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 ...
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.