• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    July 2011
    M T W T F S S
    « Jun   Aug »
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Orville on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Desi Chinese on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Oto ekspertiz Kaç li… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Liberals see opportunity for big cuts in defense – Washington Times

Why is it that liberals and progressives want to continually weaken the single institution in America that is the protective umbrella for all others?

Further commentary embedded in the story below.

Liberals see opportunity for big cuts in defense – Washington Times.

Liberals see opportunity for big cuts in defense

Push for troop, arms levels after Cold War

By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
9:10 p.m., Monday, July 18, 2011

The political left is pressing the White House and Congress to inflict a wave of Pentagon budget cuts not seen since the post-Cold War 1990s.

Liberals are citing the debt crisis and troop drawdowns from Iraq and Afghanistan to argue that now is the time for the Defense Department to shed people, missions and weapons after a decade of doubling arms spending after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. (Should we come home from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and all the other places we are flushing money down the toilet because we aren’t really there to win? Yeah, we should. Should we then consolidate, modernize, and re-equip that military to continue to act as the deterrent it is supposed to be, and the weapon it MUST be if deterrence fails? Or should we just dismantle the military altogether and spend that money on more social programs? Will those social programs protect our borders? Will the “free handouts” do battle with an attacking enemy? Call me crazy, but I don’t think food stamps will stop the Chinese, Russians, or terrorists when they choose to attack us.)

The proposals, including one from the Center for America Progress, go well beyond President Obama’s call in April for $400 billion in defense cuts over 12 years. The center — run by John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to President Clinton — wants that much in reductions over the next three years and $1 trillion from what had been projected increases over the next decade.(Liberal/progressive/communists who want the destruction of America. Don’t get me wrong. I think there is a lot of waste in military spending. Most if it comes from how the politicians MANDATE that we spend our money. We have to buy from politically favored vendors and exorbitant prices, and we aren’t rewarded for SAVING money. Cut out the corruption and waste, and spend that money more effectively to by the military even MORE effective equipment, and a larger force for the same money.)

Some House Democrats, led by Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, also have called for $1 trillion in cuts. (So he can redistribute it to more of his gay lovers by giving them government jobs and running gay prostitution rings from his home.)

“I think this is the time because of a combination of the deficit and the changing way in which we’re going to deal with threats from groups like al Qaeda,” said American Progress’ Lawrence Korb, a longtime defense analyst in Washington.

Mr. Korb said the Obama administration has dumped President George W. Bush’s overall war strategy of preemptive attacks against terrorist states, and he cited just-retired Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ warning against any future land wars in the Middle East. (Seems Obummer didn’t heed that warning…)

The bottom line is that the center wants projected increases ended and the overall arms budget reduced to $500 billion by 2016, which would be $111 billion below the Pentagon’s already pared-down projection.

“Gates said we don’t have to go back to Cold War levels,” Mr. Korb said. “Well, we’re above Cold War levels. And that’s part of the problem.” (Maybe I’m missing something here, but I get the impression that he is talking dollar for dollar WITHOUT adjusting for inflation. Does anyone else get that impression?)

Gordon Adams, a defense budget official in the Clinton White House, told the House Budget Committee this month that Mr. Obama’s $400 billion number “is a very small step.” He endorsed more than doubling that figure.

The Pentagon has not heard such rhetoric since the Berlin Wall fell and Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush squeezed as much as 35 percent out of intelligence and defense spending. (And we are STILL paying the price for that. All these “intelligence shortfalls” that have lead to embarrassing mistakes around the world may well have been avoided had we not dismantled our intelligence infrastructure.)

After al Qaeda’s attack on the United States, defense proponents said such a deep downturn had been a mistake, leaving intelligence agencies and some aspects of the military not ready to fight a global war against terrorists. Now, they say, America is about to repeat the mistake, as China and Iran flex their muscles and radical Islam remains a global threat. (It doesn’t take a genius to see this. We ARE about to repeat the same mistakes, and this time the consequences will likely be much more severe. Why are these people who claim to be “patriotic” Americans trying to leave us defenseless?)

Daniel Goure, an analyst at the pro-business Lexington Institute, said the left has it all wrong. The Pentagon needs more money, unless it abandons or curtails its presence in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, he said. (Drawing down bases in Europe would save a BUTTLOAD of money, especially if there is no backroom political deal to keep paying them “welfare” under the table to take the place of the billions of dollars our military presence pumps into those economies each year.)

“You’d better change our military approach to the world,” said Mr. Goure. “If you do what we did the last time — which is essentially salami slice, take bits and pieces from everything and everybody — then you are essentially going to back where you were after Vietnam and at the end of the Cold War drawdown. Too many missions. Too many deployments. Not enough stuff. Not enough people.” (Is there a better summary to the condition our military finds itself in today? I don’t think so.)

The Center for American Progress also proposes a list of weapons terminations and troop cutbacks. (But notice you will NEVER, EVER see a far left organization like Center for American “Progress” call for something like cuts to social programs.)

The number of V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft would be stopped at about 150. The next-generation workhorse jet fighter, the F-35 — which is mired in big cost overruns — would be bought only for the Air Force, not the Navy or Marine Corps.

The Navy’s 11 carriers — a key way America projects immediate air power overseas — would be trimmed to nine, and with it other surface ships. A full third of 150,000 troops in Europe and Asia would be ordered home.

“You may not be able to keep as many carriers forward-deployed,” said Mr. Korb. “You would have to surge them, but I don’t see any missions you could not do.” (This clearly illustrates the ignorance and bias of Mr. Korb. He doesn’t understand that with previous reductions in force, and increases in the number, size and scope of operations in which we are entangled, we have been doing nothing BUT “surging” for the last decade. Once some bean counter sees the number of sorties you can produce in a surge, how quickly you can launch ships, deploy soldiers, and all while performing minimum maintenance, and manning the home stations with minimum manning, that quickly becomes no longer a “surge,” but the new normal. Meanwhile the infrastructure and equipment crumble, and the people burn out. Mr. Korb, you sir, are an idiot.)

However, reducing the number of active carriers to nine means only three typically would be deployed at one time, possibly leaving the Pacific without a surface ship strike force. (i.e. DEFENSELESS)

“If the Chinese are going to threaten Taiwan, they’re going to do it with short-legged stuff, short-range ballistic missiles, right from shore,” Mr. Korb said. “We can’t do it that way. If the threat were Mexico, not to worry. We build diesel submarines and short-range fighters, and we’d call it a day.”

Such drastic cuts would face strong Republican opposition.

A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the GOP would never approve cuts of $1 trillion.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, released a detailed budget plan that calls for modest defense drawdowns over five years. He argued that the Defense Department’s total budget share already has decreased from 25 percent to 20 percent.

A smattering of conservatives are advocating more shrinkage. Some Republicans on Mr. Obama’s deficit commission supported cuts above $400 million.

With all troops due to be pulled out of Iraq this year and Afghanistan by 2014, the Pentagon could save $100 billion annually on those two accounts alone. Mr. Gates instituted more than $100 billion in savings, although some of that money was redirected into other arms programs.

The next phase is likely to be revealed in Mr. Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget in February or in some grand deficit-reduction agreement between him and Congress.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this year: “We can’t hold ourselves exempt from the belt-tightening. Neither can we allow ourselves to contribute to the very debt that puts our long-term security at risk.” (Mullen has demonstrated himself on a number of issues to be little more than a “yes man.”)

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, who proved a hawkish director of the CIA, vowed to Congress that he would not let the military go hollow as it did in the late 1970s.

On July 8, he urged the White House and Congress to base cuts on a strategy. He expressed his concern about negotiators who would just “just pick a number and throw it at the Defense Department without really looking at policy, without looking at what makes sense.” (Mr. Panetta actually gets one right. There. Is. No. Plan. This is just a blatant attempt to placate the far left base, and to weaken the military.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: