The American Spectator : Obama's Machete Hacks Up Pentagon Budget

Text Size

Loose Canons

Obama’s Machete Hacks Up Pentagon Budget

By Jed Babbin on 4.25.11 @ 6:09AM

The one real cut in federal spending he’s proposed.

Aside from Charlie Sheen or Chuck Hagel, who would want to be the next secretary of defense? The next occupant of the big office in the Pentagon’s E-ring will have the worst job in town because President Obama is doing to the Pentagon what he refuses to do to any other part of the executive branch: he’s taken a machete to its budget.

In February, Obama said that he wanted to take a scalpel, not a machete, to discretionary spending. And in his hyperpartisan budget speech on April 13, he made it clear that was true for every part of the federal government with one exception: the Pentagon. He demanded a new round of budget cuts worthy of the Queen of Hearts: “sentence first, verdict after.”

In the April 13 speech, President Obama claimed that Defense Secretary Bob Gates had already cut $400 billion from the Pentagon’s budget in ten years and said that another $400 billion in cuts should be added in that same period. It was the only real cut in federal spending Obama proposed.

He said, “Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.”

This is Obama’s “Queen of Hearts” theory of defense spending. He sets the amount of funding to be cut and then tells the Pentagon to do a study to justify it.

Begin with the questionable claim that $400 billion in “wasteful” spending (spread over ten years) has already been cut. We don’t know if the $400 billion was wasteful because the cuts were imposed before the Pentagon performed its “Quadrennial Defense Review,” a statutorily-required study which is supposed to measure our military forces against the threats they’re expected to meet and then provide a budget to accomplish the missions. Obama and Gates set the level of cuts and Gates then papered it over with a QDR that justified the predetermined cuts.

Now the president wants to take the machete to the Pentagon budget again. He wants the analysis to find an additional $400 billion to cut from the Pentagon budget in the same ten years and redefine our “role in a changing world.” It’s both necessary and proper to make the analysis the president proposed. But, once again, he’s set the amount to be cut before performing the essential threat analysis.

Since 2008, as George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Gates has derided the idea that we will ever have to fight another conventional war. He regularly condemns “next war-it is,” which he defined as “…the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict.”

Gates, in forcing the abandonment of “next war-itis,” has imposed a change in American military thought and planning that served us well since World War II.

That change is revolutionary and dangerous. We will no longer plan for the future and invest in the tools of war we will foreseeably need. The cuts Obama and Gates have already made will result in a force that is shaped differently from the one we might need were an enemy to disagree with Dr. Gates’ belief that we won’t have to fight another conventional war. Or if American satellites were attacked in space. Or if we were to suffer the kind of cyber attacks that were made on Estonia, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia by Putin’s Russia. Or if any number of other real threats were to be realized.

To borrow Obama’s phrase, let’s be perfectly clear. Our nation’s security and that of our allies is at risk because of the cuts that have already been made in the absence of a realistic analysis of the threats we face. We cannot afford another round of “hope and change” at the Pentagon. The armed services need a budget that enables them to meet and deter or defeat every serious threat.

Instead of allowing Obama and Gates’ successor to go about another round of random cuts, Republicans should do their own, aimed at producing a defense version of Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” of last year. That study should begin with an analysis of the threats that must be met, derive from them the capabilities we need to meet the threats, and from those capabilities define the budget to ensure the Defense Department has the people and the assets to do the job.

Every Pentagon study I’ve seen or been involved with begins with a document called the “terms of reference” which defines the job to be done. Because Obama has announced the result he wants, his study will have terms of reference that are set to justify the cuts.

Because Gates’ first round of cuts was made without the essential analysis of the threats we face and the capabilities the Pentagon must have to meet them, any new study should not assume that they were correct.

The terms of reference for the Republican roadmap should be these.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (100) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 4.25.11 @ 6:53AM

God and the soldier we adore
in times of danger, not before.
Danger past and all things righted
God is forgotten and the soldier slighted.
- Author unknown

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:02AM

Touche!!!! Thanks for the post.

Quartermaster| 4.25.11 @ 7:03PM

Kipling's work is just as pointed:

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

It would be nice if the moonbats had an adult understanding of life. they would realize the soldiers need to be acquired and trained before the war and, preferably, to prevent war. Unfortunately, the Moonbats don't value the troops even in time of war. Heaven forfend the evil USA defend itself and its way of life.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:16PM

No problem here, Quartermaster, sayeth the Moonbats. But worse than even this now comes. Just imagine the effects on our defense posture of Ron Paul running against Barack Obama?

"If one desires peace, prepare for war." Vegetius.

Alan Brooks| 4.25.11 @ 7:41PM

A defense tax is what we need-- you will pay to defend your property and you will like it too.
This is YOUR country, YOU pay for its defense.

Alan Brooks| 4.25.11 @ 7:55PM

"Heaven forfend the evil USA defend itself and its way of life."

If it is so important, then why not levy a defense tax?

RWinks| 4.26.11 @ 2:55PM

Yes. Just what we need, another special tax which can be diverted from the avowed purpose. Just like the Highway fund and the SS and Medicare taxes. You'd love another tax where the proceeds can be diverted and spent on more boondoggle vote buying schemes. We already pay taxes more than sufficient to defend the country if we stopped funding the illegal and unconstitutional activities.

air max en france | 4.25.11 @ 7:21AM

Je viens juste de tomber sur votre travail. Je suis sans voix.
Quel talent vous. Vous êtes source d'inspiration.

john| 4.26.11 @ 2:43PM

s'il vout plait , parle anglais, putin de merde

air max en france | 4.25.11 @ 7:22AM

Je viens juste de tomber sur votre travail. Je suis sans voix.
Quel talent vous. Vous êtes source d'inspiration.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:23PM

"I have just come upon your work; it leaves me speechless. What talent you have. It is a source of inspiration."

Nonetheless, less French, more English. Thanks. You impress us not.

Melvin| 4.25.11 @ 7:31AM

The only, redefining roll I want for this Country is Obama's political carcass on a silver platter being carried out with the rest of the trash.
I knew the Democrats were dangerous, but I never thought they would stoop so low as to leave us completely defenseless.
Conservatives need to do one of two things, completely declare war on Democrats and Progressive Republicans, or the last option that no one wants, but better to save some, that loose it all. Secession from the divided Union.
People, we are so divided right now, the Union can never be whole again. The Democrats and Progressive Republican Elitist are dragging us down with them.
We don't have to allow this to happen if they want to go over the cliff fine, I'll wish them a fine Adieu, while the Conservatives rebuild what the Socialist Democrats and Progressive Republican Elitists have destroyed.

Bill Diebold| 4.25.11 @ 2:37PM

...silver platter? how about a galvanized garbage can early on tuesday so as not to miss trash pick up...

southern_comment| 4.25.11 @ 4:18PM

I'd settle for crammed into a rat trap.

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.25.11 @ 10:25PM

"Secession from the divided Union.
People, we are so divided right now, the Union can never be whole again. The Democrats and Progressive Republican Elitist are dragging us down with them."

Ooooo! I can't believe you posted that today. Just this very weekend, I thought: Should progressives hold sway, and the country continue on a path of unavoidable socialism... How many people would be willing to split away, allowing the progressives the land to create their own country... and allowing the conservatives the land to preserve theirs (ours)... in order that the Founders' vision could survive--that is, sovereign states united under limited government, an unadulterated Constitution, with a free market economy, as originally established? Only this time with safeguards in place (which the Founders apparently didn't think through) to prevent the government and economy from being co-opted in the future by socialists. (We do now have the benefit of hindsight, which the Founders didn't have.) Would that be possible without outright war? My first thought was that it wouldn't work, because all the businesses would want to move over to the "free market" side, and the socialists would make that illegal.

Just musing...

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.25.11 @ 10:33PM

I mean: Because there'd be no one to tax.

l5j6| 4.25.11 @ 7:34AM

We need more Navy warships and more Air Force aircraft (as well as modest upgrade for the Army and Marines).

Hussein bin Obama's idea of defense programs are gay/lesbian/trans-gendered/crazies "outreach" and Mooooslim "sensitivity" training, pregnancy accomodation for female soldiers, etc.

Cut those social programs; add more top of the line weapons/hardware.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:03AM

Well said.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 1:27PM

Seconded. The Obummer's iseas about American defense are shared with the Pauls, (Liberalterriors and Paleo-cons)as well.

As in: "Do Obama's actions prove his conviction that America should not maintain its role as a superpower? Do Obama and Gates really believe that "next war-itis" is a mental disorder?"

The mental disorder is amongst those like Obummer who hold his exact view.

Down with them!!

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:24PM

Margie, I missed you and your brilliance.

Margie| 4.26.11 @ 11:18PM

Thanks, OT. Coming from you, that's high praise in my view.
Every single time I post anything, I expect the vitriol to begin, but over time, it's made me stronger. Why should I care about the vitriol when I know what I believe is true?
Besides, it's men like you who make it worthwhile to post here.
I know I'm not alone.
God bless you.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 1:28PM

oops. iseas s/b ideas.

john robison| 4.25.11 @ 5:00PM

I cannot find an argument for anything you said I have a grandson in the marines in Afganistan the enemy ragmatag rebels and the such are much better equiped than he is...ak 47's so outdo our weapons it is not even funny...

john robison| 4.25.11 @ 5:00PM

bill| 4.25.11 @ 7:37AM

Was it Obama, or his party, or his side, that started this furious round of cutting? Who said Damn the consequences the the people and the country, shrink the budget? I think you'll find it wasn't. Not HIS machete, at all.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 4.25.11 @ 10:21AM

Fool.

No, his side has not been interested in making any cuts whatsoever, except for Defense. Which one would know if one has been paying attention or bothered to read the article.

What is the alternative to "this furious round of cutting?" Feel free to offer your own solution.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:06AM

Bill, who do you think it was that has already cut hundreds of billions out of defense and now demands $400 billion more? Even Bill "Bend Over and Give Me a Little One Barack" Gates is shocked by Obama's demands. You need to educate yourself to what Obama is demanding before trying to attack the unknown budget cutters you demonize. I think you'll find it enlightening.

Johnny| 4.26.11 @ 5:52AM

But his AIM, not the republicans who would cut the social programs and maybe get some of the welfare scum off the rolls and put them to work...libtard.

Intelligent Design| 4.25.11 @ 7:48AM

Whether it's for defense or any other government function, a promise or forecast of "$400 billion savings over 10 years" is nonsense. No one knows what challenges we will face, and Obama and Gates won't be in office, thankfully.

Our military strength is dependent on our economic strength, which is very poor. We are weaker now than we were when Eisenhower left office. It is critical that federal spending be cut drastically; the problem cannot be solved by raising taxes.

The debt ceiling should not be raised beyond $14.3 trillion. Threats by Geithner and Obama about the U.S defaulting on its debt are empty. We would not default on the debt unless Obama and Geithner engaged in economic terrorism, to deliberately damage this country. Just as when a family faces a financial crisis, the federal government should make its mortgage payments while cutting spending on less critical items.

Republicans in Congress should refuse to increase the debt ceiling.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:08AM

Intelligently stated.

Wayne | 4.25.11 @ 11:15AM

Unfortunately by passing the 2011 budget they lost this battle already. Expect to see a "negotiation" meant to make it look like the GOP "changed the discussion in Washington." Nobody has the courage to not pass the debt ceiling. We need to "change the discussion" and replace more GOP representatives and senators in primaries.

Stormzeye| 4.25.11 @ 7:48AM

This all began with Rumsfeld's attempt to turn the armed forces into a lighter, faster and leaner collection of strike forces and special ops units. What good are these types of units if we don't have the muscle to "back their play"? CIA agents on horseback were effective because they could call in B-52 and A-10 assets when needed. Nuclear submarines deliver SEALS to where they're needed and without...........oh never mind. You and Obambi know what I'm talking about and Obambi doesn't care.

martin j smith| 4.25.11 @ 8:13AM

I have felt and even more so a direct line between GWBush and Obama. The main line of connection is this: If you take away their elements that distract from who they really are you will find many SIMILARITIES. TAX AND SPEND,IMMIGRATION POLICIES and in addition, it is my view that GWB in his second term especially withdrew from the war on terror AND waisted a lot of time and money in Iraq until finally the surge came. GWB
could have "won" in iraq much faster and more efficiently had he the will and thus was motivated. He was not motivated. And he like Obama was not motivated to deal aggressively with our energy policy either.

I think we have been had and continue to be had by a coalition of RINOS AND SOCIALISTS WHO ARE THE SAME THING. Yes I think Bush was no Raegen in regards to the need for military preparedness .

Wayne | 4.25.11 @ 11:20AM

Agreed. Both insists on the US being the police force for the world. Bush does it to open new markets for large multi-national corporations (Neo-Cons) and Obama does it for global "social justice". But it ends up US resources with people and machines. We need to pull back out of Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, South Korea, Germany, et. al.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:27PM

Oil is important. Killing Jihadists is important. Structure our foreign policy to protect one and defeat the other. NATO is useless, South Korea is ungrateful, Israel is useful.

Cut the crap out of domestic spending. Reduce the number of Cabinet Departments to State, Treasury, Interior, Defense. All else is fluff and crap.

Louis Jenkins| 4.25.11 @ 8:43AM

Obama is doing what Democrats do. Cut the military spending to the bone, while they add to entitlements. If you look at the diagram of National Spending, you will see that the military is a smaller portion of spending. Entitlements- well you get the picture. Not saying that military spending is sacrosaint, and yes, it is time to look at a new rifle, one with better ballistics and penetration, etc. For heaven's sake, time to stop putting the military into every corner of the globe, expecting them to fight limited rules ground wars, or police actions, and expecting them to do well. We waste money left and right Obama, and you can't see the forest for the trees.

Melvin| 4.25.11 @ 9:15AM

This goes to show you that the Socialist Democrats are Communists after all, of course along with their weak minded Progressive Republican elitist brethren as well.

Louis Jenkins| 4.25.11 @ 8:43AM

A. C. Santore| 4.25.11 @ 8:47AM

Still have any doubts that Obama and his crowd are anti-American?

S.L. Toddard| 4.25.11 @ 8:54AM

Note: Jed Babbin, like Obama, is not serious about curbing government spending, as Jed Babbin - like Obama - will only entertain cutting spending for government programs he does not fetishize.

The federal government needs to drastically cut spending in ALL areas - including the Pentagon. Imagine a citizen of Iran saying they really hated the regime and thought it had too much power over the Iranian people, and then demanding that same government be allowed to confiscate even more of its citizen's wealth to purchase more guns and bombs. That is a perfect analogue for "conservatives" who are "against" Big Government, and then demand it confiscate a higher percentage of our money to arm itself even more than it is doing now.

Insane.

l5j6| 4.25.11 @ 9:54AM

But, defense is a constitutionally mandated requirement of our government. We must have the biggest and badd'st weapons today because so do many other nations around the world or they are pursuing them. The liberal/progressive, "one world view" is that war is obsolete and everyone today holds hands and only wants a job, a pension and healthcare (all from the government, of course). This is a naive view.

To ensure a strong, independent country, a strong, modern defense is needed.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:10AM

Toddard does care about the Constitution. He's wedded to the fetish of fiscal austerity at any cost -- even freedom.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:24AM

Sorry typing a bit fast. Meant to say, "Toddard doesn't care about the Constitution. He's wedded to the fetish of fiscal austerity at any cost -- even freedom."

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 1:44PM

Right on, Michael. And neither do his pals the Paleos and Liberalterriers the Pauls.

Barney Frank And Ron Paul Join Hands To Call For Military Budget Cuts

Barney Frank and Ron Paul Join Hands To Call For Military Budget Cuts:

http://www.businessinsider.com.....uts-2010-7

Read the letter he signed with all the Leftists:

http://www.house.gov/frank/doc.....letter.pdf

See the people that Ron Paul aligns himself with, and by agreeing with Ron Paul~ does anyone want to be agreeing with them as well?

This is why I have always said that the Libertarianism of today is actually in fact Leftist.

If one is Leftist concerning our Military and our defense~ Bad company ruins good morals!

Can one be considered a conservative if they are against us? And blame terrorism on us?
No way.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.25.11 @ 6:31PM

I'd hazard to say almost every government entity is inefficient and over-funded. To pretend the military is immune to the trappings of government interference is naive. There's cuts to be made in the military. There's redundancy, waste and to a lesser extent, abuse. Just like everywhere else.

That being said, this administration is NOT the guys I want deciding what gets cut. Everything Obama said has turned out to be a lie. The only thing you can be sure of is this. Whatever comes out of his mouth can be immediately excluded as his true agenda.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 7:21PM

Hey there, LiveFreeOrDie~

If there's "wasteful spending" that's one thing, but the anti-war crowd has an definite agenda. Think Adam Kokesh, Code Pink Punks, etc. Rand Paul aligned himself with Kokesh who protested at MCain/Palin campaign stops.

It's naive to prefer to remain blind to this mentality possessed by the Paul-bots and Paleo-cons.

True conservatives are, like Reagan was, for cutting wasteful spending everywhere~ but not virtually dismantling the military.

S.L. Toddard| 4.26.11 @ 8:21AM

Live Free Or Die: I agree that this admin is not one we want deciding anything whatsoever. That, though, is entirely beside the point. My point is that there is literally NO figure that these "conservatives" would say is too high for the defense budget. If it was quadrupled tomorrow and you proposed cutting one single dollar, the shrieks of protests from the self-professed "small government" crowd would be deafening.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:28PM

DEar Margie,

I have noticed for a long time that Paul votes with Kucinich on foreign policy. I can't think of one vote they've disagreed on. Paul is a terrorist appeaser, pure and simple.

Margie| 4.26.11 @ 11:26PM

Sadly, I have to agree with you. When I hear him say things like, "we have to try and understand why they do this", I know he's lost. (as in lost soul).

The even sadder thing is that so many still support him, and believe like he does, like Red Philips and many who post and write here.
They truly believe America is an "Aggressor" et al.
It saddens me, but it angers me more and it's why I can never be for him.
I don't care how "fiscally conservative" he may be. Which is also interesting. I heard the guys on Glen Beck's show talking about how Ron Paul porks up bills then votes against them knowing that there's enough votes for it to pass anyway~ just so he can say he voted against it.

I pity men like him, but I also believe they deserve the scorn that they get as well.

S.L. Toddard| 4.26.11 @ 8:26AM

L5J6 - I agree with you 100%. The liberal idea is out of touch, war is not obsolete, and we must be able to outgun and outfight our enemies. But we would still have "the biggest and badd'st weapons today" if we cut our military budget in half.

Anyway, it's fine to believe we should confiscate more and more money from the American people to buy more and more weapons we don't need. My issue is with people who advocate doing so - i.e. arming Big Government to the teeth - and then proclaim they are "anti-Big Government". That's like being anti-streetgang, and then demanding the Crips be given new AK-47s.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 4.25.11 @ 10:24AM

I don't disagree with your premise. I must point out that Defense, fetish or not, is the only thing that ever gets cut. It is sort of like taxes and spending cuts: Raise taxes right now and we'll be happy to work on spending cuts...later.

How about we force cuts in entitlements FIRST for a change, and then look for ways to cut the one department that actually sort of does the job it was established to do.

S.L. Toddard| 4.26.11 @ 8:37AM

Balrog - I agree that what you propose is what should be done 100%. Those entitlement programs should be eliminated entirely. Everyone who has paid into Social Security and Medicare etc should receive what they are due from those programs, but no more money should be taken from citizens from this point on, and those programs should be discontinued at the federal level and handled by the states, where they belong. All federal social programs should be eliminated, period. But on top of that, war spending must be cut back. America must disengage (militarily) from Europe and Japan and everywhere else where our military forces are not currently defending vital American interests. That includes ending the Bush-Obama wars in the Middle East, though I do not advocate disengaging entirely from the ME, as a free flow of oil from the ME to America is an interest that is as vital as any interest can be.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 1:51PM

Hey Snottard~

Do you believe the Pentagon a terrorist organization, like your pal Adam Kokesh, who's in league with Code Pink?

S.L. Toddard| 4.26.11 @ 8:41AM

Margie, why are you being crude? Insults and bodily fluids - what would your mother think, seriously? What do you think Jesus would think of this rudeness and cruelty? I have said nothing to you for months, and yet you still insist on insulting me for no reason. Don't you understand that being crude and rude and childish is both unChristian and un-ladylike?

I really would be happy to have conversations with you, if we could both stay civil and polite. But I am not going to get into an insult-trading contest, because... what would be the point?

Let's talk to each other, instead of shout AT each other.

Does that sound good?

Margie| 4.26.11 @ 2:29PM

Toddard,

Are you a Christian? Do you recall the way you used to speak to Me by any chance? You constantly insulted my intelligence in the most despicable manner.

If you wish to converse with me I would accept a sincere apology and commitment to repent of same before I'd even consider it.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:33PM

The problem, Toddard, is that you have no coherent approach to defending our energy supplies because you do not understand who and what we are fighting, and why. Listening to you discuss a free supply of oil while advocating craven abadnment of friends and allies in the Middle East is highly amusing.

You maintain POWER by KILLING those who cross you, and letting them know that we are the best friend to cultivate and the worst enemy to have. Weakness, such as you advocate, invites attack. Disengagement from the Jihadists will not stop their attacks, it will encourage them.

Rebellion in the Islamic Middle East is likely to result in the rise of Sharia supporters and Juhadists. Those who believe that appeasement will work with these people are as unrealistic as those who would want this 5'8" 48 year old to suit up for the NBA.

Paul Kotik| 4.25.11 @ 9:29AM

Thought experiment:

An enemy of the United States has brought a decades-long project to fruition and now has an agent placed in the highest office in the land: the Presidency. His mission is to weaken and disarm the United States and so permit this enemy to impose his will upon the USA by main force.

How would the conduct of such an agent have differed from that of Barack Hussein Obama? What would he have done that Obama has not so far done? What has Obama done that such an agent would not have?

I hope not to prejudice your thinking when I suggest that the differences are few and small.

Wayne | 4.25.11 @ 11:22AM

I would say his mission is to deliver the US military to the United Nations.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:25AM

Who gave him approval to attack/invade Libya? The UN and Arab League.

wukong| 4.25.11 @ 9:57AM

Our Defense Department can and should be cut to some extent by consolidation of service branches. We currently have 4 air forces and 2+ armies. We should revisit the 1947 Key West agreement and merge our services into two branches; an army and a navy/air force.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:23AM

Hell no. That only invites a military based on the lowest common denominator. The Canadians and Europeans do this and we know what great military powers they are.

George S| 4.25.11 @ 9:57AM

Memo to Republicans: Here's a good opportunity to rock the boat. Propose billions of defense cuts by closing down all bases in California, Illinois, Nevada and New York. Priorities change when reelections are at stake.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 4.25.11 @ 10:26AM

Don't forget the state of Washington.

Pete| 4.25.11 @ 10:49AM

That is a fantastic suggestion. To deal with these people, you have to think like they do, meaning you have to think like an a-hole.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:26AM

Don't forget New England -- the most anti-military section of the country.

john| 4.26.11 @ 3:09PM

Do we really need OVER 700 overseas bases, close the bases in Europe for starts.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:39PM

Yes....the States that are BLUE! Perfect!

prestonsbrooks| 4.25.11 @ 11:05AM

Well, a dismantled military will make it easier for the Chinese Army to move in and enforce the Dictatorship of Barry X Mohammed.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:35AM

He's said he admires the Presidential system of Hu Jintao and the lack of an opposition.

Howard| 4.25.11 @ 11:08AM

To Democrats. "National Security" is everything but the Department of Defense, CIA, and FBI. Education, welfare, environment, etc. are true areas for Liberals to fight for. Obama is just being himself.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:19AM

Barack Obama is doing what every "great" Democrat (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton and Carter) has done before him decimated military spending while wastefully throwing tax payer money away on a grotesque welfare state that does nothing to insure the freedom and liberty of the United States.

Do we need reform in defense procurement? Yes. Do we need to take politics out of defense procurement? Yes. Do we need to close bases in anti-military New England? Yes. Do we need to shrink our footprint in Europe? Yes. Has NATO become a useless bureaucracy that we need to end? Yes. Do we need to end Obama's war in Libya? Yes. Do we need a bigger Navy? Yes (China thinks they do and that is our biggest enemy). Do we we need the F-22 and F-35 (see China)? Yes. Do we need a new combat rifle and more lethal caliber of ammo? Yes. Do we need to keep killing Muslim jihadist/fundamentalists/terrorists? Yes.

America needs a strong military, because the world is a dangerous place and thanks to Obama it is more dangerous than ever.

Wayne | 4.25.11 @ 11:24AM

And do we need to use our military to protect the southern border? Yes.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.25.11 @ 11:31AM

I wouldn't have agreed with this a few years ago, but with the emergence of foreign narco-terrorists on the border and in the US that seems to be a reasonable proposition if it can be squared with Posse Comitatus.

One thing we should do is declare the Mexican drug cartels terrorists and start shipping them to GITMO. Muslim terrorists, narco-terrorists the more's the merrier at GITMO.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 1:49PM

Amen to that. The Mexican drug lord murderers need to be brought to justice.
American justice!

Cmtsquared| 4.26.11 @ 1:13AM

YOU IDIOTS!!! The problem is more than ILLEGAL immigration... it is LEGAL IMMIGRATION TOO. IMO all immigration should be stopped or at the very least reduced to pre 1976 levels of ~200k/yr. When you have millions of illegals sneaking in down South along with millions legally flooding the system the U.S. cannot assimilate that many at a time and retain it's heritage.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:36PM

I don't seem to recall legal immigrants overloading our health systems or jails Cmtsquared. We are not having enough babies. We need properly vetted legal hardworking young immigrants.

cmtsquared| 4.26.11 @ 11:06PM

I agree we need "properly vetted legal" immigrants but not at the rate we have now. If your position is for more working immigrants then it is a fail because the unemployment rate in the U.S. doesn't support more workers at this time.

Occam's Tool| 4.26.11 @ 6:36PM

Completely agree.

Oldefarte| 4.25.11 @ 11:34AM

Great editorial, Jed! Let me paint a picture for everyone here that cares to consider same, okay? In November of 2008, a TROJUN-HORSE was infiltrated into the USA, and subsequently dispenced its occupants to thereafter create mayhem. Since then, we have had economic/financial disruption from stimulus and healthcare legislation, a federal lawsuit filed against the state of Arizona over immigration, a moratorium [and lack of issuance of permits] on oil drilling off Louisiana shores, uninforced federal immigration of our southern border, a tripling of our national defecit/debt over what existed in November of 2008, and now a devastating/cripling proposal of our military funding [supposedly to placate budget reduction purposes]. Does everybody GET THE PICTURE/POINT that I'm trying desperately to make here? Anyone/everyone with an ounce of intelligence realizes that the military budget/funding must be cut [along with social welfare, foreign aid, farm aid, etc], and that there are currently wasteful and duplicate excessive military funding within our budget, but to essential gut the military of essential money is to DESTROY IT [and that no doubt is the purpose of this $800 billion reduction proposal]. Once again, remember that in November of 2008, a TROJUN-HORSE was pulled inside of the USA's fortress walls!!!!!!!!!!

Derek Leaberry| 4.25.11 @ 1:35PM

Barack Obama, Mike Mullen and Robert Gates all despise the military so why should anyone be surprised that each man chooses to further wreck the military.

Uli Kunkel| 4.25.11 @ 2:50PM

I couldn't get past the first couple of paragraphs before I had to comment, yeah a mistake!!!

Up to 80 billion a year in cuts to defense and that jingo is going to be utilized to help retire the debt and deficit, really??? No doubt that money extracted from defense will be injected right back into some dark hole in the leftist budget. Tell me, how in the heck is that savings? Obonehead should be rounded-up some late night and be flown home to the residence of his choice, Hawaii or Chicago, he's a corrupt charlatan/fraud!!!

Bill| 4.25.11 @ 4:56PM

The last time we cut back on the military budget, during Jimmy Carter's presidency, we had the fiasco at Desert One.

When we focused on financing the defense of this country, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, it was only a couple of years after he left office that the USSR collapsed, thus insuring the reign of peace for the next decade, and the end of the world leader in communist totalitarianism.

Thom| 4.25.11 @ 6:12PM

We are well on our way towards the same result we found ourselves around 8:30 AM Hawaiian time Dec 7th, 1941. On that date decades of naïve views concerning who and what our enemy capabilities were came crashing down literally. Between the 1922 and 1935 Naval treaties that FDR signed and gave Japan naval superiority in the Pacific and our belief that our oceans would protect us and all we needed was a WWI naval force to protect our interests a lot went wrong on Dec 7th, 1941 that the ground work had been laid for long before by Washington defense policies.

It isn’t just ironic that the attack plan the Japanese used that day have been tested successfully by the US Navy in 1936 against Pearl Harbor or that we had been mobilizing for war since the fall of Poland in the fall of 1939, it is kind of a gross negligence on the part of the Administration and Political Party that had held power since 1933 with both Japan and Germany steadily arming themselves well beyond defense for 7-8 straight years. They violated every defense treaty signed in gross terms. The justification for gutting defense then was the same as now, a domestic crisis made more so by government and the need to grow government power and scope. We paid a pretty stiff price for having our collective heads up our arse even as late as Dev 1941.

The bulk of our weapons’ designs are from the 1970s. No matter how good the design, things wear out particularly aircraft and ships. We aren’t replacing either with equal numbers and with that go our industrial base to build such stuff. Economic scale savings is a rare sight in the world of building a dozen or two combat planes a year or one sub every 4 or 1 carrier every 6-7 years. The Russian T50 SU is a direct competitor to the canceled F-22. The Russians won’t cut their production run short to feed domestic programs. The T50 SU isn’t the only thing coming down the pike from them. The Chinese J-20 is a fighter bomber who’s primary role will be to get within launch range of our carrier battle groups…. The Chinese F-22 competitor hasn’t hit the working prototype yet. It is coming…. And we are financing their defense build up with the interest on our debt. Such a sweat deal. We threw away the outer air battle air defense capability by not replacing the F-14 with something modern hence we are stuck with the short ranged F-18s airframe and the Point Defense Aegis system against low flying stealth bombers like the J-20. When all is said and done, the Russians and Chinese will have a much larger fleet of 5th generation aircraft than we will and our J-35 was designed from the ground up to be a bomber and let the F-22 do the heavy lifting in Air Superiority. We are making the same mistakes we made when McNamara tried to force a common airframe on both the Air Force and Navy. The end result was the failed FB-111B for the Navy. It is going to take over 30 years to replace a fleet of tanker aircraft that average 46 years old today. The Libyan operation depends on our fleet of 1950 designed tanker aircraft.

The signs are there to see, one just has to take off the political filters to see. I hope I’m not around to see the next generation pay the price for our collective willingness to commit suicide. It seems to be a tradition we intend to keep.

Thom| 4.25.11 @ 6:31PM

The problem with not being able to stop combatants isn’t the fault of the rifle. It is the caliber of the round it shoots. The original 5.56 round was designed to be selective fire for assault and wound with single rounds and kill if you hit someone enough times. The idea was to give soldiers more rounds for suppressive fire and keep them in the fight. With the original 1:12 twist rate barrels and 55 grain bullets it was more effective in this role than now because someone decided we needed to hit helmets no one can see with open sights at 800 meters and penetrate them…… That required a heavier and more stable bullet in a faster twist (1:7) which turned the bullet into an ice pick rather than a tumbling projectile with a lot more stopping power. Because a nominal 400-500 thousand rounds were fired in Vietnam for every causality produced coupled with a new found interest in not wasting ammo in senseless full auto mode the current rifle was clipped to 3 round bursts and semi only. All this combined produced and ineffective round when you try to use it as a battle rifle rather than a carbine. The M4 Carbine variant took all these problems and added steroids on top due to its short barrel, overheating and less effective range. The rifle can be fixed without much trouble. It is the politics surrounding the Quartermaster Corps and political correctness that keeps us armed with a .22 caliber varmint round that won’t stop a man high on drugs outside 100-150 yards without empting the magazine into him.

jackc| 4.25.11 @ 7:38PM

Money squandering unabated - from the disastrous health-care bill to the all sorts of government programs geared to keep a dictatorial bureaucracy in power, through the votes of illiterate, and non-discerning voters.
Number of votes do not equate to infallibility or potential.
Success is being punished and eroded.
Laziness, handouts, entitlements being promoted
Charlatans of all stripes and colors, in the government thrive under Hussein, while preaching sacrifice.
Fire Obama.
Follow Nature - allow success, innovation, to thrive and re-build the American spirit.
Promote a revival of the American spirit.
Hire Trumph - reverse the demise of America.

TMF | 4.25.11 @ 9:16PM

Any of you turkeys watching the OP in Libya?

That's what your military will look like.

Who's on first? I dunno. "No...He's on 3rd."

See what happens when you put the Navy (JCS Mullen) in charge of a land op...

Happy trails...

Gobble Gobble| 4.25.11 @ 9:49PM

You do mean what it'll look like under Trump, right?

Just to be gobbledy-gobbeldy clear.

JustJP| 4.25.11 @ 9:40PM

Russia and China are in the midst of upgrading their military, and this jerkoff child in chief is neutering the world's most formidable fighting force. ANYBODY BUT OBAMA (ABO) 2012

Gobble Gobble| 4.25.11 @ 9:51PM

Anybody But Trump I'm all for.
But we be talkin' bout him not even gettin' to de primaries, ain't we?

Hopin' it ain't so.

Gobble.

Dee See| 4.25.11 @ 10:17PM

---Sideshow distractions!

Retro-active impeachment of our past 4 CFR
set-up administrations. Nullification of ALLLL
their illegal INTER-national sellouts ---uh, we
meant 'treaties'.

Open, audit, PROSECUTE (warmly) --and END
the FED.

Default on the ridiculous massive debt to the
RED Chinese.

They can well console themselves
with our American taxpayer transplanted
economy.

Write off the 1.4 quadrillion in fake derivatives.

Re-instate Glass-Steagal immediately.

De-fund and expel the world EUGENICS front
'United Nations'.

Open, audit, investigate and deeply, deeply,
deeply prosecute and dismantle our TAX FREE
ultra-rich, seditious (funding La Rasa and Reconquista etc.) EUGENICS driven and
driving (Cold Springs/Kaiser Wilhem Institute Nazi enabling propgrams/Pavlov/Bill Gates et al) capstone 'benny violent' foundations.

They ARE poison!

Make ANY tainting of food, water, air or meds
for the purpose of 'social engineering' (dumb down/behavior modification etc) or EUGENICS
(sterilization and worse) ---punishable as
not only a high crime, but 'the' highest of crimes
with sentences to match.

The foundations and NGO's and their proxies
have been the very source and engine of
soul destroying 'progress' conflict, and mass eugenics for close to a century.

If you ever questioned John Calvin's Biblical
condemnation of the 'Doctrine of Works' --question no more!

Ditch your TV's and radios (they ARE hypnotizing
you) ---the cellphone (its a surveillance tool)
and get the PC (also a monitor)
out of personal space.

Things will change for the better within days!

Random Blowhard| 4.26.11 @ 8:48AM

Cut the spending or face total economic collapse. That's ALL THE SPENDING. The pentagon suffers the same "supersized" budget that plague other government departments. Cut them all, especially defense.

There is a reason Argentina and Mexico don't have large defense budgets and Russia's military might has disintegrated - Economic Collapse...

diviz| 4.26.11 @ 2:33PM

If anyone feels that the defense department does not have enough money they are free to send money to them directly.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.27.11 @ 2:40AM

Good article, Mr Babbin, except one thing:

The #1 problem with the 2009-2010 Obama-Gates cuts is not that they were conducted without any analysis of the threats America is facing. The #1 problem with these cuts was that they were downright disastrous, closing or cutting over 30 crucial modernization programs that the military truly needed, including the F-22, ABL, MKV, KEI, AC-X, CSAR-X, and C-17 programs.

To Random Blowhard:

"Cut the spending or face total economic collapse. That's ALL THE SPENDING. The pentagon suffers the same "supersized" budget that plague other government departments. Cut them all, especially defense."

No. The DOD does not have a supersized budget, its budget constitutes only 14% of the total federal budget and a microscopic 3.5% of GDP. And other agencies and programs do not deserve the same priority status that the DOD deserves. And you're giving America a false choice: between a total economic collapse or an adequate defense budget. That's a false choice.

shipley130| 4.27.11 @ 4:12PM

I have a few ideas of how to cut defense spending. Make Obama catch the Red Eye out of Reagan Int'l when he decides he needs to go on an apology tour or pledge money to another nation for oil drilling. LOL. Better yet, he can just set up a cardboard cut out of himself and prerecord speeches for his last months in office.

PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 7:26PM

Anybody really believe that Sock Puppet is interested in advancing the power and prestige of the US in the international community?

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 9:48PM

is good

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|83 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|102 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|41 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|15 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|15 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|28 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|13 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?