Yes We Can Cut the Defense Budget: Why it's Time to Stop the Military Spending Spree

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation

Last month, Congressman Barney Frank called for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget -- approximately $150 billion in annual spending -- saying, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

Predictably, the Republican backlash was swift. House Minority Leader John Boehner called Frank "incredibly irresponsible." House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee ranking member John McHugh (R-NY) labeled the proposed reduction "unconscionable." Democrats -- especially those on the House Armed Services Committee -- didn't exactly embrace Frank's target, either.

But Congressman Frank isn't backing down. In an e-mail to me yesterday he wrote, "Much of the reduction will come from ending the war in Iraq and from cutting unneeded weapons systems. I believe that it's appropriate to reduce defense spending, and this is a goal I wanted to set. I don't have specific details at this point, but I will be working with my colleagues to identify weapons systems that we can reduce, and I also want to look at drawing down the number of our overseas bases."

Even a senior Pentagon advisory group -- the Defense Business Board -- recently concluded that the current budget is "not sustainable." And according to the Boston Globe, "Pentagon insiders and defense budget specialists say the Pentagon has been on a largely unchecked spending spree since 2001 that will prove politically difficult to curtail but nevertheless must be reined in."

The current budget allots over $500 billion to defense, and an additional $200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a recent editorial in the New York Times tells us, the budget is "nearly equal to all of the rest of the world's defense budgets combined." It represents 57 percent of the total discretionary budget.

In Unified Security Budget for the United States, FY 2009, research fellow Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, outline not only cuts that need to be made to implement a sane defense budget, but also the shift in priorities required to confront the real security challenges of the 21st century. The Unified Security Budget (USB) pulls "together in one place U.S. spending on all of its security tools: tools of offense (military forces), defense (homeland security) and prevention (non-military international engagement.) This tool would make it easier for Congress to consider overall security spending priorities and the best allocation of them."

In a recent DefenseNews op-ed, Pemberton and Korb write: "The balance between our spending on military forces and other security tools -- like diplomacy, nonproliferation, foreign aid and homeland security -- needs to change."

For example, the USB demonstrates that forgoing the scheduled increase in the troubled F-22 fighter jet for FY 2008 -- $800 million -- would be sufficient to triple the amount spent on debt cancellation in the world's poorest countries. Or increase by 50 percent US contributions to international peacekeeping operations. Or triple the amount allocated in FY 2007 for domestic rail and transit security programs.

Along the same lines, canceling the Bush administration's initiative to build offensive space weapons could provide the $800 million needed to double the originally requested annual budget for the State Department's Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization.

The report offers $56 billion in cuts to spending on offensive weapons, and $50 billion in new expenditures on defense and prevention. It transforms the Bush administration's 9:1 ratio of spending on offense as compared to defense and prevention, to 5:1. According to the report, "This budget would emphasize working with international partners to resolve conflicts and tackle looming human security problems like climate change; preventing the spread of nuclear materials by means other than regime change; and addressing the root causes of terrorism, while protecting the homeland against it."

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts also released a report last year -- Just Security -- which details how $213 billion could be cut from U.S. military spending. Even with this cut the U.S. would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries.

Look for an inside-outside strategy to reframe the debate on the defense budget to emerge in the coming weeks. This week, the new American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation (of which I'm a board member) will coordinate a meeting between progressive thinkers like Pemberton and members of the Progressive Caucus to discuss the issue of unsustainable defense spending, alternatives to the status quo, and tactics and strategies on how to win this debate.

Progressives are under no illusions as to the obstacles to making a real and meaningful shift in the way the U.S. approaches the defense budget. As Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information told the Globe, "The forces arrayed against terminating defense programs are today so powerful that if you try to do that it will be like the British Army at the Somme in World War I. You will just get mowed down by the defense industry and military services' machine guns." Or, as even the Bush Administration's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said of the scant resources devoted to the diplomatic corps as compared to military equipment, "Diplomacy simply does not have the built-in, domestic constituency of defense programs."

With increased public awareness of the misplaced priorities of the past eight years -- runaway defense spending being no exception -- and the growing demands and dangers of our cratering economy and broken healthcare system, now is the moment for citizens to seize and organize around an alternative vision that reflects our determined idealism and grounded realism.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Last month, Congressman Barney Frank called for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget -- approximately $150 billion in annual spending -- saying, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

25% is nuts.

And it's a politically bad idea too. Yes, let's ensure Obama is nothing more than a 1-term President. Good thing Obama has enough sense to ignore the kooky left when necessary.

[Laura+Tom 2]

I was under the impression that the US military was for strapped for cash. For example they have halted recruiting British civilians at the American bases here as the USAF can't afford to pay the Ministry of Defence for them.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Laura+Tom

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Last month, Congressman Barney Frank called for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget -- approximately $150 billion in annual spending -- saying, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

25% is nuts.

And it's a politically bad idea too. Yes, let's ensure Obama is nothing more than a 1-term President. Good thing Obama has enough sense to ignore the kooky left when necessary.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts also released a report last year -- Just Security -- which details how $213 billion could be cut from U.S. military spending. Even with this cut the U.S. would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I was under the impression that the US military was for strapped for cash. For example they have halted recruiting British civilians at the American bases here as the USAF can't afford to pay the Ministry of Defence for them.

The issue is allocation of resources within the military, not the size of the overall budget.

BTW that's a problem in many organizations. Organizational inertia and political pressures get in the way of being a truly nimble organization.

Last month, Congressman Barney Frank called for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget -- approximately $150 billion in annual spending -- saying, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

25% is nuts.

And it's a politically bad idea too. Yes, let's ensure Obama is nothing more than a 1-term President. Good thing Obama has enough sense to ignore the kooky left when necessary.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts also released a report last year -- Just Security -- which details how $213 billion could be cut from U.S. military spending. Even with this cut the U.S. would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries.

So?

25% is still nuts. Do you realize how disruptive a one-shot cut of that magnitude would be???

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

barney's an idiot.

[almaty 19]

Last month, Congressman Barney Frank called for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget -- approximately $150 billion in annual spending -- saying, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

bullshit....too big a cut..too quickly

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I was under the impression that the US military was for strapped for cash. For example they have halted recruiting British civilians at the American bases here as the USAF can't afford to pay the Ministry of Defence for them.

The issue is allocation of resources within the military, not the size of the overall budget.

BTW that's a problem in many organizations. Organizational inertia and political pressures get in the way of being a truly nimble organization.

Last month, Congressman Barney Frank called for a 25 percent cut in the defense budget -- approximately $150 billion in annual spending -- saying, "We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

25% is nuts.

And it's a politically bad idea too. Yes, let's ensure Obama is nothing more than a 1-term President. Good thing Obama has enough sense to ignore the kooky left when necessary.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts also released a report last year -- Just Security -- which details how $213 billion could be cut from U.S. military spending. Even with this cut the U.S. would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries.

So?

25% is still nuts. Do you realize how disruptive a one-shot cut of that magnitude would be???

Frank wasn't advocating an across the board, one-shot cut. He said he would look into the different areas where we can cut military spending. Continuing the current budget makes absolutely no sense.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Continuing the current budget makes absolutely no sense.

I'll let the people who actually know what our actual and potential threats are decide that.

[SteveLaura 0]

Continuing the current budget makes absolutely no sense.

I'll let the people who actually know what our actual and potential threats are decide that.

Wuss. Where's yer rifle & pitchfork?

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

Frank wasn't advocating an across the board, one-shot cut. He said he would look into the different areas where we can cut military spending. Continuing the current budget makes absolutely no sense.

Recent history has shown that in a time of military change in the United States, particularly after an extended period of combat, the Armed Forces have the potential to regress into a “hollow force” – that is, a force with a large number of troops but without an adequate budget to pay for training and equipment modernization.

link

The term "hollow force" was coined by former Army Chief of Staff Edward "Shy" Meyer in regard to the period immediately after Vietnam. A lack of resources and innovation combined with low morale meant, despite having an Army that looked strong on paper because of its large numbers, the United States? senior service was in reality poorly prepared to fight. In retrospect, the term has also been applied to the period after World War II.

link

Edited November 19, 2008 by charles!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Frank wasn't advocating an across the board, one-shot cut. He said he would look into the different areas where we can cut military spending. Continuing the current budget makes absolutely no sense.

Recent history has shown that in a time of military change in the United States, particularly after an extended period of combat, the Armed Forces have the potential to regress into a "hollow force" – that is, a force with a large number of troops but without an adequate budget to pay for training and equipment modernization.

link

The term "hollow force" was coined by former Army Chief of Staff Edward "Shy" Meyer in regard to the period immediately after Vietnam. A lack of resources and innovation combined with low morale meant, despite having an Army that looked strong on paper because of its large numbers, the United States? senior service was in reality poorly prepared to fight. In retrospect, the term has also been applied to the period after World War II.

link

Look, just like any government program - there can be excess spending and inadequate spending. The issue of cutting our current military budget isn't an ideological argument, but based on necessity. We cannot sustain our current military spending.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

And I thought Barney was a missle lover.

[Dan J 277]

Frank wasn't advocating an across the board, one-shot cut. He said he would look into the different areas where we can cut military spending. Continuing the current budget makes absolutely no sense.

Recent history has shown that in a time of military change in the United States, particularly after an extended period of combat, the Armed Forces have the potential to regress into a "hollow force" – that is, a force with a large number of troops but without an adequate budget to pay for training and equipment modernization.

link

The term "hollow force" was coined by former Army Chief of Staff Edward "Shy" Meyer in regard to the period immediately after Vietnam. A lack of resources and innovation combined with low morale meant, despite having an Army that looked strong on paper because of its large numbers, the United States? senior service was in reality poorly prepared to fight. In retrospect, the term has also been applied to the period after World War II.

link

Normally in business, when the company has too many people for the level of business that its currently capable of, that would be considered time for layoffs.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

Frank wasn't advocating an across the board, one-shot cut. He said he would look into the different areas where we can cut military spending. Continuing the current budget makes absolutely no sense.

Recent history has shown that in a time of military change in the United States, particularly after an extended period of combat, the Armed Forces have the potential to regress into a "hollow force" – that is, a force with a large number of troops but without an adequate budget to pay for training and equipment modernization.

link

The term "hollow force" was coined by former Army Chief of Staff Edward "Shy" Meyer in regard to the period immediately after Vietnam. A lack of resources and innovation combined with low morale meant, despite having an Army that looked strong on paper because of its large numbers, the United States? senior service was in reality poorly prepared to fight. In retrospect, the term has also been applied to the period after World War II.

link

Look, just like any government program - there can be excess spending and inadequate spending. The issue of cutting our current military budget isn't an ideological argument, but based on necessity. We cannot sustain our current military spending.

as pointed out by aj earlier, our defense spending isn't as high percentage wise as many other countries.

need i remind you of what ronald reagan once said: Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.