threat absent an intentionally antagonistic US foreign policy, or would they just have been brutal assholes to their own people, the Europeans that we sold out after the war, and Asians who invited them in?

Yes, they would have been a threat. We had just learned a lesson from WWII, namely, when a nation openly expresses its desire for world domination it's a pretty sure thing that nation means it.  Since the revolution the Soviet Communists had been stating very clearly and without any nuance their desire to destroy capitalism and spread communism by any means necessary and they meant it. It would have been folly not to take them at their word.

As Americans we tend to have a very naive outlook on the rest of the world. We as a people have no history with tyrants and dictators, we aren't interested in creating an empire or dominating the world, and we have a hard time believing that there are other people in this world who don't think like we do. The main reason that fundamentalist Islam is such a danger to us is because we don't take them at their word, and if we continue to dismiss them we will again pay dearly.

37 35 What this really proves is how much of a jackwagon, Mataconis, is, he takes up the latest Journolist talking point, almost without prompting

Posted by: justin cord at April 12, 2011 09:02 AM (TNKs7)

Mataconis.  Isn't that that stuff newborn babies poop out?

38 My analysis, America's defense spending is blueberry flavored pie.

39 Conclusion from Doug's conclusion: "I want to spend defense money on something else and will try to justify my belief with a pie chart that has no connection to it."

40 26 Defending the military against all the upcoming LGBT law suits will be pricey. Hope they're thinking ahead and hiring a new huge pile of JAG and DoD  lawyers.

Posted by: dagny at April 12, 2011 08:48 AM (lVOyK)

Tanned, rested and ready, baby.

41 We don't give a $%#@ ... we like being numero uno!

42 America's huge advantage preserves peace. Reduce it to something a potential foe might challenge, and you will have war.

Posted by: Trimegistus at April 12, 2011 08:59 AM (OIL61)

We're not talking about disarming.  Well, maybe the Libtards are.  But among conservatives the question is how strong a force is necessary to keep the world in a condition we can live with. 

The one war we should be fighting, the war to eliminate Islam, is one we've decided not to fight except as a sort of containment affair.  I think most of us are becoming disenchanted with the idea of saving the Muz from themselves, so that will peter out eventually.  China's a longer-term threat, so we need to keep ahead of them, but that can be accomplished with far less than the current expenditure. 

We have a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.  We need to maintain and perhaps grow that arsenal, and to use a little of it at least once in a while to prove that we mean business.  Once that's done our position will be reasonably secure, barring unforeseen technological developments in other nations that somehow leapfrog us.  Keep DARPA and a strong R&D budget.  Keep the strategic forces, and the stuff that's too hard to manufacture (aircraft carriers, etc).  Stockpile goods with a long shelf life that can be manufactured at bulk rates.  Minimize the rest. 

43

oh and I do think we can cut back on defense spending.

We waste so much money on weapons systems we never have a real dire need for and that are just projects for defense companies in certain congressional districts.

The Osprey comes to mind. I know people defend it, but it's a big waste of money. Helicopters, planes and parachuttes are adequate.

This isn't the 1950s, we need to be more conscience of how much things cost and weigh them against the potential benefits to be gained.

I do think the F-22 is worth it, however I do think the DOD should make it clear to suppliers that if they keep going over budget that they will lose out on all future contracts.

In the private sector when a contractor continually goes over budget they simply cease to get any more work from the buyer.

 

44 @36 - Right, the Soviets fucked around in places that were already mostly shitholes run by tin pot dictators, failing monarchs, or the remnants of colonial government. Why, exactly, is that our problem? They wouldn't have gone after the mainland of the US because that would've been a war that they wouldn't have won, because we always had more nukes than them. Instead, they fucked around in the third world, and convinced us to send US soldiers over there to die to "Defend the World From Communism" or some such nonsense. The Soviets didn't lose many soldiers in those battles, did they? No, they just sat back and watched as we repeatedly threw our military into wars that we lost.

45 The answer, of couse, is to form a honey badger division, rendering all other weapon systems and forces, obsolete.

46 Out of the UN, out of NATO, close 90% foreign bases, militarize the borders, increase development of first strike weapons and tactical nukes and threaten to use them.

47 @37 - Well, there was some dispute amongst the Sovs as to whether or not International Communism was a good policy, but even assuming that they all agreed that it was, who cares? They were taking over shithole countries that we had no interest in. Really, the vast majority of conflicts that the US got involved in to "stop Communism" were really just us spending blood and money to try to salvage the investments of the old colonial powers. Would we have given two shits about Vietnam if it hadn't been a French holding, and if the French hadn't berated and guilted us into sending troops there because they wanted to keep their rubber production facilities and materials?
Let the fucking Communists take over the rest of the world, what the fuck do we care? Let them try to carry the cost of dominating countries that weren't just handed to them at Yalta. Not our problem. They weren't ever going to come for us, because although brutal, the Soviets were still essentially rational, and MAD fucking works.

48

Out of the UN, out of NATO, close 90% foreign bases, militarize the borders, increase development of first strike weapons and tactical nukes and threaten to use them

The problem with that is that first strike weapons only threaten or work against nation states, and as the past 10-20 years show, our threats don't come from nation states in the way they used to, but rather non state actors.

49

A sergeant once said to me that there's never been a war won that didn't have a nineteen-year old with a rifle standing on a patch of ground and everybody's afraid to mess with him.  ...  And getting spearmen or riflemen into that position is expensive as hell.  But if you don't, you don't have much influence, no matter how many hits a Youtube vid of explosions gets.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at April 12, 2011 08:58 AM (wxHHM)

This is true.  However, one thing that has not taken place before, or at least not often, has been the kind of war where one side doesn't really care about taking the land and holding it.  The United States is not a conqueror, and therefore does not crave new land.  We are in a unique position - if we had the will to do it, we could fight wars such that we simply destroy the enemy's land and leave it a useless waste.  Strategic weapons can do this.  It would suit us fine, since we have no desire to take that land.  No young man need stand on a hill challenging all comers, save here at home. 

50

As the person who spends the most amount of time (along with Jay Tea of Wizbang) ripping Mataconis apart on every conceivable subject, I agree with Ace that the conclusions he derived from the chart are a product of simplistic liberalism.  However, I do believe the defense budget needs drastic cuts.

 

What we have now is an amalgamation of fiefdoms assembled more by tradition and momentum than reason.  A full, comprehensive review of the mission and structure of the U.S. military is needed to craft a 21^st century force at a reasonable cost.

51

They were taking over shithole countries that we had no interest in. Really, the vast majority of conflicts that the US got involved in to "stop Communism" were really just us spending blood and money to try to salvage the investments of the old colonial powers.

other than vietnam, what wars did we get into with the soviets(by proxy) in order to maintain old european colonial possesions?

52 I'll be your huckleberry ....

53

Another thing they need to factor in is our response plans.  Can't just arbitrarily make cuts without first making sure they will still fit our response plans.  Yes, there are areas of slop that need to get cut that won't affect our response plans but they need to carefully analyze weapon system cuts before cutting those.  Our fighters are getting long in the tooth and replacements are not forthcoming in numbers large enough to fulfill requirements.  I fear our military will end up like how we're fighting the Libyan war.  On the cheap.

Indeed, it does need a scapel, not a broad sword. However, I'm sure you see, or know of, a decent amount of waste by defense contractors.

I feel like the contractos have a lot of sway over the DOD and as a result they are held to account when things go way over budget. Or the DOD doesn't raise a big enough stink when congress funds defense projects or weapons systems that aren't needed.

54

Dear Doug,

All it takes is one rogue nuclear device (likely purchased or stolen in a country that spends a lot less for defense) to take out a city full of educated liberals like yourself.

So, yes please cut your defense spending. it won't compromise your national security. We won't hurt you, we promise.

Love you to death,

Islam

 

 

55 Lemme help you out, Gabe .... real conservatives don't want to cut "defense spending".   They want to cut "offense spending".

56 Let the fucking Communists take over the rest of the world, what the fuck do we care? Let them try to carry the cost of dominating countries that weren't just handed to them at Yalta. Not our problem. They weren't ever going to come for us, because although brutal, the Soviets were still essentially rational, and MAD fucking works.

Posted by: DMXRoid at April 12, 2011 09:14 AM (vd872)

What was that thing Churchill said about feeding an aligator??

MAD only works when you have people willing to carry out the threat.  As the communist advance demoralized the US, the number of people willing to consider doing the necessary deed shrank.  Perhaps more to the point, expanding Soviet power gave them a bigger stick at any negotiating table.  The US does not exist in a vacuum, much though I wish it did.  Standing alone heroically in the middle of a hostile world would not have had a happy ending.

57 Let them try to carry the cost of dominating countries that weren't just handed to them at Yalta. Not our problem. They weren't ever going to come for us, because although brutal, the Soviets were still essentially rational

Call your doctor and tell him your meds need a drastic alteration.

58 @54 - I should have phrased that differently, and added "or clean up the mess that the colonials had left behind", because that covers most everything else, but most of our involvement in Latin American conflicts falls under the original phrasing, as well as a bunch of small bullshit that we got drawn into in Africa.

59 Using that chart to draw (make up) substantive conclusions is like taking a photo of a random concession stand line at Daytona and predicting the winner of the 500 based on the perponderance T-shirt logos.

60 Libs drawing massively incorrect conclusions from simple data? Get. Out!

61

What we have now is an amalgamation of fiefdoms assembled more by tradition and momentum than reason.  A full, comprehensive review of the mission and structure of the U.S. military is needed to craft a 21^st century force at a reasonable cost.

This is important. Our nation needs to have several conservations. How much government are we willing to pay for when it comes to domestic issues and what should out role militarily in the world be in the 21st century.

I'm of the opinion that we should have a more powerful navy and airforce at the expense of our ground forces. It's pretty clear that control of the seas and sky  can keep america safe from other nation states. Do we really need so many troops?  We're not exactly protecting the Fulda gap anymore.  However control of the major sea lanes is important.

Also, can allies begin to pick up their own defense costs?

62 Ugh, never thought I'd see the day when that douche's name appeared at Ace's. But Gabe mitigates that with a well-deserved takedown of Failaconis.

63 @59 - That assumes a lot of things, first and foremost that the Soviets would've been able to maintain any kind of overarching Communist empire that they created. The history of Empire in the world is not so great, and there's no reason to think that the Soviets had the magic key to making it work in a way that the British or the French or the Romans or the Mongols or anyone else who tried it was unable to.
But, even assuming that they could, I think that there's a huge difference between the willingness to use nukes to blow up North Vietnamese and the use of nukes to stop the advance of Soviet tanks. It's sort of analogous to invading Afghanistan after 9/11. Like 90% of the country was in favor of blowing the fuck out of the Taliban.
What would there have been to negotiate with the Soviets if we weren't making ourselves the Shield of Democracy? Trade? Nuclear arsenal reductions? What would have been the big loss at the discussion table if we'd just let the Sovs expend all their manpower and money trying to establish and maintain an empire instead of spending ours trying to prevent them from doing so?

64

All it takes is one rogue nuclear device (likely purchased or stolen in a country that spends a lot less for defense) to take out a city full of educated liberals like yourself.

Posted by: MWTexas at April 12, 2011 09:20 AM (N05oL)

This is a good point.  And unfortunately it's not a threat that can be addressed by procuring a larger supply of heavy weapon systems.  We need spies and assassins in abundance to counter such threats.  Those, while not cheap, are pretty cost effective.  How many informers and killers could be paid (and hansomely) for the cost of a single cruise missle?  Or one of the higher-end smart bombs?   

Which I think brings up one other point - smart bombs and precision munitions have their place.  There is no doubt of that.  But spending a million bucks to avoid a hand full of civies getting blown up is pure madness.  Collateral damage, in the wars against the Muz, is a feature, not a bug.  We waste high-end gear on preventing the deaths of people who, in a sane world, we would be killing off at every opportunity. 

Nerve gas is cheap and effective.  They'd be using it on us if they could. 

 

65 Ben I understand that, but I'm of the mindset of it's better to be feared then loved, since dispite billions on aid most countries would kick our dog and spit in our lunch the second we looked away. And my ideal military model would see an increase of small special forces units. If I were president quhdaffy and his family would have been excreted by worms by now.

66 My guess is that when inflated salaries and other hidden costs are considered, the US share of real defense spending increases.  And lets keep it that way.

67 There are LOTS of places where the military can spend a lot less money and not make a difference in our national defense capability. It's just like education spending - just because you spend more doesn't mean you are safer (though I am sure a similar chart showing that the US spends 22x more per pupil that say, Surinam, wouldn't be used to make the same argument about education.) The Republican Party needs to demonstrate seriousness on the budget by looking seriously at major reductions in defense along with everything else - the Tea Party is already there. They can support reductions without being "soft on defense"

68 Except the nukes don't do us any good when our president gets out on the world stage and promises never to use them.

dagny

QFFT

69 Let me be the first to say as a conservative I totally agree with Doug and every leftist out there. We can "make serious cuts in our defense budget without threatening our own security.". Bearing in mind that Obama and liberals call less than $40 billion in cuts the "drastic" I think we can easily afford "serious". Total cost? About a buck three eighty.

70 Just tell the lefties that our military spending is welfare for the rest of the world.  Afterall, they loves 'em some welfare.

71 I have been reading about defense spending ever since one of my lib/dem friends said that the best place for the administration to hide money that it is dispersing is the DOD budget since "the republicans never really look at it".   I thought this might be true.   There appear to be a lot of things in the DOD budget where in they shift it out of the DOD to the department of state.

72 What would there have been to negotiate with the Soviets if we weren't making ourselves the Shield of Democracy? Trade? Nuclear arsenal reductions? What would have been the big loss at the discussion table if we'd just let the Sovs expend all their manpower and money trying to establish and maintain an empire instead of spending ours trying to prevent them from doing so?

Posted by: DMXRoid at April 12, 2011 09:29 AM (vd872)

Trade is indeed key.  Oil, specifically.  It was only a matter of time before the Soviets made a grab for it, had we allowed them a free hand.  But the real key to the Soviet approach was that they didn't have to conquer places.  They supported communist insurgencies and arranged take overs, or helped prop up friendly local governments like in Afghanistan (though in that case they should have just cut their losses).  You don't need vassal states or conquered territorries when  you're fighting for an ideology.  You need friendly regimes, or at least regimes that share your enemies.  As you said  - they didn't send troops to Viet Nam.  But they did send hardware, as did the Chinese.  The Viets supplied indoctrinated man power.

 

73

The history of Empire in the world is not so great, and there's no reason to think that the Soviets had the magic key to making it work in a way that the British or the French or the Romans or the Mongols or anyone else who tried it was unable to.

I think this is common mistake made by libertarians/non interventionalists/isolationists. Yes, all empires collapse, but if the empire is bad/evil enough, is it work the time it takes to wait it out.

Rome last for some 500-600 years, The Mongol Empire for over 150 years., The British Empire for several hundred years.

Is it good policy in all instances just to simply wait the empires out? What if they are aggressively expansive? 

I understand that we can "wait out" many problems in this world, but aren't there instances where that doesn't hold true??

74 BTW, I think it says a lot about liberals that they use words like "drastic", "draconian" and "dramatic" to describe cutting tens of billiions of dollars from a multi trillion dollar domestic budget while cutting hundreds of billions from a less than trillion dollar defense budget is merely "serious".

75 I've been answering the libs with this "well, the entire budget is on the line, everything as we are on a precipice but can you do me a favor can you lib/dems get your presidents to stop sharing secrets?"

drives em nuts...

76 >> Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at April 12, 2011 09:27 AM (k5CvA) Heh. Why did I think of you the second I saw this post? You should go kick him in the poon on Twitter for this. Again.

77

Ben I understand that, but I'm of the mindset of it's better to be feared then loved, since dispite billions on aid most countries would kick our dog and spit in our lunch the second we looked away. And my ideal military model would see an increase of small special forces units. If I were president quhdaffy and his family would have been excreted by worms by now.

That's kinda my point on the troop reduction.

Wars are changing. We're not fighting as we did in WW2, Korea or a potential European War against the Soviets.

Most of our future wars will probably be against small, weak nations who harbors people who are threats to us. In those instances, do you need a division when special forces will suffice.

In conjunction with that, do we need to stick around after we kill the people we want dead?  Afghanistan being the perfect example. 

78

What would there have been to negotiate with the Soviets if we weren't making ourselves the Shield of Democracy? Trade? Nuclear arsenal reductions? What would have been the big loss at the discussion table if we'd just let the Sovs expend all their manpower and money trying to establish and maintain an empire instead of spending ours trying to prevent them from doing so?

You keep talking about negotiating as if this had been some business deal or just normal international relations. It wasn't. They said they wanted to overthrow free market capitalism and install communism around the world, whether by coercion or force. They were doing it in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. Had we done nothing, there is a very good chance they would have succeeded.

When someone repeatedly tells you that they want to kill you, you have two choices:

1) Take them at their word and prepare to defend yourself.

2) Ignore them and assume that they're just bluffing.

I will choose #1 each and every time.

79 Our main theatre of concern was Western Europe, that's why we had our largest troop concentration there, the issue was if a Soviet incursion was too aggressive, how long before escalation to at least tactical nukes, the fear of the former was what hamstrung our response in Cuba, among other places.

80 One of the easiest ways to cut defense spending would be to take a more traditional approach to warfare - leveling cities by high level bombing, punitive raids, etc.

If we are concerned with collateral damage we have to spend much more then other countries on smart munitions and a high level of training.

The left believes we already inflict too much collateral damage, so it would seem they would want us to spend even more on advanced weapon systems and training...not less.

81 We don't fight like we did in WWI and WWII because we have these expensive high-tech weapons. If you start cutting back on "needless" equipment, pretty soon you're back to throwing guys with rifles at the problem.

82 You should go kick him in the poon on Twitter for this. Again. Posted by: Andy at April 12, 2011 09:38 AM (dxPr9) ==== Done & done. btw, if any of you Morons want to see how much Mataconis is respected on Twitter, be sure to peek at the #failaconis tag or follow @palinconis. Fun stuff.

83 Posted by: Ben at April 12, 2011 09:41 AM (wuv1c)

You are 100% correct in your analysis of the future wars that America will fight. There is no overarching need for ballistic missile forces or a blue-water navy when careful insertion of special forces and use of tactical weapons will work well. America can save hundreds of billions by shrinking the size of its army -- in particular its heavy weapons and armor -- and its navy -- in particular its long range weaponry such as aircraft carriers and attack subs.

84 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2010 report on global military expenditure by national breakdown, aside from the credible deny-ability given the report SIPRI source having vested propaganda interests, there is no credible way on earth to designate 25% officially blank as "others" without even so much as a footnote as to those "others"  identities. If 25% of the world's military expenses are not by nation or any alliance or organization of nations as a unit, then that leaves a quarter of military engagements sponsored by globalist corporations perhaps including "non-profits" and Islamist "revolutionaries" conducting a scorched earth policy for those who oppose their authoritarian feudal-Sharian New World Order. It isn't as if a quarter of the entire world's "military expenses" can more easily be "explained away" by peasants financially sponsoring their own militias for sovereign independence. That's not credible in the least given "sovereign" nations like France and Italy begging the US tax payers to foot their bills because only Americans can afford whatever, and given the globalist banking/investment industry coercing the US tax payers to bail-out too-big-to-fail globalist banking/investment corporations.

Regardless, the US should stop the persistent automatic responses to allies desires for wars, when allies are not being invaded by foreign military forces, without first establishing economic reimbursement terms. If the US Military is mercenary, then require financial payment for services from those foreign interests being serviced. If members of NATO can not financially afford their own sovereign vested interest wars of aggression, they don't get to assert wars of aggression. It is particularly illogical requiring US tax payers to sponsor any foreign interest's wars, particularly wars of aggression.

85 I thought the plan was to hire private security firms to organize the anarchy.  Trillions  of self-printed currency saved!

86 Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at April 12, 2011 09:45 AM (JxMoP)

But it's just words. How can you continue to be belligerent in the face of our promise that we won't kill you until last? We are a religion of peace.

87 >>1. There is no nation on the planet that poses a real threat to the United States in the way that the USSR during the Cold War.

Has anyone pointed out that these same people were saying the USSR wasn't a threat during the Cold War (so let's cut defense spending), thus their judgement on this matter is suspect?

88 Let me be the first to say as a conservative I totally agree with Doug and every leftist out there. We can "make serious cuts in our defense budget without threatening our own security.". Bearing in mind that Obama and liberals call less than $40 billion in cuts the "drastic" I think we can easily afford "serious". Total cost? About a buck three eighty.

Posted by: Rocks

 

Thread winner, right here.

89

Reactionary.
True. We can nuke anybody into oblivion.  Problem is several-fold.  First, we can hardly get the dems to let our guys shoot off their rifles.  Defense spending has nothing to do with the political world imposed on us by liberals.

Second, nuking somebody might make somebody else who has nukes think they should nuke us first before we start thinking about them.  Yeah, yeah, we'd destroy them.  But we'd have some pretty expensive clean up work to do at home.

Third.  Doing the same thing with conventional weapons, no matter how slick and impressive and nerd-built with the accuracy of microsurgery is horribly expensive.  It takes a LOT of conventional or high-tech weapons. We might be able to actually reach out and off Gaddaffi.  But that would only satisfy our sense of outrage. His replacement would be just as bad.

During WW II, the Brits especially desperately searched for choke points, the magic bullet, the dam that could be busted, that would multiply its effects until Germany was defeated.  They wanted to avoid another war of attrition like WW I.  There was Ploesti.  Despite all the raids, the limiting factor for Ploesti's production was the German's ability to carry away the product, which amounted to about a third of Ploesti's maximum output.  Ball bearings. See "Black Thursday".  Lots of ball bearing plants. No shortage.  Railroads. Good idea but resilient.  Had to keep at it and at it and at it and it cost a lot of guys.  Made the outcome a bit easier.  Didn't end the thing by itself.  You have to smash the place flat.

Visiting the amount of damage necessary to either destroy beyond the capacity to fix it the ability to mess with us, or to give the bastards religion would be politically impossible.  Hell, a lot of even Israelis believed the Goldstone Report.  Go figure.

Bush might have been getting ready to take care of Iran's nuke plants but somebody leaked the faked-up NIE.  Took his legs out from under him.

It would be one thing if the pres is a dem.  Some conservative said he wished we'd had a dem pres during the first decade of this century because then the dems wouldn't have tried to stop him fighting the WOT.  So, presuming we have a repub pres, it will take a HELL OF A LOT of damage to us to get the dems on board for a useful response.  And that means we'll be in such straits that we won't be able to take care of business with minimal forces.

See The Three Conjectures.  Imagine what the discussion in this country would be if we got nuked and there was pretty good evidence that it was Iran's nuke via al Q.  Do we kill ten or twenty million Iranians who haven't done us any harm? Easy to say hell yes, if you think you're a tough guy. Given US history since 2001, what do you think would really happen?

We need the force to manage a terrible catastrophe because until we have a terrible catastrophe, the dems and libs won't even let us play defense.

90

We don't fight like we did in WWI and WWII because we have these expensive high-tech weapons. If you start cutting back on "needless" equipment, pretty soon you're back to throwing guys with rifles at the problem.

eh.

What major nations could we possibly get into a major ground war with?

Russia? unlikely.

China? How exactly? From what nation would we launch this ground war?

India isn't a threat. Europe is the military equivalent of the Detroit Lions.

I just don't see the need for massive amounts of ground forces anymore, when a powerful navy and airforce will suffice.

China isn't getting to Japan or Taiwain if we have an overwhelmingly powerful navy and air force.

I just think that wars of the future will be small, localized and short conflicts against weak nations.  Places like Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. That said, as i mentioned above, do we really need to stick around and rebuild after we kill the people we wanted to kill.

We probably could have left Afghanistan in 2003 and let them know if we had to come back for any reason it would be flyovers with B-52s and thousands of tons of ordinance.

 

91 We don't fight like we did in WWI and WWII because we have these expensive high-tech weapons.

And because our contemporary officials fail to conduct warfare according to logic, beginning with requiring the CinC with Congress and our Judicial Branch to uphold the US Constitution first and foremost.

92 Our own government is the biggest existential threat to the Nation.

93 also to add to my post at 95, I'm not saying get rid of ground forces, but do we need as many as we have assuming we won't be in Iraq and Afghanistan forever

94 I have no problem looking to cut the waste in the DOD but I am against cutting weapon programs and other research based merely on saving money. In fact doing this usually costs us more in the long run when we have to revamp a project, or worse don't have that tech when we really need it. It's also hard to prove that our large expenditures have prevented conflicts in the past and will do so in the future. I always present the hypothetical of what if Britain had the equivalent of the F-86 In 1939, a mere 10 year advance of technology. Do you think Germany would have been able to make their demands for territory?

95 Part of the problem is viewing the military as another social program like the rest of government spending instead of an engine of destruction.

96 Wait til you see my next article on "Lawn, Garden, and Border Security," wingnuts.

97 Cutting to the chase, Mataconis is a hardcore Palubot who rejects ALL overseas US military expenditures, especially Iraq & Afghanistan. He's also a completely unserious blogger who's arguments crumble as soon as they're met with resistance. His M.O. is to run away muttering "whatever."

98 I always present the hypothetical of what if Britain had the equivalent of the F-86 In 1939, a mere 10 year advance of technology. Do you think Germany would have been able to make their demands for territory?

If that were given, do you think Britain would not have been making those demands for territory, reasserting/perpetuating their global colonial empire?

99 Imagine what the discussion in this country would be if we got nuked and there was pretty good evidence that it was Iran's nuke via al Q.  Do we kill ten or twenty million Iranians who haven't done us any harm? Easy to say hell yes, if you think you're a tough guy. Given US history since 2001, what do you think would really happen?

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at April 12, 2011 09:57 AM (wxHHM)

This hits upon the root problem we face.  Lack of will to destroy our enemies.  So long as this cultural weakness persists, we will remain vulnerable.  Our reluctance to visit death and horror upon those who would kill us is contemptible, and will probably be our undoing.

 

100
Smart munitions have little to nothing to do with reducing collateral damage. It's about making each aircraft and pilot more effective, by reducing the number of sorties required to destroy any given target. Look up the Thanh Hoa Bridge in Vietnam, the classic example. Nearly 900 sorties and hundreds of dumb bombs expended, and at least 11 aircraft shot down with little effect on the bridge. Yet the bridge was rendered unusable in the FIRST raid with laser-guided bombs.

The use of smart munitions to reduce collateral damage is an entirely political concern, a misuse of the weapons by political leaders in DC to try to wage war on the cheap.

101 My two bits before sinking back into torpor...

Our defense policies are a bizarre patchwork, and when you get that, you get bloat, in bureaucracy and budget.  Instead of what should be a simple framework of (a) securing the means and objects of US trade (and by that I mean assuring trade may take place without interference by hostile parties), (b) keeping existential threats at bay at as great a distance as is feasible, and (c) achieving (a) and (b) without turning the homeland into a paranoid armed camp, we've been adding all this side crap, acting as a job source in Congressional districts, being the destination of choice for 'First-World' nations looking to outsource security, and randomly intervening in the affairs of people who will sink back into the morass the moment we leave.  Let's not talk about the social engineering projects included in there, that's a rant for another day when my inner Honey Badger isn't quite so irritable.

With all that, it's more a wonder that it works as well as it does than that it costs so much.  If we could strip out the BS missions and silly side-purposes, we could not only save money, but we could probably finally do right by those in service.  Good luck with that, though, seeing as politicians seem to have mistaken those extras as the core of the program.

And for the record, yes, I consider us to be failing at all three of the above core missions.  Three guesses why...

102 #103, No.

103 The Chinese figure is bullshit.They lie.

104

We do need to trim some fat at the DoD, and it should be in wasteful programs that are not geared towards the "engine of destruction" (or really bogus contract schemes which the military has been plagued with since time immemorial).  This means getting rid of all those progressive social engineering, sensitivity courses and "kinder, gentler" bullcrap -- which of course the progs would scream and cry about.

I would love to see those tax dollars used on r&d for equipment/programs that got us fighting better, harder, and smarter.  I'd love to see us put some money into our military infrastructure.  I would love to see us build up our security and intelligence monitoring platforms to the point that we surpass even Israel in a few years (and it could be done, if we had the will to do so and no interference imho).  I would love to see our military be big and bad, and yet mean, lean, and one nasty machine -- I want us feared in an existential sense by the rest of the world (piss and loose bowel dribbling down their legs at the thought of us feared).

I would also like to see us hang our "allies" out to dry a bit -- sorry, bit of an isolationist here, and I'm sick of our "allies" holding their hands out while the other one has a knife in it...all the while they scream and cry that it's our fault they have to do it.  Screw that -- make 'em at least pay.

105

So how about asking the obvious question:

Why does the United States spend about six times more than the next largest military-budget (China)?

Why do we spend more than four times what the UK, Germany, and France, combined, spend?

Couldn't we get by with just 3X China?  or 2X the EU?

Other than the United States, what land are we protecting?  And why?

106 I do think we need to be smarter about the weapons systems that we spend on.  If you look at the weapon systems that have been the most effective or important they haven't necessarily been the most expensive or high-tech.  I recall the military wanting to replace the A-10 with F-16s and Apache helicopters, a much more expensive and less effective solution. 

As for the other countries picking up the slack, I thought this advertisement for the Swedish Armed Forces would be an interesting addition to the discussion.
http://youtu.be/Vf87lcjbcGM

107 Another existential aspect of our budget is propping up the UN and NATO.  I suppose Doug would be pleased to have the military might of the Congo at the UN's disposal, rather than ours.

108 One thing that is not obvious in this graph is that a very large part of the US Military Budget goes to pay and benefits.    China also has a very large army but it's soldiers are paid only a few dollars a day.     I believe that North Korea has an army probably as big or bigger than the US Army, but in North Korea you join the army in order to eat, I would not be surprised if they are not paid at all.     The size of the forces that we are facing should be considered when we are trying to right-size our military.

109 yea, see the problem is you guys wanted the F-22 built.  So many of us aren't gonna listen when you talk about military equipment and appropriations.

Why did we leave it up to Europe to build the next generation of the LWF(lightweight fighter) program?  They have the true successors to the F-16 and the F/A-18. We're still making gold-plated "starships".

I followed TFX program development rabidly for 25 years.  The U.K., Spain, Germany, and Italy got a superior, true multi-role fighter, for less money and even less political wrangling than we did.

110

Although people will go batshit over this idea, I do believe the first step to reforming a new military is the elimination of West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy.  There should be one military academy that teaches a combined force approach, with specialization after the initial years of courses.

 

This isnÂ’t to save money by reducing the number of institutions, but to eliminate the feeling in each branch that they need the capability to carry out every mission independently. 

111

Our allies (the U.K., France, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and the vast number of nations that make up “Other”) can afford to pay more toward their own defense than they are now.

OK. Then while we're at it, let's get some of the people on welfare to pay their own way as well. Bet this guy isn't quite so keen on that idea.

112

So how about asking the obvious question:

Why does the United States spend about six times more than the next largest military-budget (China)?Why do we spend more than four times what the UK, Germany, and France, combined, spend?Couldn't we get by with just 3X China?  or 2X the EU?Other than the United States, what land are we protecting?  And why?

Posted by: RobM1981

1. We maintain a posture that enables us to 'project force'. We can create an expeditionary force and back it with 14 (?) carrier groups. We maintain forward bases where possible. We are a member of NATO, and we and Canada are the two members farthest from the center of that alliance, so our costs are higher just because of that.

We are the third largest country in terms of population. The EU roughly matches us. A question that can be asked is, why isn't Europe spending more?

113 For the Left, it's all about how much you spend.

For this reason, if you spend a lot, you must have plenty of national security.

Of course, if you spend a lot, you must also have the best health care in the world.

And if you spend a lot, as DC does, you must have the best public school system in the country.

It's almost never about whether it's spent intelligently or not. Except for defense--then, it's ALL about too MUCH spending, by definition.

114 The stupid is strong in this thread.

115 As for the line seen earlier about changing priorities in defense spending, weapons programs have been cut in earlier times due to costs. The B-58 Hustler bomber is one example, as was the XB-70.

116 If we had the military the drastic cutters want us to have, Saddam would still be in power and both he and Iran would be on their way to nuclear weapons because we would not have responded. North Korea would be provoking S Korea constantly if not already had attacked them. China would be licking their chops for Tawain, etc,etc. On the positive side, we'd have enough money for free health care for everyone. Yahoo!

117 123 This.

118

If Europe started spending more on the military, and built actual working armies, then you can be assured that they'd launch us all into another world war as soon as they were able.

That's why we really don't want Europe doing too much militarily.  They are untrustworthy, except that we can be assured that Europe will lead us into a total mess if we give them the power to do so.  That is what Europe does.

Posted by: iknowtheleft

 

My question was not posed as a matter of 'want'. The assertion made was that the US was spending far more than Europe, and "why can't be spend only 2x as much"? The implication made here was that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn was that US spending go down. On the contrary, there is an arguement that European spending, particulary spending in that region and near by regions, should supplement or indded supplant American defense spending.

119

Be that as it may, the fact is that our ships and aircraft are OLD. We need to build more.

Given the fact that we NEED to be massively superior - not just adequate - because unlike the Chinese we do not have 30 million young surplus males, we are hardly spending enough.

Of course we are not getting a lot for our money. A lot of defense spending is simply personnel cost, a lot is pork and a lot is misallocated because the military is also a government bureaucracy. We spend extraordinary amounts developing a world-class fighter like the F-22 and then we don´t build it. That, too, is wasteful. We spend as much on a lightly armed speedboat called the LCS than other nations spend on a multirole frigate. But that doesn´t mean we should just cut spending. And if you have to cut something, cut the diversity programs first.

 

 

120 124: More like we still wouldn't, of course.  Ignoring the fact that there's never enough, you'd have oil cruising to $200 already and other commodities headed for the stratosphere.  That's ignoring the refugee crises, of course--the survivors of the destruction of Israel would probably head for the US as the last 'safe haven', though whether they'd fare well against the raging Islamists and al-Qaeda cells is anyone's guess.

I could go on, but I won't right now.  I guess it's true--the ultimate 'freedom' the Left wants is freedom from consequences.  It's the only thing that jibes with their worldview, whose results would otherwise be uniformly horrific.

121
It is this asinine idea that we are responsible to try and civilize the savages that threaten us that costs so much money.  It isn't our job and, frankly, it severely harms our national security when we assume such guilt in defending ourselves.  That is what must change.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at April 12, 2011 10:09 AM (G/MYk)

The real problem is that we aren't trying to civilize them.  Not in any meaningful way.  Post WWII we didn't allow the Japanese or the Germans to continue with their pre-war behaviors.  Change was imposed on them. 

But nowadays, hell, we won't even ask Mexicans to learn English once they sneak across the border, we start bilingual school programs instead. 

122

"Actually, there's never enough money for free health care." 

Posted by: iknowtheleft at April 12, 2011 10:23 AM (G/MYk)

When we tax you into oblivion then we will have the second greatest health care system in the world, ranking just behind Cuba's perfect system.

123 Demand for a "free" good is infinite.

124

Copied from HA:

HR 1363, the Bill which Congress passed to avoid a gov't shutdown, Sec. 134 states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, for payment in equal shares to the children and grandchildren of Robert C. Byrd, $193,400 is appropriated."

That motherfucker is still robbing us from the grave!! Every republican should VOTE NO! Shine a light on this crap!!

125

In a way he's correct. We've been carrying Europe's dead ass on our shoulders for fifty years. NATO is just a way to heard the Euro-cats more or less in one direction. It, like the UN, is just a formal platform for others to pick our pockets for their own uses.

Pesonally, except for a few listening posts and the odd Command and Control Center for communications and maybe UAV control, I'd say get everyone else out of Europe... TODAY. It's wa-a-a-a-y past time for these Euroweenies to pay the freight.

126 Nation building...why? Why risk American lives to hand out soccer balls and candy. Why spend billions to rebuilld a third world shithole. Eliminate the threat and move on. Fight wars to win and leave. Why are we so enthralled with moral superiority. A civilized nation doesn't mean shit when you let your own people be slaughtered by goat fucking mud hutters. Tora bora should have been nuked, a civilized nation would spare it's own and go for the KO instead of sacrificing it's blood for a split decision.

127 [oops, that Sir Golfsalot post was mine...]

128 "There is no nation on the planet that poses a real threat to the United States in the way that the USSR [did] during the Cold War."


Wrong when considering that Red China has evolved into a major player given China's global alliances not limited to Asia North Korea, but permeating Islamist Africa and the Middle East with alliances, and Latin American industries and nations' military resourcing as well. 

Right only IF literal since the USSR and the Cold War have mutant identities since Reagan. Speaking of mutating identity, America's sensability has altered since embracing and becoming the socialist state that Americans once eschewed. Our own authoritarian federal government poses the greatest threat to the United States of America as the Constitutional Republic is not what functions today in Washington D.C.

Btw, it would be ignorant to attack Ron Paul as an isolationist, ignoring the distinctions between fiscal-warfare Isolationists (Trump is a pro-tariff example of economic Isolationist) and those reflecting the First Principles of our Founding Fathers, namely the Tea Party founders, the constitutional conservatives promoting Liberty honoring states rights settling internal affairs locally, fiscal security and a strong initial anti-intervention stance prior to unconstitutional usurping of war powers by anyone.  

129 "...civilize the savages that threaten us..."

Posted by: iknowtheleft at April 12, 2011 10:09 AM (G/MYk)

We have a narrowly defined obligation to civilize them to the extent that they won't act up and try to kill us. If that isn't possible -- and recent experience suggests that is the case -- then we should simply isolate them and punish them for any transgressions.

I used to think that our adventure in Afghanistan might actually help. But we are ultimately no different than the British and the Soviets. We might be incrementally better at pacification, but the end result will be the same.

130 The Left is trying to do to the military what it did to the rest of the country -- ruin it by consuming the budget with ever more generous health care, pension, education and other benefits and imposing ever more aggressively racist "Diversity" policies.

Obama has gutted and slashed modernization programs. New and future weapons, ships, and planes are dying on the vine. R&D spending is down just as China is starting to catch up.

The Reagan-era Navy will retire soon and there is no money to recapitalize the fleet.

F-22 dead, DDG-1000 dead, CG-X dead. FCS dead. Airborne laser dead. The list goes on.

We are still developing some good tech - especially precision guided weapons. But those are smaller, cheaper and easier to fund.

The 2020s are gonna be a funding trainwreck.

131 You know what is even more expensive than maintaining a large peacetime military?  Losing a war.

Suppose China decides to go for Taiwan, prepares the battlefield adequately-and we lose?

The odds of losing such a regional war go way up if we gut our defense capabilities, unless you think we will nuke China.  Good luck with that.

Don't be fooled.  The cuts will hardly touch weapons systems and platforms.  Those will be protected because they create jobs in Congressional districts.  Think the moonbat leftard Senator from Connecticut not named Lieberman will go along when Electric Boat will lose out on work?  More than likely, most cuts will be in personnel and in obsolescent but still capable platforms like all the frigates and destroyers we got rid of during the 1990s.

132 It would help if the Navy had not totally shit the bed with the development of new ship classes.

133

Think of it as a group project in college. As an example NATO is the project, with all group projects you have to deal with the "freerider" problem. If I am the UK why spend the money, knowing the US has my back? Same with Canada, Mexico, France etc.. This is why the US spends more, to protect our interests, which includes other countries.

Want to burn the leftist up? Apply the same standard to UN funding. I am sure the chart will look almost exactly the same.

134

As for the third conclusion, that we can cut defense spending without harming national security, this is nothing more than a preexisting delusion that Doug and the other liberals who passed that chart around yesterday possess.

Nope, Doug's right, we can easily cut defense spending without harming national security.  Nukes are cheap.

I don't think Doug or anyone else wants to live in a country that nukes a small country every decade or so just to remind the world who's boss, but, yeah, it would be cheap.

135

These are the same kind of rocket surgeons who can't understand why prisons are full if the crime rate is down.

136 His first post cleanly dismisses the idea of asymmetrical warfare. Like it or not, a nuclear first strike is asymmetrical. A relatively small investment can do existential damage, regardless of the military force the target can bring to bear afterwards. Sure, if Russia wiped us out under MAD we would wipe them out -- but we're still wiped out either way.

137

More importantly, the third conclusion directly contradicts Doug's first conclusion. Remember, he just got through saying that high defense spending means that there is no existential threat to the United States and implying that defense spending is correlated with national security. All that goes out the window in the third conclusion.

------

3. We could afford to make serious cuts in our defense budget without threatening our own security.

No it doesn't. WTF are you talking about? 

Consider also that the U.S. responds to even lesser threats by altering, sometimes drastically, national policy. I'm not sure how Doug feels about "enhanced interrogations", but for the liberals he's lining up with such interrogations themselves represent an existential threat to the America they believe in.

So you're saying if we had more tanks and F-18's the CIA wouldn't be interrogating people???

Are you trying to make an argument that the more an adminstration expands the armed services the less they are likely to use them?

The Left's conclusions about this chart aren't really conclusions at all. They're just a list of ever-present beliefs about defense spending in the United States.

May be. But your rebuttal here is an assortment of arguments from ignorance, obsfuscatory wookies and securely phrased assertions.

138 I've always thought DMXroid's idea of lettin' the USSR have Europe maybe was the way to go. The USSR crashed and burned because of their Marxist economic idiocies. If we'd given them Europe they would have had the PIIGS for economic partners and France. Ya wanna win?? Just give France to the enemy. Bwa-ha-ha-ha. It'll serve 'em right.

139 Unmentioned are threats to national security of a lesser nature

This is not true. He wrote, "ThatÂ’s not to say that there arenÂ’t threats out there, but the idea of any nation posing existential threat to the United States is, I think, off the table."

as if to say that since lesser threats are survivable for some of Americans that some losses are acceptable to Doug

This is goofy, leftist-style arguing. Of course some losses are acceptable! Do you think it is possible at any level of defense spending to ensure we have zero losses?

Turn it around and make the subject be any of the pet projects of the left like, um, health care. The logic you employ here is the same as those who say that people who don't want to fund more health care think some deaths from lack of health insurance are acceptable. I suppose you want to keep some of your take-home pay and not devote 100 percent of GDP to defense spending, which means you, too, are willing to accept "some" losses.

I agree that by itself the chart does not evidence how much security the US is getting. Israel spends a lot more on defense than does Iceland, yet Iceland faces much less of an existential threat. Nevertheless, the chart cannot be dismissed by hand-waving either. The burden of proof is on those who believe the US needs to contribute almost 43 percent of the world's defense budget during a time of fiscal insolvency, not the other way around.

I am a conservative who supports the idea of American exceptionalism, by the way. Weak-tea arguments like this post, however, do the conservative cause no good.

140

Like it or not, a nuclear first strike is asymmetrical. A relatively small investment can do existential damage, regardless of the military force the target can bring to bear afterwards.

All of which has little to do with the military defense budget.

As you point out, how much you spend on your army is really quite irrelevant to the threat of some nutjob with a shoebomb getting past TSA agents.

141 The problem of rising personnel and health care costs is a huge one. It's a consuming an ever larger share of the budget and other things -- like weapons programs, R&D, modernization, etc -- are being sacrificed.

And nobody in either party wants to tackle this because it's easy to demagogue anybody who talks about the issue as wanting to cut the health care for wounded troops.

The military is gonna end up shrinking a lot in manpower as a way to try and control personnel costs. There probably won't be the will to cut back on the benefits, in recent years Repubs and Dems have competed to see who can increase the benefits more.

The Navy is constantly trying to get manpower down on ships - lean manning, optimum manning, etc, etc.

The problems of cities and counties with retired teachers and cops consuming a huge and ever growing % of the budget is the same problem the military has with retired supply clerks.

Probably means we'll see ever more automation as the military tries to get things done with fewer and fewer, increasingly expensive, people.

142

The burden of proof is on those who believe the US needs to contribute almost 43 percent of the world's defense budget during a time of fiscal insolvency

To be perfectly fair, the burden of proof is on those who believe the US needs to contribute almost 43% of the world's defense budget during a time of fiscal insolvency, relative peace on the homefront, and nothing remotely approaching a credible set-piece military threat anywhere on the horizon.

143

Haven't read all the comments, so if someone already made this point sorry. But the real importance of the graph is being missed:

Take the chart, cut US defense spending by two thirds,keeping all others the same and see what happens. Existential threats appear all over the place. And that is according this Mataconis idoits own logic. 

144 After the US is defeated in war, what are you going to do with all that Defense money you saved?

145 This thread seems infested with people who don't understand the pare bellum maxim.

146 If you want to have the best military in the world, fight a war every 10 years.  Sad but true.  It gets rid of old equipment, keeps war material production going, allows you to see where old tactics fail and adopt new ones, tests your new quipment, and most importantly, builds your core cadre of harden, experienced, professional Officers nd NCOs.

147

"Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said in a statement Tuesday that while some of his GOP colleagues will support the compromise announced late Friday night, he believes "voters are asking us to set our sights higher."

Jordan heads the Republican Study Committee. He said the committee had pushed for a full $100 billion in cuts from President Barack Obama's budget"

link

148

Of course we want to 'protect our interests abroad'.

But do you ever get the impression we are 'interested' in damn near everything?

We're over here pondering what we are gonna do about riots in Egypt.

Do you fancy Egyptians (or Chinese, or Russians, or UN bureauweenies) pondering what they should do and who's regime they should support in the wake of Tea Party protests?

I rather think we should protect our interests abroad. But 'interests' is a pretty broad term as it is.

Is there a god damn thing under the sun that can't be rhetorically finagled into fitting under the auspice of our 'interest'?

Messrs Merriam and Webster's first definition, a (1) : right, title, or legal share in something (2) : participation in advantage and responsibility seems a sensible starting point but isn't exactly specific in it's criteria either.

The 5th definition, a : a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : concernb : something that arouses such attention is practically the Commerce Clause of global interventionism.

149

This thread seems infested with people who don't understand the pare bellum maxim.

It's usually 'para bellum'.

The question is not so much whether or not we should para bellum, but how much we should para bellum.

I guess it depends on how much pacem si vis. Me, not that much.

150 All that pie chart tells me is that if all of the other countries ganged up on the United States we would get our asses kicked.

Time to spend more on defense.

151 Maybe its just me but I think we have the exact number that invites our enemies to attack us and succeed. The FY2000 defense budget: $260 billion.

152

Problem with "interests" abroad is that practically anything can lead to practically anything.

Egypt's government as such is not an interest of ours--except if we get all humanitarian about an Egyptian dictator as opposed to, say, a Zimbabwean dictator.  But if you think that the wrong government in Egypt will destabilize the area, cause wars, increase the cost of oil--to others even if we use only North American oil--much could go wrong that would cause us great trouble. On the other hand, much might not go wrong no matter what, or what does go wrong does so because of something else. However, we may be worrying about riots in Egypt, but we're not bombing anybody there.

Consider a chessboard.  If you lose a piece here, a position there, none of them are very important, until the last one.  Then you either yield or kick over the board.  Rather not do either.  See T. R. Fehrenbach, "This Kind of War".

153

 

#95

We probably could have left Afghanistan in 2003 and let them know if we had to come back for any reason it would be flyovers with B-52s and thousands of tons of ordinance.

I want Ben on my side when the SHTF. If you have to fight someone, the Le May model works well...

154

Launch an initiative to copy the Israeli intelligence and national security model (all qualms about their methods aside from some quarters, they do a very, very good job -- because they take it seriously); launch another initiative to copy the Swiss model of a civilian army well trained and capable of being mustered in 12 hours -- it would help a lot towards our own national security and might reduce costs down the road (plus during peacetime they can be used for national security -- hello, Mexico).

Politically, we probably need to go back to being more neutral in regards to some countries and more aggressive/destructive in our response to others -- no more global policeman, no more winnng hearts and minds, no more helping those who turn around and frak us.  That would likely keep some of our military spending costs down as well.

Oh, and get our economy back on track -- we can't have national security without that ingredient.

155 I don't think Doug or anyone else wants to live in a country that nukes a small country every decade or so just to remind the world who's boss, but, yeah, it would be cheap.

Speak for yourself.

156

After the US is defeated in war...

BY WHOM?!?

The ONLY other entity on the planet that has a snowballs chance in hell of approaching credibility of a threat (note: not neccessarily even an actual threat, but merely puffing enough to achieve some shred of hypothetical credibility) is China. And China alone.

Any other suggestion will just produce snickering and guffaws.

China itself is quite debatable. They are very good at errecting facades, but most of them still don't have toilets, or know how to read.

157

And if you think occupying Iraq is tough, try occupying North America, with 100 million pissed off Americans with guns.

Best of luck with that one.

I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

There isn't a force in the world that could occupy us except maybe our own forces.

158

bullshit on all of this and all of you rethugsican'ts

if you were serious about the military you would be out there getting your congress critters to give the retired military at least a 75% raise!!!  show you care

good morning all

159

169  There isn't a force in the world that could occupy us except maybe our own forces

illegal aliens and canadian singers call bullshit

160

After the US is defeated in war...

BY WHOM?!?

The ONLY other entity on the planet that has a snowballs chance in hell of approaching credibility of a threat (note: not neccessarily even an actual threat, but merely puffing enough to achieve some shred of hypothetical credibility) is China. And China alone.

Any other suggestion will just produce snickering and guffaws.

China itself is quite debatable. They are very good at errecting facades, but most of them still don't have toilets, or know how to read.<<<Entropy

Or China and its allies.  The problem with drawing down is that your enemy can anticipate how big a coalition is then necessary to kick your ever-lovin' ass.

161

Oh come on. What allies?

If China + allies attack us, then the threat is still just China.

After that is over, we have free reign to pimp slamp whichever allies we want.

Venezeula? Iran? North Korea, aka the Hermit Kingdom? None of these fucktards could credibly take over Bangor Maine.

And that is to say nothing of OUR allies.

Granted, we don't like to say much of our allies because they are fucking ridiculous and nearly worthless compared to us.

But so are all our enemies. Compared to NORTH Korea, South Korea looks like a goddamn proper power.

You really think Iran can just up and send all it's military abroad? There wouldn't be a country to come back to.

162

In raw rough numbers, the US spent about $600 billion to China's $100 billion.  Why the hell does the US need to spend so much?  And why does the US military need still need bases in Europe and most of the rest of the world?  And why does the US military need PXs on its bases when Wal-Marts and Krogers are readily available in most cases.  And why hasn't the US military done more to outsource things like food service, supply chain, etc...

You get my point.  There's tons and tons of money to be cut by the US military before one thin dime gets cut from Medicare or Social Security.

163 168

After the US is defeated in war...

BY WHOM?!?

Posted by: Entropy at April 12, 2011 11:29 AM (IsLT6)

By Vietnam, by Somalia, by Lebanon....and we're working on Libya and Afghanistan.

And each little defeat in a faraway place makes the next little skirmish that much more likely.

164 $600 billion to China's $100 billion.  Why the hell does the US need to spend so much?
--Everything we buy costs six times as much. There's six times as many of them. You're overpaid, and you don't breed enough.
why does the US military need still need bases in Europe
--Experience has proven Europe a beautiful battlefield. My place, not so much. Yours?
why does the US military need PXs?
--WalMart Diego Garcia is fresh out of Skol. 
And why hasn't the US military done more to outsource
--You won't mind going barefoot during a Chinese attack. Infantry feels otherwise. They're funny that way.

The next war will be CyberWar! Hokay! Here's a clue: the US could be taken out by Sri effin Lanka. Just read our comment boards. Their programmers speak better English.

165 Right. Comparing money spent is *not* the same thing as comparing military capacity. The bulk of the DoD budget goes to pay and benefits: the Chinese of course pay their vast armed forces pennies. Similarly, they only have to pay Chinese prices for weapons and equipment- which are rapidly approaching ours in sophistication.

166 "Nope, Doug's right, we can easily cut defense spending without harming national security. Nukes are cheap. I don't think Doug or anyone else wants to live in a country that nukes a small country every decade or so just to remind the world who's boss, but, yeah, it would be cheap." Back in the late 40s, Hap Arnold and the Bomber Barons argued for abolishing the Army, Navy and Marines: B-36s with nukes aboard were the complete answer for everything. Then the North Koreans swarmed across the 38th....

167

By Vietnam, by Somalia, by Lebanon....and we're working on Libya and Afghanistan.

WTF were we doing there to begin with?

I don't remotely doubt we can lose conflicts in faraway places and/or fail to occupy places for years and years and years due to continued resistance outweighing the non-benefit non-reason for being there in the first place, until we finally just say fuck it and leave.

Militarily, we were never defeated in any of those places. We just said fuck it and left because we were sick of fighting.

In the case of Vietnam, we won every battle, and bugged out on the eve of our victory, which would have allowed us to occupy them for 40 years.

In Somalia, in Lebanon, we bugged out as soon as the fighting started. We didn't lose a war... we never fought a war. We walked away from a war.

None of these places has any ability to carry said conventional conflicts outside their own borders. They cannot bomb Hawaii or occupy Alaska.

And each little defeat in a faraway place makes the next little skirmish that much more likely.

Only if we go there looking for it.

168

If you mean it 'makes the next skirmish more likely' in the sense that, when we go around occupying places, the locals are more likely to resist us if they've seen examples of other places successfully resisting occupation, you are correct.

But so what?

Losing in Afghanistan is not going to embolden Cuba to make a play for Tampa Bay.

That's fucking ridiculous, and everyone and his grandmother knows we could sink the island and be home in time for dinner if we wanted to.

169 Then the North Koreans swarmed across the 38th....

...and the Soviets mobilized their agents in Truman's State Dept.

General Arnold failed to account for his country running out of balls.

170 So who gets cut?  You going to put the Joe with 15 years and 4 tours in Iraq out on his ear (better hurry, he's close to sanctuary)?  The pilot who has faithfully served but is now displaced by drones?  Who gets to go to save some dough?  When they downsized in the early 90s I know guys who had 16 years of active duty who were shown the door (allowed to join the resreves, but still lost the chnace to reitre at 20 years).  Nobody here has addressed that-somebody have enough integrity to tell us which GIs you are willing to ax.

171

Why the hell does the US need to spend so much?  And why does the US military need still need bases in Europe and most of the rest of the world? 

Maintaining some semblence of global order is expensive, but the alternative is a lot worse when you have an economy that is tied into the rest of the world as intensely as ours is, and modern travel makes it a lot easier for bad guys to come here.  And if you want to project power around the world to defend your interests, those bases are necessary. 

And why does the US military need PXs on its bases when Wal-Marts and Krogers are readily available in most cases. 

Because a nice PX instead of a shitty Wal-Mart makes life more bearable when you and and your family are stationed in the ass-end of bumfuck, USA.  Plus, Wal-Mart doesn't like sending it's employees out to FOB Shank to run a troop store...

And why hasn't the US military done more to outsource things like food service, supply chain, etc...

Have you been paying attention for the last ten fucking years?!  The military has been outsourcing like crazy, and companies like KBR and Fluor have made a fortune.  Our DFACs are already run mostly by civilians with a few food service specialists to monitor shit.  Half of our IT guys are contractors as well.  But ultimately, an Army marches on it's stomach, so you better damn well have a solid corps of greensuiters who know how the hell to get all those beans and bullets to the front when needed, because you can't trust some third world truck driver when things go pear shaped.

172

"I'm of the opinion that we should have a more powerful navy and airforce at the expense of our ground forces. It's pretty clear that control of the seas and sky  can keep america safe from other nation states. Do we really need so many troops?  We're not exactly protecting the Fulda gap anymore.  However control of the major sea lanes is important"

I submit that we don't have "so many troops". You're correct that we're not at the fulda gap anymore so we cut from 15-18 divisions to just 10 in the 90's as part of the so called peace dividend. The 10 divisions was supposed to help us fight to two major conflicts and a small one simultaneously. How's that worked out? Not too well as we've dragged in the national guard and they've taken a lion's share of the burden with deployments. Lately, there's been a lot of robbing of peter to pay paul to make units deployable and that's just to two conflicts that aren't at the "major" level.

We don't want to have a repeat of task force Smith, where we got our asses handed to us in Korea due to lack of proper manning, equipment, and training.

173

Nobody here has addressed that-somebody have enough integrity to tell us which GIs you are willing to ax.

So your argument is that the military is a make-work program for people who can't find employment elsewhere????

At any rate, I wouldn't suggest we save the cash by cutting the soldiers. I'd cut some of the billion dollar hardware, and I'd stop airlifting soldiers around to various godforsaken corners of the earth to play Occupational Police Force.

But if soldiers are getting layed off, soldiers are getting layed off. God forbid the government lays people off. It's not personal, but the purpose of the military forces is not to simply employ people in perpituity.

Any more than the purpose of military bases is not to stimulate local economies.

174

Losing in Afghanistan is not going to embolden Cuba to make a play for Tampa Bay.

Posted by: Entropy at April 12, 2011 12:32 PM (IsLT6)

Losing in Somalia hasn't done much good for US-flagged ships in adjacent waters.

Losing in Vietnam shanked the idea that "being friends and allies with the US" should be a high national priority.

It's one thing to say, "we shouldn't be the world's cop" -- but the other side of this is a sharp distinction between lawful and lawless regions, with most of the world as lawless. And that's the part of the world our ships sail through, our planes fly over, our citizens visit and trade with, and our energy comes from.

175

Specifically, I'd be interesting in cutting the things that better enable them to be prepared to be airlifted to some far off hellhole to play occupational police force.

Like the military bases in Germany, the Mid-east, South Korea and Okinawa.

Perhaps we should keep a few. But in geopolitical/regional terms, SK and Oki are redundant.

And Iraq makes Germany redundant.

176

It's one thing to say, "we shouldn't be the world's cop" -- but the other side of this is a sharp distinction between lawful and lawless regions

Oh, because playing World Cop has been so successful.

What, you wanted to invade Somalia too?

Still want to?

177

"So your argument is that the military is a make-work program for people who can't find employment elsewhere????"

Well no, but I think if anyone has earned the right to continue to draw a check until at least retirement its the guys who we've asked to sacrifice a great deal over the last few years.  Sending someone off on multiple deployments and then showing him the door within when it is all over is pretty sorry.

More than a few here were cheerleaders for the war not so long ago (I don't know if that applies to you or not), but it's interesting to see how quickly they are ready to show Tommy the door now that his usefullness to them has ended.

178

Lawless regions are a perfect trial ground for modern day privateers, by which I mean organizations like South Africa's former Executive Outcomes, or Blackwater.

If there is no law in the region, let someone who pleases hire something like XO to go fuck em up.

Or alternatively, let some other government like Russia pick up the slack, and give them diplomatic cover because frankly I don't care if the Ruskis kill everyone on the Somali coast.

If a significant number of people want to intervene militarily everywhere, and it seems they do, let them do so. I won't stop you. But don't use the public military... you people pay for it, and use your own forces.

XO had an excellent track record before weenie international politicos shut them down. They did a lot of good things. And they terrified a lot of kleptocrats because as a modernized, disciplined, private mercenary military force they were more powerful then a great deal of state militaries in those crapass regions you are so worried about.

179 Alex, sorry, but you haven't pursuaded me. Cut the PXs in the US and let people go to Wal Mart instead and eliminate most of our oversea bases. 

180

If you posit that Europe spending more money on defense is destabilizing, then you cannot simultaneously posit that the United States spending so much on defense is stabilizing.  Calling them "untrustworthy" implies that they are the only people on earth who would take their enormous power and thrust themselves into unprovoked war. 

Like bombing Libya, or things like that.

Projecting Force is merely code for "Being the world's police force."  And like the police in any inner city, that makes you the enemy of the people.  The world doesn't *want* a police force.

Where is the common sense here?  If we're not going to pound Pakistan, and Iran, and every other nuclear-muslim nation, then what is the plan?  How about investing more in Missile Defense and less on the F-22?  Or how about building more F-22's and drones, which are developed and deployed, and cancelling the F-35? 

Fourteen CVBG's?  What on earth for?  What white-water battles are we preparing for?  What is the current version of "Plan Orange" that requires even 4 CVBG's?

Unless we are planning on going to war with everyone, all at once, it's very hard to defend spending 43% of the world's defense dollars.  In fact, it's absurd.

That's not force projection, and it's not global policing.  It's just stupid.

181

174 Because Americans (up until this point at least) have considered it worthwhile to have our soldiers well equiped, trained, and provided for so they have a better chance of making it home.

China, outside of a few divisions, still believes in the role of cannon fodder.  And they don't have to pay well or take care of them well because they have a police state (our guys don't live in a police state or a country that doesn't have a problem wasting a few hundred thousand of them in a few engagements).

169 I want to see us as even more of a nasty proposition to handle -- plus I think this might be a way to negotiate welfare, deal with illegals, and cope with our rather laissez faire population (I've heard arguments that only those who own property, who pay taxes should vote, yada yada...and those arguments can have holes blown in them...but a requirement that all citizens take that oath of service and defend the country if need be...well, that might weed out the slackers a bit better than the taxes or property thing, huh?)

182

Well no, but I think if anyone has earned the right to continue to draw a check until at least retirement its the guys who we've asked to sacrifice a great deal over the last few years. 

That's what his pension is for. Not his continued employment.

Sending someone off on multiple deployments and then showing him the door within when it is all over is pretty sorry.

Oh well. Permanent employment was never part of the deal he signed on to.

Besides - if you people were listening to me, he wouldn't have been sent on multiple deployments and asked to make all those sacrifices in the first place.

And that's really a very very key part.

I don't JUST want to pay less for the military, I want them used less too. I don't want to pay less and ask for just as much - I want to pay less expecting to get less from them as well.

So the argument that, because they have done so much, we need to keep finding more for them to do, seems to me quite lame.

It is in Tommy's name that will we send Tommy to go die on some goat farm in buttfuckistan while his general's praise the "Holy Qu'ran" and play pattycake with the diplomats representing the people who are shooting him?

It's for honoring Tommy's sacrifices that we go find more things for him to sacrifice for? Oh no, let's not lay him off... let's just find another war.

God forbid some 3rd world redneck will knock off a cargo ship or something. Better we should get another couple thousand kids killed.

183

Unless we are planning on going to war with everyone, all at once, it's very hard to defend spending 43% of the world's defense dollars.  In fact, it's absurd.

That's not force projection, and it's not global policing.  It's just stupid.

I'm not saying some modifications to lesser numbers might be the thing to do BUT having more capability than most of the rest o'the world isn't stupid. It's leverage. Leverage to accomplish other things besides purely military objectives.

184 To what extent does "U.S. spends 6x as much on defense as China" need to be adjusted due to relative costs?   To the extent that China's expenditures cover personnel and China-built hardware they get far greater bang for the buck than we do, right?   I.e. we spend 6x as many dollars as the Chinese but don't get 6x as much military for it? 

185

"That's what his pension is for.":

Entropy-did you miss the part where I said "until at least retirement".  You do understand that a GI has to get to at least 20 years to draw a pension don't you?

THe expectation that you will be allowed to re-enlist if you do what is asked of you is fairly implicit.

Those deployments have already happened-kicking the guys who made them out now shows that the government has bargained in bad faith with those whom it has asked the most of.  If were prepared to do that to make sure that the various other socialist boondoggles the Washington whiz kids want to prop up stay funded then we are screwed the next time we really need someone to step up and answer the call, cause no one is going to trust the government to make sure that future soldiers won't also get royally screwed over.

186

"Maintaining some semblence of global order" is not authorized by the Constitution.

Get a fucking ammendment.

How is what you're doing with our military any different than what the progs will do with the EPA?

You're kinda just like "Fuck it. S'good. We like it". What happened to the Constitution Mr. Ostensibly Conservative?

Seriously how do you get off spending my money and wasting American lives just to protect global commerce?

You know who's gonna wind up eventually in charge of that global order, don't you? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You think it's one institution the marxists won't march through?

You can't think of a better way to protect global commerce (like, I dunno, arming the merchants - it's worked before) than centralized government control?

And then half of you will turn around and demand populist trade terriffs to block the commerce and outsourcing you just died defending. Jesus.

187

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, but Mataconis is making a fundamental error in his consideration of "existential threats" by implicitly assuming that that necessarily entails foreign troops marching down Main Street.

Our existence includes our way of life, and that can be threatened - and destroyed - without setting foot in this country. Our existence in present form depends on free trade and access to energy, both of which come down to freedom of the seas. That's why we spend so much money, as the British did before us.

Insecure trade routes and threats to the oil supply would make our economy crash and burn, and that is an existential threat.

In similar fashion, Islamoterrorism is an existential threat too. One anthrax/nerve gas attack at the Super Bowl would trigger airport-like searches before entering any public venue. The disruption, expense, and paranoia similarly constitute an existential threat. Our way of life, as we now know it, would be gone.

188 "Ammendment"? "Terriffs"?
"Ostensibly" is a lot easier to spell than I thought it was.

189 200

"Maintaining some semblence of global order" is not authorized by the Constitution.

Posted by: Entropy at April 12, 2011 01:30 PM (IsLT6)

Yeah, if this discussion seems old and outdated, see "Barbary Pirates".

190

Our existence includes our way of life, and that can be threatened - and destroyed - without setting foot in this country. Our existence in present form depends on free trade and access to energy, both of which come down to freedom of the seas.

Ah, what a wonderfully expansive penumbra. You've turned a hijacked oil tanker in foreign waters into an 'existential threat to our way of life' by virtue of your semantic maneuvering.

That's limitless. It's completely unconstrained and unlimited. Commerce Clause style baby.

Get an ammendment.

"Ostensibly" is a lot easier to spell than I thought it was.

Excellent substansive point. I withdraw all my arguments.

Oh wait. No I don't.

191

Yeah, if this discussion seems old and outdated, see "Barbary Pirates".

Right, because the Barbary pirates were slaughtering their own people so we had to intervene for humanitarian reasons.

No wait, they were contemplated a communist realignment so we had to contain them.

No wait... they were attacking our ships, abducting American citizens and demanding ransom, which was considered to be an act of war, so we stomped the fuck out of them and then left.

You want to make the argument that Somali pirates kidnapping Americans is an act of war, and then stomp on Somali, whatever. I'm not going to dismiss that. I'm not a fucking pacifist.

You can make the same argument for Afghanistan and even Iraq, although it's quite dubious with Iraq.

But none of that endorses the idea it's either our entitlement or our responsibility to run around imposing 'order' on the whole goddamn world.

192 Maybe if we weren't so damned accommodating to the losers it would cost less.  ex.  The French are old school -- if they put a beatdown on you, they pretty much just leave then let you bleed out after the shooting is over. 

193

First of all, the % of the world defense spending that should be ours should start at the % of the world's economy that we are, so any "per capita" discussion is crap. It's the economy that is being defended (the economy inherently includes land and people), and it's the economy that's footing the bill. So you would expect a number of about 25%, just to start.

But you can add a premium right off the bat, for being the biggest target.

Even with that, it seems like we're still kind of high on spending. You'd think it could be reasonably done at a level in the $600B-$700B range. I mean, really - when we walk into these wars these days we're almost like the aliens in Independence Day or War of the Worlds. Not that that's a bad thing, it just seems like a hint that we could stop ramping it up, or even trim back a little. After all, we are buying this stuff with our grandchildren's money.

194

I mean, really - when we walk into these wars these days we're almost like the aliens in Independence Day or War of the Worlds.

And then we shoot hundred-million or billion dollar bullets at dirty illiterate goat farmers who would be lucky to amass $15.87 over the course of their entire wretched little lives.

That's one thing for national security.

Are billions in warmaking warranted to secure a trade route?

195

I mean hell, if this is the principle:

Our existence includes our way of life, and that can be threatened - and destroyed - without setting foot in this country. Our existence in present form depends on free trade and access to energy, both of which come down to freedom of the seas.

You can make the argument that anyone who doesn't sign a free trade agreement with us is threatening our way of life, invade, and force them.

If our existence depends on free trade and you deny us free trade, then you're threatening our existence right?

Kinda like how they opened up Japan.

196

Can I at least get some concensus that sailing warships into Japanese ports and demanding they trade or else is not a nice thing?

Or are some of us on board with that kind of behavior?

It's kind of like you've the statist big-government dems on the one side, a bunch of statist big-gov republicans who really don't object to centralized and unlimited authority, they just want to be ones governing it, on the other.

And you've got a bunch of republicans who really don't seem to object to the marxist's premise that the US should be subsumed and subservient to some cockamamie corrupt-as-all-hell abusive world government, populated by the likes of the UN, the ICC, 'humanitarian' NGO's and international laws.

They just fancy a different flavor.

197

Looks to me like we are slipping a bit. Also, because we spend this much, the "friendly" nations of Europe spend less, and the "not so friendly" nations spend less as well.

A better graph would be one that shows entitlement spending per nation per capita. That is the graph that is really killing us as a nation.

198 "That's what his pension is for.":

Entropy-did you miss the part where I said "until at least retirement".  You do understand that a GI has to get to at least 20 years to draw a pension don't you?

THe expectation that you will be allowed to re-enlist if you do what is asked of you is fairly implicit.

Those deployments have already happened-kicking the guys who made them out now shows that the government has bargained in bad faith with those whom it has asked the most of.  If were prepared to do that to make sure that the various other socialist boondoggles the Washington whiz kids want to prop up stay funded then we are screwed the next time we really need someone to step up and answer the call, cause no one is going to trust the government to make sure that future soldiers won't also get royally screwed over."

--CavMedic, in private enterprise, employees are cut/downsized/have their pay and benefits reduced all the time because of budget problems and irrespective of whether they've vested in their pensions (if any).

199

Sorry we are the most expensive, not the largest.  Also anybody think China is giving it's real number?

 

200

Entropy-did you miss the part where I said "until at least retirement".

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't really itching to lay off soldiers anyway?

So instead of firing them, just don't replace them and scale down over time. I'm not butthurt, I'd be happy.

I'm not out to screw soldiers, and nor will I buy into the line that we need to ever expand our warfighting in order to benefit the people who will be killed by it.

Let's not quibble over knits here. I don't think I'm being in any way unreasonable or crazy in my perspective. I'm not a pacifist, I'm not an isolationist. I'm not scarcely advocating anything radical, it's an issue of degrees.

Much like I'm not saying the US should never enter foreign wars. I'm not. I'm saying they shouldn't enter so damn many foreign wars, and ought to have better thought out criteria for when they do, and this foggy-headed anything-goes neo-imperialism nonsense is nonsense.

Alot of people seem willing to countenance anything under the sanction of 'our interests', in an ever expansive fashion.

Yet ask those same people what the hell our interests are, in Libya, in Bosnia, in Somalia, and they'll likely tell you we had none!

And yet.... there we are.

But by no means should we limit the scope of our global ambitions, heaven's no. Let's keep rationalizing justifications for "whatever the fuck" and then be shocked when we keep doing this shit and people die in one foreign fiasco after another. Let's go occupy Afghanistan for 20 years so our generals can lecture us about how we need to ditch the 1st ammendment in order to accomodate our new disfunctional and non-profitable colony of barbaric cave men living on a fucking rock in the middle of nowhere.

There is not a tree to hang a man from in Afghanistan, nor enough water to drown him in, nor dirt to bury him in. Why are US servicemen dying for Afghani's sake?

Do you study history? I am myself fairly convinced that it was not Caesar, nor even Augustus, that ended the Roman Republic - it was the Roman Empire. The two were incompatible.

You may say "Oh, don't be a moonbat, we don't have an empire!"

No, we have all the detriments and costs and duties of an empire with none of the benefits, whatsoever. What we have is far fucking stupider than an empire. Would that we were at least exploiting these neolithic cretins enough to cover the expense of invading and occupying the godawful place they can't manage themselves.

And you'll find people going off about 'what we need to do about Egypt' or whatever. Not a god damn thing. Egypt is none of your fucking business. The Egyptians are entitled to self determination.

Our "interest", however, is infinite. Plenty of people are interested in what kind of government will come out of Egypt. But your interest is no sane reason to go over there and shoot people. I absolutely do not want to run the world. The best idiots we can seem to find to put in charge of things here at home can scarcely run their own country as it is.

I do not think a little "do unto others as you would have done unto you" in our foreign policy would kill us.

As surely as I don't want the UN or the Arab League to come over here and try to dictate the terms by which Wisconsin will settle it's labor disputes, I don't give a fuck what's going on in Tunisia so long as it stays in Tunisia. We don't have the right, and if we were smart, we wouldn't have the desire either. It's none of our damn business.

201 It's disappointing to see the number of emotional appeals and guilt trips made by conservatives regarding the military. Certainly we should not screw over veterans, but the time is coming in this country that, just as with so many other promises our government has made, if we don't do something, we're going to be unable to meet our obligations.

Remember that in the old days soldiers were frequently drafted against their will and still sent home once the war was over...because military service was an obligation of all citizens. The soldiers of today have volunteered and chosen their career path. It is true they defend all of us, but they are not particularly in place to defend me: they are defending their nation, their comrades, themselves, and their family. At some point all this emphasis on money seems to be out of guilt and a kind of "I'll pay so-and-so to take my place and keep my conscience clean that I'm not doing the dirty work." Our conscience pricks us worse because the burden and risk are no longer equally shared. Sorry, the two aren't equivalent and although soldiers no doubt appreciate the advocacy and support, that alone doesn't level the playing field.

Bring back the draft and make the *real* sacrifice equal. A desirable side effect of such a policy might likewise reduce the glib support for making every brushfire in every pisshole throughout the world an American interest.

If we really need all this personnel to be secure during a time when we can no longer afford to pay a soldier what he or she is worth, the government has other means besides taxation to ensure resource needs are met. If the threats we face are so great that we must spend more than the next nine budgets combined, why would anyone not support a draft to preserve our existence as a nation against such dangerous and over-whelming foes?