 |
|
Daylife/AP Photo
|
| Robert Gates and Gen. James Cartwright |
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has announced a major reshaping of the Pentagon budget with deep cuts in many traditional weapons systems but new billions of dollars for others, along with more troops and new technology to fight the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The decisions are expected to set off a vigorous round of lobbying over the priorities embroidered into the Defense Department’s half-trillion dollars of annual spending. They represent the first broad rethinking of American military strategy under the Obama administration, which plans to shift more money to counterterrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan while spending less on preparations for conventional warfare against large nations like China and Russia.
Mr. Gates announced cuts in missile defense programs, the Army’s expensive Future Combat Systems and Navy shipbuilding operations. He would kill controversial programs to build a new presidential helicopter and a new communications satellite system, delay the development of a new bomber and order only four more of the advanced F-22 fighter jets.
But he also said plans to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, while halting reductions in Air Force and Navy personnel, would cost an additional $11 billion. He also announced an extra $2 billion for intelligence and surveillance equipment, including new Predator and Reaper drones, the remote-controlled vehicles currently used in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq for strikes against militants, and more spending on special forces and training foreign military units.
< 
Daylife/Getty Images
/td> |
More broadly, Mr. Gates signaled that he hoped to impose a new culture on the Pentagon — making the system more flexible and responsive to the needs of the troops in the way it chooses and buys weapons.
Even so, he acknowledged that it would be hard, with the economic crisis and concerns in Congress over jobs, to “make tough choices about specific systems and defense priorities based solely on the national interest and then stick to those decisions over time…”
“The perennial procurement and contracting cycle, going back many decades, of adding layer and layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build, must come to an end,” he said. “There is broad agreement on the need for acquisition and contracting reform in the Department of Defense. There have been enough studies, enough hand-wringing, enough rhetoric. Now is the time for action.”
Overdue.
Gates’ complete prepared statement is over here.
19, If you know anyone who’s been in the military under Bush then you’d know that the overall morale has been fairly high.
Insufficient equipment was a fault of the Clinton administration that the Bush administration fixed without pointing fingers.
Death toll of soldiers since the beginning of the Iraq War has been less than the number of people murdered in this country in one year. Iraq War has been the lowest casualty war we’ve ever had but if you listen to the liberal news, they would have you believe this has been worse than Vietnam.
Obama is going to weaken our military so we’re going back on the path that Clinton set fourth. It will all be for noble and well-intentioned reasons, but it will be without any military foresight IMHO.
China’s playing catch up and Putin is wanting things to get back to the good old days. Obama’s bark is probably going to be worse than his bite. Or so I think.
Wow, Guyver, major denial there, sport… you’ve obviously been ignoring all the reports from the military — the spike in suicides, the worn-out troops stop-lossed, the body armor and uparmored Humvees not getting where they need to be. And all for a bogus war. Major, major denial… I’m backing slowly away from this one.
Whatever you say, Guyver, whatever you say.
Interesting how they want to focus just on insurgencies.
While I like Predator and Reaper drones they are only effective against an inferior opponent. Russia dispatched these type of drones easily in their war with Georgia. What Russia didn’t do well was in using their GPS satellite systems; most of their bombs didn’t find their targets as there were too few satellites to effectively compute location. Our own GPS satellite systems are getting older and do need to be replaced eventually. Are new GPS satellite systems the types of satellites that Gates is cutting back on? Why? This will only increase collateral damage.
Bottom line is that we need a well rounded military. You never know what threat you may have to deal with.
Right now we are very vulnerable to anti-satellite and submarine warfare. Indications are that China is putting its money into those very areas.
Um, actually, Billy Bob, the Chinese already have us by the short hairs. They didn’t even have to fire a gun, just ship us cheap stuff and buy our T-Bills. Now we don’t dare piss them off, lest they dump their Dollars or stop loaning us money. And we did it to ourselves, that’s the ironic part.
Sooner or later, this nation will have to decide whether it wants to bankrupt itself playing world police. We spend more on military than any other nation (more than most of them combined) but what good is it if our economy is crumbling? Do we really need eleven aircraft carrier groups? Can we afford them?
Ah, but we’re used to being the top dog in the world, the number one superpower. Lots of Americans will feel humiliated if we have to give up that superpower dream. But what’s the alternative? We’re spending money we don’t have.
# 25 Phydeau said, “Sooner or later, this nation will have to decide whether it wants to bankrupt itself playing world police.”
True. We’re much better off being commercial empire than a military one. Just need enough to defend our interests, not others.
Somebody is going to shot a nuke at us. I’d say within the next 20 years with the number of nut nations that now have or soon will have the bome at which point in time we have something in place that works or a _lot_ of dead citizens.
#12, Billy,
It isn’t the camels, it’s when they drop bombs on Wedding Parties that needs to be controlled.
Feet on the ground is always better than very expensive toys.
#17, Guyver,
As pointed out, you are in serious denial.
Rumsfeld was named Defense Secretary soon after President George W. Bush took office in 2001. He immediately announced a series of sweeping reviews intended to transform the U.S. military into a lighter force. These studies were led by Pentagon analyst Andrew Marshall.
Cuts under Bush I were almost 17% in four years. Under eight years of Clinton, the budget fell by a total of 15% even though the Bush I long range estimates were 19%.
There is lots more, however due to the spam filter, I’ll only post these two references.
# 27 deowll said, “Somebody is going to shot a nuke at us.”
Which is why refusing to develop missile defense qualifies a President as being criminally insane.
Which is why refusing to develop missile defense qualifies a President as being criminally insane.
Yes, the same people denying evolution are the ones plugging this faith-based “missile defense”.
The consensus in the scientific community is that a missile defense system just won’t work. You could google it, but I hate to see someone’s faith destroyed… just close your eyes and wish really hard and we’ll have a magical space umbrella that will protect us.
Seriously, if someone wants to blow up a nuke in the U.S., they can just put it on a ship and sail it right up to Manhattan. No missile needed.
# 31 Phydeau said, “The consensus in the scientific community is that a missile defense system just won’t work.”
LOL! Perhaps those “scientists” should note the successful intercepts of ballistic missiles? No, never let facts get in the way of consensus.
Fusion,
So I see you’ve decided Wikipedia is objective enough on politics today since it suits your opinions. LOL
The quote you’re using is talking about is in reference to what Rumsfeld saw as too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Rumsfeld got the ire of military brass because he was looking to cut some of their jobs. In addition, you also have forces which consolidate while going “lighter”. So you can reduce the number of units, but existing units gain more personnel and equipment. It’s a shell game. Lastly, General Shinseki under the Clinton Administration proposed a lighter (by weight) more agile military force in his concept of Future Combat Systems. Be careful of what you quote when you don’t understand what you’re quoting.
Although you may not like this source, I have personally observed all of the four stated “facts”: http://tinyurl.com/akjgnh
As for your cuts under Bush I, you’re talking about budgets and not reduction in forces (people). Clinton accomplished what he did by RIFing people at a ridiculous rate. Bush Sr. did not. Yes Bush Sr. started a downsizing of the military, but that was essentially due to not having a Soviet Union to confront anymore but it was at a reasonable rate without forcing people out before retirement.
Here’s some snippets from one of your favs One of your favs ( http://tinyurl.com/bjg4nw ):
“Before he left office, President Bush had already proposed spending $3 billion less on the military in the next fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1. But MR. ASPIN’S DIRECTIVE WOULD CUT THE SPENDING BY NEARLY FOUR TIMES AS MUCH AND MAKE THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION’S FIRST STEP TOWARD HONORING A CAMPAIGN PLEDGE TO REDUCE MILITARY SPENDING MORE.”
Here’s another one: “About $8.3 billion of what Mr. Aspin hopes to cut is to come from the operating budgets of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. THAT IS LIKELY TO MEAN FASTER CUTS IN TROOPS, LESS TRAINING TIME AND FEWER SHIPS THAN PRESIDENT BUSH HAD ENVISIONED IN HIS FINAL BUDGET. REDUCING TROOPS IN EUROPE”
And Clinton justified all of these sharp cuts because he said if there were ever a large scale operation, the National Guard and Reserves would be more fully utilized. His logic revolved around the concept that it’s cheaper to budget for a weekend warrior than an active duty person. Bush Jr. utilized exactly what Clinton handed off to him. I’m not saying Clinton tried to set Bush up for failure. Far from it. But I do believe Clinton was very short-sighted when it comes to national defense.
BTW, everything Clinton used our military for was essentially police action. None of it was defense related. And the liberals back then never demanded that he go to the UN for prior approval. Go figure.