Obama's new "leaner" defense strategy

[KingOrfeo]

Announced at presidential news conference at the Pentagon (which, apparently, has never been done before):

WASHINGTON - President Obama outlined a broad new military strategy yesterday, one that refocuses the armed forces on threats in Asia and the Pacific region, continues a strong presence in the Middle East, but makes clear that US ground forces will no longer be large enough to conduct prolonged, large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

<snip>

Panetta has concluded that the Army has to shrink even below current targets, dropping to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade, but that the United States should not cut any of its 11 aircraft carriers, according to Pentagon officials and military analysts briefed on the secretary’s budget proposals.

The new military strategy is driven by at least $450 billion in Pentagon budget cuts over the next decade. An additional $500 billion in cuts could be ordered if Congress follows through on plans for deeper reductions.

Panetta is expected to propose cuts in coming weeks to next-generation weapons, including delays in purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet, one of the most expensive weapons programs in history. Delaying the F-35 would leave its factories open, giving the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, a chance to work out continuing problems in developing the plane while freeing up money that otherwise would be devoted to buying it in the next year or two.

Well, I don't see any downside, except perhaps an end to military-as-jobs-program. Does anybody see any downside?

 

[islandman]

Inability to project power to protect U.S. interests globally even as Russia retools and China flexes its new-found muscles?

 

[TexasWife25]

Not saying I'm for or against it.
but


There is the definite worry that
the US simply wont have enough man power
to defend on multiple fronts...

Especially when other countries
like China are growing their military
at a fast paced rate...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Announced at presidential news conference at the Pentagon (which, apparently, has never been done before):



Well, I don't see any downside, except perhaps an end to military-as-jobs-program. Does anybody see any downside?

That which we cannot foresee is the downside.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Low Information Voters (think: Vetteman) regard any reduction in military forces as "weakening" our country.

Interestingly, if you read Donald Rumsfeld's autobiography, the sole reason he took the Defense Secretary job was to re-tool the American military for the next century. Too bad he got sidetracked and had to fight George W. Bush's voluntary war for him.

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

Given that defense spending is the only politically acceptable form of stimulus spending, I'm agin it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We go apeshit crazy if a single cop or firefighter gets laid off, but downsize the military and it's *shrug*.



It's nice to find the one single aspect of the Federal budget that Democrats are willing to exercise fiscal discipline and cuts in.

What will they do to offset all the stupid and desperate that would have looked to the military for a job, especially the gays ones. Won't that be a new form of discrimination?

 

[miles]

Announced at presidential news conference at the Pentagon (which, apparently, has never been done before):



Well, I don't see any downside, except perhaps an end to military-as-jobs-program. Does anybody see any downside?

It's hard to see anything when you view the world through the wrong end of the binoculars.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's whack the Military and then do this:

White House proposes 0.5 percent pay increase for federal workers
By Ed O'Keefe


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rkers/2012/01/06/gIQA18fyeP_blog.html?hpid=z1

Oh NOE! Two TOTALLY UNRELATED STORIES!

As I said above, Vetteman is the classic "Low Information Voter"

 

[LadyFairfax]

These cuts will leave us with a hollowed out military, barely capable of defending our own borders much less winning wars overseas where our freedom is being challenged on a daily basis.

Our only hope is to elect another Reagan type who will build up our forces again.

Start taking your Chinese as a Second Language courses, we won't be able to stop them if they invade.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We defend our borders?




Since fucking when?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Who am I?

The benighted Congress assembled and their pugilistic sycophant Kenyan are endevouring to incapacitate the bellicose temperament of this pietistic nation at our peril.

 

[Wrong Element]

1. Spending on the military is still "spending." A dollar spent on a tank is the same as a dollar spent on food stamps, with the major difference being that the food stamp heads back into the wider economy.

2. We have a finite amount of money to spend, especially in an era where keeping taxes on the wealthy at historically low levels is the highest priority of both major political parties.

3. We're still spending way, way, way, way, way, way, WAY more on our military than any country or potential combination of hostile countries is/are spending on theirs.

4. 11 aircraft carriers? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Who am I?

The benighted Congress assembled and their pugilistic sycophant Kenyan are endevouring to incapacitate the bellicose temperament of this pietistic nation at our peril.

What is, "If Vetteman were bald and gay"?

I'll take Who am I? for $300 please, Alex.

 

[LadyFairfax]

Who am I?

The benighted Congress assembled and their pugilistic sycophant Kenyan are endevouring to incapacitate the bellicose temperament of this pietistic nation at our peril.

Classic vetteman thesaurus fail.

 

[garbage can]

We go apeshit crazy if a single cop or firefighter gets laid off, but downsize the military and it's *shrug*.

Keep in mind, that laying off the cops and firefighters pisses off the unions, you don't want to do that.

It's much easier to lay off the military, no unions to worry about.

 

[Disgustipated]

Who am I?

The benighted Congress assembled and their pugilistic sycophant Kenyan are endevouring to incapacitate the bellicose temperament of this pietistic nation at our peril.

What is, "If Vetteman were bald and gay"?

I'll take Who am I? for $300 please, Alex.

Classic vetteman thesaurus fail.

No unnecessary emotes = post copy fail.

 

[LadyFairfax]

No unnecessary emotes = post copy fail.

shaddup bert.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

shaddup bert.

That was funny. I'm sorry I called you an evolutionary dead end.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

1. Spending on the military is still "spending." A dollar spent on a tank is the same as a dollar spent on food stamps, with the major difference being that the food stamp heads back into the wider economy. (A)

2. We have a finite amount of money to spend, especially in an era where keeping taxes on the wealthy at historically low levels is the highest priority of both major political parties. (B)

3. We're still spending way, way, way, way, way, way, WAY more on our military than any country or potential combination of hostile countries is/are spending on theirs. (C)

4. 11 aircraft carriers? Are you fucking kidding me?

A). That's really true, but incomplete. A dollar spent on food stamps is the same as one on the military but it is not the same as one spent by the public sector for that dollar first had to be confiscated from the Capital reserves of the Private Sector. Now, if we were going to realize the savings of the military cuts and reduce taxes accordingly, then it would be a good thing, but that "Savings" is merely going to go to service the very soon to be $16,000,000,000,000.00 debt.

B). We have a finite amount of Capital. Money is infinite, that's why Paul is so upset, the Fed and the government are inflating the currency and undercutting interest rates.

C). That is true, but it's 2% or less of our GDP. That's a bargain. Plenty of other countries eat up more, in proportion, on their militaries.

D). Yeah, we only need two. One for the East Coast museum and one for the West Coast Museum, because we're just going to fucking nuke our enemies, that is absolutely the cheapest option.

 

[Disgustipated]

shaddup bert.

Fuck off, Rory.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Keep in mind, that laying off the cops and firefighters pisses off the unions, you don't want to do that.

It's much easier to lay off the military, no unions to worry about.

True...


But who is going to man the bases that provide the taxes that get the Congressperson elected?

 

[garbage can]

Let's whack the Military and then do this:

White House proposes 0.5 percent pay increase for federal workers
By Ed O'Keefe

But I thought the Federal employees were already making 33% more than the same job in the private sector.........