Obama's Mythical Defense Cuts

Townhall.com ^ | March 19, 2009 | Steve Chapman

[Kaslin]

One of the problems with liberals, as conservatives know, is that no matter how much money they are given to spend, it's never enough. The social and economic problems they lament are impossible to eradicate entirely, so more spending is always in order. After all, it is bound to do some good. Spending less? Never an option.

But it turns out conservatives are not immune to that impulse. They just apply it to the programs they like instead of the ones liberals like. And their favorite of all is defense spending.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial writers fear that any day, we will be naked unto our enemies. President Obama, they warn, wants to lavish money on everything but the military. America faces an array of threats, and "Obama's budget isn't adequate to those challenges."

Really? Cindy Williams, a defense scholar at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former assistant director of the Congressional Budget Office, points out that Obama wants to spend 2 percent more in the next fiscal year than President Bush allocated for this year, and 9 percent more than we spent last year.

Bush also planned for the defense budget (apart from Iraq and Afghanistan) to shrink slightly each year starting in 2010. Obama's blueprint calls for the defense budget to remain about the same. "Spending will actually be higher under Obama's plan than under Bush's," says Williams.

But as conservatives have been known to point out, Washington policymakers have funny ways with numbers. Last year, the Defense Department asked for an increase of nearly $60 billion in the 2010 budget over what had been planned. The Obama administration declined but agreed to a smaller increase.

So conservatives should be pleased, right? Wrong. Since the increase the Pentagon got is less than it wanted, they claim Obama is "cutting" defense spending. By that logic, if you ask for a 50 percent raise and get only 10 percent, you've suffered a pay cut.

The real question is not why Obama wants to spend so little on defense but why he wants to spend so much. Since 2001, our military outlays have soared by 40 percent, after adjusting for inflation. And that's not counting the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We not only spend more than anyone else, we spend more than everyone else. Globalsecurity.org reports that in 2004, the United States lavished $623 billion on the military. All the other governments on Earth together managed only $500 billion. Even this gap understates our dominance, because most of the other top spenders are U.S. allies.

No nation can dream of challenging us in the air or at sea. We have a huge nuclear arsenal capable of inflicting mass annihilation on a moment's notice.

Meanwhile, the demands on our military are easing rather than growing. Under the agreement Bush signed with the Iraqi government, which Obama has reaffirmed, we are supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The threat from al-Qaida has been greatly reduced.

Still, looming threats can always be found. The Washington Post had a story the other day about China's military expansion, which has enlarged its budget to more than $100 billion in 2008. This trend worries the Pentagon. "Given the apparent absence of direct threats from other nations," says the Post, "the purposes to which China's current and future military power will be applied remain uncertain."

But our spending that year was more than $600 billion. And China, come to think of it, is not the only country spending a lot on the military despite the absence of direct threats from other nations.

Benjamin Friedman of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington notes something generally overlooked in Washington: "In a literal sense, the United States does not have a defense budget." Our military outlays go for all sorts of purposes -- "the purported extension of freedom, the maintenance of hegemony, and the ability to threaten any other nation with conquest." But defending the nation's basic security? That's a small share of our military outlays.

If we focused on what is vital for our safety and independence, we could spend a lot less money. But if there is no limit to what we have to do to police and remake the world, there is also no limit to what we can spend.

[ETL]

"Meanwhile, the demands on our military are easing rather than growing."

Strange piece coming from Townhall. Looks more like something you'd see in the Huffington Post.

"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" -Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the collapse of the Soviet Union...
"World democratic opinion has yet to realize the alarming implications of President Vladimir Putin's State of the Union speech on April 25, 2005, in which he said that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'
http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/beichman.html

_____________________________________________________________

Russia and China are scheduled to hold another set of joint war games this summer (2009). They've been doing it every other year since 2005.

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
_____________________________________________________________

War Games: Russia, China Grow Alliance
September 23, 2005

In foreign policy it’s critical to “know thine enemy.” So American policymakers should be aware that Russia and China are inching closer to identifying a common enemy — the United States.

The two would-be superpowers held unprecedented joint military exercises Aug. 18-25. Soothingly named “Peace Mission 2005,” the drills took place on the Shandong peninsula on the Yellow Sea, and included nearly 10,000 troops. Russian long-range bombers, the army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units from both countries were also involved.

Moscow and Beijing claim the maneuvers were aimed at combating terrorism, extremism and separatism (the last a veiled reference to Taiwan), but it’s clear they were an attempt to counter-balance American military might.

Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants. As the Pravda.ru Web site announced, “the reconciliation between China and Russia has been driven in part by mutual unease at U.S. power and a fear of Islamic extremism in Central Asia.”
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed092605a.cfm
_____________________________________________________________

Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
Reuters: Aug 17, 2007

CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.

"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.

Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.

The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.

Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29030120070817?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
_____________________________________________________________

From National Public Radio (NPR):
August 29, 2006
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been visiting countries such as China, Iran and Russia as part of an effort to build a 'strategic alliance' of interests not beholden to the United States. He considers the United States his arch enemy.":
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5729764
_____________________________________________________________

From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html
_____________________________________________________________

Venezuela Set to Develop Nuclear Power With Russia
September 29, 2008
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russia will help Venezuela develop nuclear energy — a move likely to raise U.S. concerns over increasingly close cooperation between Caracas and Moscow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429441,00.html
_____________________________________________________________

Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships
Nov 25, 2008
LA GUAIRA, Venezuela – Russian warships arrived off Venezuela's coast Tuesday in a show of strength aimed at the United States as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America. The deployment is the first of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War and was timed to coincide with President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Caracas — the first ever by a Russian president.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Venezuela%27s+Chavez+welcomes+Russian+warships%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2

More Yahoo search results for Russia and Venezuela connections:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu_X30pZJCJEAfCtXNyoA?p=Russia+Venezuela+bombers+tanks+arms&y=Search&fr=404_news
_____________________________________________________________

Russian nuclear bombers in Cuba?
July 23, 2008

The media has been abuzz today at the prospect of Russian nuclear bombers being stationed in Cuba if the US goes ahead with plans for missile defense bases in Eastern Europe.

The story has riled the US enough that a US general has been wheeled out to tell the world’s press that any Russian attempt to build another nuclear base in Cuba would cross US “red line”.

The story broke earlier this week, when Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted an un-named source from within the Russian military. He told the Russian daily:

“While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba.”

The quote hasn’t been independently confirmed, but the Russian Defense Ministry added fuel to the fire when they refused to comment on the story.

The prospect of Russian nuclear forces being stationed in Cuba - which is, after all, only 90 miles from the US coast - would bring back some rather unpleasant memories for the US of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the Soviet Union under Nikita Kruschev launched an audacious and foolhardy bid to station nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island.

http://www.siberianlight.net/2008/07/23/russian-nuclear-bombers-cuba/
_____________________________________________________________

From CBS-News:
July 29, 2006
"Chavez pledged that his country would 'stay by Iran at any time and under any condition,' state television reported. Ahmadinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit." "'We do not have any limitation in cooperation,' Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. 'Iran and Venezuela are next to each other and supporters of each other. Chavez is a source of a progressive and revolutionary current in South America and his stance in restricting imperialism is tangible.'":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/29/world/main1847331.shtml

[flynmudd]

As far as I’m concerned and according to the Constitution, that’s all that should be in the federal budget. After all, the only purpose of the federal government is to keep up safe. All of the entitlement spending is unconstitutional.

[ETL]

"Obama's Mythical Defense Cuts"

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
_________________________________________________

New Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008

GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.

Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.

Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."

To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf
_________________________________________________

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html

[4rcane]

I agree, wake up conservatives. WE do need to cut military spending. The financial problem is way too big at moment. Cutting ACROSS the board is needed in government. I would start with reducing new air/sea equipment, but maintain funding for research

[BroJoeK]

Most reports I've seen say Obama has not yet done as much damage to our military as many of us feared. Indeed, for the most part his policies seem to be, so far, pretty much what Bush had in mind.

We should also note that a good many conservative types -- some would say "paleo-conservatives" like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan -- WANT to see the US reduce our military and WITHDRAW from the world. Fortress America, let the world do whatever it wants, they say.

Finally, as the War on Terror (ooops, I mean, "contingency actions against man-made disasters") is being won, IF it is won, then we should expect to see smaller military budgets, eventually. If not, then we should be looking for new leadership...

[Erik Latranyi]

We should also note that a good many conservative types -- some would say "paleo-conservatives" like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan -- WANT to see the US reduce our military and WITHDRAW from the world. Fortress America, let the world do whatever it wants, they say.

Buchanan and Paul would repeat the mistake's made prior to WWII which made the US vulnerable to foreign attack.

While these morons would do nothing while Chine/Russia/N Korea/Iran carved up the world, I assure you our enemies will not show the restraint demonstrated by the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor where they could have brought us to our knees.

[Does so]

Yeah! What's the worst that can happen?

/s

[rhombus]

No nation can dream of challenging us in the air or at sea.

But by now every nation has learned that if they take their uniforms off and blow up civilians, some Americans will cower like quagmire shrieking children. The world is too small to hide in Fortress America unless of course libertarians are willing to give up so many of the liberties they demand for the sake of securing the fortress. No? I didn't think so.

[stylin19a]

Since the increase the Pentagon got is less than it wanted, they claim Obama is "cutting" defense spending. By that logic, if you ask for a 50 percent raise and get only 10 percent, you've suffered a pay cut.

How come that line of reasoning always works for the RATS and MSM buys it?

[ETL]

"No nation can dream of challenging us in the air or at sea."

May 18, 2008: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us. ...they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. I mean, if Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.

May 20, 2008 (2 days later!): Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the regions and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust.

Source for these genuine Obama quotes: NewsBusters.org:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/05/23/fnc-shows-obamas-iran-flip-flop-colmes-might-talk-hitler

[ETL]

Finally, as the War on Terror (ooops, I mean, "contingency actions against man-made disasters") is being won, IF it is won, then we should expect to see smaller military budgets, eventually. If not, then we should be looking for new leadership...

I guess (somehow) you're not aware of the increasing threats from Russia, China, Chavez, Iran and North Korea? Is it because the MSM rarely discusses it? The costs of fighting terrorism is probably minuscule compared to these far more sophisticated and difficult challenges that lie ahead. Russia, working closer than ever with the ChiComs (and now Chavez), wants a return of the old Soviet Union. They have their boy in South America leading the charge there, and they have Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Ahmadinejad sounds much more like a leftist revolutionary than an Islamic fanatic...

From CBS-News:
July 29, 2006
"Chavez pledged that his country would 'stay by Iran at any time and under any condition,' state television reported. Ahmadinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit." "'We do not have any limitation in cooperation,' Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. 'Iran and Venezuela are next to each other and supporters of each other. Chavez is a source of a progressive and revolutionary current in South America and his stance in restricting imperialism is tangible.'":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/29/world/main1847331.shtml

[1010RD]

You don’t expect wisdom from Townhall?

[KevinDavis]

Sorry military funding is essential and required in the CONSTITUTION!!!! We need to focus on the welfare programs...

[Dilbert56]

No Sale

0bama's Defense budget does grow but it now incorporates the funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up until now, the cost of those operations was funded separately by supplementals in Congress. Guess what happens when you add it up? A 10% increase does not match the $160-180B for those operations (we do not have a $1.6T Defense budget).

[Rappini]

I think it was Tom Clancy that said if you are going to fight with a Tiger and kick it’s A$$ you better have a plan to deal with it’s teeth.

[BroJoeK]

"I guess (somehow) you're not aware of the increasing threats from Russia, China, Chavez, Iran and North Korea? Is it because the MSM rarely discusses it? The costs of fighting terrorism is probably minuscule compared to these far more sophisticated and difficult challenges that lie ahead. Russia, working closer than ever with the ChiComs (and now Chavez), wants a return of the old Soviet Union. They have their boy in South America leading the charge there, and they have Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Ahmadinejad sounds much more like a leftist revolutionary than an Islamic fanatic..."

Let me put it this way -- here are numbers I've posted before:

At the peak of WWII, US defense spending was around 40% of GDP, and after the war it fell back to maybe 3%.
At the peak of Korea, it rose up to 15% of GDP.
At the peak of Vietnam, it rose to about 10%.
Reagan's Cold War winning military buildup reached 7%.
Clinton reduced that to 3%.
Bush raised defense back up over 4%. That was his 40% increase.

So, let me ask your expert opinion: given the new threats you mention, what would be an appropriate level of future defense spending?

[BroJoeK]

"While these morons would do nothing while Chine/Russia/N Korea/Iran carved up the world, I assure you our enemies will not show the restraint demonstrated by the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor where they could have brought us to our knees. "

Of course I don't agree with Paul or Buchanan. I'm only pointing out that it's not just liberals who want to ruin our military. Some of those we usually think of as "conservative" do too.

Now, as to your comment about supposed Japanese "restraint" after Pearl Harbor -- what an astonishing idea! Oh, sure, the Japanese were "restrained" all right. They "restrained:" themselves right into the Philippines and defeated MacArthur there, and into Singapore where they defeated the Brits, and then into the East Indies where they swatted out the Dutch, and then, let's see, where else did they "restrain" themselves? Oh yes, the Solomon Islands all the way to Guadalcanal.

And let us not forget, then they "restrained" themselves right into the United States -- into Alaska. Of course, that was before Sarah Barracuda was the governor there. I'm certain she would have made quick work of their "restraint." ;-)

[BroJoeK]

"Yeah! What's the worst that can happen?"

Our liberals, plus our "paleo-cons," want rapid and drastic reductions in the military. Of course I don't agree, and that's not what we're seeing, so far at least, from Obama.

If reports are correct, so far Obama is confirming increases already scheduled by Bush. Seems to me that's appropriate for now.

Of course, if international threats are in fact increasing beyond what Bush anticipated, as for example, ETL argues, that would be a different story. But I don't know for a fact if that's the case.

[FocusNexus]

You posted lots of good info, as always.

The author of the piece is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. That explains the piece, but it still doesn’t explain why Townhall published it.

“Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. “

As to the defense budget “increasing” - didn’t Obama combine the budget for the wars, that Bush keps separate, into one defense budget and that total is what is slightly higher — the actual budget apart from the war funding is being cut dramatically. Major programs are being cut.