RSS Feed MenuIn his first year in office, President Obama enacted some of the most significant weapons systems cuts since Jimmy Carter was president more than 30 years ago. These cuts included elimination of the Transformational Satellite program as well as elimination of eight new Army combat vehicle types, all of which were integral to modernizing U.S. military capabilities for 21st-century irregular warfare.
And now, in a brazen act of political effrontery, President Obama has let it be known that he’s not yet finished with the defense budget. The U.S. military, the president announced this week, will be forced, yet again, to scale back its modernization efforts.
“There’s still more waste [that] we need to cut,” Obama said during Wednesday’s signing ceremony for the Fiscal Year 2010 defense authorization act. “Changing the culture in Washington will take time and sustained effort. And that’s why Secretary Gates and I will continue waging these battles in the months and years ahead.”
This is stunning and deeply troubling news. America is at war — our soldiers and marines are fighting and dying — in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Our soldiers and marines must confront an adaptive and resourceful enemy who is not standing still.
An enemy who has black market access to a panoply of high-tech gear and equipment. An enemy who has proven that he can destroy, quite literally, our most battle-hardened tanks and weapons systems. Yet, the President is determined to cut the defense budget. He is determined to eliminate advanced weapons systems for our soldiers and marines.
The incongruence between the defense budget and the domestic social-welfare budget is startling. As Charles Krauthammer put it in the Weekly Standard:
At a time when hundreds of billions of dollars are being lavished on stimulus and other appropriations in an endless array of domestic programs, the defense budget is practically frozen. Almost every other department is expanding, and the Defense Department is singled out for making ‘hard choices’ — forced to look everywhere for cuts, to abandon highly advanced weapons systems, to choose between readiness and research, between today’s urgencies and tomorrow’s looming threats.
Yet, the president told sailors and marines in Jacksonville, Florida: “To make sure you can meet the missions we ask of you, we are increasing the defense budget, including spending on the Navy and Marine Corps.”
No one begrudges spending more on the Navy and Marine Corps, but it is the Army that is bearing the brunt of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is the Army that will continue to bear the brunt of the burden in 21st Century conflicts. Yet, Army procurement accounts are being cut by some 14%, or $3.5 billion.
Moreover, as General David Petraeus has explained, “You can’t commute to this fight.” Winning in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere will require the sustained, long-term presence of U.S. ground forces; and that means a robust and expeditionary Army.
The defense budget may be increasing, but that’s mainly because, as the president himself acknowledges, the Pentagon is spending more on pay, benefits, medical care, and family wellness programs. Weapons systems and modernization, meanwhile, are being cut.
“To make sure we’re spending our defense dollars wisely,” says the president, “we’re cutting tens of billions of dollars in waste and projects that even the military says it doesn’t need — so that the money can be better spent on taking care of you and your families and building the 21st Century military that we do need.”
This is rich. The weapons systems that the president is eliminating were never spurned by “the Pentagon” (which is hardly a monolith); quite the contrary. The Army, for instance, vigorously championed its only top 10 weapons acquisition program, Future Combat Systems (FCS); and the Air Force still believes that it requires more F-22 fighter jets.
Nonetheless, FCS was eliminated; and the Air Force buckled to Pentagon political pressure after being told that if it insisted on more F-22s, then it would have to sacrifice another weapons system.
To be sure, the Pentagon is spending more on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets for current wartime exigencies. But these are relatively small-scale, niche investments, which pale in comparison to the larger-scale system-wide cuts that imperil our soldiers and marines in harm’s way.
All sorts of facile rationales are offered up for cutting the defense budget, but none of these rationales can withstand critical scrutiny. The president, for instance, has repeated the charge (by the Government Accountability Office) that 96 leading weapons systems have experienced cumulative cost overruns of $296 billion and delays of two years on average.
But as I have explained previously on NewMajority, this is highly misleading and simply not true. As former Pentagon acquisition chief John Young observed in a March 31, 2009 memorandum, “$296 billion is a sensational number that is misleading, out-of-date, and irrelevant to the current DoD procurement process.”
For ideological reasons, the president is committed to cutting defense so that he can spend more on domestic social-welfare programs such as healthcare. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, meanwhile, has accepted an artificially constrained defense budget as a political reality, which he must accept and accommodate.
The Congress, however, is under no such obligation. It can and should fight back against further defense cuts; but thus far it has yet to really do so. The problem has been Senator McCain, who understands little about the defense budget, but who wants, nonetheless, to cut defense in the name of fiscal discipline.
One thing’s for certain. The United States will pay for its military. We will either pay now in dollars, or our soldiers and marines will pay later with their lives lost and crippled. Unfortunately, with the budgetary decisions that they are now making, our elected representatives have made clear which is their preferred payment method.
MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:03 am
VA Shepherd writes: “In the year that the Taliban mounted their biggest counter-offensive since we removed them from power, this President shows his leadership skills by saluting a flag-draped coffin. Nothing like that to inspire victory!”
Exactly, VA Shepherd! Well said. Nothing like a Celebrity in Chief trying to act like a real Commander but having it all ring hollow and insincere.
Heck, what’s it say when Jill Biden has meet with the troops and military families more than Obama?
Obama was in Dover for one reason: Obama’s falling polls. He needs a lift and he’ll go for it if it means crocodile tears for the fallen soldiers that his pal, John Kerry, thought couldn’t make in real life so they went into the Army. Who said Democrats are honorable men??
ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:04 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:56 am
…….all very interesting but why don’t you answer my question about troop deployments in Afghanistan
ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:06 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:03 am
………Yes we know you hate the president but why not answer my question about troop deployments in Afghanistan then I can go back to reading my book?
sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:08 am
VA Shepherd: Other Presidents confer with our allies and visit recovering veterans in hospital, but not this one. In the year that the Taliban mounted their biggest counter-offensive since we removed them from power, this President shows his leadership skills by saluting a flag-draped coffin. Nothing like that to inspire victory!
Like all modern liberals too young to remember the Second World War, Obama doesn’t believe in victory.
He already said on at least one occasion that victory, in the sense of the enemy being willing to sign a formal surrender, isn’t possible.
MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:11 am
ottoBS writes: “My point exactly……thanks for the confirmation…….there is no chance whatever that other NATO members are going to substantially increase their Afghan force participation”.
No, my Village Idiot, that wasn’t your point at all. You made the point that it would take 500,000 men to pacify Afghanistan, I pointed out that was total forces, not just US troops as you tried to spin it, I said Obama pledged that he would get more combat troops from NATO countries and he could do it because he has the metrosexual mojo thing going… he got zip from France and irritated the French, he got zip from Germany and embarassed all Americans in the process, he got nada from Spain, eastern Europe was so unhelpful that he pulled a defense shield in spite… now, what was that again about how the world would be beautiful under an Obama Reign?
The only thing Obama can come up with for Afghanistan is what I call the ACORN approach.
Offer to buy off the opponents, offer to help the other side do a better job at election fraud and when none of that works, pick up your toys in a pout and run for home. Oh, and call everyone a racist. Gotta do that for some cover so no one mentions the yellow stripe running up your back. The ACORN approach to Afghanistan.
ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:11 am
sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:57 am
“You slip up–if al-Qaeda manages to attack the U.S. on our home soil again–and we’re going to do everything legally possible to drag you out of power in America. That Sword of Damocles is going to be hanging right over your heads.”
……….I’m sure you’re hoping and praying for this Sinz……one can sense it from the entirely juvenile nature of this comment…….sick, angry, pathetic…….how today’s patriotic GOP supporter thinks…….shame on you buddy
MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:14 am
But then, you’re part of the OJ is innocent contingent inside the far Left, so rational observations aren’t your forte.
sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:18 am
balconesfault: young men and women are still dying over there….This is part of the President’s job – not only to pay personal tribute to the vets and families – but to bring the message to the American people, no matter how unpleasant the message is.
But that’s the wrong message for any wartime leader.
FDR didn’t go on the radio for “Fireside Chats” to remind the American people that casualties were frightful. He went on the radio to remind them what their husbands and sons were fighting and dying for–and to inspire them to persist through to victory despite the cost.
With respect to Afghanistan, Obama was quite clear about the reasons we were fighting there (“Let me be clear…”, he said) in his speech last March. But now, ever since Gen. McChrystal told him what the cost would be, he’s been very quiet, desperately trying to walk back from his original goals.
That sounds much more like Vietnam, where the goals and objectives kept shifting as LBJ kept trying to balance them against domestic political considerations and the limits of U.S. power. And we all know how that turned out, don’t we?
A President who emphasizes the casualties of war without being clear about the objectives of the war is a President who is going to end up a defeatist. We should all be aware of the cost of war. But we shouldn’t be deflected by it–if we believe what we’re doing is right.
The problem is, Obama’s “netroots” supporters don’t believe in this war–or any U.S. war. And so Obama can’t even look to his own supporters for support to see this Afghanistan thing through. Lacking a firm base of support from his OWN PARTY to see this war through, I greatly fear he’s going to accept defeat (camouflaged for the voters back home, of course).
MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:20 am
ottoBS goes from ottoBS to AutomaticBS with this line: “I’m sure you’re hoping and praying for this Sinz… one can sense it from the entirely juvenile nature of this comment… sick, angry, pathetic… how today’s patriotic GOP supporter thinks… shame on you buddy”
Actually, automaticBS, that’s a line your side used repeatedly in the last 8 yrs with little effect. It went “Bush is hoping the US gets attacked so he can look strong and reunite the country” or “Bush is holding off catching bin Laden so it can be an election eve surge” or “The GOP needs fear to stay in power”.
Then, your guy gets elected and it turns out he still hasn’t caught bin Laden and Obama’s pals in the MSM have curiously stopped the inquiry as to why not… your guys gets elected and the very first thing he does is leverage a legislative package based on the unsupportable FEAR tactic that if we don’t pass the Stimuli, unemployment will top 8%… when it does, all we get is whistling inattention and distractions like Dover from the WH…
Strange how the Democrats have turned reality into an Alice in Wonderland world.
ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:22 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:11 am
“The only thing Obama can come up with for Afghanistan is what I call the ACORN approach.”
…….The rat in the corner………I said according to the army/marine manual it’s going to require 600,000 (not 500,000)…….first you say most are coming from Nato…..then you say they are not coming from Nato……then you say a lots(unspecified number) of them are going to be contractors……now apparently we’re not sending troops, we’re sending ACORNS……..well rats like acorns I believe so you should be happy.
……And you’re a lawyer in MI…..right?
MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:24 am
BTW automaticBS, I thought this side issue was finished when you lost the debate about whether or not combat troop deaths equated to support, non-combat deaths from NATO forces?
I guess when you’re wrong, you just keep plowing the row hoping that no one will notice another defeat?
MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:26 am
Newsflash: at #110, automaticBS drops reality and fully embraces his Alice in Wonderland costume for Halloween.
For him, up is now down; losing is winning; dropping polls mean support.
ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:30 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:26 am
“Newsflash: at #110, automaticBS drops reality and fully embraces his Alice in Wonderland costume for Halloween.”
……..And you’re a lawyer in MI…..right?
ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:34 am
mi-goper // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:24 am
“BTW automaticBS, I thought this side issue was finished when you lost the debate about whether or not combat troop deaths equated to support, non-combat deaths from NATO forces?”
…….Is incoherence a qualification for practising at MI bar?……..I doubt it……but for rats?…..probably.
VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm
When defense is the only part of the ballooning Federal budget that’s being cut don’t count on this president being a war-fighter. “The best way to pay tribute to those who have sacrificed is to win the war.” Too bad for the men and women fighting the war that B.O. doesn’t have any sense of urgency about winning the war.
ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 12:12 pm
VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“When defense is the only part of the ballooning Federal budget that’s being cut”
……But it’s not being cut……..all Sec Gates is doing is reallocating resources to protecting the guys actually involved in ops away from a lot of pie in the sky the main beneficiaries of which are defense contractors.
MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:38 pm
automaticBS offers: “Is incoherence a qualification for practising at MI bar?……..I doubt it……but for rats?…..probably”
And this is the best that our New Majority Village Idiot can muster? LOL.