The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Print Email
Text Size

Political Hay

The Unkindest Cuts

By on 5.23.11 @ 6:10AM

Is there room for scrutiny of the Pentagon budget in the GOP presidential field?

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman took a surprisingly dovish line in the first interviews of his nascent Republican presidential campaign. “I would have chosen from the beginning not to intervene in Libya,” he told ABC News. “I would say that is not core to our national security interest.” Huntsman was almost as skeptical of the war in Afghanistan. “I would tell you that we have to evaluate very carefully our presence in Afghanistan,” he said, calling our current policy “not consistent with how we ought to be responding.”

It figures, many a Republican primary voter will grumble. Huntsman’s relatively liberal positions on environmental policy — like a few other GOP presidential wannabes, he was for cap and trade before he was against it — and civil unions have acquired him the dreaded “RINO” label. Huntsman is seen as a throwback to the party of Nelson Rockefeller, running a presidential campaign in the tradition of Pete McCloskey, John Anderson, and Arlen Specter.

Yet it was Huntsman who told Good Morning America he would have voted for Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, something some of the field’s putative conservatives — including a certain former House speaker — have pointedly declined to do. “Including the Medicare provisions?” George Stephanopoulos asked. “Including the Medicare provisions,” Huntsman affirmed.

Huntsman indicated that fiscal conservatism, not liberal Republicanism, was responsible for his foreign policy restraint. “It’s an affordability issue,” he told the New York Times. “With all of our deployments and all of our engagements abroad, we need to ask a fundamental question: Can we afford to do this?”

Let’s stipulate that someone who served in the Obama administration, even as an ambassador, is extremely unlikely to be the next Republican nominee. But is cost-consciousness about foreign policy a deal-breaker with the Republican primary electorate? It didn’t help Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who announced yesterday that he won’t be running for president in 2012. Daniels told Commentary that we must “ask questions about the extent of our commitments abroad” and informed the Weekly Standard defense spending must be on the table for budget cuts. Daniels has argued that the fiscal crisis was itself a threat to world leadership: “If we go broke, no one will follow a pauper.”

It is harder to make the case that Daniels is a RINO, at least based on his record. But his distaste for red-meat rhetoric riled conservatives. More importantly, so did his talk of a “truce” on social issues. When Daniels recently suggested pro-choice former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might make a good running mate, it reinforced the impression that his truce would constitute a surrender.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s conservative credentials have seldom been question, and he too worries about the cost of nation-building and an overstretched military. He has asked what our mission is in Afghanistan: “I don’t think our mission should be to think we’re going to make Afghanistan an Ireland or an Italy” by creating a Western-style liberal democracy. On defense spending he has said, “Anybody who says we can’t save money at the Pentagon has never been to the Pentagon.” Yet Barbour, like Daniels, decided against running for president.

National security conservatives have faulted all three men for beating their swords into green eyeshades. The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb mordantly suggested the following campaign slogan on Twitter: “Huntsman 2012: Because we can’t afford to kill America’s enemies!” The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin complained, “Other than mouthing Ronald Reagan’s now very shopworn slogan (‘Peace through strength’), Daniels speaks only of national security when he describes the need to cut defense spending.”

Bill Kristol was especially scathing in his criticism of Barbour. Kristol described Barbour’s take on Pentagon spending as “childish” and “slightly offensive” in a way that “calls into question how much time Barbour has spent at the Pentagon — apart from time spent lobbying for defense contractors or foreign governments.” He contrasted Barbour with former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a “sincere Reaganite” who was running as the “heir of Reagan-Bush-McCain hawkishness.” The title of Kristol’s post? “T-Paw v. Hee-Haw.”

If Barbour, a pillar of the GOP establishment, can elicit this kind of reaction for fairly mild comments, it is no surprise that scrutiny of military spending has been confined to Huntsman, Ron Paul, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and Republicans who aren’t running for president. (Even if you count Daniels and Barbour, nobody polling better than Paul has raised these issues.) The rest of the Republican field either believes such spending should remain at least at current levels — or that it would be too costly to say otherwise.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (157) |

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 6:22AM

Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:

" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.

Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

yuyu| 5.23.11 @ 12:08PM

"What a nice ass!" Dominique Strauss Kahn barked to the attendant, using the lewd French expression "Quel beau cul!" as she prepared the business-class cabin for takeoff last Saturday. Shortly after this insulting remark, he was arrested.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....z1NBzA1BcT

victor| 5.23.11 @ 2:44PM

Clint/Timmie*:
"As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our government with faulty programs, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Too bad you are not in hugh dudgeon about any other waste, fraud and abuse in government, eh?

Defense is only one fifth of our budget.
What about the other 80%?

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 5:50PM

Guess, Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sybil-Vicmar-Martor.....

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 3:23PM

We need a defense tax.

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 3:31PM

...let's save Clint the trouble of answering:

"Asshat, I'll Match My Conservative Credentials Against Your Your's Bluto!, You You That's What You Are You I'll Tell Popeye On You Your Mouth Writes Checks Your Body Can't Cash!"

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 3:50PM

Dear Alan,

gotta disagree. He would be neither that coherent nor polite.

By the way, even though I disagree with you a lot, you are actually a nice guy. Have a good week.

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 4:11PM

Clint is okay, too, he can't help being a martinet; his colonel father must have forced him to march up and down the square. Just watched the scene from "Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life", the sergeant major reminded me of Clint.

Say perhaps we ought to send Clint a wafer thin mint?

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:21PM

I'm not sure Clint had a dad, as Heinlein once put it, "he reproduces by fission---like all bacteria (referring to SGTs).

Bonus points for naming the book.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 5:38PM

Hey Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Tool Job.

My Dad wore The Fourragere, The Croix De Guerre, The Bronze Star, The Silver Star & The Presidential Unit Citation.

You Hold Bibi Netanyahu's Nuts.

Bruno| 5.23.11 @ 7:18PM

I'm with the Razor man. I don't think Timmie has a daddy. He is an Obama firster. Divide and conquer. Like Obama, his daddy took one look at him and left town. Who could blame either of them?

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 7:31PM

We Know You're With The Razor Man. Little Nicky From Detroit.

Same Sex Union Is The Hit Of Fire Island.

victor| 5.24.11 @ 3:53AM

Clint/Timmie*:
"My Dad wore...."

Your was a lumberjack, but he was okay.

Just as his son is today.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 8:59PM

You, on the other hand, are a fascinating example of a disciple of the Great Commission.

Your father may have been a great military man. But he was a donkey's uncleaned rear end as a dad.

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 7:39PM

Do not be hard on Clint, my islamic , alcoholic father forced me to service men in public toilets.
I hated doing it but now I realized he was teaching me a valuable skill which I use everyday.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 5:40PM

Go Feed The Squirrels In The Park ObamaBoy Israel Firster Brooks.

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 7:27PM

If you're that hungry, I'll meet you in Municipal Park with a bag of peanuts.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 7:33PM

Apparently, Brooks likes to munch on Other Men's Nuts.

Don't Scare The Horses.

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 7:35PM

"My Dad wore The Fourragere, The Croix De Guerre, The Bronze Star, The Silver Star & The Presidential Unit Citation."

For what? being a colonel stationed with Custer at Little Big Horn?

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 8:22PM

Well, Israel Firster ObamaBoy Brooks Read: "Is Paris Burning" and Figure Some of it Out.

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 10:10PM

Your dad was with von Choltitz?

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 10:12PM

Is this your dad?:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w.....titz-2.png

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 10:44PM

Apparently, This Is Your Hero, Israel Firster ObamaBoy Brooks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....ollard.png

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 10:30PM

You Israel Firster ObamaBoys Are Lookin' For A Problem & Now You Found It.

victor| 5.24.11 @ 3:59AM

lint/Timmie*:
"You Israel Firster ObamaBoys Are Lookin' For A Problem"

My father and his pals will take care of all your problems. As soon as his barbershop quartet finishes rehearsal.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1H-n.....dogdog.jpg

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.24.11 @ 7:47AM

Exactly! Ronald Reagan managed to implement significant reforms of the DOD while significantly increasing its budget! And during most of his tenure, defense spending was HIGHER than during the Bush era or today - in absolute numbers and percentage of GDP.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:00PM

Thank you, Zbig.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 7:19AM

Only someone totally ignorant or a closet Obama supporter would use Ronald Reagan to advocate defense cuts. Reagan increased defense spending a whopping 43%. Rebuilding the US military after the disastrous Carter years was one of his greatest legacies.

Here are just a few examples of Ronald Reagan’s defense legacy – the B1 bomber, B2 bomber, SDI, the Peacekeeper missile, the M1A1 Abrams and a 600 fleet Navy.

He brought the price of fighters down by aggressively marketing and selling them in the world arms market. If he were in the White House you can be sure there would be more not fewer F-22 Raptors for the Air Force and the current 250 ship Navy would be anathema to him.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 7:34AM

You're A Slandering Liar Little Micky From Tejas.

I'll match My Conservative Republican Credentials & Tea Party Credentials Against Yours Anytime, RINO-CINO Asshat.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 8:13AM

I feel so sorry for you Clint, but I don't hold your incoherent rants against you.  I know you are doing your best. 

Even George W. Bush couldn't match the Gipper in defense spending or rebuilding our military after a Soviet/terrorist appeasing Democrat (some make the comparison that Reagan increased it by more than 40% and Bush approximately 35%).  Some things he did like modernizing the mothballed WW II battleships may have been of dubious value, but he was a for a strong military, because he knew the world was a lot more dangerous than Americans like to admit. 

His brilliant strategy of using tangible military assets like deploying the Pershing II to Europe and a “defense spending race” with the Soviet Union were a stroke of genius.  While Democrats liked to ridicule SDI as "Star Wars" and it wasn’t deployed it was one of his major “weapons” in defeating communism in Europe.  The latter being his true legacy of greatness.

Old Soldier| 5.23.11 @ 11:55AM

I was a young Marine once upon a time (Desert Storm). Marines LOVED the battleships. Nothing ever created was better at prepping a landing zone or beachead. I had the freqs and codes to call them up if needed during the march to Kuwait. Forget those 5" pop-guns they use today.

The BB's scared the crap out of the Chicoms and Ruskkies - they didn't know how to sink them. Probably saw the Operation Crossroads tests on the Nevada.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 11:56AM

I Neither Want Nor Need Your Sorrow RINO-CINO Pseudo-Logistics Buffoon

Address What Reagan Knew & We Real Patriots know:
"We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. "

You're Up RINO-CINO Mouth.

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 12:59PM

There's another great Reagan quote that our brain injured friend has forgotten to note: “Defense is not a budget issue. You spend what you need.”

Clint, when you donate some money to a candidate, I'll listen to you. Otherwise, you're just another drunken guy in a bar mouthing off.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 1:11PM

Asked & Answered Israel Firster Fanatic Traitor Bastard Tool Job.
Aaand Americans Are Fed Up with Big Government Force Confiscating Our ATaxpayer Money & Handing It To All Those Middle East Parasite Leaches.

Aaand, I Don't Drink, You Slandering Liar Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Tool Job.

victor| 5.23.11 @ 2:46PM

Clint?Timmie*
"Aaand, I Don't Drink"

Could have fooled us you slobberin' fool.

Alan Brooks| 5.23.11 @ 3:36PM

"Slobbering IDF Lady Brooksbag Hairy Tarantula Soup Beato Beato Flat On My SEATO Hirohito Jews"

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:14PM

Again, Alan, gotta disagree with you. Too coherent by half. ;)

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 5:11PM

That's because You're A RINO-CINO Pavlovian Drooler, Victor-Margie-Sybil-Vicmar-Marbil.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 3:52PM

I stand corrected. Must be dementia pugilistica, then.

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:17PM

I see. So you donate to your won twue luvvvv, Ron Paul. Boy, I bet he thinks you're great.

Do you---work on the phone banks? Set up envelopes for mailing? Threaten your campaign coworkers with beatings for looking at you cross-eyed?

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:19PM

Sorry---you DON'T Donate to your won twueee luvvv, Ron Paul.

I donated to Angle (for example). I have a monthly donation set up for Heritage. Neither of these were government agencies, Fahrquar.

You, on the other hand, bloviate, spew, and threaten old guys. I know your daddy is proud of ya. I know I am.

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 4:36PM

That's "Dr. Ron Paul", Occam. Get it right.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 5:16PM

We Notice The Interesting Repeating Coalition Of The Israel Firster ObamaGirls, Brooks & RCV & Their RINO-CINO Israel Firster Girlfriends Tool Job & Victor-Margie-Sybil.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 5:25PM

Asked & Answered To You Before Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Plastic Phoney Israel Firster Fanatic , Whack Job Troll, Tool Job.

There wasn't a Tea Party during The Last Presidential Election & Unlike RINO-CINO Israel Firsters, I wasn't about to Donate Money to The Serial Traitor To Conservatism John McCain, of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, Gang of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of2001 & 2003, Tarp.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

RCV| 5.24.11 @ 12:49AM

The only tea party you're at, Tim, is the Mad Hatter's... And come to think of that, Dr. Ron Paul would be perfect for the role!

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:02PM

Yes, but there was a Won Pauuul, MD presidential campaign. You could have volunteered.

I have volunteered for campaigns, and licked stamps, etc. It's called politics at the grass roots level.

But it does involve work.

Harpagon | 5.24.11 @ 1:33PM

Occam, there are many Reagan quotes that one can use, including from his speeches on defense issues of 1983 and 1986. But Clint's own quotes from Reagan proved that the defense budget doesn't have to be cut - it's just that the DOD has to be radically reformed.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.23.11 @ 7:29AM

Yeah,
the pentagon probably wastes some dollars, but which ones?
I always think of that old saying..." for the want of a horse-shoe nail...............the battle was lost."

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 7:39AM

Ken I agree, but do believe we should seriously consider ending military welfare to Germany and Europe. Is NATO really needed or has the time come to reduce our footprint in Europe? For that matter military aid to Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and other Muslim countries needs to be reviewed. Could we be arming potential enemies? Before military aid is given to a Muslim nation it should be forced to condemn Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.. We should also end our support for Europe's Libyan adventure. That juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.23.11 @ 8:11AM

Michael,
I agree with you across the board. In my mind though, most of what you mentioned I have always considered "State Department" dollars.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 8:16AM

Ken,
You're probably right the real largess comes from the State Department. Though we've pumped over a billion dollars a year into Egpyt's military since Camp David. Money probably well worth it until Obama endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood becoming the defacto rulers.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.25.11 @ 9:03AM

Indeed. The State Department has seen its budget grow by 47% during the last 2 years alone, while defense spending is now below FY2009 levels, at 513 bn USD. Proof:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/.....und-state/

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 1:00PM

Michael,

thank you for the erudite and concise discussion.

We shopuld probably start by leaving NATO. It no longer serves an American purpose and we need those troops to be put in the rotation.

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 1:51PM

If you think the long-term threat from Russia is over, you're very short-sighted, Occam.

The Big E| 5.23.11 @ 2:39PM

While you are absolutely correct regarding your concern of the long-term threat posed by Russia, I think we should also ask whether or not remaining in NATO is still the best way to counteract that threat. Many of our NATO "allies"really no longer have much, if anything, to offer in the event of a confrontation with Russia, except a lot of excess baggage and dead weight. In addition, the demographic reality is that in another generation, some of those allies will be substantially, or even predominantly, Muslim.

It seems to me that it might be productive to replace NATO with a western alliance better suited to dealing with the threats of the post-cold war world - including an ever more aggressive Russia. (I know that's EXTREMELY unlikely to happen).

I just don't see NATO as a viable security arrangement going forward.

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:04PM

Thanks, Big E. Thanks as well for falling the demographic bouncing ball!

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:02PM

Good point, RCV. However, demographically Russia is finished in about 20 years, so we don't have a long term concern.* I also don't see them roaring into the Fulda gap, although I could be wrong. But, most importantly, I want France, Britain, Denmark, etc. picking up their fair share of their defence costs. NATO has also wasted an enormous sum of money recently on a grandiose new HQ.

However, given the demographic change in Europe, we will be pulling out sooner or later. Check the demographics on Western Europe circa 2030, RCV, via the CIA Factbook site.

In other words, I have done some thought on it. As usual, good to argue with ya. ;)

*There are a couple of reasons for this, to be noted in my capacity as an MD. Environmental poisoning, alcoholism, high rates of hepatitis and HIV, along with very high rates of abortion, make the demographic future of Mat Rosseya very dicey. To be more specific, when my buddy was adopting his kid from Kazakhstan, he and his wife were only shown one baby that was reasonably healthy in the orphanage, and Joey was motorically delayed, even so. (He's doing fine now) There's a real problem with fertility, and Mark Steyn noted that if you put tails on Russian Males and give them a couple more legs, they would qualify as an endangered species. Russian Male Life Expectancy is under 60!

For these reasons, I'm less concerned about the Russian threat. Demographically, they are worse off than even France and Germany.

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 10:24PM

Demographics notwithstanding, any nation with the nuclear and space armaments that Russia possesses will be a serious threat for a long, long time. Maintaining base arrangements with the likes of Germany, Poland and even Turkey is essential, as are good relations and alliances with Russia's other bordering former colonies. Don't be blinded by the moment.

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 2:29PM

BTW and off-subject, Occam, isn't there a way we could revoke Cynthia McKinney's passport before she gets back from Libya?

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:02PM

Hey, pal---I offer no legal opinions to you. But I'll be happy to donate to the cause! ;)

Have you considered| 5.23.11 @ 7:34AM

Most Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for 911.

However, I do not believe that would have been the case had the Bush Administration stated at the time that the US would occupy it for 10 years, and spend billions in the process.

I thought at the time the mission was to squash the Taliban and destroy the training grounds for terrorism. I don't recall being told that our mission was to implement a new government, and build a nation. This is the ultimate definition of mission creep.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 7:40AM

You may have missed the news, but the Taliban is still active and in light of Obama's current cut & run agenda it is becoming bolder and more aggressive.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 7:35AM

Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:

"Much of the waste in defense is directly attributable to the appropriations process. The vote delays on the MX missile and the suspension of the B-1 bomber cost this country billions of dollars--dollars that were lost forever as those systems that were set back had to be reprogrammed at higher cost.

"The report also calls for less micromanagement," he said. "Instead of scrutinizing every paper clip, bolt and bullet, Congress should give more thought to our overall defense needs and strategy."

The President particularly praised the commission's recommendation for five-year spending projections and two-year budget cycles for the Pentagon. "We are the only major country in the world that rewrites its defense budget every year," Reagan said.

"The waste that results is immense," he said. "No company in the private sector could survive if it couldn't plan for the future. The effect of funding programs this way is less defense and more cost."
Reagan appointed the commission, headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard, last June and asked it to propose reforms that would end "horror stories" about $600 toilet seat covers, $400 hammers and fierce interservice rivalries."

benny havens| 5.23.11 @ 8:36AM

USMA RAH-RAH, BEAT NAVY!

maximumrandb| 5.23.11 @ 10:37AM

Who currentyly holds the Commander in Chief's trophy, Benny?

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 1:01PM

Air Force, I believe. The Falcons have consistently been excellent over the last decade, although no match for the SAVAGE FROGS.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 1:23PM

For the first time since 2002, the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy isn't residing in Annapolis, Md.

Air Force, who beat Navy 14-6 earlier this season, completed the service academy sweep at Army, beating the Black Knights 42-22.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.25.11 @ 9:16AM

What Reagan said is true. And that is why many reforms need to be implemented, including:
1) Making biennial, not annual, defense budgets the norm (as recommended by the Packard Commission - this is the only key recommendation of the Packard Commission not yet implemented);
2) Funding the vast majority of weapon programs on a multiyear procurement basis;
3) Combining the Appropriations and Authorizations processes;
4) Strengthening the prerogatives of the Chairman of the JCS still further;
5) Refusing to delay any weapon programs.

jppc| 5.23.11 @ 7:35AM

We need a stable, slightly increased defense budget - mainly for hot weapons such as fighter aircraft, Navy ships, heliocopters, a new main battle tank, etc.

The DOD needs to reduce social program spending on such things as "gay studies", "moooslim studies", "women in combat", "family planning" and other fluff.

One does not have a "right" to be in the Armed Forces; one has to qualify. If you can't qualify then you simply are not suited for it.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 7:48AM

jppc I'm all for the F-22, F-35 and an increase in the fleet, but we have an incredible main battle tank. The M1A1 is just incredible. We could use a new assault rifle and more lethal round with better CQB, and long range lethality.

Amen on nixing the Barack "McNamara" Obama social agenda.

One thing we should and could do is make all military pay (active duty, retiree, reserve and National Guard) tax free. Why should America’s warriors sacrifice twice when rich Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros pay virtually none?

jppc| 5.23.11 @ 9:14AM

Ditto. Didn't mean to dis the M1A1 (or is it A2 now?). Not sure, I'm an old Air Force guy.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 9:26AM

jppc you're right my error -- A2.

Nunya| 5.23.11 @ 11:31AM

Michael, that's a great idea! Tax free military duty would immediately give our troops a ~25% pay raise, and would boost morale significantly, and would almost certainly boost recruiting.

I'm all for it!

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.25.11 @ 9:30AM

The newest variant is neither the M1A1 nor the M1A2, but rather the M1A2 SEP. Only a minority of the military's tanks are SEP variants, though. I believe all M1 tanks should be upgraded to the M1A2SEP standard. As for assault rifles - the military should simply start using M14s again. They work great, even in sandy and muddy environments. But M16s and M4s rifles are lethal - they kill due to the way they are built. No one has survived after he was shot with an M16 or M4 round.

The DOD should eliminate many wasteful expenses, but should increase spending on weapons, including V-22s, C-17s, C-130s, F-35s, SLBMs, warships, and helicopters.

Rogue Elephant| 5.23.11 @ 7:51AM

I reject Huntsman. But, I wouldn't call opposing Libya "dovish". The GOP advocates a strong defense. But, we are not the War Party. We should not support military intevention for its own sake. Promoting Libyan revolution is not in our interest.

Indy| 5.23.11 @ 3:38PM

I agree with you, we have no business stepping into a civil war, we have already seen scope creep and we are not clear on who the rebels are, I'm more than disappointed at both the left and the right over Libya, Congress and the Media are silent, had this been the previous administration's action...well, you can only imagine the speeches on the House floor and the talking libs on TV.

POTUS takes action in Libya and not Syria, Yemen, etc. He was silent during the protests in Iran in 2009 and that was the time to speak out. The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining power, they are not friendly to the US and we are likely helping them...makes no sense.

There is much I disagree with on Mr. Huntsman's policies but Libya is not one of them.

Old Soldier| 5.23.11 @ 7:52AM

There are over 700,000 federal civilian employees in the DOD - and they hire contractors whenever actual work needs to be done. How about we look there first for meaningful budget cuts?

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 8:18AM

Old Soldier thank you for your service. Isn't it funny how the bean counters always want to cut the military, but never go after the civilian bureaucrats.

Sean| 5.23.11 @ 8:33AM

I think the bureaucrats are considered part of military spending.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 8:48AM

Sean,
I don't hear Obama and Democrats calling for a downsizing in DOD bureaucrats, but the active duty military is on the chopping block and doing everything it can to cut personnel. The Marines alone will go from 202K to 175K.

Old Soldier| 5.23.11 @ 10:54AM

Sean:

Yes the bureaucrats are considered part of military spending. (High-priced professional types - the lunch ladies at the Fort Dix cafeteria are contractors)

No they are never part of the cuts.

carnot| 5.23.11 @ 5:44PM

and let's get rid of those elitist Service Academies as well!

carnot| 5.23.11 @ 5:45PM

and let's get to brass tacks here: the real DoD burdens lie in personnel costs...especially medical and retirement benefits.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.25.11 @ 9:32AM

Yep, there are 600,000-700,000 civilian bureaucrats working for the DOD - all of whom earn nice salaries. They should be replaced by contractors, and only on a 1 for 2 basis (i.e. you replace only 50% of retiring civilian DOD employees). The personnel of the OSD should be reduced by 75%.

JimH| 5.23.11 @ 8:13AM

Define the mission first. Then you can figure out what you need to accomplish it. Remember how we brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union by forcing it into bankruptcy by trying to keep up with us military strength. I don’t know if this is a conscious policy or not but there are interests inimical to America which draw out our military and cause us to spend blood and treasure we cannot afford in places far from home. If we had devoted even a fraction of what we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan on developing local energy resources we would not have to try to be nice to various despots, we would be far sounder economically, many brave service people would still be alive and our military would be far more able to respond to real threats.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 8:22AM

JimH bankrupting or running the Soviet Union into the ground was Reagan at his best. Americans and the people of Eastern Europe owe his defense buildup a debt of thanks despite the deficits.

Purpleguy| 5.23.11 @ 12:27PM

Excuse me - but the Gipper did not destroy the Soviet Union. It imploded on its own accord over time crumbling from within. It was the containment policy of Harry S Truman and that policy followed by all subsequent presidents who actually hastened the downfall of the Soviets.
That Reagan's policies did the Soviet Union in is pure Republican spin and "wishitude". In fact, there are many who believe the Soviet Union would have imploded without Reagan at all.

But you can claim credit for Reagan dealing the death blow to the Soviets if you like - but then you must accept that President Obama dealt the death blow to Osama bin Laden. Obama got Osama. You can't have it both ways fellas.

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 1:03PM

Sure. Obama killed Osama, thanks to Bush-era intelligence.

Reagan destroyed the Soviets. Thanks for playing, hypoxemic one.

Steve A| 5.23.11 @ 2:12PM

Purple, Good point. Obama is a bloodthirsty, savage warrior. He has kept us engaged in Iraq, ramped up Afghanistan, added Lybia & maintained GITMO. I know those are all the reasons you voted for him. He is like a reincarnation of Patton. I am sure the peacenick left must be proud. Oh yeah, he zapped Osama & blew away some pirates also.

PS: All of the above are things I admire Obama for.

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 2:30PM

You're a good, objective man, SteveA

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.24.11 @ 6:00PM

I don't bother with silly abhorring the sanctimonious conservatism of tea partiers who lack any intelligence and are without a shred of real Christian love and are without a shred of compassion on determining objectivity matters.

The Big E| 5.23.11 @ 3:39PM

I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. Obama got Osama, and yes, I consider it to have been a tough call, especially for a coward like Obama. If anyone doubts it was a tough call for Obama, just imagine how Bill Clinton would have handled it. That said it was the right call. So I'm happy to give credit where credit is due.

So, why won't you?

The policy of "containment" can only be considered to have been successful if one assumes that "containment" was a code word for "permissive expansion," since that's the realty of what happened.

Certainly, there were pre-existing economic weaknesses in the Soviet Union which ultimately led to its implosion. Ronald Reagan, unlike his predecessors, recognized and took advantage of those pre-existing weaknesses. Any number of Presidents prior to Reagan COULD have done the same thing, but chose not to, because they either lacked the clarity of vision to recognize the pre-existing economic weaknesses in question, or the courage (or in some cases, the opportunity) to take advantage of them.

GavInTucson| 5.23.11 @ 4:06PM

Republican spin, Purpleguy? Perhaps you should read Gorbechev's (sp) book. He spelled out in detail how Reagan did the Soviet Union in.

Purpleguy| 5.23.11 @ 8:46PM

Sorry I don't read communist;s memoirs - question is - why do you? and you believe him? Really?

Gr0w1er| 5.23.11 @ 10:04PM

Sorry, Purplepuke- you can't have it both ways. Oh that's right- you're the pivot man.

SpiralArchitect| 5.23.11 @ 12:15PM

Fret not. We save our energy 'reserves' for a time in the future...when we will no longer need the vast amount of these types of energy sources.

That is how the US Gov works.

Timothy L. Pennell| 5.23.11 @ 8:42AM

Let's see...............CHINA is aggressively Building Up their Military. Their NAVY is on the move.
IRAN is thisclose to going Nuke, and has it's Proxies running around the world, setting fires.
VENEZUALA has built MISSILE FACTORIES. PAKISTAN could fall tomorrow. EGYPT is about to be SYRIA Jr.
We have a FAILED NARCO STATE on our Southern Border. And the INBREDS, in RUSSIA, are looking to RESET their Empire.
Wait. What was the question, again?
Right.
What CUTS would I make in DEFENCE.
"WEAKNESS IS A PROVOCATION."
Any more questions?

JimH| 5.23.11 @ 8:52AM

Spending money does not guaranty success. Look at the department of education. This is why I say first figure out what it is that you want to accomplish; defend the borders, project power, fight 2.5 wars, simultaneously defend x number of allies? Then you can determine the best ways to accomplish that mission. There are always more and less efficient ways of doing what needs doing.

Harpagon | 5.24.11 @ 1:35PM

I agree with the first part of your post, but not necessarily the second one. A clear MISSION STATEMENT for the US military must be the beginning of ANY defense policy.

Purpleguy| 5.23.11 @ 12:31PM

So who is going to attack us? Since when are we the United States of the World? If we had the money, fine, but we don't and I think y'all can see now that careful, persistent intelligence work - not military invasions - will stop terrorists.
So, again, who is it that is going to attack us that we need to spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined? China? Russia? Iran? Egypt? Venezuela (I even chuckled at that one)?

SpiralArchitect| 5.23.11 @ 12:44PM

Iran has already made their first payment, in cash, to start construction of their missle base located in Venezeula.

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 1:04PM

Tim---Nice, and Nicely Proofed!

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 2:06PM

The 10 major military powers of the world with budget

1. USA ($515 Billion)

2. China ($59 Billion)

3. Russia ($43 Billion)

4. India ($33 Billion)

5. United Kingdom ($53 Billion)

6. France ($62 Billion)

7. Germany ($46 Billion)

8. Brazil ($24 Billion

9. Japan ($44 Billion)

10. Turkey ($31 Billion)

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 2:31PM

...and if you believe that France spends more than China on defense, Clint, you're dumber than I thought.

Occam's Tool| 5.23.11 @ 4:13PM

RCV,

Could he be? It's really impossible for him to be dumber than I think. I've got his IQ right around 85-90.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 5:06PM

You're A Chronic Serial Slandering Liar, Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Bloviator Traitor Bastard Coward Tool Job.

I.Q is only one measurement of smarts.

Having said that and unlike An Attention Craving, Bloviatin' Sorry-Assed Excuse Of A Government Self-Help Whack Job Shrink, such as yourself, my IQ has been measured higher than Obama & McCain.

Measure That Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Tool Job.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:04PM

Who'd ya bribe?

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:16PM

Yes, but what do you do with your Gennniusss...who do you help, what do you accomplish. Saved any lives? Made any millions? Accomplished 1 millionth of what your dad did?

Lazy intellect is worthless. Focused intellect is worthwhile. Psychopathic intellect is downright annoying.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 4:45PM

Look It Up Ya Lazy Ass Colliefornia Obama LawBoyRCV.

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 10:29PM

So you believe the figures that China -- that open, transparent democracy -- reports. Clint, you even more naive than Dr. Ron Paul, gynecologist.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 10:53PM

So You can't rebut the figures Obama LawBoy RCV.
You're even more of an ObamaBoy Israel Firster Than Rahm Emanuel's Old Man, Benjamin, Pediatrician & Irgun Member.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:12PM

By the way, Obama was not a National Merit Commended student, much less a Semifinalist. Max IQ a dismal 129. Probably closer to 115.

Clint, you can't see me from where you are. Sorry, son.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:14PM

Of course, Ben Stein apparently scored close to 1600, and that's a no way score today.

Obama graduated Magna Cum laude from HLS. Of course, well over half his class graduated with honors, which means honors at HLS is meaningless.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:26PM

Of course, Ben did a LOT of Drugs and or alcohol, unlike Clint, who comes by his junk yard dog disposition without the aid of substances.

By the way, Clint, full disclosure: MCAT 68 (higher than HMS average) (Taken 1983).
SAT 1420 (taken 1979)m (730 Verbal, 690 Math).
ACT 33 (taken 1979).

Psych Board Recert 2005 was 92%. Lowest score among board re-certified MDs that year was 67%.
Thanks for playing.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.23.11 @ 5:55PM

I don't bother with silly dumber than anyone thinks as I state genius utterings like at least I belong to the party that cares about human beings AFTER they're partially born and how I abhor the sanctimonious conservatism of tea partiers who lack any intelligence and any shred of real Christian love and any shred of compassion and not signing silly petitions on global warming that 31,487 actual real life scientists have indeed signed on pretending boredom when this is pointed out and other dumber than anyone thought matters.

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 6:46PM

Oh ! You Mean The Party That Supports The Partial Birth Baby Snuffin' Alinskiite Socialist Piece Of Garbage Obama.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:07PM

IQ measurements: most IQ testing is based on symbol manipulation ability. Two major symbol types: Mathematical and Verbal. If your IQ is reasonably good, then you must be outstanding at math, Clint. Your verbal skills are pathetic.

RCV| 5.23.11 @ 7:06PM

Zzzzzz.....................

Clint| 5.23.11 @ 7:36PM

Zzzzzzzzzuuulllluuuu !

Purpleguy| 5.23.11 @ 8:50PM

even though the US numbers are low, you made my point. We spend 10x more than any one country, and even if all the above jumped on us at once, we still leave them in the dust. Soooo, ripe for cutting back before we kill off headstart and school lunch programs? Any takers?

skip| 5.24.11 @ 5:58PM

What an idiot on a par with RCV.

The constitution establishes six functions of government.

Form a more perfect union.
Establish justice.
Insure domestic tranquility.
Provide for the common defence.
Promote the general welfare.
Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Soooo, naturally, you wish to cease a constitutional governmental function, providing for the common defence, for several unconstitutional governmental functions, promoting the specific welfare of some at the expense of the general welfare of others.

Most here are sick of taking the stupidity and dishonesty of liberal idiots such as yourself.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 4:22AM

China vastly understates its military budget. Its real annual military budget was $140 bn as early as FY2007.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.23.11 @ 8:49AM

Preach it Timothy!

WilliamR| 5.23.11 @ 9:25AM

Republicans opposed to defense cuts are not serious about the deficit. Just like Democrats that oppose cuts to Medicare and Social Security The big three. Medicare, Defense, and Social Security that's where the money is.

Tell the NeoCons to drop dead. There's nothing conservative about fighting endless war in the Middle East.

Nunya| 5.23.11 @ 12:13PM

Actually, it's the Big 2--Social Security and Medicare. In 2010 those two combined for 43% of total Federal spending, with "Other Mandatory" spending (including disability and other payments) adding another 12%--totalling 55% of all monies spent. Defense was another 20% so there's likely some areas to cut back, but one would want to be very judicious with those, a thorough study is likely needed.

As to "endless wars in the Middle East", I'm with you to a certain point. I think we need to (as stated above) define the mission, and go from there. Right now I think our "leadership" has abdicated their responsibility in that area, but frankly I expect no less from Obozo and his minions. None of them can make a freakin' decision (unless the UN or France makes one first).

WilliamR| 5.23.11 @ 1:51PM

Defense is 20 percent of the budget.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Time to declare victory and get the hell out of the Middle East. Again, tell the NeoCons to drop dead.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 6:31AM

Defense does not constitute 20% of the federal budget. Not even close. It constitutes less than 15%, and even when total military spending (including GWOT spending and DOE spending) is included, it's still less than 19%. The CBPP is a biased, utterly discredited, liberal think-tank which blames the current budget deficits exclusively on the current recession, the GWOT, and the Bush tax cuts, and claims that Obama's policies had nothing to do with the budget deficits.

Purpleguy| 5.23.11 @ 8:55PM

Hmmm, 20% of the budget to protect Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Korea, Japan, Germany, etc, etc, etc. while we throw Grandma off of Medicare and Social Security? Really? Did you really say that's okay? Oh, and all this while the taxes in this country are lower than before the 1950's? Especially on the most well off in this country. Anyone who makes a lot is not willing to give a lot, doesn't deserve it. Even Jesus said "it is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". What would Jesus do - give the tax money to help those less fortunate than yourself. Instead of fighting so hard to keep money.

Nunya| 5.24.11 @ 10:42AM

Purp, you obviously have no clue as to what Jesus was talking about. Don't try and pretend to be a Christian, quoting Christ. If you know, please tell me what "the eye of a needle" is that Jesus was talking about--it certainly wasn't a sewing needle he was discussing.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 6:36AM

The US doesn't spend 20% of its budget on the military, it's actually less than 19%, and only a minority of it is spent on the countries you listed (some of whom are CRUCIAL allies of the US, BTW). As for entitlement programs - no one has been thrown off them and their costs have NEVER been reduced, not even by one cent. Their costs have been growing on autopilot and they now constitute 63% of the TOTAL federal budget according to Investors' Business Daily (56% according to Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe of Freedomworks.org).

American seniors are doing very well - they receive free entitlement benefits, paid for by younger workers, and sit on assets like houses, while young people have to pay for college, for themselves, find jobs, and pay the whole gamut of federal, state, and local taxes. In America, wealth correlates with age.

Unfortunately, seniors and liberals continue to resist ANY, even the smallest, cuts of entitlement programs, even though they continue to grow on autopilot and already eat up 63% of the total annual federal budget.

SpiralArchitect| 5.23.11 @ 12:50PM

Two well known leaders in the arab world (Lybia & Iraq) were both moving toward a gold backed new currency to trade oil - no longer using the dollar. This is public record.

One is dead and the other had lawless airstrikes initiated against him - now past the Congressional deadline for authorization too.

Weird how a Syrian leader can kill dozens of unarmed protesters each week and nothing happens for weeks. Now he has been told to stop, this is laughable global action/inaction.

richard ryan| 5.23.11 @ 9:42AM

Most Americans agree with the following: We should first defend this nation's borders. Spending our treasure for the building of other nations, or for the security of Europe is not a wise use of our resources. Our biggest threats are internal- power grid, information infrastructure, and 911-style attacks. Someday, when we are broke after years of military/entitlement over-extension, we may be vulnerable to direct military attack upon our borders, but that is yet to come. I know there are many who would assert that the defense of Europe, South Korea, Israel, etc is indirectly necessary for our own security. But there IS a point along our steep decline at which we decide we do not have the money. With limited resources, prioritizing is essential.

PCC| 5.23.11 @ 9:45AM

Why don't we start saving defense dollars by declaring victory in the AfPak toilet and bring all the troops home by Christmas?

We can leave a few Predator drones in theater just in case we need to satisfy the urge to bounce the rubble from time to time.

Purpleguy| 5.23.11 @ 12:39PM

Good plan! At least let's get our own fiscal house in order before "policing" the world.

Wayne | 5.23.11 @ 11:01AM

Bill Kristol is a war-mongering neo-con. We need to bring our troops home. It is time the rest of the world take responsibility over their neighborhoods.

SpiralArchitect| 5.23.11 @ 12:59PM

Yes, If Obummer gives them some sanctions and speaks tough they will surely comply, right?

You saying they must take responsibility helps as well, of course.

Bringing troops home is a good thing but is unlikely to save money. The Gov only finds other uses for the dollars not spent in one place.

supplement | 5.23.11 @ 12:04PM

I agree with Timothy wholeheartedly. We cannot afford to back down now as everyone else beefs up.

PCC| 5.23.11 @ 2:44PM

Who are you referring to when you say "everyone else" is beefing up? The Chinese? The Russians? For different reasons, they're both at least 20 years behind the U.S. military, except maybe in cyber warfare. Do you really believe the Defense Department couldn't scrape by on $600 billion a year? Where's the threat to justify the enormous expense? Has the U.S., unwittingly or otherwise, now adopted a "permanent state of war" mentality? Does the U.S. psyche require a foreign enemy at all times? If the Russians and Chinese rolled over and disarmed completely, I guess Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Canada would be next on the list.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 6:40AM

Your claims are false, Mr Liberal liar. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela are all threats to the US. The Chinese military is already superior to the US military, and Russia's is on par with the US military. $600 bn a year for defense is perfectly enough - if you a) withdraw all troops from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq (which cannot happen too soon); b) stop inflation and adopt a gold standard.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:18PM

Now Zbig, don't slander. Be kind.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:20PM

Gosh, not the Liberal word. Geez, Zbig, ya used it on me.

Carroll Melton| 5.23.11 @ 3:08PM

“Huntsman who told Good Morning America he would have voted for Paul Ryan's budget proposal, something some of the field's putative conservatives -- including a certain former House speaker -- have pointedly declined to do.”

You need to start living in reality instead of a parallel universe. In the past 9 days I have heard Newt Gingrich state twice, on television, “I would have voted for the Ryan budget.” How would you make it any clearer than that???

The Big E| 5.23.11 @ 3:48PM

Of course, he only did this after catching hell from trashing the Ryan budget when he first announced. Gee, I wonder which statements reflected his true beliefs? The one he made before it was a negative issue for him? Or the ones he's made since discovering his first statement may have torpedoed his candidacy before it got going?

Pat| 5.23.11 @ 3:37PM

Expect to see the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Barack Obama and the diesel powered fleet garbage scow USS Joe Biden sometime in our nation’s future - but the names of the ships shouldn’t be important to us, even the aptly nicknamed “Fighting Obama”, pride of the fleet and whose future battle cry is more than likely “Yes, We Can”. What is important is the continuing prosperity of our military-industrial complex and without the evil connotation a Paul Krugman or Eugene Robinson might suggest that term implies.

How many mach 2.5, single seat aircraft is Delta Airlines likely to buy? Would a United Airlines or a U. S. Airways find much use for a commercial aircraft with stealth capabilities and invisible to air traffic control radar? You’re probably thinking “not much commercial demand for that kind of stuff”, especially that last part about boarding a Stealth 737 for your family’s vacation flight to Orlando.

But keeping our defense industry strong requires we occasionally buy something not much needed in the civilian world. And, strange as it may seem, replacing a U. S. Air Force plane, currently the fastest interceptor in the world with an even faster version is very necessary – it isn’t intuitively obvious when we already fly the best on the planet, but it is economically obvious. Sure, our defense contractors could peddle their stuff to other nations, but we try hard not to sell those nations weapons systems better than our own. So, it isn’t necessarily about what kind of military conflict we will someday have to fight, it’s about keeping these firms producing state of the art weapons systems.

By sitting on our hands we could save much in government defense expenditures, we could stick with the current generation of military aircraft, ships or main battle tanks, but what do we tell a General Dynamics, Boeing Defense Industries or Northrup about future orders – “Don’t call us, we’ll call you”? We could cancel all current aircraft development programs, cut way back on warship production or even stick with our current MBT, one of the best in the world, but then someday very soon we’ll witness the defense contractor version of General Motors being bailed out by a panel of White House “experts”. And we all realize that would mean a union label main battle tank which runs on electricity or gets 45 mpg and being kind to the environment by incorporating narrow rubber treads and plastic armor made from recycled water bottles.

John R. Tannehill| 5.23.11 @ 5:54PM

Defense spending should be set on the basis of our national interests and the threats thereto. Dr. Gates has tried to shoe horn the military into a fixed dollar amount and has inflicted ruin on the services in the process. We don't need more of that.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.26.11 @ 6:44AM

And that's why America's defense posture, policies, and strategies must be determined by global realities, NOT by budgetary constraints. Defense strategies should dictate budgets - not the other way around.

chris haynes| 5.23.11 @ 8:41PM

Defense spending should be set on the basis of our national interests and the threats thereto.

Sir. Amen, sir.

Instead of on wars, 6000 miles away, Defending Europe, Korea, Japan, Bahrain. Bringing freedom to Pakistanis, protecting Libyans from that imminent holocasut, or 10 years training the world's slowest leaners, the afgan army, or on diverstity and homosexuality training at home, on cold war strategies, ships and weapons, on bloated military salaries, and plush pensions, even for guys in their 40's!

PCP Smoker| 5.23.11 @ 8:42PM

Know plenty of guys who after putting in their 20s in the service ended up working for some defense related industry. Time to get a real job boys.

john dubose| 5.23.11 @ 10:01PM

It is not possible to sustain the world empire of USA indefinitely. We either give it up soon or go down in flames just like the ancient Atheians and Romans. Hardly anyone posting here is willing to see the obvious.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:20PM

The Athenians mismanaged allies. The Romans collapsed from within, first. Obama is pretty bad, but even he is no Commodus.

Dee See| 5.23.11 @ 11:05PM

--Far, far, far more important are the
treaties, agreements and 'understandings'
that have opened the door to the deployment
of FOREIGN troops (---and not merely Canadians)
on American soil.

AS bankster plundering needs consolidation
---and as pensions, currencies and borders
are being destroyed ----keep your eyes on that
gendercidal 30 MILLION man, RED Chinese
surplus.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.24.11 @ 7:29AM

"If Barbour, a pillar of the GOP establishment, can elicit this kind of reaction for fairly mild comments, it is no surprise that scrutiny of military spending has been confined to Huntsman, Ron Paul, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and Republicans who aren't running for president. (Even if you count Daniels and Barbour, nobody polling better than Paul has raised these issues.) The rest of the Republican field either believes such spending should remain at least at current levels -- or that it would be too costly to say otherwise."

Yet more garbage from the unrepentant anti-defense-spending James Antle. NO ONE is arguing against SCRUTINY of military spending. What Kristol, Rubin, and many other conservatives, have protested against, are CUTS of defense spending (i.e. the core defense budget, not to be confused with GWOT spending), which is an entirely different thing. Scrutiny is one thing. Cutting the defense budget (which has already been significantly reduced and is inadequate) is another. Yet, Mr Antle is unable to distinguish these two things.

America's defense spending amounted to $534 bn (3.65% of GDP) in FY2010 and amounts to $513 bn (3.50% of GDP) this FY. Total mil. spending was equal to 4.54% of GDP in FY2010 and $673 bn (4.6% of GDP) this FY.

Plus, as Kristol has pointed out, Barbour, as a lobbyist, has no moral right to complain about defense spending.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.24.11 @ 1:56PM

Furthermore, James Antle has failed to distinguish war decisions and foreign policy from defense spending, defense posture, and defense capabilities.

Huntsman was right that the Libyan War is a grave error (Qaddafi is America's ally - he's fighting against Al Qaeda) and that the Afghan war must be thoroughly reexamined (I believe the US military should've withdrawn from Afghanistan long ago). Daniels was right to say that it's not legitimate to reexamine America's alliances and commitments to foreign allies.

But it is ONE THING to make such thorough examinations and the necessary adjustments (e.g. withdrawal from Afghanistan, ending the Libyan war, withdrawal from NATO), and QUITE ANOTHER to cut defense spending - which pays for the military's structure, capabilities, training, bases, fuel, food, and equipment. REORIENTING military spending from one purpose to another is one thing. CUTTING defense spending is quite another. James Antle still fails to notice this huge difference. That is his gravest mistake.

Furthermore, Antle has offered Americans a false choice: between a balanced budget and robust funding for defense. They are not mutually exclusive. The budget CAN be balanced without cutting the core defense budget. In fact, defense cuts would produce only small, statistically insignificant "savings", which would only make the military weaker and force the federal government to later rebuild the military at a much greater fiscal cost - as happened during the 1940s, the 1970s, and the 1990s.

Defense cuts would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. It's time for fiscal conservatives to recognize this and attack the real culprit: entitlement spending.

Also, Antle has conveniently ignored that pesky Constitutional REQUIREMENT to provide for the common defense, whereas there is no requirement, and even no right, for the feds to manage, and spend money on, education, transportation, agriculture, welfare rolls, HC programs, etc.

Occam's Tool| 5.26.11 @ 9:05PM

Nicely put, Zbig.

Richard Baker| 5.24.11 @ 9:47PM

If we can't economize within the Department of Defense then President Eisenhower was correct regarding the military-industrial complex. When I served for 8 years in the '70s, I observed many ways to do so. However, it seems as if simply stating that this needs to be done causes too many to question one's patriotism. There has to be a proper mix of force structure and dollars that would yield the needed shield for the country. I might suggest the elimination of all of the demonstration teams which are ostensibly meant for recruiting purposes, as a start. I'd also eliminate the use of government employees running the bases/installations and privatize their functions. Just think of the bloated pensions that would be eliminated. Just a couple of ideas.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.25.11 @ 6:00AM

President Eisenhower was flat wrong regarding the mythical "military-industrial complex" (which doesn't exist). And yes, one can economize at the DOD, and your specific proposals are right, but any savings made at the DOD must be reinvested in the DOD.
The defense budget is insufficient, and so is the DOD's spending on modernization. The QDR Ind. Panel Review has actually warned of a modernization crisis. The DOD must eliminate all wasteful expenses, and clearly, not 100% or even 90% of its annual budget is well spent. But the defense budget must not be reduced.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.25.11 @ 6:55AM

Regarding Huntsman and Daniels: BOTH of them are RINOs. And yes, it's VERY EASY to claim that Daniels is a RINO - because he is, although Chris Matthews... er, James Antle refuses to recognize that fact because he's an admirer of the failed Governor of Indiana. Daniels is liberal on social AND fiscal AND defense AND foreign policy issues. He's responsible for the exploding budget deficits of the Bush era. As Bush's OMB Director, he reinstated farm subsidies, created ethanol subsidies, and budgeted for the NLCB law and the prescription drug entitlement. As Governor of Indiana, he has radically raised cigarette taxes to a) punish smokers; b) finance his bloated socialized medicine scheme. He has also utterly failed to balance the Indiana state budget, even though he has been the state's governor for 6 years.

It is also funny that Antle and Daniels advocate cuts of defense spending, but not of DOS or USAID spending. The truth is that defense spending has already been reduced, from 534 bn USD in FY2010 to 513 bn USD in FY2011, and Obama plans to cut it further, while the budget of the State Department has grown by 47% since Obama took office, and Obama plans to grow it further.

So hands off the defense budget.

Also, it's ridiculous to claim that defense spending threatens America's public finances, when it constitutes less than 15% of the annual federal budget (even total military spending constitutes less than 19%).

Daniels has said that "informed the Weekly Standard defense spending must be on the table for budget cuts." No, it mustn't be. For many reasons, not the least of which is that when defense spending is put on the table, it quickly becomes the ONLY thing on the table. This is what happened during the 1940s, 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s.

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Political Hay

Damage Control for Dummies

May 22, 2013 | Matt Purple

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

May 21, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

It’s.The.Law

May 20, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

Holder’s Holdout

May 16, 2013 | Kaylin Bugos

From Bimbos to Benghazi

May 9, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/23/the-unkindest-cuts

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|150 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|84 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|26 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.