| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Pentagon aims to cut budget, slash troops |
| 2011-01-08 |
| [Arab News] The United States plans to cut $78 billion in defense spending over five years, including a reduction of up to 47,000 troops, in a politically contentious move that would trim the government's growing budget deficit. The proposed cuts, unveiled at a somber Pentagon briefing on Thursday, follow increased White House and congressional scrutiny of military spending, which has doubled in real terms since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They are in addition to a $100 billion cost-savings drive that Defense Secretary Robert Gates kicked off last year to eliminate waste, cut poorly performing weapons programs and redirect the money to other priorities. Congress ultimately controls the Defense Department's budget, and politicians often block administration efforts to cut military spending that provides jobs in their home districts. But Gates said the military had to play its part in getting US finances in order. "As the biggest part of the discretionary federal budget, the Pentagon cannot presume to exempt itself from the scrutiny and pressure faced by the rest of our government," Gates said. The annual budget request for the Pentagon will be submitted to Congress as part of the overall federal budget around Feb. 14. Industry sources and analysts say the B.O. regime will ask for $554 billion in military spending in fiscal 2012, not counting overseas fighting, $12 billion less than it initially intended. Shares of major defense contractors rose. Lockheed Martin Corp and General Dynamics Corp have programs that would be hit by the reshuffle but were spared from deeper cuts that some investors feared. Gates, in a half-hour address, said the Pentagon would cope with the belt-tightening by freezing civilian pay, changing economic assumptions and reducing troops starting in 2015, among other items. That will allow defense spending to keep growing modestly through 2014 before leveling off in 2015 and 2016, Gates said. He said calls from some in Congress for deeper cuts would be "risky at best and potentially calamitous," citing global tensions that require a strong, modern US military. Mitch McConnell, the top ranking Republican in the Senate, said on Thursday he believed no US government department was off-limits from belt-tightening. Other Republicans offered a swift rebuke of the plans, in a sign that the proposed cuts may not be realized despite growing pressure to rein in US government spending. "I'm not happy," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon told news hounds. "This is a dramatic shift for a nation at war and a dangerous signal from the Commander in Chief." McKeon and other critics took issue with Gates' plans to cut up to 47,000 troops from the Army and Marines starting in 2015, which would represent the first cuts for those services since before the Sept. 11 attacks. Analysts said the announcement was politically dicey for President Barack B.O.Obama, with US troops still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier on Thursday, the Pentagon announced a new deployment of more Marines to Afghanistan. "The land force end-strength cuts are just shocking," said Thomas Donnelly, at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. But Gates said the reductions would take place four years after US troops are set to leave Iraq, and that 2015 was also the year US war planners aim to hand over responsibility for Afghan security to local forces. "The numbers that we're talking about are relatively small," Gates said. Gates announced cuts or cancelations of troubled weapons programs, including a $13 billion Marine Corps landing craft, designed by General Dynamics. The Arca index of defense stocks closed up 0.8 percent, a sign of relief that financial fallout from the Pentagon's spending overhaul was not worse than what had already been speculated. "The bear argument about significant cuts has been taken off the table," said Peter Arment, an analyst with Gleacher & Co. The plan also calls for cancelation of a ground-launched missile built by Raytheon Co, and includes the second overhaul in a year of the Pentagon's largest weapons program: Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Lockheed restructuring will cost the company 124 planes over the five years. "Gates has announced the continued dismantling of the greatest military the world has ever known," said J. Randy Forbes, a Republican politician. But some of the Pentagon's cost-savings will be reinvested in similar big-ticket programs, including a new long-range nuclear bomber, more ships for the Navy and beefed up missile defense capabilities. Boeing will win a potential $2 billion-plus order for 41 more F/A-18 fighters. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 Remember 1969? Man on the moon. Building the Interstate Highway System. 500,000 troops in an Asian land war. How many of those can we do today? None. Where'd all the money go? Ask LBJ. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-01-08 21:54 |
| #17 One thing high on Gates' plan is cutting military health care, because it "costs too much". This DUMBSH$$ needs to understand that military service is hard on human bodies, and the medical care we receive is basically because of that. I have it written into my second re-enlistment contract. If they cut my medical benefits, I'm liable to be a bit perturbed, and may do something to people that do sh$$ like this. That doesn't mean shooting people, like this morning's hothead, but there are many other ways to fight back. Making sure that anyone that supports this and fights for it never spends another day in government service is a good start. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2011-01-08 20:15 |
| #16 I'm with Steve. However: 5x10e4 soldiers axed times, say, 2x10e5 cost each is 10 billion per year. So, they're going to do this almost entirely by throwing young males out of work, instead of cutting the fat out of the Pentagon etc. You can look at the military as a jobs and training program, and this isn't the right way to go in the current economy. |
| Posted by: KBK 2011-01-08 19:59 |
| #15 I would rather there be welfare for our citizens than welfare for the rest of the world( of which most hate us). We could also cut the budget by getting rid of the IRS and implementing a national sales tax. |
| Posted by: chris 2011-01-08 14:05 |
| #14 The defense budget may not be holy. But it is the number one primary duty of the Federal Government - to provide for a common defense. Stimulus, Klunkers, Obamacare, EPA, FDA, Education, Welfare, Social Security, etc... are *not* the duties of the Fed. While some of them may be hard to cut - they still are not expressly authorized by the Constituting - except by some stretched and twisted commerce clause. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-01-08 12:45 |
| #13 I would say there are many things in the DoD budget that can be and should be cut and trimmed. Doing so will save the taxpayer money and keep our forces trim. However, knowing the dhimocrats and their pantywaste, petty tyrants that will decide the cuts, it will all be the wrong stuff and will hurt the war effort while keeping the politically beneficial plans in place. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-01-08 12:27 |
| #12 Sounds like 1984 is only about 27 years late.... That why we call them leftards. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-01-08 12:10 |
| #11 Defense spending isn't holy. I agree, but that's my point about the rest of the government as well. We've moved from over a million man Army in the 1970s to half a million today. We cut and pruned for the Peace Dividend in the 90s. Somehow its defense that gets the real cuts while all new and other existing departments bloom and grow. I don't object to cuts in defense, but its well past time that such cuts are simply an accounting gimmick to cover in other areas which have nothing to do with the Constitutionally mandated function of the national government. Thus, the cuts must be done across all departments for real savings rather than creative Hollyweird bookkeeping. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-01-08 11:16 |
| #10 Planning for a "Peace Dividend" a la Clinton, when he claimed to have cut the federal workforce mostly through the reduction in the Armed Forces. But the OPTEMPO has never been higher, with most ground combat forces seeing 2nd and 3rd tours in combat zones now routinely. So reducing the force structure will be followed by "right sizing" to fit the pacification, stabilization and nation building roles that the forces have been modified to do. All because there are no looming threats! And, China just keeps on growing its forces, its navy, its ambitions, its aggressive intentions, planting resources in South Amercia, Africa and other strategic locations to allow for interdiction of Sea Lanes of Communication, special forces ops in our hemisphere, massive indistrial spying and theft and disruption of our forward deployment/power projection locations. Gee, its almost like they have a long term plan, and we have a short sighted socialists running the country, destroying the dollar and public confidence in our basic systems of government. Oh wait, they do and we do.....oh well, not to worry, we now have Oprah TV and healthcare... |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2011-01-08 10:49 |
| #9 Let's not make the mistake of assuming that the defense budget is so sacrosanct that one could never cut anything in it. $78 billion over five years is about $16 billion a year. I'll bet I could find that much in defense spending to cut. Give me a week with the books. Of course, I could also find that $100 billion the House Pubs are suddenly reluctant to cut. And more. As an average, ordinary, reasonably intelligent American, I can audit numbers and find stuff that we shouldn't be spending money on. I bet all of us here at the Burg could do so. Defense spending isn't holy. We spend on Defense what we need to spend to keep us safe, and nothing more. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-01-08 10:39 |
| #8 Lets cut the USAID budget to zero first. Then kill NPR. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2011-01-08 10:19 |
| #7 As the biggest part of the discretionary federal budget So I was headed for the same conclusion as P2K - who said the rest of the budget was not discretionary? If Congress were really interested in "fairness". there'd be a x% across-the-board cut. If the Pentagon can eliminate waste and cut under-performing programs, so can DOE. TSA. DOJ. Commerce. And Congress. x = 20 comes to mind, but I'm sure I'd be criticized for that modest proposal! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-01-08 10:02 |
| #6 The smart move is to offer these veterans jobs in a new American Foreign Legion, an offshore corporation managed by someone like Xe (Blackwater), who would subcontract for high-cost, low intensity missions in the future. This would save a ton of money, by not wasting our professional military on "stand around with a rifle" missions. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-01-08 09:26 |
| #5 The old |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-01-08 08:32 |
| #4 Let me get this straight.... Spending trillions on shit the Feds have no business doing (Stimulus, Cash-for-Clunkers, ObumblesCare, TARP, etc..) is ok. But we need to trim Billions from the Federal Governments primary responsibility - because having the Feds actually do the job they are supposed to do is bad. Sounds like 1984 is only about 27 years late.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-01-08 08:28 |
| #3 But Gates said the military had to play its part in getting US finances in order. What might one expect a former CIA officer to say and do, the very first opportunity he has. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-01-08 08:21 |
| #2 How about mandating every other Federal department match dollar for dollar each and every cut at DoD? No waivers. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-01-08 07:56 |
| #1 Yup O'shit continues to destroy America, how better than to force us to lose this War? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2011-01-08 05:41 |