National debt is why we have to cut military spending

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026961,00.html

Britain's Defense Cuts: Grim Portent for U.S. Military?
By Tony Karon Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010 

Even before the British Defense Ministry this week elected to scrap the Royal Navy's only fixed-wing-aircraft carrier, nobody imagined that Britannia still ruled the waves — or had any of the power that characterized its empire before the two world wars of the past century. Still, as recently as a decade ago, Britain could take solace in its "special relationship" with the sole surviving superpower, earning pride of place among U.S. allies with its readiness to commit substantial numbers of troops to Washington's expeditionary military ventures. Sure, the 46,000 troops the British sent to Iraq for the U.S.-led invasion equaled around one-third of the American force, but the U.S. military was almost 10 times larger than Britain's. In Afghanistan, also, the U.K. committed a force equivalent to one-third of the U.S. deployment. In both cases, Britain's contribution dwarfed that of other NATO allies.

But the defense spending cuts announced this week as part of the British government's massive deficit-cutting austerity program mean that the next time America goes to war in some distant land, it is unlikely to be joined by significant numbers of British squaddies. Besides scrapping (for at least a decade) its naval capacity to send air power overseas, the U.K. will cut its defense budget by 8%, losing 17,000 personnel and cutting back its armory of tanks and artillery.

The maximum number of troops that the reconfigured British military will be able to deploy in any new sustained expeditionary operation will be 6,500. While its leaders gamely insist that Britain will continue to "punch above its weight" as a military power, the message for the U.S. in Britain's contraction may be a lot more sobering than simply the retrenchment of military capability by its most trusted ally. Britain's case may have illustrated the iron law that fiscal deficits inevitably corrode a nation's ability to project power beyond its shores.

Americans may not consider the U.S. an empire, but there's no question that its military is equipped and deployed on an imperial scale. Consider the map of the area of responsibilities of its six Unified Combatant Commands — they literally cover the world, like the board game Risk. U.S. Central Command refers not to the Midwest, but to the territory that runs from Egypt eastward to the Chinese and Indian borders, and north to the Russian frontier. The Pentagon maintains more than 800 bases beyond the 50 states, and stations close to 300,000 troops abroad. The 2009 U.S. defense budget of $660 billion was more than the combined defense expenditures of the next 17 countries on the spending table. And that budget continues to rise steadily, growing at 4.8% for 2010, a year in which the U.S. economy's GDP growth is likely to be less than 2%.

Militarily, the U.S. is the British Empire of the 21st century — and then some. But it is policing the world on the back of a colossal $1.5 trillion budget deficit and a staggering $13.5 trillion national debt. Its economy is in the grip of a deep, and possibly long-term, crisis that shows little sign of reducing an unemployment rate close to 10%, let alone being in a position to make the desperately needed investments in everything from education to infrastructure necessary to restore long-term competitiveness.

The Congressional Research Service calculated last September that the U.S. has spent $1.2 trillion on military operations since the 9/11 attacks, and the ongoing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the U.S. more than $3 billion a week. American politicians may sound the alarm on the need to slash spending to rein in deficits — but those warnings ritually add the rider "except for the military." Still, a Federal Government currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends is likely to struggle to sustain imperial levels of military commitment.

Don't expect to see a major retrenchment of U.S. military capability anytime soon — Britain's decline happened slowly, over a century. But the economic laws of gravity suggest that what we saw in Britain this week is a fate that eventually awaits the U.S. military too. After all, if the massive expansion of the U.S. economy over the past six decades appears to be coming to a close, it's hard to see how the epic expansion of the U.S. military budget over the same period can be sustained.

[Conan71]

You haven't been paying attention to the libs around here, have you?  Austerity has been pronounced a total bust. 


Naturally, Brittain can cut military spending because they know Republicans are coming back to power and with that, a larger military to protect the rest of the world so they don't have to protect themselves.

[nathanm]

You haven't been paying attention to the libs around here, have you?  Austerity has been pronounced a total bust.

It hasn't helped Iceland. It hasn't helped Ireland. Who again have been helped by austerity measures?

Even if you accept the premise that it would be helpful to Eurozone countries who labor under the same currency, what makes you think that the lesson even applies to a country that trades in its own currency?

[RecycleMichael]

The 2009 U.S. defense budget of $660 billion was more than the combined defense expenditures of the next 17 countries on the spending table.

Did you read that line?

Why are we spending more than the next 17 countries combined?

[Red Arrow]

Why are we spending more than the next 17 countries combined?

Because they're cheap and won't put up their share.

[Hoss]

Because they're cheap and won't put up their share.

Exactly the answer I expect from the pro-MIC group.  It's not us, it's them.  I've said for 15 years we need to curtail defense spending.  I said it starting with my opposition of going into Bosnia.  We need to stop being the policemen of the world.  It's not our job unless it directly threatens us.  My opinion of course.  Or let me rephrase that:

[Red Arrow]

Exactly the answer I expect from the pro-MIC group.  It's not us, it's them.  I've said for 15 years we need to curtail defense spending.  I said it starting with my opposition of going into Bosnia.  We need to stop being the policemen of the world.  It's not our job unless it directly threatens us.  My opinion of course.

I would like to agree that we should stop being the world's police force.  Unfortunately, I don't see another viable answer at the present time.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Unfortunately, probably true.  Not viable at this time, due to the "chickens coming home to roost" for some of our past actions.

I guess $1.5 trillion would be the price for imperialist voyeurism in far away exotic places.

[Red Arrow]

Unfortunately, probably true.  Not viable at this time, due to the "chickens coming home to roost" for some of our past actions.
I guess $1.5 trillion would be the price for imperialist voyeurism in far away exotic places.

I think we learned from WWI that the winners cannot just pack up and leave, hoping that the losers will develop quickly into economically viable peace loving countries.  Some of our expeditions since then are certainly worthy of threads of their own.

[Conan71]

Did you read that line?

Why are we spending more than the next 17 countries combined?

So how do you decide which end of government to start cutting?  No matter where you cut, you create more unemployment and there's usually a trade off in losing a government service or cutting it back.  If you shut down a base like Tinker, you eliminate good jobs which have an impact on workers who live as far as 50 miles from the base, you cripple a large part of the south OKC service and retail economy, etc. Not to mention all the vendors who would lose a lifeline.


The reality is that military spending is a huge engine in the US economy. The Pentagon has been given carte blanche ever since WWII.  Many technological discoveries and manufacturing methods used to benefit every day consumers came about via military spending.

[RecycleMichael]

I am not saying close down Tinker. But how about we close down a few of the 800 bases not in the U.S.?

800+ bases, all spending money abroad...

Why do we have 227 different military bases in Germany?

[TulsaMoon]

Why do we have 227 different military bases in Germany?


Beer

[Conan71]

I am not saying close down Tinker. But how about we close down a few of the 800 bases not in the U.S.?

800+ bases, all spending money abroad...

Why do we have 227 different military bases in Germany?

Halliburton jobs?

I suppose we could operate with one or two less.  I never said you advocated closing Tinker, but once you lay down the gauntlet of a straight cut to military spending, I'm simply pointing out that like any other part of government you may like better, there's some very unpleasant side-effects when you start cutting.  If Oklahoma lost Tinker, Vance, or the arms depot, it would have a significant impact on the state economy.

I agree with you, we do spend too much on the military as well as many other government functions.  The military is one more example of a massive government sector which is very top-heavy with administration.  I suppose large military budgets don't upset me as much as I think of a strong military as being one of the expected functions of government.  Learning the mating habits of spotted owls isn't nearly as high on my list of priorities.

[Gaspar]

So how do you decide which end of government to start cutting?  No matter where you cut, you create more unemployment and there's usually a trade off in losing a government service or cutting it back.  If you shut down a base like Tinker, you eliminate good jobs which have an impact on workers who live as far as 50 miles from the base, you cripple a large part of the south OKC service and retail economy, etc. Not to mention all the vendors who would lose a lifeline.


The reality is that military spending is a huge engine in the US economy. The Pentagon has been given carte blanche ever since WWII.  Many technological discoveries and manufacturing methods used to benefit every day consumers came about via military spending.

I actually agree that we could use some military cuts, but more in the realm of R&D and advanced weaponry.  Most of this money filters through the military into contracts for companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, as well as thousands of other smaller firms.

While the cuts will initially cost jobs, the contractors have the ability to turn attention to private sector development and over time rehabilitate. 

We also need to look at the term "Cut."   In the democrat realm a cut is translated as a reduction in yearly spending "increase."  In the real world it actually means a reduction in overall spending.  As we move forward with "spending cuts" we need to be watchful that the proper definition is applied.

I think we do need to have real cuts in military spending.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And in the Republicontin talk of the last 30 years, cut means large increase.


Cut EVERYTHING 10% across the board.


As far as winners can't just pack up and leave, well that probably means that there should be an actual reason for going to war in the first place.  At LEAST something better than getting back for embarrassing Daddy.