More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Aaron Belkin

GET UPDATES FROM Aaron Belkin
 

Planned Pentagon Cuts Are Trivial

Posted: 11/06/11 11:13 PM ET

Poor, poor Leon Panetta. Our Secretary of Defense has to find a way to cut $45 billion per year out of our $700 billion military budget. That's right, five percent.

At a moment when my students take on ever more debt because of steep tuition hikes which reflect years of education cuts, when our consumption of oil continues to grow because our public transportation is so terrible, when our assistance to poor and homeless people pales in comparison to what other modern societies provide, the Pentagon is forced to shave five percent off its pornographically bloated budget. How sad.

I don't blame Secretary Panetta for the bloated budget. He is a good man who inherited a monster.

Rather, the fault lies at least in part with progressives, who, rather than honestly explaining the dangers of our bloated military, run away from their own ideas and resort to framing and slick messaging to try to make themselves seem hawkish on defense and tough on terrorism.

So, what do progressives need to say? Three things:

First, our bloated military is completely unnecessary. The vast majority of the Pentagon budget is a waste, pure and simple. Why? Because the threats this country faces are not military threats. The United States is protected by our oceanic borders and by nuclear deterrence (which requires very few weapons). The wars this country wages are wars of choice, not necessity. If our military were 75% smaller, it would still be one of the largest in the world, and we would be just as secure.

Second, our bloated military actually makes us less secure. How so? For one thing, our huge military provides political leaders with a constant temptation to get involved in bloody wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) that end up doing no good.

Perhaps even worse, we use our military might to prop up dictators who torture their own people, many of whom come to hate the U.S. and some of whom end up as terrorists. If you look at al-Qaeda's list of demands, you see that ending U.S. military support for the Saudi regime is a top goal. Why do they hate us? It's quite simple. And it has everything to do with our muscular, militarized approach to global affairs.

Third, our military is not bloated because the U.S. faces threats to its security. It is bloated because of the military-industrial-Congressional complex that President Eisenhower warned about more than fifty years ago.

I recently heard a highly-paid, DC-based consultant offer advice to Democrats about how to talk about foreign policy. She was quite an expert at slick framing designed to inoculate Democrats from the charge that they are weak on defense. But the one thing I didn't hear her say is that our bloated military makes us less secure because excessive military force is dangerous.

She can't be blamed for that, because any Democratic office-seeker making that claim would lose votes.

It's up to progressives to give our political leaders some cover by being much louder about the causes and effects of our bloated military budget. In the last few years, progressives have become somewhat more aggressive about these points. But we need to pile it on, year after year, and use research to back up what we are saying. Unless we work harder to change the conversation, we'll never have a chance of making a serious dent in our wasteful, dangerous and bloated military.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 23
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrld20
11:06 PM on 11/07/2011
Aaron your anti-troop.... There I said it... We need to keep as many soldiers employed as possible... Cuts mean discharges... Discharges mean homeless vets who can't get a job...
08:27 PM on 11/07/2011
1. we have a revenue problem more than we have a spending problem.
2. yeah, this is the biggest part of the spending problem that our elected yes-men are afraid to talk about.
3. Defense contractors stock prices are not sacred cows that have to be part of our 401ks.
4. It's not a jobs program to send our kids to die on the other side of the planet for Iraqi oil and Afghan. minerals that are only coming to the USA inside imported crap from China.
07:04 PM on 11/07/2011
Just pay $300 for toilet seats instead of $600, problem solved.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
offred
A biocitizen is 3/5 of a corporate citizen
06:25 PM on 11/07/2011
Well said.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PRONESE
Somewhat Opinionated Curmudgeon
03:57 PM on 11/07/2011
You used the word Bloated too much.
R/ PRONESE
01:19 PM on 11/07/2011
What this country's military needs is a bottom up review of EVERY weapons system, including the specious anti-ballistics missile shield, star wars.

I've already called for the elimination of NATO, including all those military outposts all around the world, including the Africa command.

I've already called for the reduction of the nuclear triad to one, where the nuclear submarines and the B1 bombers would be mothballed, and we retain the intercontinental ballistics capability.

I've called for a reduction in our troop capacity to reservists where our deployment of troops will be hampered and therefore no easy wars.

I call on Congress to insist on its Congressional warmaking powers and substantially reduce the Presidents folly for wars. And call on the Congress to stop war spending. NOW, not tomorrow.

The time for unquestioned military spending is over.

We must use our public dollars more wisely.

We no longer have a choice.

P.S. People who profit from war are the worst human beings on earth. Their willingness to profit off of death and destruction, from death and disease and death and weapons is disgusting.
12:31 PM on 11/07/2011
These cuts are NOT trivial and I was laid off last week because the DoD has become schizophrenic because nobody knows if there will be $1.2 trillion in mandatory cuts if congress fails again to pass a budget. Instead of lathering on the tax breaks for millionaires, how about funding DoD which employs hundreds of thousands of engineers who help keep this country safe and generate enough new technology every year that DoD pays for itself! Shame, shame, shame!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cliffstep
03:26 PM on 11/07/2011
Sorry you lost your job....
That's why no one likes the sequestration option before congress - and most will be righteously angry if DoD is excused. It's a heckuva conundrum.
But "people jobs" can largely be maintained with a reasoned approach to cutting. In a reasonable world (that is , one without lobbyists ) , one could imagine a scene like in the movie "Dave". The prez and his cabinet sit around , press present , and the prez asks , do we really need eleven carrier groups? Do you want to tell teachers they're fired so we can have eleven carrier groups?
Do we really need the F-22? F-35? Who's air force is better than ours? Do you really want to tell firefighters they're fired so we can have F-22s?
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
11:53 AM on 11/07/2011
Let's make this a simple Budget Problem....the way it's done in the Real World...Do an Audit, and then cut the Budget by the amount of dollars they can,t account for, from last year..If they've LOST it, that means they did'nt need it. Do this for a couple of years in a row and you will have a much smarter and better run Pentagon...
10:40 AM on 11/07/2011
As I've often repeated, there is NO PROFITEERING , LIKE WAR PROFITEERING. A 50% reduction in the WAR DEPARTMENT BUDGET should be the least that we ask from our elected leaders, unless Washington is a complete facade, and we're already under a veiled military dictatorship
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
12:42 AM on 11/07/2011
The reality that the military is too big to maintain is just beginning to cross people's minds. It is one thing to say that we need to spend money to maintain a technical edge or a qualitative edge. We spend money to maintain an imperial edge. Our military supports our commercial interests not our national interests. Long ago, someone confused the two. Realistically, our military could be significantly downsized with no change in defensive capability. The need to fight multiple wars in multiple theaters is gone. Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of choice, not wars of need. No country remotely possesses the capability to invade us or even hold us hostage. The small brush fire wars do not require large naval task forces or divisions of tanks. I believe that reducing our expenditures to 2% of GDP and fixing it there allows enough growth in the budget to manage any future requirements. If boys have toys, they will want to play with them. We need to put ours away.
photo
DoubleYellowLines
Left of the Right, and Right of the Left
11:03 AM on 11/07/2011
I'd argue that some of the capacity to handle large-scale theaters has to remain intact - the naval forces primarily (not the nuke-capacity, but the capability to provide transport and floating platforms). They are limited by some of the weaponry being developed by the Chinese, but in basically all other operational areas they have some good value. And the only reason I'd keep them at current numbers is because of the ramp-up time to get them operational, should we need them.

But the boots on the ground? The numbers of helicopters, tanks, etc? We could trim by 50%, mothball most of that equipment, and not see a blip in the effectiveness.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
06:16 PM on 11/07/2011
The problem with naval forces is that they take too long to get in theater so we end up spreading them around the world waiting for something to happen. It's a huge cost to bear. Better Japan provides its own defense and Europe provides its own defense, rather than continuing to subsidize them. We may not like how they would do it but we can't afford to do it ourselves anymore. The checking account is empty. I believe that 8 carrier groups which is 8 times the number of carrier groups of any other nation provides sufficient defense of our borders. I'm not quite ready to cut troops by 50% only because you need a strong non-commissioned officer corps that is very difficult to train in a short time. We could resurrect the equipment faster than we can resurrect experience.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PRONESE
Somewhat Opinionated Curmudgeon
03:52 PM on 11/07/2011
The war with Afghanistan was precipitated by the attack on the United States on September 11th, 2001.
A war of necessity IMHO.
YMMV and does.
R/ PRONESE
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
I'm actually a radical leftist
12:37 AM on 11/07/2011
Well, liberals could have nominated Howard Dean in 2004, but they lost their nerve and voted for business as usual...
10:26 AM on 11/07/2011
A BIG part of the problem is the primary process. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire pick the candidate? Other than 2008, by the time the primary gets to my state the winner has already been decided. Most of the time I end up writing someone in or voting for who I would like to see as VP since the candidate has already been decided by the first few states.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
I'm actually a radical leftist
12:48 PM on 11/07/2011
They should replace the present system with regional primaries.