Skip to comments.Rumsfeld: Attack Imminent If Congress Cuts Defense
Posted on 09/10/2011 12:00:30 PM PDT by Clairity
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that it will only be a matter of time before America endures another terrorist attack if Congress ends up blaming the defense budget for this country's red ink woes. "The Department of Defense is not what's causing the debt and the deficit. It's the entitlement programs," he told HUMAN EVENTS in an exclusive interview. "If we make that mistake, we're doomed to suffer another attack of some kind, and our intelligence will be less strong and less effective."
Before legislators attempt to take out the nation's crushing debt on the Defense Department, they must understand that spending on the military is low compared with historical averages, said Rumsfeld. He noted that military spending from Eisenhower though LBJ topped 10% of the gross domestic product (GDP), far less than today's 4.7%.
President Obama has already imposed $400 billion in military cuts, and there could be $800 billion more in slashing to follow in the very near future if congressional leaders do not agree on a debt-reduction deal.
Rumsfeld stressed that the military cuts looming today may be similarly disastrous to those that occurred at the end of the Cold War - a precursor, he claims, to creating the vulnerable environment that bred 9/11. The mindset then was, "we can cut the defense budget, we cut the intelligence budget, and we'll be okay. The answer was that we weren't okay. We didn't have the kind of intelligence capability we needed."
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
There is no doubt in my military mind that we’re in for more trouble. Count on it.
With all due respect to Mr. Rumsfeld, there has to be at least 10~20% in waste, fraud, and/or useless programs at the DOD, as there likely is in so many other Federal agencies, that deserves to be cut ASAP.
That would require a pair. Seen much evidence of that lately?
On the upside, another terrorist attack could cause a very strong reaction. American civil liberties might be limited, more hate speech codes and a stricter political correctness could be imposed by the administration. In addition, to prevent another terrorist attack, any prohibitions and numerical limits against Muslim immigration would be removed completely.
That would show the terrorists. (/Obama)
Yes! Big Government will save us all! /sarc
If we allow this administration to replace the Bill of Rights with a Bill of Entitlements, America will crumble.
If we allow this administration to replace our Constitutional Republic with a direct Democracy, America will crumble.
The heart and soul of this great country was built on self reliance and personal responsibility, underpinned by a Judeo-Christian ethic.
We have reached a point where Godless atheism and an entitlement mentality have been allowed to crush that heart and soul.
It is time America, for another Tea Party.
This time it must not be isolated to Boston!
Yes, but notice which entity is always addressed up front. Yep, it’s the military, not all those other Federal agencies.
Defense is always a waste, fraud, or useless program magnet, whenever cuts in government spending is required.
The one department the government is tasked with actually funding, is the first one cut. Even as Conservatives, that’s the go to department.
Uh, no thanks.
Is there need for military cuts? There probably are. Now, do we want Obama and the Democrat Senate to devise what those cuts will be?
Uh, no thanks.
My problem is that when politicians (of both parties) make of a list of 10 places to cut, nine of those 10 places tend to be Defense. That's not right. That sort of cutting isn't done because anyone wants to be fiscally responsible; that sort of cutting is done because some folks hate the military.
I'd swallow defense cuts if other programs are also deeply cut. But Rumsfeld is right -- we are likely to regret such defense cutting, and the Left better be ready for a giant "I told you so".
However, I don't have much of a problem with defense being 5% or even 10% of a Federal budget (which would mean no further cuts from here on). Defense is a Federal responsibility. Entitlements are not, however, and they presently far outweigh the defense budget. Entitlements should be near 0% IMO and given largely to the states for them to handle.
Gute wise leadership.
Gut God from every sector.
Gut the military budget.
Gut support of our last ME ally, Israel.
Embrace homosexuality into the militry
Effect: Complete and utter Disaster
Republicans agreed to this like scoundrels.
Waste can be trimmed without compromising our Military Defenses.
No need to cut the Military’s budget, trim the waste in D.C. associated with civilian staff and contractors and prosecute fraud if they want to save money.
No, it’s the disagreement in the Super Committee that will cut the Military equal to all entitlement cuts combined, that’s what Republicans agreed to when they signed on. Sounded stupid initially too.
I agree with most of your posts, but do you really feel that all expenditures should be weighted equally? Our national security should be given more consideration than every item in the budget in my opinion.
“My problem is that when politicians (of both parties) make of a list of 10 places to cut, nine of those 10 places tend to be Defense. That’s not right. That sort of cutting isn’t done because anyone wants to be fiscally responsible; that sort of cutting is done because some folks hate the military.”
You are absolutely right. That’s why Obama won’t tell us where the money is coming from for his “jobs program”, until after it’s passed, and then Congress will be pushed into a corner to cut defense, now that the spending plan is already passed.
No, he isn’t. We need to cut big government across the board including our bloated Pentagon budget. A disaster like Rummy is the last person to listen to about anything.
Not stupid at all! Pull the triggers. Conservatives now have a choice. Do they have actual cuts in big government or are they will to sacrifice this goal to defend our bloated Pentagon budget?
What does policing the world and putting bases on every nook and cranny on the planet have to do with “national security?”
It’s stupid because all different entitlements should be cut equally across the board as the Military; not $500 billion Military for $500 billion every thing else combined.
Those are all your words Kirk. My idea of National Security is different than yours.
Unfortunately, the GOP -— who only have a majority in the House -— have to resist calls for defense cuts from the Tea Party as well as from the Dems.
Many of your TP congress critters are in actuality libertarians promoted by Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and he would slash the military completely: troops, budget and all. It’s not just a fiscal issue for them but ideological as well, in their true alignment with the Left.
What is your idea of national security?
If you have the view that will not cut some programs until all others are cut by an equal amount, you will never reduce government. I’m happy to get cuts, any cuts” whenever I can. You seem to be awaiting for a utopian moment.
And, especially not in a time of war.
There are numerous worthless departments and programs that could be cut, as we all know.
I just wonder why the RuPaul trolls, and there are at least 3 or 4 on this thread, don’t call for cuts in any other departments if “fiscal responsibility” is their true concern.
Huh??? No member of Congress has done more to oppose cuts in every domestic program. Please note that Paul was the ONLY candidte int the debate who stood up and called the abolition of FEMA!!! He also courageously attacked Medicare as a needless mandate. Bachmann, Perry, and Cain were, and are, shrinking, violets on these issues compared to Paul.
Huh??? No member of Congress has done more to propose cuts in every domestic program. Please note that Paul was the ONLY candidte int the debate who stood up and called the abolition of FEMA!!! He also courageously attacked Medicare as a needless mandate. Bachmann, Perry, and Cain were, and are, shrinking, violets on these issues compared to Paul.
And I sure wouldn’t favor entitlements over the Military.
Which department is glaringly absent this discussion? Insert Jeopardy music here...
Welfare maybe? I guess there’s no waste there.
Who is mentioning that despite a massive per-capita expense per student, our students still wind up way down the list of the best educated kids when put up against the children of other nations? I guess there’s no waste there.
Do we dare say it?
Illegal immigrants... there’s obviously no waste there.
Nah, let’s go after the military.
Also, just say NO to unemployment benefits extension.
And so on.
Doesn't anyone use editors anymore? Sheesh.
Are you saying that you would oppose any cut in government unless the cuts first come from entitlements? If that is your utopian position, you are defacto friend of big government. IMHO, we should support ANY cuts in big government that we can get....or we will never be able to reduce the size of government.
Actually, the trigger cuts will come from BOTH the military and domestic programs....though the cuts from the military will be greater. Would I prefer that cuts be exactly the same everywhere? Of course....but we don’t live in a utopian world. We need to seize, and all, opportunities to reduce, or at least limit, the size of government PER SE.
Every administration since WWII has used the 'waste fraud and abuse' cliche as a mantra for how they plan to save money. Somehow it never seems to add up.
I recall Rumsfeld took some heat for cancelling the Crusader long range artillary system. Did anyone ever give him credit for cutting a "useless" program? No. This, unfortunately, is just a form of demogoguery that never yields that pot o' gold.
I’m heartened that so many FReeepers understand that we want a strong, wise Defense. Just to add to the argument. When Rumsfeld came to the DOD, we spent 3% of our GDP on defense. When he left the DOD, we spent 4% of our GDP on defense. Today were are spending 5%. This is in contrast to Iraq that spends 2.5%.
Is 3% too little? Yeah, I think everyone would agree with that.
Is 5% too much? Bush and Rumsfeld thought so.
4% seems about right.
No, I am saying the default cuts should have been equally across all government spending, not half Military, half everything else combined.
We are not in 1945 where the threat picture is suddenly and massively reduced with only a few large and predictable as well as stable threats out there. Massive cuts in defense as we typically do post war (and we're not done) will cause major problems for us because we are facing numerous and different threats in various regions of the world. Things are too volatile and not even intelligence can give you good predictions. We have some out there who are rapidly gaining in military strength and capabilities (technology, i.e. China). The DoD already took some large hits with the cutting of the Zumwald boat, missile defense, F22, FCS... Massive cuts that went largely unreported in a pro Obama media and where other concerns (economic or pop culture trash) dominate.
Back in the olden days, military contracting was done "on-spec." A company bid (say) $25,000 for a plane. If the contract was accepted, the company handed over the plane and got the agreed-to amount. Here's your cheque; thanks for the plane.
Guess why the on-spec system was gotten rid of? Surprise, surprise: liberals.
Yes, liberals. They were offended at the sight of a company selling a plane for $25,000 that cost $20,000. Never mind that the $5,000 profit came in large part because of entrepreneural cost-savings. They made 25%: Horrors!
So, the on-spec system was ditched and cost-plus was introduced. The liberals of the time not only claimed that cost-plus would eliminate 'war profiteering', but they also had the gall to claim it would save the government money.
Guess what happened instead? If you need the hint, just remember the word "liberals" above.
I know that's you are saying and I agree with you...but we don't live in a utopian world. Let me ask you a single question: would you spurn ANY cuts unless you get your across-the-board ideal even if that meant that the status quo would continue? With a Democratic Senate, there will not be a third choice.
It's an even bigger "facade argument" to stoke fear by claiming that an attack is imminent if Congress cuts defense.
We have some out there who are rapidly gaining in military strength and capabilities (technology, i.e. China).
Well maybe if we made deep across-the-board cuts in most domestic programs and some sensible cuts in Defense we wouldn't be funding China's military build-up by borrowing so much from them.
Maybe he would like to offer his solutions on where to get the money, since the country is, you know, BROKE.
When there is no money, there is NO MONEY.
Wake up Rumsfeld... our weakness is Obama’s objective, and a new attack upon this nation his ultimate wet dream.
In the absence of such an attack, any disaster or catastrophe would do, as we saw with Irene.
It’s a miracle that our enemies thus far have been unable to repeat an attack such as 9/11... because we certainly seem to be promoting a pre-9/11 mentality.
In it’s intended form, I’m not actually against it. In this extended year after year format, I’m not a big fan of the Dole, and I’m not signing on to this at all.
His request to extend coverage for another year, is bogus. It should be DOA in Congress.
Knowing our crew, I doubt it will be.
You’re going by a fairly decent rule of thumb, but when it comes to cutting our military, they do serious damage every time they do it. Then it costs us double when we have to rebuild.
There are literally thousands of programs they could cut, that would seriously set back Leftist causes in our nation.
I think you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re going to go after them with anything close to the same vigor they will our military.
We have a one theater level preparedness at this time. We should have two. Are we now going to a zero theater level of preparedness? That’s a question worth pondering, because I don’t see any way around it if cutting takes place.
What happens then? Well, then we fight on our own shores.
Not one single cut from ANY defense program or benefit, not even a smidgen, nothing, until the bastards cut funding for NPR, NEA and get ALL the money back, every cent, from Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, GM, Solyndra, etc.
Then we can begin to look at wasteful defense spending.
2001 was predictable: WTC 1993, Kohbar towers, US African embassy attacks, USS Cole... But back then we chose to collectively ignore and minimize the threat because we want to live in a world of a "Peace Dividend" and where “all is fine.”
If we choose to shrink, as our surprise in 1812, our surprise in 1918, our surprise in 1941, our surprise in 1962, our surprise in 2001... the enemy will come knocking on our door soon enough, but that apparently is absurd in your mind and we have absolutely no historical perspective or rational argument for believing such. lol
Our defense spending is well below even what it was during the Cold War outside of war time. We today spend about 4% GDP on defense and while some will want to dazzle you with big numbers, this is actually a sustainable amount. The entire fraud waste and abuse argument is nothing more than an interlude to justifying cuts.
Defense, federal law enforcement and intelligence are a core function of the federal government. It is those area's that justify their purpose and are spelled out as their domain Constitutionally. It is not the federal governments job to buy votes by bringing home bacon or special programs for minorities, people with HIV/AIDS, run a department of education... When the federal government feels their actual purpose is something they should avoid (i.e. protect our Southern border) but feels compelled to discuss extending unemployment past 99 weeks, things are a bit backwards. Defense in all aspects makes up roughly 22% of the federal budget and that's their “purpose.” Want fraud waste and abuse? What does the other 78% go too? I know, the all important infrastructure Obama talks about.
Hint- Defense spending goes nearly 90% back into the US economy (without looking at the multiply effect), from aircraft, trucks, missiles to rifles or even the bullets they fire... They are mandated to prefer US made products and security as well as other requirements pretty much make US made goods the choice from computers to boots. Reagan pushed defense, Obama will push infrastructure, social programs whatever... maybe 50% of that money you give people will flow out of this country because they buy "made in China" products- since you mention this argument.
Well said, Red6. Well said.
Or put another way: “Nothing is so inviting to aggression as weakness.”
"...Well maybe if we made deep across-the-board cuts in most domestic programs and some sensible cuts in Defense we wouldn't be funding China's military build-up by borrowing so much from them.
But that is a sentiment I can agree with.