Generals leery of their ranks being trimmed, oh my!

I can remember endless debates with military graybeards back in the 1980s, arguing how much money we would save on defense spending if the Soviet Union disappeared. No one ever suggested we would be spending more.

..
Did you imagine any of this back in the 1980′s?
.
Perhaps you envisioned a nuclear Iran, yes?
.
Perhaps you also knew back in 1980, Muslim terrorists would not only bring down one, but two of the largest buildings in the world?
.
Did you also forsee back in 1980 that Sadam Hussein would actively seek out WMD’s, poison about 1/3 of his citizens, and attack Kuwait?
.
Did you ever envision a new government agency called “Homeland Security”, and know what its purpose would mainly be for?
.
Why is it any liberals first reponse to any of our country’s financial problems to go after the Defense Department budget with the axe?
.
Where are your calls to shutdown un-needed bases in Japan, Germany, England and in a vast array of districts who our corrupt Congressional leaders protect at all cost?

Well said, Mark!
.
“how much money we would save on defense spending if the Soviet Union disappeared” == This was called the “peace dividend”, no?
.
Also: how are Gates proposals for pulling troops out of Germany and Japan, and cutting weapons systems coming?
.

“Muslim terrorists would not only bring down one, but two of the largest buildings in the world?”

And that they would be so well connected?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

Empire building is an addiction. Add a country here. Add a country there. Pretty soon you’re hooked.

“It is now clear that U.S. military spending — not including money for the wars — is stabilizing at levels well above the $423 billion (in 2010 dollars) we spent annually on the Pentagon from 1954 to 2001.”

Yes, that “small but driven band of Islamic zealots” gave the MIC a real shot in the arm, didn’t it?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/forever-war/

Thank you, well said.
.
I’ll add that the $700 Billion plus figure does not include military contributions from other departments such as Homeland Security, the Energy Dept (responsible for nuclear warheads), Veteran affairs, and the Treasury Dept. All included, our proposed 2011 military budget tops $1 Trillion! (link). -to protect against an enemy, the Taliban, with no army, missiles, jets, etc; random insurgents in Iraq; and the “threat” of Iran, who’s navy is a coast guard, has a rusting impotent airforce, army has never invaded another nation and military budget is less-than 1% of ours…
.
So much for poppa Bush’s Peace Dividend.

I’m sure the Republican Tea Party will be hammering the military for opposing their severe austerity plans. They may have to roll out their female cow analogies again. After all if you are going to cut back on government expenditure you have to cut back on the biggest cows.

Isn’t our military budget pretty close to the rest of the world’s combined?

“No one ever suggested we would be spending more.”

There are some things they preferred to keep to themselves.

Did you imagine any of this back in the 1980′s?
.
Of course, there was terrorism in the 80s.
.
Perhaps you envisioned a nuclear Iran, yes?
.
Iran is granted nuclear rights by mutual treaty. There has never been any evidence of a nuclear weapons program. We should be diligent against a nuclear armed Iran and ready to react if necessary– but what we do goes well beyond that.
.
Perhaps you also knew back in 1980, Muslim terrorists would not only bring down one, but two of the largest buildings in the world?
.
The plot was hatched in Germany. Invading Iraq and current operations in Afghanistan (as opposed to quick-strike eradication of al Qaeda camps) won’t stop the threat, it has only exacerbated it.
.
Did you also forsee back in 1980 that Sadam Hussein would actively seek out WMD’s, poison about 1/3 of his citizens, and attack Kuwait?
.
Bush Sr handled it. By 2003, Saddam posed no threat.
.
Did you ever envision a new government agency called “Homeland Security”, and know what its purpose would mainly be for?
.
Not in Thompson’s figures.
.
Why is it any liberals first reponse to any of our country’s financial problems to go after the Defense Department budget with the axe?
.
Because it is the most wasteful and corrupt practice of our government. That is why conservatives (as opposed to establishment Republicans) look to axe it too.
.
Where are your calls to shutdown un-needed bases in Japan, Germany, England and in a vast array of districts who our corrupt Congressional leaders protect at all cost?
.
Agreed.

Oh My,
.
I was hoping to create a Military Industrial State, put all the unemployed into the Military to guard our borders, round up all the illegals, weed out the Un-Amercan among us. With the pin point accuracy of the drones we increase their usage tremendously right here at home, think of the jobs it would create.
.
Come on guys, stop complaining, think creatively. It might even solve our SS, and Medicare problems.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
.
The numbers are based on previous years’ budgets and some estimates, but you can get a good idea..
.
Rest-of-World [all but USA] – $500 billion - 2004 est.
United States – $623 billion – FY08 budget
China – $65 billion
N Korea – $5 billion
Iran – $4.3 billion

Thank you for your response, pintortwo.
.
I am also curious as to what you define terrorism in the 80′s?
.
The plot was hatched in Germany. Invading Iraq and current operations in Afghanistan (as opposed to quick-strike eradication of al Qaeda camps) won’t stop the threat, it has only exacerbated it.
.
Well not exactly. The plot was organized and envisioned by the now captured and infamous al-Qaeda operative, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This was done from Afghanistan / Pakistan, not Germany. Your liberal theory that the attacks against both Iraq and Afghanistan were reponsible for the twin Tower attacks is nothing short of absurd.
.
Bush Sr handled it. By 2003, Saddam posed no threat.
.
Wrong. In 1993 the World Trade Towers were bombed for the first time. From that inept attempt, the terrorist went to work on planning a 2nd attack. Saddam had retreated, but he refocuse his efforts on a buildup of his military and WMDs, which he said out of his own mouth to attack the US. The Oil for Food program was intended and used by Saddam as a means to refortify his army and all of the other destructive intentions for future attacks against Israel and the west. To simply play the tune that Saddam was not a factor in the middle east is not only naive, but irrational. He was also the major funding source for the individuals who he recruited to strap on bombs to blow up buses and other sites within Israel. Period.

The first priority of every military operation is self-preservation. And like it or not, munitions design and manufacturing is a military operation.
.
Just don’t dare ask who the ‘enemy’ might be.

“I am also curious as to what you define terrorism in the 80′s?”

IRA, PLO, FARC, the list goes on. Terrorism was happening, but you might not realize it since at the time it didn’t directly affect us.

“Wrong. In 1993 the World Trade Towers were bombed for the first time. From that inept attempt, the terrorist went to work on planning a 2nd attack. Saddam had retreated, but he refocuse his efforts on a buildup of his military and WMDs, which he said out of his own mouth to attack the US. The Oil for Food program was intended and used by Saddam as a means to refortify his army and all of the other destructive intentions for future attacks against Israel and the west. To simply play the tune that Saddam was not a factor in the middle east is not only naive, but irrational. He was also the major funding source for the individuals who he recruited to strap on bombs to blow up buses and other sites within Israel. Period.”

Actually based on the almost complete lack of evidence of WMDs found inside Iraq after the invasion, it’s likely Saddam was simply blustering post-1991 in order to keep Iran off balance. Saddam WAS indeed a factor; Iran and Iraq’s mutual hatred did much to keep each other in check. Saddam’s main target was never Israel; the scud attacks during the first war were simply a ploy to goad Israel into retaliating and thus gain support for Iraq among the Arab states.

Just don’t dare ask who the ‘enemy’ might be.
.
At any given snapshot in time, who do we need it to be to fill the need for an “enemy”?
.
Won’t be too long at the rate things are going that the enemy will be “anyone from more than two states or counties over”.
.
Or. maybe, the new, non-WASP family down the block who just moved in and we know nothing about.

Your liberal theory that the attacks against both Iraq and Afghanistan were reponsible for the twin Tower attacks is nothing short of absurd.
.
That is not what I said, perhaps I was not clear enough. I mean that the invasion of Iraq and on-going operations in Afghanistan (after al Qaeda had been routed; specifically base-building and counterinsurgency) have not / will not lessen the threat of future attack. These acts help terrorist recruitment.
.
To simply play the tune that Saddam was not a factor in the middle east is not only naive, but irrational.
.
1/3 of Iraq was a no-fly zone and the CIA did not believe he had an active WMD program, in fact, they had solid intel suggesting that there was no such program (link). Saddam was not a factor in any terrorist threat emanating from the Middle East, not involved in the 911 attacks and certainly not a threat to us here- as the CIA reported.
.
He was also the major funding source for the individuals who he recruited to strap on bombs to blow up buses and other sites within Israel.
.
Actually, the “major funding” seems to have come from Saudi Arabia (money to the families of “martyrs” that attacked Israel, which is what I assume you’re talking about). That being said, I have no intention of defending Saddam and his despicable behavior, including what you highlight.
.
This post is about disproportionate military spending, IMO, to the point of shamefulness. To argue that Saddam H necessitated, in any way, the size and scope of our military budget is lunacy.
.
Thanks for considering.

Outside View: PowerPoints ‘R’ Us
http://www.spacewar.com
Kabul, Afghanistan (UPI) Aug 24, 2010 – Throughout my career I have been known to walk that fine line between good taste and unemployment. I see no reason to change that now.

The real role of the Generals!

Been to similar meetings and can tell you that the good Colonel’s opinion is more widespread among the participants than you might think. The ones who enthusiastically support these “briefings” are those whose career goals require them to be seen doing so.
.
The real gauge for usefullness is on the days when the “big cheese” is absent and a subordinate handles the slideshow. I’ve seen them finish in less than 5 minutes (including showing all slides).
.
But you didn’t dare blink or you’d miss 3 of the slides.

PS, not sure what can be gleaned from the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessions. After numerous waterboardings (83, I believe), he’d have confessed to being the shooter-on-the-grassy-knoll or the queen of Spain.

The domestic pressures to keep defense spending high are just as great as the need to confront the threats we face (real or imagined). You are not going to see a hue and cry from Congress about cutting the number of generals down a smidge, but try and cancel a bomber or tank project. Any Congressman who has a defense contractor in his district is going to raise holy hell about it, and his arguments will focus on jobs much more than the military necessity of the project.

Why do you think defense contractors scatter their subcontractors across as many congressional districts as possible? When the military industrial complex grew large enough to be an economic force in the country it became a self sustaining beast. And it’s likely to stay that way.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but as I recall there were only about 600 generals in the US armed services in the early 1980s when the cold war was still raging. It used to be quite difficult to achieve the rank of brigadier (one star) general and many very bright career officers retired as colonels.

The inflation in the number of general officers is something that results from the good old boy network that begins with West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. A two-star or equivalent naval officer reels in about $119K a year plus a variety of other benefits for housing, special duty pay, and tax breaks for earnings while in a war zone. They of course get free health care and other perks. Three-star and four-star ranks get quite a bit more.

I my view Gates needs to trim a little more.

Well, there you go. Many of the engineers graduating in this country wouldn’t have a prayer of getting a job (in this country) if it weren’t for some military contractor trying to develop the next generation of outrageously expensive and usually unnecessary hardware.
-
Sad to say but these jobs only stay here for security (and some political) reasons. If we converted this effort to market run forces for, I dunno, alternative energy, the last of the industrial base in the US would evaporate and appear on the other side of the Pacific.
-
Like I said, maybe we need a trade war or tax war just to trap American business inside our borders. Our candy wrapper printers and oven mitt manufacturers might have a rough time exporting but maybe solar panels and fuel cells can be made in this country. If you have to put a knife to the back of American business to get them to realize they’re starving their own money source…
-
China won’t be a booming middleclass consumer society for American goods for a long, long, time… so everybody stop believing it’s going to happen tomorrow.

Any Congressman who has a defense contractor in his district is going to raise holy hell… and his arguments will focus on jobs much more than the military necessity of the project.

Why do you think defense contractors scatter their subcontractors across as many congressional districts as possible?
.
See the F-22. It performs poorly, is ridiculously expensive to produce and maintain, it’s redundant and can be replaced by far-cheaper jets; BUT, it uses vendors in 45 states. Our elected (and MSM advocates) were desperate to keep it and raised a fury when threatened… even as the military said pass.

I am all for the cuts. In addition, we should cut the House of Represtatives in half. They would probably get more done with fewer members and it was save the country vast sums in bloated staffs, excessive travel, pork, and bickering. Those advantages just touch the iceberg.

Actually, the Project for a New American Century crew suggested this in 2000. In Rebuilding America’s Defenses (link) they suggested an “INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually” (we’ve gone beyond that). Further, as a “core principal”, we must embark in a “Revolution in Military Affairs” as we need all that high-tech gadgetry, jets and forward bases to police the “critical regions” of the world.
.
Congress, the Bush and Obama admins, and the Pentagon have been following their plan.

Per the Project for a New American Century crew, see..
.
“Persons associated with the PNAC” (wiki)
link

Looking at raw dollars is one way to look at it but not a very good way. The US is a more expensive country than most others in the world. Paying a soldier in the US will cost more than paying a soldier in another country. The question should be how much as a society do we want to spend relative to our overall economy and for that, we have to compare military budgets relative to GDP.
.
As a percent of GDP, the US places 11th when it comes to military spending(4.3%) behind Saudi Arabia (8.2%), Israel (7.0%), and Iraq (5.4%). We’re still spending more than every European country (Greece comes closest at 3.6%), China(2%), and much of the rest of the world, though.
.
In a way, our military budget has been shrinking since the Cold War. The US is spending less now (4.3%) than we did in the 80s (6.2% in 1986).

If we reduced our military spending down to the level of the next biggest spender (China) allocating only $98.8 billion, we’d reduce our military spending to .6% of GDP. While it would be excellent to divert 3.7% of our economy toward more peaceful and productive enterprises, that’s not something we want to happen overnight as it would put valuable allies in incredibly vulnerable positions, countries like Japan and South Korea, in addition to Israel and Iraq. It would also affect our ability to respond to incidents like what happened in Kosovo, and it would severely limit our ability to do anything in Rwanda (if we had so chosen) or for flood victims in Pakistan–shipping helicopters half a world a way would likely be more costly as opposed to sending them from Diego Garcia. We’d also be putting that 3.7% of our workforce into unemployment lines so perhaps now isn’t exactly the best time to do that. On the other side of the balance sheet, though, a smaller military means we’re less likely to go on misadventures in regime change.
.
By no means am I arguing for our current beefy military, but it’s not particularly clear to me that it’s wise to reduce our spending to that of other nations, especially not immediately. I’d prefer a budget just small enough to keep us from doing something wreckless, but big enough to allow us to do the necessary good at a moment’s notice. $98.8 billion simply would not be enough.

Eisenhower warned about the “military, industrial complex”. Neither party took him seriously. The military is necessary but not to the point it contributes to the corrupt plutocracy supported by our elected officials (of both parties).

oh, it seems they took him seriously, all right.
.
seriously to the bank

maybe we could just cut the first letter of Represtatives in half

Thanks jpmercurio, you raise some good points.
.
Per military spending as a percentage of GDP- I never agreed with this notion. I don’t think this, or any discretionary spending, should be slotted to a specific number. Military spending should be determined by risk and ability to respond to the unexpected.
.
We are very fortunate that no one can invade this country. No Army, Navy, etc poses a threat to the sovereignty of this nation. If we stopped building our military might today, the oceans would protect us nicely, as would our current capabilities. Further, we can respond to an emergency anywhere in the world in a matter of hours.
.
In addition, as I’ve said before, the military (and all things National Security) is too important to be saddled with other considerations, including job provision.
.
The military should be what we need- not more, not less. Unfortunately, it is now far more than we need, to the point where other priorities are neglected. Also, IMO, the vastness of our military has led to a situation where it must act to sustain itself– we become prone to enter wars unnecessarily and perpetuate battles that are better left unfought. How can we continue spending a trillion dollars annually on our military if there were no wars? -and, to be certain, no one wants to give up the money they are currently getting.