The Wall Street Journal had an interesting OpEd yesterday sort of dove tailing with Colin’s story from Friday that broke the news of Democratic party Brahman Barney Frank’s call for a 25 percent cut in defense spending.
Now, Frank is not a DoD budget decisionmaker, but his views tend to jibe closely with the liberal leadership of the House and even some in the Senate.
The Journal analyzed what Obama and his supporters have said about what they’d do with defense budgets, so it’s worth a close read for a worst case scenario.
We’ve been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton’s “procurement holiday” punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.
All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is “necessary to sustain peace.” A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That’s unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable — and necessary.
But what if a President Obama doesn’t actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a “strong” military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?
Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama’s instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man’s circle — which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate.
The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to “improve transition services,” “make mental health a priority,” and end “don’t-ask, don’t-tell.” All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.
And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry’s?
From the writing I’m seeing on the wall, we can basically forget end-strength increases. There’s no political capital in increasing the size of the military, but there’s plenty of bacon in hardware.
During an interview with defense reporters in Washington earlier this month, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig — a top Obama defense advisor — talked to us about “revitalizing” America’s “overstretched” military, then went on to highlight Obama’s commitment to veterans care, traumatic brain injury and PTSD.
“It’s just an example of trying to do more for our troops and create stronger incentives for recruitment,” Danzig said.
What about more guns, ammo and tanks? I know a bunch of Marines and Soldiers who want that more than a little extra money for college classes.
Danzig went on to talk about how the acquisition system is broken (who hasn’t said that?) and that cost overruns on programs have gone ballistic (tell me something else I don’t already know)…
“We need to come to grips with the affordibility and the requirements process,” Danzig said. “The requirements need to be more appropriately fashioned not only to the desire to buy the most modern program, but also to” meet realistic costs.
“We have a strong view that national missile defense is a rewarding area that should be invested in,” Danzig added. “It’s an area that demands scrutiny. It should be used to the extent that it works but used with other checks and balances.”
“The future combat system in the Army is a system that’s been criticized … and needs to be looked at closely,” he added. “With our ship building system it’s just clear that we’re not building enough. … The shipbuilding program doesn’t work. It doesn’t add up.“
Danzig said Obama supports a 65K increase in Army end strength and a 27K bump in Marines — but Obama ain’t Congress.
Here’s more on hardware:
“The new technologies represent extraordinary capabilities — UAVs and robotics — we need to invest in that,” Danzig said. “We need to recognize that there are a set of risks in cyber warfare that are now very intense.“
On defense spending:
“I don’t see defense spending declining in the first years of an Obama administration. There are a set of demands there that are very important to our national well being,” Danzig said.
Then he went on to explain how out of balance it was that the U.S. spends $10 billion on national missile defense and less than $1 billion trying to control loose nukes.
“Is that the right proportion for what you want in your defense budget?” Danzig asked. “And look how you could increase the one by 50 percent if you reduce the other by 5 percent. We need to achieve a better balance [between soft-power spending and hard-power spending] and I think that can be done within the context of the DoD top line.“
So let’s see, more money for the corrupt failure of an effort to pad the pockets of Russian nuke warehouse guards at the expense of a missile interceptor that is our only line of defense against a nuclear warhead lobbed at Los Angeles? Soft power worked great against al Qaeda didn’t it?
So let’s get the conversation going here. Where will a swollen Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Dem majority in the Senate PLUS a Democratic president take us in terms of defense spending, programs and force posture?
– Christian
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Obama has already gone on record against FCS and missile defense, and Biden has slammed other big ticket items like the F22.
A democrat in the white house AND a democratically controlled congress???
Obama has proposed enormous new spending. His tax plan comes nowhere near funding that spending, and there is no way that he will run up huge deficits because of the political consequences.
So what does that leave? Slashing the one area of spending that liberals do NOT like: defense and intelligence.
I fully expect massive cuts to be coupled with nonsense handouts to troops and vets as a way of trying to make it look like the democrats love the soldiers but hate the “military industrial complex”. Also, you will see the liberals giving more money to special forces as a way to justify slashing conventional forces.
While the defense industry is great at playing the system and manages to package its programs as pork, there will simply be too great a need to raid the defense budget in order to pay for all the social programs Obama wants. Welfare is, of course, far greater pork than some defense industry jobs.
Sorry, but it ain’t gonna be guns or butter. It’s gonna be pork. That’s what Congress delivers, usually a day late and a dollar short. They make legislation like hot dogs.
I hope y’all like hot dogs. Because, it’s looking like Chateaubriand isn’t on the menu anymore.
Kaltes you are exactly bang on. Defense to Dems will become just another welfare program for a constabulary/garrison military unable to deploy for major combat operations.
I am also very concerned that Huge cuts will come in R&D and basic S&T. With the pace of technological change the US could find itself “technologically surprised” and falling further and further behind because the scientists have quit and specialized industries have died on the vine.
Mr. Gates made a plea to congress for new nukes, I think, because the anticipation of an Obama administration totally ignoring the deterrent mission. We need new systems like ICBMs, SLBMs, submarines and bombers. I fear for the future!
Jeez, but some of you people are ridiculous. Do you really believe that Republicans are the only political party that supports a strong defensive capability?
Or are you pissed because Democrats aren’t as interested in a strong OFFENSIVE capability?
The great general warned us of the military/industrial complex, and he was spot on in his remarks. From what I’ve read around here, it seems that ANY suggestion that defense spending needs reeling in is “not supporting our military,” or that it’s some “pussification,” or other adolescent diatribe.
I’m for a strong defense, I have skin in the game (family), and I fail to see why we have to throw billions upon billions down the crapper under the guise of “defense,” when a lot of it is simply giving welfare to the defense industries.
And you folks throwing out stereotypical comments about Democrats obviously need to get out more. A lot has changed since the 60s. Like, the dirty hippies aren’t gonna come and take away your guns.
Talk about “enormous new spending,” what do you call the last eight freakin’ years, austere?
Any budget that says everything is needed and is justified is a just a bloated bureaucracy. The DoD needs a haircut, the only debate is what gets the ax. It is time for someone to make a tough decision. Can’t fund everything for everything for everyone for everywhere, that anyone can dream up.
My only caveat is if the DoD has to get cut, so does every other government agency/department. We know most of those other agencies are completely useless and wasteful. A good 20 percent across the board cut would be awesome.
I am, of course, fiercely anti conventional warfare, so you can guess where my where I’d cut.
I know this is a military themed site and all, but I would wish that a lot of the people on this site weren’t so negative towards the other side of the spectrum. I consider myself a liberal but I think a strong military is important and is one thing that should be insulated from budget slashing because of the financial crisis.
I know that Obama is much more likely to win, and therefore its more productive to talk about what he will do with the military, but I don’t see how McCain would be any better. Although a lot of stuff can reasonably be blamed on Clinton, Bush has strained our military much much more, and McCains foreign policy seems to be not much different.
Obama is not a mystery man on Defense. He’s been vocally against dollars for it for at least one generation. Now that he wants to be President he’s doing what all candidates do, trim their radical colors.
If he wins, its delusional to think he will pull back from being able to practice what he’s preached.
I just hope he tells the world which defense commitments he won’t keep anymore so America won’t be like Britain, forever overstretched.
Yeah, cause hard power has worked *so* well for the last eight years.
“likes of Eisenhower”
Jefferson Davis had a lot of military experience, too. Lincoln didn’t.
“Gullibility is a serious illness”
Yes, it is. What’s your excuse for buying into the last eight years?
“Republican in the White House doesn’t mean the GOP controlled anything”
(sorry about the multiple posts, folks, but this one was irresistible)
I guess the Democratic Congress of the 1980s won the Cold War, then, not Reagan?
The really important question is: butter side up or butter side down?
The agenda for a Democrat run presidency & congress was tipped off when the announcement about “skinheads” threatening to go on a killing spree & then assassinate Obama was made by the main stream media.
The DOD budget will not be cut so much as rearranged to combat “domestic terrorism.” Islamic terrorism will fade(is that because Obama is really a Muslim?) & will be replaced by the “White Supremist/Neo-Nazi/Skinhead” terrorist(?) threat.This will give Obama the excuse to use all of those provisions in the “Patriot Act” to suspend the constitution & impose martial law.All of our civil/human rights & liberties will be suppressed.They are already assigning Army Brigade Combat Teams/Units of Action to Northern Command for “civil unrest.” If there keeps being assassination threats against “President Obama” during his presidency,or even attempts carried out against him,or even God forbid,if someone succeeds,then you damn well can kiss your freedoms goodbye,even the freedom here to disagree with me,insult me,& call me names.
The only thing that a Democrat Party controlled government needs to pay for as far as the DOD budget goes,is the weapons & vehicles used to keep us American citizens in line.You certainly DON’T need F-22′s,F-35′s,Future Combat Systems,etc.,the list goes on.You only need what worked in Iraqi urban areas. THAT’S where all of that money will go.
The DOD budget will not be cut so much as rearranged to combat “domestic terrorism.” Islamic terrorism will fade(is that because Obama is really a Muslim?) & will be replaced by the “White Supremist/Neo-Nazi/Skinhead” terrorist(?) threat.This will give Obama the excuse to use all of those provisions in the “Patriot Act” to suspend the constitution & impose martial law.All of our civil/human rights & liberties will be suppressed.They are already assigning Army Brigade Combat Teams/Units of Action to Northern Command for “civil unrest.” If there keeps being assassination threats against “President Obama” during his presidency,or even attempts carried out against him,or even God forbid,if someone succeeds,then you damn well can kiss your freedoms goodbye,even the freedom here to disagree with me,insult me,& call me names.
The only thing that a Democrat Party…
I read this blog often and peruse its comments regularly. I am usually content to lurk and sometimes I learn something.
I have learned something today.
Roy Smith you are an unhinged drinker of the cool-aide. You are unhinged and quite possibly paraniod. Seek help for your delusions.
I’ve also learned HTML coding does not work on this comment thread.
The “domestic terrorist” threat will be the Democrat Party agenda,just as it was during the Clinton Administration from 1992 to 2000. The “skinhead” assassination threat against Obama is a joke. Obama’s agenda will not be to combat foreign [Islamic] terrorists. Who knows,they might finally “find” Osama,or “kill” him to put Al Qaeda to rest,& then Obama can concentrate on the “militia/white supremacist/neo-nazi/skinhead terrorist” threat. Congress can also push through the fairness doctrine & silence “dissent” like this blog that will criticize Obama & a Democrat run congress. We’ll finally see the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act in action,& we’ll see a fascist economy run by our government & the major corporations & central bankers. If you think 2008 is bad now,2009 on will positively suck & get worse & worse.Fascism is what has reduced the defense industry to just one or two major corporations. It will also reduce the Auto industry to just one or two corporations.
“The “domestic terrorist” threat will be the Democrat Party agenda,just as it was during the Clinton Administration from 1992 to 2000. The “skinhead” assassination threat against Obama is a joke. Obama’s agenda will not be to combat foreign [Islamic] terrorists. Who knows,they might finally “find” Osama,or “kill” him to put Al Qaeda to rest,& then Obama can concentrate on the “militia/white supremacist/neo-nazi/skinhead terrorist” threat”
Wait, so Obama will catch Bin Laden and make sure that a Timothy McVeigh clone won’t come alone? This is a problem because…?
Where do I go to vote more than once?
STOP THE HATE AND LIES! Anyone remember John McCain and the tanker deal? Anyone remember John McCain and his buy it from overseas? Anyone remember when a logo and brand was “Made in the U.S.A?” Or was that Made in China Don’t fall for the bs. Get to know the person, not your mindwashing GOP thinking!
Good Evening Christian,
You couldn’t wait till next week and after the election when we know who the next President will be to post this. You got your full mooners out and in the Halloween spirit.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
dude dont you know you cant discuss the One he is the One the promissed mesia.(PBUH)
if you discuss the One know his people are everywhere and you will be reported…
hehehe and seriously steve…
——-
Get to know the person, not your mindwashing GOP thinking!
——-
thats rich coming from the party that controls the TV media the newspapers the schools the unions hmmm i leave anything out….oh wait when the one is president he plans on having all high schools send kids to camps so they can learn how to be comunity organizers….and wants to build a civilian military Force thats as well funded as the military…wants to redistribute the wealth….
ps when obama is president all soldiers will have a new salute high step and cup your balls!!! lololol
“earn how to be comunity organizers.”
Can he send all the blog commenters to grammar school?
It will be the reincarnation of president Jimmy Carter. He’ll cut every military program, work to destroy the morale of the military and at the same time work to suborn and overthrow our allies while supporting our enemies, then be shocked, just shocked, that our enemies are really not the “misunderstood” people that he and his advisers thought. Unlike him, the Mullahs’ really DO believe what they say and really do plan to do it.
If we’re really lucky he’ll chop the crap of out the military, then start the fight he promised with 170 million Pakistanis armed with nukes.
The DOD & the Armed Forces will be reduced to being just a domestic gendarme force like Mexico with maybe enough troops to perform UN Peace Keeping missions like Canada. If you could combine the Mexican military mission with the Canadian model,you’ll see where our defense is going under Obama & the Democrats. The only thing you’ll need to “police” America is high tech surveillance devices. You don’t need high tech F-22′s or F-35′s to shoot down domestic Piper Cubs & other private civilian aircraft. Peace will be declared in Iraq & Afghanistan,Osama will be captured(& die in captivity before he can be brought to “justice”) or be killed(even though he’s been dead since 2001).
The big battle will be to keep Obama protected from those damn “white racist assassins” & militia members in a return to a 1990′s “Back to the Future” scenario that will no doubt require martial law.
People laugh today at my scenarios because they hope that McCain can still be elected.But if Obama is elected & the democrats finally get over 60 senators & more congressmen for a death grip on congress….. Defense dollars & manpower will be redirected for domestic control.
In his farewell address President George Washington “warned against bitter partisanship in domestic politics and called for men to move beyond partisanship and serve the common good.”
This site would be better served staying above the always constant partisan fray regarding military procurement.
There’s a fundamental mistake here: since when did having a strong military mean the same thing as high defense spending?
If you look at the rest of the world, you’ll see that there correlation is slight. And then you might look at where all the billions in the current defense budget are going in the US.
A good president will be able to strengthen the military and reduce spending on the world’s largest pork barrel.
I would say this, America has done far more with less money. The best thing an Obama or McCain Administration could do would be to FIX the broken development and aquisitions system that we have now. Start with eliminating Cost+ contracts, and start making the contractors pay for their own mistakes. When you buy any product the manufacturer is expected to factor in their profit from the price of the object, and eats any costs in development or defects. Defense contracts should be no different. 3 classic examples of GREAT defense design are the P-51, the U2 & the SR-71. All of which had their basic designs completed in a short time and were fielded in short order. If you can’t do it right the first time, get out of the business.
On the missle defense side of it, would losing L.A. be that much of a loss?
I’m reminded of a video on YouTube…
Obama: Defense Pledges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqhoiK8-Ww
He has the same hard on for the service like Clinton had.
“Obama is the most Liberal voting member of congress. He never stood against his own party, for any issue. ”
one of these quoted statements is not true: if obama always votes in-caucus, then he cannot be described as the “most liberal” member of anything; the majority of the caucus define the platform of the caucus and the democratic party is not uniformly liberal. either he is uniformly liberal or uniformly democrat, but not both.
i’ll go one further and say that obama HAS stood against his party: he ran his primary campaign by his rulebook, not that of e.g. the clinton machine that democrats have extended as doctrine. since winning the nomination, he has continued to play by his rules. as president he will be the one who writes the rules, not the one who follows the rules.
mccain ran his own primary campaign, but since winning the nomination he has given up control completely to the GOP operatives that brought us the past eight years of governance. the same filthy politics that cost him the party nomination in elections past are being used to elect him now. the absence of lieberman on the ticket is a clear indication of who controls mccain’s campaign and they will be in the number two seat of a mccain presidency. on this most important of issues, mccain has NOT stood against his party.
one of these was, in his youth, a maverick. one is a revolutionary. who do we need now?
I think defense spending is going to go to more American jobs to American workers. Maybe even more “spending” can stay in this country instead of being shipped to Dubai in shady no bid contracts. There’s been too much profiteering and not enough defense for our buck.