The American Spectator : Pentagon Forecast: The Perfect Storm

Text Size

Loose Canons

Pentagon Forecast: The Perfect Storm

By Jed Babbin on 4.16.12 @ 6:09AM

Sequestration, scheduled for January 2013, is already shutting down America’s defenses.

(Page 2 of 2)

Sequestration and bad decisions on weapons are almost enough for a perfect storm. The one remaining ingredient is the business environment for defense companies, which is getting worse by the minute.

We now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Companies can’t sacrifice business viability and profits for the public good. And they have to plan for sequestration even if Leon Panetta can’t. Which means that they are — right now — planning decreased production, investment, and hiring. And implementing those plans won’t be delayed until Congress, the Pentagon, and Obama sort things out.

Major defense contractors spend billions on independent research and development when the defense market supports it by buying new technologies. Those IR&D expenditures shrink when the market doesn’t support it, and our resulting technological advantage in war — which won the Cold War and several hot wars since — disappears. Government labs and research facilities just don’t have the capability to produce this sort of research, as their track record proves.

Sequestration — as Panetta said — will indiscriminately cut weapon-system spending across every program. It will mean contracts will be breached by the government, programs will be further reduced or cancelled, factories will be closed, and thousands of jobs will be lost. What neither Congress nor the White House seems to remember — and the past experience is deep and painful — is that government contracts frequently cost more to terminate than to complete. Contractors are entitled, by contract and law, to termination costs. Lawyers delight in them because they often are awarded after years of litigation. But the government gets nothing for them. No ships, no aircraft, no rifles for the infantry. Just a bill to pay.

That bill will not just be dollars. It will also be paid in a general reduction in our ability to defend ourselves, our interests abroad, and our allies. Without planning for defense, using the matrix of future threats our forces are expected to deter or defeat as a baseline, no one can say how bad that reduction of our defenses will be.

At a recent Air Force Association symposium, the commander of Air Combat Command, Gen. Gilmary Hostage, said, “… at some point, I run out of things to cut. I can only give up so much capacity to gain capability before dwindling inventories make even the best quality less dominant.” He added, “… to remain… capable, we cannot maintain the status quo and try to do more with less. That will just lead us down the path to a hollow force.”

Just so. Obama’s build-down, sequestration, a bad business environment, and a long string of awful decisions on weapon systems in the pipeline will accomplish what no enemy could: the transformation of our military into a paper tiger.

Thus the Perfect Pentagon Storm. Sequestration is coming in January, but the coming storm’s massive power is already being felt throughout the defense community.

Page: < 12

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 (195) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 4.16.12 @ 7:29AM

The sooner we get the troops home from overseas the better. That and cuttting all foreign aid should be the number 1 priority for this bankrupt country. The troops should have been brought home 20 years ago when the Soviet Union shut down. We can defend these borders and shores for about half of we spend now. Let the world defend itself. For 100 years America has squandered it"s wealth and blood fighting other peoples wars. No longer can America be the sugar daddy for all our so called allies and their Social Security sytems. What they don't spend on their owns defenses goes right into their medical care and social programs. Think Switzerland which has great national defense that ends at it's own borders. It a also is quite wealthy and hasn't been involved in a war for 200 years.

Darin| 4.16.12 @ 7:43AM

If you really want to pursue an isolationist approach (like Switzerland), are you prepared to tell someone you don't care what's happening to war-torn nations, to people dying from starvation, to places devasted by natural disasters? America provides help to these and others because our military is there and either provides the service directly or protects those who do provide it. The Red Cross will seriously rethink relief efforts if the security of their teams is not being provided by US military forces. I don't know what the right answer is, but adandoning those in need seems rather heartless.

Jack in Wi.| 4.16.12 @ 7:57AM

Let the world run itself. Wars are endless money pits which eventually destroy every country who pursues them. We should follow our 1st President who said no to permanent foreign alliances entanglements. It is called non intervention not, isolation. We still trade and have peacefu lrelations with the world but we mind our own business. Nothing is more then clear then the fact that Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan Robert Taft, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding and Charles Lindbergh, etc. have been right and Neoconservatives like Mr Babbin have been wrong. We are bankrupt because of endless wars for no sane reason.

Darin| 4.16.12 @ 8:11AM

"Let the world run itself." Interesting observation. And when that ends up with Russia invading Europe, China invading Taiwan, nuclear exchanges in the Middle East, and so forth, do we still stay out of it? "Non intervention" is a cowards way out of getting involved. If you apply such thinking to international affairs, it's easy to apply it to domestic affairs and let those in need "run themselves." You'll really save a bundle by ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and a host of other programs.

So Jack, where do we draw the line? Where do we say "this cannot be permitted"? After Hitler conquers all of Europe?

Jack in Wi.| 4.16.12 @ 8:55AM

As Herbert Hoover pointed out at the time and in his great book ' Freedom Betrayed ' just published and reviewed favorably in this publication. Hitler and Stalin fighting it out and exausting themselves would have been the best thing possible. We gave Hitler's partner in starting WW2, Stalin, half of Europe. We should have shunned both Hitler and Stalin. Stalin had killed huge numbers more people then Hitler before WW2, probably on a scale of 5000 to 1. Why was helping him moral? Mind our own business. Every war leads to something worse.

John - TMF| 4.16.12 @ 9:48AM

That is quite enough. Jackboot, you are just about the most obdurately stu - no... no name calling... but grrrr it is so difficult.... >:

You must live in some basement somewhere where you have constructed some fantasy world of rapt isolation.

1. You are a terrible Catholic (That I can say since I have other Catholic witnesses.). You are an anti-Semite, and abusive at that. (almost as abusive as Clint- who is also a poor Catholic.)

Anti-Semitism is a mortal sin. That fact has been re-enforced by both recent Popes.

Perhaps if you seek isolation you can find it in a monastery where you can seek enlightenment and just revelation by deep prayer and medication. Perhaps then you will listen to the whisper of God, and understand that WE ARE our brothers' keepers.

2 -Should you poke your head out of your fantasy world, you will note that it is no "World Taking Care of Itself" setting. If we allow the world to take care of itself, it will do so by "taking care of us". I suppose that every victim of extortion and blackmail was nosing around where he didn't belong.... eh?

3. Herbert Hover was a FAILURE. His book was a screed of anger and resentment. His policies and bureaucratic malfeasance led to a WORLD WIDE depression and the rise of fascist Europe - in particular the NAZIs.

Like it or not, since the very early 20th Century this world is intricately and completely bound together. What happens in Greece has effect here. What happens in South Korea, has a direct effect here, not indirect, direct!

If you haven't noticed all of those Hyundais and Kia's rolling around, or those LG and Samsung appliances in many people's kitchens and laundry rooms... South Korea is a raging success because of our direct and continued intervention, and it is marginally peaceful because of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The same holds true for Japan, and Europe. Without US troops in Continental Europe (and they are being atrophied away by budget attrition) our presence and influence will wain with our most important trading partner(s).

But I am afraid that you and those like you don't see that. All that you see is your tiny view of the world. Your hate filled, selfish, self-centered, and delusional fantasy of Kellogg-Briand Pacts, and Washington Treaties all guarantee exactly what Hoover did, December 7, 1941.

The price of peace is eternal vigilance, the cause of war is weakness that temps our enemies.

This is the last that I will comment or respond to you. You represent the worst of the "Ugly American" and are no longer worth the time.

-out here

Jack in Wi.| 4.16.12 @ 9:56AM

Blessed are the Peacemakers.
Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Turn the other cheek.
Love your enemies.
I am a real Catholic who follows the Prince of Peace not the God's of War. When you birds are losing the argument it is back to all the name calling.

Harry the Horrible| 4.16.12 @ 10:16AM

Funny. You missed the part about sell your robe and buy a sword. Your type always does.

Frekki| 4.16.12 @ 10:46AM

The best way to put money into the pockets of the poor is to give them jobs. The best way to create jobs with tax money is to buy munitions. Forget extending unemployment benefits, build an aircraft carrier.
Why is this so hard?

Harry the Horrible| 4.16.12 @ 12:41PM

I like your thinking. We should also start R&Ding; personal firearms and building a radical new generation. We've been coasting on the work John Moses Browning too darn long.
And more ammo, too!

Conservative Not Republican| 4.16.12 @ 6:48PM

More Ammo. You are living proof that Christians are every bit as violent as Muslims.

Harry the Horrible| 4.16.12 @ 6:53PM

You're proof that intelligent thought is optional.

W| 4.16.12 @ 12:43PM

What did Hoover do to create fascism in Europe? The rise of Mussolini's party in Italy was an internal matter with no relation to the USA. The rise of Franco's party in Spain resulted from internal issues in Spain involving the Commies, Socialists, and Anarchists. There are thousands of books written on the Spanish Civil War and on Mussolini and I have never heard of anyone until today saying Hoover caused fascism in Spain.

The rise of Hitler's Nazi party is a complex issue and much of the blame goes to the Allies' demands for reparations , border disputes, and internal German politics. But the real cause is the internal politics and Hitler. Unless you want to argue that America should have been more involved after WW1, and then blame every American president from Wilson thru Roosevelt. I don't beleive we did anything to cause the rise of the Nazi party.

John - TMF| 4.16.12 @ 1:12PM

1. Hoover was President at a very critical turning point in both US and European economic history. The Depression which started in 1929 with the New York Stock Exchange crash, and accelerated as the dominoes fell, took a frail Germany with it. The economic mess provided Hitler and the NASDP the external blame and the crisis necessary to consolidate power.

We did nothing, and even had fools who thought Hitler was a good thing.

Moussolini's little foray into Socialism with a jingoistic twist was a product of the post WWI 1920's war debt crisis in a fragile Italy. Nobody really stepped in to stop that one, either.

2. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, and we basically did nothing. It was there.. It was Their business and Their issue. We didn't belong nosing around. Right... sure... Our narrow minded little racist attitudes combined with our blind isolationism doomed us through the 1920's and through the 1930's. Madmen were still demanding isolation in 1940. We came within one vote of failing to mobilize in May 1940. It was those troops who faught at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, and Tarawa. It was also those poor men who suffered at Corrigador and were murdered on that horrid March from Bataan.

Yes, Herbert Hoover was perfectly positioned to be either the preventer or enabler (by both active intransigence, and passive indolence) of the rise of Fascist Europe and Japan.. and the coming war.

Hoover was an "EPIC FAIL" and no revisionism will change that.

-TMF

W| 4.16.12 @ 1:57PM

John
What specific concrete actions could Hoover had done to prevent the rise of fascism in Europe and militarism in Japan?
I am not defending or revising Hoover's reputation, and don't really care about his reputation. I am more interested in your argument that places much responsibility and blame on the USA for the world's problems.

John - TMF| 4.16.12 @ 2:45PM

It places the blame on Hoover for being an economic Disaster... Economic Disasters always end up being settled by warfare - ALWAYS. Privation is the primary cause of desperation.

I am not going to write a book, here. The specific concrete answer stuff is a dodge. We were weak, our army had almost no equipment, our airplanes in the 1920's and 1930's were two generations behind the European and Japanese types. We were barely flying all metal low wing monoplanes in the mid 30's...

Economically, Hoover could have forgiven German Debt in the late 1920's when it became obvious that it was not going to be able to pay them, and were embarking on a massive inflationary cycle. He could have vetoed and pushed to sustain the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 0f 1930, that piece of protectionist isolationist insanity helped to pour gasoline on the accelerating continental European depression that ignited German hyperinflation... By the time they were repealed they had so seriously damaged the European economy that it weakend their democratically elected governments.

The Brown Shirts took to the streets and by 1933 and several minority elections Hitler had used the crisis to propel himself into the Chancellor's chair, and the emergency powers that allowed him to re-militarize Germany.

If Hoover had an actual military he could have challenged the Japanese actively in the Pacific and China. He would have had the ability to actually protest diplomatically and back the Japanese down. Maybe.. but without any sort of Army, a crippled old WWI era Navy, and pathetic and indifferently applied air power, Hoover had nothing but blabbing and finger wagging to perform against an increasingly militant and militaristic Imperial Japan.

Enough... ugh... Isolationism, Neo-Isolationism, and non-interventionism are exactly the same thing.... Utopian delusion that ultimately results in murder, warfare, and national strife.

Hoover wasn't the only western leader to fail; he was merely the one running the largest, most capable nation on the block... He chose to pull up the drawbridges, and disengage from the world... allowing the plague of hate and violence to spread.

-TMF

W| 4.16.12 @ 4:29PM

Wasn't most of the debt owed to France and Britain, not the USA? France and Britain had large armies that could have stopped Hitler in the mid-30's, when FDR was president, not Hoover. FDR could have done all the general things you say from 33 onward, he did the Lend Lease but that was late.
Smith Hawley was a disaster. That is the only specific thing Hoover could have done? I am not interested in a book, only a few concrete specifics which you cannot name.
I don't care about Hoover but only your assertions that the USA should be the world's cop.

Mac Rowe| 4.23.12 @ 10:24AM

TMF - "Ecnomic disasters always end up being settled by warfare - ALWAYS. Privation is the primary cause of desperation."

I could only agree with this statement if the economic disasters could ever stop the cycle. Historically we go from one economic disaster to an inflationary 'boom' followed by the next disaster. Over and over again. What exactly is being settled? When is the score ever settled on either side of military or economic conflict?

Our true delusion is the wish that someday there will be a "war to end all wars". A utopian delusion in its own right. With so many of our resources consumed between international friction, no wonder we have seasons of economic desperation.

Someone will always loose in warfare, and in the long run we all do. We cannot continue to stimulate our economy through ideological military campaigns and expect that our future will be safer and that we will be prosperous for any sustainable period. It will last until the next collapse, then we start the drum beat all over again. The strings get pulled and the band continues to play.

We simply cannot iradicate hate or violence as much as we cannot iradicate an idea or belief. We can, however, promote new ideas based on how we conduct ourselves. Adoption of any ideal is based on an individual's desire to accept what is offered.

MikeG| 4.18.12 @ 4:37PM

You wanted American boys to fight and die in Manchuria? How about Ethiopia, Poland, Czechslovaka, and Austria in the 1930's? You can't be serious.

Poppakap| 4.16.12 @ 1:21PM

You partially make the argument that we did create the conditions for the rise of the Nazis, and then you say "I don't believe we did anything to cause the rise of the Nazi party."

WTF? You can't have it both ways. Did you bother to read what you wrote before submitting?

The truth is, we, the US, passed myriad legislation in the 1920's that created a massive economic and social upheaval that made our Great Depression look like Disneyland by comparison. Such total deprivation caused the German people to look to radical solutions, giving birth to the Nazis.

We damned well did contribute to the creation of the Nazis and would be smart to remember that legislation passed in the US has ripple effects worldwide no matter what Neo-isolationists claim otherwise.

W| 4.16.12 @ 2:12PM

What did we do and what should we have done?

W| 4.16.12 @ 4:58PM

Pop
No I did not make any argument that the USA created the conditions for the rise of the Nazis. You misunderstood. It is not our fault, period. It is the fault of Hitler and Germany. Being poor and in a depression does not mean you create a Nazi party.
What specificall did the USA did to create the Nazis and what should we have done.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 8:30PM

Correct W.
Besides who would want to create a political world where every politician world-wide had to get a license from the “International Collage of Public Morality” to run for office.

The resulting bureaucracy would soon be captured by a single philosophy which would actively suppress all other political philosophies.
The price of stopping a Hitler, Stalin or Mao would be the lost of Churchill, Golda Meyer, Ronald Reagan or even Bush 41 and Bush 43 ( the real W ).

For example Obama, our most incompetent President ever, received the Nobel Prize for Peace for no observable reason and Bush 43 (W), one of the most competent administrators, was universally condemned.
Obviously Obama would get a political license and Bush 43 would not.

Does anyone really want a world where the only politicians licensed to practice are Islamic Jehadists of the Wahhabi sect.
That would truly be a nightmare world especially for Jews and Christians.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 8:39PM

Sorry W
My post was meant to be linked to your “What did Hoover do to create fascism in Europe?” post.

I do not know how or why the post got linked so far below the intended link.
Again you and the TAS readership have my humble apologies.

W| 4.16.12 @ 9:26PM

Dixie Pixie
No problem.
I guess the USA is responsible for everything. If we should have prevented Nazism then it follows we should have prevented Communism in Russia in 1917. After all, Lenin, Trotsky,Stalin and the rest were just community organizers trying to deal with the poverty in Russian where the 1% controlled the wealth. If only we would have had some economic plan and gave some loans and sent American boys to Russia, then no commies.
Same for the commies in China in 1949. That is our fault. Castro is our fault.
Glad to see you back. You have have an interesting view.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 11:10PM

Greetings W

I have just finished reading the book “Wilson's War” by Jim Powell.
In the book, Mr Powell tries to prove it was Woodrow Wilson's blunders that caused the events leading to WWII.
After reading the book I came to two conclusions, one the author did a masterful job of explaining the sequence of events but did not prove how President Wilson could have any influence over those events.

For the authors case to be true, Woodrow Wilson would have to be the “Greatest Evil Mastermind of All Time” as well as the most far-sighted “Master Psychic Clairvoyant” the human race has ever produced.

Consider for the authors point to be true, President Wilson would have skillfully manipulated a cashiered First Sea Lord, a washed-up Marxist editor, a Georgian bandit leader and a failed art student and gassed soldier to produce WWII and do so after he was dead.

Think of the formidable psychic skills needed to see the future in such detail as accurately plan such detailed social manipulation years in advance.
Think of the incredible reach of his people management skills to span from London to the very heart of Russia and to do so from Washington using 1910s technology.
Also consider the depth of cultural understanding needed to know just buttons to push and levers to pull at the right time and after he was dead.

Just like your above post threads, the major points are simply freaking NUTS.

Nobody is that good nor has it ever been proved that the human race has ever had the ability to see the future and certainly not in such detail.
No human has such knowledge and skills to manipulate such social and political effects years before the political events are to occur.
Nothing human has those abilities and never will.

Just because historical events are sequential does not mean they have a cause and effect relationship nor are they even related.
No such evil “Mastermind” is ever as good as his press clippings and never will be.
Obama is a case in point.

W| 4.16.12 @ 11:18PM

Dixie Pixie
I agree with you that Wilson did not cause it. And I don't like Wilson and would like to blame him. He did made a mistake involving us, especially when he ran on a platform in 1916 of keeping us out of the war. Terrible president.
My favorite book on the cause is still Barbar Tuchman's the Guns of August. The cause seems mostly incompetence and stupidity on the part of the British and French to guarantee the safety of Belgium and the Germans to back Austrian demands on the Serbs and the Russians for being Russians. It was like a circular firing squad. There was no benefit to anyone. All the countries suffered and twenty years later they replayed it.
Yes, it is always the fault of the USA.

Dixie Pixie| 4.17.12 @ 4:01PM

No (W)...My point is you were right.
No one in the USA has the brainpower or psychic skills necessary to influence foreign societies as alleged in the above posts.

W| 4.17.12 @ 4:32PM

Dixie,
Theree is a failure of comnunication. We agree we did not cause the nazis and other problems. But we are always accused of it and therefore it is our fault. I am sometimes too sarcastic.

Davod| 4.17.12 @ 7:23PM

"The cause seems mostly incompetence and stupidity on the part of the British and French to guarantee the safety of Belgium"

As I recall, the Germans intended to invade France. Belgium just happened to be the in the way. The Brits of course could have disregarded the agreement and left Belgium alone.

Conservative Not Republican| 4.16.12 @ 6:46PM

You're right, Harry. The Bible is more violent than the Koran.

Stan Redmond| 4.16.12 @ 8:55PM

"Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, "I am strong!""

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:13PM

Hoover was a HORRIBLE President. Switzerland is now fighting aggressively against the spread of sharia in its own borders, which we would do well to emulate. Is that your plan, Jack?

Tina B| 4.16.12 @ 1:23PM

John,
You did that very well. I appreciate your civility. And I agree with you 100%. JiW is not worth the high bp he gives me and I need to be reminded of that.

Alan Brooks| 4.16.12 @ 7:14PM

"And when that ends up with Russia invading Europe, China invading Taiwan, nuclear exchanges in the Middle East, and so forth, do we still stay out of it?"

White trash eschatology? is that what you are getting at?:
Armageddon? Gog (Russia invading Europe); Magog (China) invading Taiwan? then the Big One in the Mideast?

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 11:52AM

Just so we know who we are fighting:

"(Reuters) – About 150 Afghan schoolgirls were poisoned on Tuesday after drinking contaminated water at a high school in the country’s north, officials said, blaming it on conservative radicals opposed to female education.

Since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban, which banned education for women and girls, females have returned to schools, especially in Kabul.

But periodic attacks still occur against girls, teachers and their school buildings, usually in the more conservative south and east of the country, from where the Taliban insurgency draws most support.

“We are 100 percent sure that the water they drunk inside their classes was poisoned. This is either the work of those who are against girls’ education or irresponsible armed individuals,” said Jan Mohammad Nabizada, a spokesman for education department in northern Takhar province.

Some of the 150 girls, who suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said.

They said they knew the water had been poisoned because a larger tank used to fill the affected water jugs was not contaminated."

This was from today's Weasel Zippers. But idiots like Reid Smith and jack in Wi. believe that sharia dvocates can be reasoned with.

MikeG| 4.17.12 @ 11:29PM

I agree we are dealing with scum. But what do we do? How long do we stay in Afghanistan? This probably happens in all the muslim countries, and we can't go into every country to civilize them.
If they attack us then destroy them.

Harry the Horrible| 4.16.12 @ 8:11AM

I don't really want to agree with Jack, but hell yes I'm ready to say I don't care about "war-torn"(i.e. Moslem infested) nations, or nations that have destroyed their ability to feed themselves (i.e. Communist infested nations) or places devastated by natural disasters.
If you want to help them, do it by contributing YOUR time and YOUR money. Don't demand that entire US be taxed, and that service members be put at risk to assuage your conscience. Expecting others to pay for your "charity" seems rather felonious to me.

TLP| 4.16.12 @ 9:26AM

I gotta say, I'm with Jackboot on this one, somewhat.

I think it's time to get out of Afghanistan. If the Muslim in the White House won't let our Troops kill his Muslim brethren? If they can't call in Air Strikes or Artillery Barrages, then what's the point?

I say: Let this Scum have this Pig Hole slab of rock. If they all wanna congregate in one place? More the better. Last I looked, we still have Daisy Cutters, not that Hama's DELIVERER would ever let us use one.

We leave, but we let then know that: Any Bullshit, and we will come back hard, with Air Power, and Cruise Missiles from Naval Warships, and Submarines.

No more Boots on the ground, unless they're "On the ground, along Our Borders".

All of this is moot, if the America Hating - Democrats - retain any semblance of Power, after November.

It' a crying shame that we're this close to losing EVERYTHING, because people like Peggy Noonan and Client #9's Slut - Kathleen Parker - felt the need to cleanse themselves of some self conceived notion that this would show everybody how "Good" they are, and how NOT Racist they are, and the Races would get along like the people in the old Coke Commercials.

Yeah.

How's that working out?

cvrgrl| 4.16.12 @ 11:36AM

PANETTA is two faced
on this planned military
dismantling

PANETTA is carrying the water
for obama and ACTING like he is
upset about it

it all part of a plan to compromise
the united states and marginalize
this country's influence

it is a design, by obama (with pride)
and by PANETTA (by stealth)

wake up!

Indy| 4.16.12 @ 4:54PM

You comment reminded me of Trevor Loudon's blog, he has many posts on Panetta, it's quite telling. This man was confirmed by the Senate 100 - 0 (wow, just wow) I really wonder how this man could pass a security background check if the info at the below blog is accurate. Trevor's work is detailed with links, pics and other support he can provide.

http://www.trevorloudon.com/tag/leon-panetta/

Are you familiar with Mark Rudd, if not, read this post "Mark Rudd posted an article on the Movement for a Democratic Society aligned The Rag Blog, November 27 2008, just after the election, when many “progressives” were alarmed at some of Obama’s “moderate” appointments.

Rudd’s purpose was to calm his wavering radical friends. To assure them that Obama was on their side, but must work tactically to achieve his radical goals.

He also specifically urged his comrades to watch the George Soros funded leftist Washington DC “think tank” Center for American Progress." Read on, troubling for sure

http://www.trevorloudon.com/20.....mark-rudd/

cvrgrl| 4.17.12 @ 12:48AM

great cite, confirms a lot,...
Panetta presiding over
dismantling with a wink,
a nod, and a knife in the back
of our military and cia operations...

... thx

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 4.16.12 @ 2:21PM

"are you prepared to tell someone you don't care what's happening to war-torn nations, to people dying from starvation, to places devasted by natural disasters? "

Short answer, yes.

cvrgrl| 4.17.12 @ 1:01AM

at...Tired Taxpayer

"are you prepared to tell someone you don't care what's happening to war-torn nations, to people dying from starvation, to places devasted by natural disasters? "

right on yes, but it is never that simple
the test should not be emotional responses
to tragic events, test should be, is there strategic
advantage
to u.s. involvement, carrot and stick,
with consequences

u.s. is not world's law enforcement,
no strip foreign policy to
just policing our freedoms, interests,
and well being

sound self serving, damn right!

happy b day ayn rand, hoo yah!

rssg| 4.16.12 @ 7:52AM

Jack, you limp-wristed lefty from Wisconsisn. Good to see your back, please cut back on the masturbation Jack, its affecting your brain!

No defense, no Bush wars!!

You've got about half a year left Jack, then your smooth talking race-hustling, Marxist-Moooslim will be history and the US can get back to economic growth, more individual liberty and a robust defense.

Conservative Not Republican| 4.16.12 @ 11:27AM

I don't remember Congress declaring war, so what are we doing in Afghanistan. I don't remember Congress declaring war since 1941. How can you support a dictator who fights wars without a declaration from the people's representatives?

TexasMom2012| 4.16.12 @ 12:38PM

Actually Congress authorized both Iraq and Afghanistan by voting the funding ect. Stopped short of War Declaration. However, the Libya fiasco was not authorized by Congress nor was Congress consulted. And Congress did not vote the funds for Obama's Little Adventure in Libya.

Conservative Not Republican| 4.16.12 @ 6:49PM

Voting for funding is not a declaration of war. We got to start demanding a DECLARATION OF WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

old white guy| 4.16.12 @ 10:47AM

my first laugh came with the "obama military strategy could not be carried out". is this not his plan, destroy america's ability to defend herself.

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 2:34PM

No. Did you miss the Osama Bin Laden killing? Where have YOU been?

Skippy| 4.16.12 @ 4:12PM

Prince Bambo waited 2 days before allowing our troops to execute a guy who had been irrelevent for years.
What a hero!
He's just like Patton!

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 6:11PM

That's right - downgrade our military and the troops that risked their lives to save your lame a**.
If he was soooo irrelevant, why do have all this extra security, wiretaps and undercover operations? You are clueless how a President saves your life, aren't you?

Conservative Not Republican| 4.16.12 @ 11:23AM

Not isolationist. Non-interventionist. If you don't know the difference, look it up.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:15PM

Non-interventionalist is not useful when there are vipers everywhere. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

That being said, we have a needless preoccupation with civilian casualties among people who already hate us and would kill us.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.16.12 @ 1:48PM

Noninterventionism is a mere euphemism for isolationism. It's still the same policy being promoted by the same kind of deranged people.

Conservative Not Republican| 4.16.12 @ 6:51PM

Like I said, if you don't know the difference look it up......................... Odd that conservatism has come to such a sorry ass state that non-interventionists are considered deranged. Russell Kirk would disown the term conservative were he alive.

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 11:56AM

Here goes: non-interventionalists believe in trade and friendly relations, blah, blah, blah---isolationists also cut off trade. Where they agree is on no military intervention overseas. OK? I got it.

It's still stupid. It is easier to remove a cancer when it is small and localized than when it is metastasized. The problem that causes the huge costs is keeping our troops in Europe and Nation building savages in Iraq and Afghanistan. But turning things into rubble is fairly inexpensive compared to this, and "rubble don't cause trouble."

After that's done, rescue the little girls and give them to families in the US wanting to adopt. Multiple problems solved.

Mike Hawk| 4.16.12 @ 11:49AM

The Paulistinian Neo-Isolationists would leave this country dangerously vulnerable to 3rd world thugs and terrorists as well as known foes like the ChiComs and the Russian leftovers of the old USSR. Those Neo-Isos are as bad as, maybe worse than the Liberals.

Screwtape| 4.16.12 @ 12:03PM

Afraid of your own shadow too, no doubt.

Clint| 4.16.12 @ 3:38PM

"Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 11:58AM

Yes, they did, when the Pax Brittanica was still active, and the US was a weak starter state. Neither apply today. I doubt either Tom nor George would be in favor of the Sir Robin approach---"when danger rears its ugly head, Sir Robin turned his tail and fled."

Clint| 4.16.12 @ 5:10PM

Dave Christian, Veteran & Republican Running For Bob Casey's Senate Seat.

" Christian said he would oppose any effort to raise the Social Security age limit and would immediately bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq."

Service to Country

At the age of seventeen with his mother’s permission, Christian enlisted in the Airborne/Infantry of the US Army.

The values and lessons learned from witnessing his mother’s perseverance during hard times served him well in the armed forces.

By distinguishing himself through demonstrations of leadership & ingenuity, he was able to rapidly advance from a private E-1 to an E-5 sergeant within eight months.

Shortly thereafter, he was accepted to Officers Candidate School and was later promoted to be become one of the youngest Captains in U.S. Army history. As a young soldier in the Vietnam War, David Christian took on many roles as the military increasingly came to rely on his courage and expertise on the battlefield.

While at war, he served his country in both conventional and unconventional warfare in the following units:

Airborne
Special Forces, Green Beret
75th Rangers, Long Range Recon Patrol, (LRRP)
1st Infantry Division (Combat Recon Platoon Leader)

Christian’s service in the military was marked by his bravery and a commitment to his troops. His actions on the battlefield earned him two nominations for the Medal of Honor. Additional acts of valor earned him the Distinguished Service Cross – the Nations Second Highest Valor Award, two Silver Stars, the Bronze Star, the Air Medal for twenty five combat assaults into “hot” landing zones, two Vietnamese Crosses for Gallantry and a Combat Infantry Badge. He is widely considered one of the youngest, most decorated officers in the Vietnam War."

Alan Brooks| 4.16.12 @ 7:09PM

"tell someone you don't care what's happening to war-torn nations"

What did caring do for Ashcanistan? we dumped trillions into the region, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of lives in the region, but the loss has been disproportionate to the gain. When Rightists turn into bleeding heart sob sisters, then it is time to worry.

Frank| 4.16.12 @ 9:43PM

I agree - what the heck are we doing with so many troops in Europe? Japan perhaps makes some sense since we agreed to protect them. South Korea - not so sure...they are not a poor country, and are not really all that friendly to us overall anyhow (ironically, they do not even always buy our defense products).
Libs whine about defense spending, and think defense spending = procurement. Procurement is not much over $100B out of a $550 defense budget plus $100B more for the wars. Procurement is around 3% of the $4000B budget, so hardly is it causing our $1500B deficits. We spend about 2x more on procurement than we spend on foreign aid (which libs point out is "peanuts"). We spend $70B just on food stamps.

Paul Kotik| 4.17.12 @ 12:51AM

Jack, I wish the actual world were just like your world. I, too, would be happy to tell them all to knock themselves out butting heads with each other.

But there is no "out there" anymore. Everyplace is the same place. As a frequent air traveler, I came to find out there are many, many people who make daily commutes of hundreds of miles to work, and weekly commutes of thousands of miles.

And all the bad stuff the Soviets could do? It will soon be stuff any energetic fraternity boys in Khazakstan can do. Missile and WMD technology gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.

There was a time when a rich guy with a suit of armor and a castle could shut out the world. Then guns were invented, and suddenly castles and suits of armor were useless.

Fortress America is useless. India - INDIA! - is testing a 3,500 mile range ICBM in a few weeks. The Norks will get it right one of these days. Pretty soon ICBMS and WMD's will be as common as 205mm cannon are today.

Tough though it is, we have to be out there. Everywhere. I wish it weren't true, but it is.

John786| 4.16.12 @ 7:47AM

Who voted for this?

Von Mises Jr| 4.16.12 @ 8:35AM

Voting is so blasé, so yesterday. Our ruling class has evolved into a pattern of corrupt procedures such as ObamaCare, Dodd Frank and Agenda21. We then get an unelected, unaccountable board to be our masters.
Get with the program John. It is a new world order.

Here's the riddle of the day: If Obama is re-elected, and he surrenders to the EU and the Arab League simultaneously; are we ruled by NATO or Sharia?

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 9:08AM

Greetings Von
To answer your question.....Both.
Why did you assume the EU and Sharia Law are incompatible?

But the most likely probability is the investors in our Federal Debt will want physical assets instead of politicians promises of repayment.
If the Federal government keeps spending at the current rate and adds the increase in spending caused by ObamaCare, the USA will rapidity come to the point where it has no intention or ability to pay off the debt.

old white guy| 4.16.12 @ 10:49AM

i don't think the u.s. can pay off it's current debt and future obligations. the country is bankrupt. the only thing keeping the ball in the air is the constant printing of money and that will soon come to an end.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 11:30AM

Greetings OWG
Consider for a moment that you were in charge of a asset stripping operation for profit.
What would be the juiciest target around?

The Federal Government has by far the largest collection of hard assets in all of human history.
In land alone, the Federal Government has over 50% west of the Mississippi and 25% east of the river.
The mineral wealth the Environmentalists have squirrel-brained away are worth Trillions and can easily be brought to market.

For the major multinational companies what could be more lucrative than asset stripping the USA.
Best of all the Democratic and Republican Party Elites would certainly help for a cut of the profits.
They would certainly try to maneuver someone who is a expert at that type of work into the Presidential Oval office.

Think about it.

Von Mises Jr| 4.16.12 @ 12:55PM

Dixie, I found a friend that sees "bigger picture." This is why they got rid of Beck, and Judge Napolitano does not have his own show. The truth hurts. Especially for those with eyes to see.

I attack trolls since they want to divert the issues to trivial arguments. And it’s fun.
But don't let them take you down the la-la lane. The MSM has been doing that for decades to those gullible enough not to question.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 2:40PM

Looking for a partner when the Elites hands out the serf-chains Von?
I accept.

We can discuss the “Big Picture” issues as we hoe cabbages on the "public debt payback" work-gang.
When in chains there is nothing more important than having a really good conversationalist to talk to.

albert constantine jr.| 4.16.12 @ 9:36AM

As it appears much of Europe may soon be subject to Sharia, maybe it is just an issue of timing.

Ret. Marine| 4.16.12 @ 9:38AM

Both, as it seems the SecDef says so. I am at a loss of which to do, build up and dig in or go one the offensive, either way what I, you, and millions of others decide will have no effect upon the corrupted so called politicians. The simple fact that this "sequestration" was allowed into the mix of our political discourse, say only one thing to me, they don't give a rat's ass about this Country, the rule of laws or anyone outside of their own political survival. We used to call these kind of people, COWARDS, now they are referred to as, bipartisian. Go figure.

All American American| 4.16.12 @ 9:47AM

Take a tour of some of Europe's great cities---Rome, Venice, Salzburg, Vienna, Berlin, etc. See the locals strolling around with either one or no kids. Then see the muslim "immigrants" strolling around with about 4-8 kids trailing behind them.

You tell me?

John786| 4.16.12 @ 10:17AM

How did this degenerate into islamophobia? If the US would engage with the ME in the true spirit of dialogue- we wouldn't be in this terrible mess. The people of the ME are only a few decades out of full blown colonisation: the US should align its foreign policy with the people of the ME and not in support of an exclusive ethno- religios state in historic Palestine. In one step the ME is neutralised. All other policies are self harm.

All American American| 4.16.12 @ 10:32AM

Its not a talk of your made-up word "islamophobia" you limp-wristed sissy-boy. Its a talk of how Europe is killing itself by the locals not reproducing enough and the muslim immigrants from Africa and the ME producing at an alarming rate.

I wish you freaking libtard one-worlders would go spend some time in a muslim shithole, any one, pick one.

Engage the ME. What a tool.

I ask again, why did the muslim barbary pirates attack and capture American vessels in the early 1800s? Was it because of all of our bases in the ME?

Fricking moron.

old white guy| 4.16.12 @ 10:51AM

if you are not afraid of isalm you have a problem. that aside, the demographics are what the post is about.

Von Mises Jr| 4.16.12 @ 11:30AM

John, Sun Tzu taught "know thy enemy, and know thyself."
Our enemies are exactly who I cited. European and other socialist that wish to destroy the liberty and free markets of capitalism while adding 311M to their slave class. And the Islamist extremist that wish for us to worship their religion, pay tribute or die.
I know my enemy and myself. Do you know either?

John786| 4.16.12 @ 11:38AM

Being a Muslim myself (: don't hold back please) I don't recognise any of these caricatures of Muslims islam. They are disconnected with reality.

Poppakap| 4.16.12 @ 1:28PM

I guess you don't read much then John. You also seem to deny the existence of Islamists whose goal is the establishment of a worldwide caliphate through subjugation. How many times do the imams of the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies have to say it on Al Jazeera for you to take notice?

Skippy| 4.16.12 @ 4:17PM

Pity.
We recognize them.
Mohammedans are predictably dishonest.
Thanks for living down to my expectations.

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 12:00PM

Well, John, when your animals stop cutting heads off of 3 month old baby girls, may be I won't need guns to shoot them with. Sharia is evil, moron.

Von Mises Jr| 4.16.12 @ 10:17AM

Great comments, my friends. I would just say to Dixie that our hard debt is about $16T. The other $100T+ is promises to the public that they have no intention to keep. Social Security was a tax scheme and going broke. Medicare will be replaced by IPAB "death panels." Inflation will make the entitlements worthless over time.
If the ruling class elites "fundamentally transform" America; they will walk off with all the oil, natural gas, coal, gold, silver, copper, agricultural production and all your wealth. Paying back the Chinese will be a piece of cake. Governments used to transfer gold for trade balances. Now they simply put it in different vaults. It is a small price to pay to China to enslave a great nation.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 12:01PM

Greetings again Von.
I see you and I have come to the same conclusion.

The next Presidential term will see the start of the asset-stripping of America.
Like the British Empire and the USSR, it looks like the Federal Government is the next target to be broken up and sold piecemeal to the highest bidder.

Now who would you want in the inside to make sure the Federal Government will not fight back and even do most of the heavy work in pushing the process along?
Certainly a person who made over a quarter of a billion dollars in buying companies, loading them up with debt given to the investors, selling of the best pieces of the companies to pay down the debt and then turning the companies loose to fall off a cliff into oblivion, is perfect for the job.
Know anyone with that background, like someone who founded Bain Capital?

The Ruling Class Elites may have come to the conclusion that Obama is incompetent and must be replaced with someone who is an expert at asset-stripping.
Call it “Privatization for Profit with a Attitude”.

MikeG| 4.17.12 @ 11:32PM

What is your solution?

Drunken Sailor| 4.16.12 @ 1:05PM

Is there a difference?

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 2:36PM

If Romney won, would we be ruled by Rush Loudmouth or Fixed News? That's just as stupid a question ...

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:16PM

I voted for them to shoot people who want to put my daughter in a burqa, John786. People like your friends.

Mender| 4.16.12 @ 7:49AM

All this is the result of going to war in Iraq for nothing. Apologize for cheerleading that dumb waste of money and I'll take you seriously.

Skippy| 4.16.12 @ 4:31PM

I liked it!
Zillions of dead Muslims; the ME shaken to its core; millions of young soldiers unafraid to kill an enemy; all are positives.

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 12:01PM

Our problem was nation building in Iran. Overthrowing Saddam and shooting his soldiers was a good thing. We should have carved Iran to pieces too, then come home and left them in their desert to try to piece things together on their own, AFTER we had taken their oil.

jpc| 4.16.12 @ 7:54AM

Barry Soetoro, his whole life is a 3rd worlder with a 3rd worlder's world-view. A primary tenet of this view is that the USA is too wealthy and too strong militarily.

Thus, Barry's aim has been to downgrade our country economically and militarily. His plan is working but it can be reversed in November.

Nite| 4.16.12 @ 8:43PM

You are correct. This has been his plan all along to totally cut our missiles and defenses. He is naive and arrogant and knows absolutely nothing about the Military, but neither does Pannetta

All American American| 4.16.12 @ 8:23AM

Before you get all bent out of shape about the F-22, do you realize its grounded because when pilots fly it they lose oxygen and pass out? Yeah, billion-dollar plane, ten-cent oxygen supplier, I guess.

How much of that $600B could be made up if we ended the futility in Afghanistan? Or brought the troops home from Europe (that war ended oh, 1945 I think)? Or brought the troops home from Japan and Korea?

That would require our allies to actually, heaven forbid, provide their own defense of their own countries, but such is life. When I was stationed in Italy I read in the local papers that Italy spends like .6% of its GDP on defense---the rest is spent on cradle-to-grave socialism for the Italian population (while mooslims are moving in and breeding like rats). When you ask a sissified, pink pastel scarf-wearing Italian "man" who'll defend their country in the event of a war, he laughs and says, "You will, the Americans."

Besides the negative effect on our economy, one of the ripples is our allies have become a bunch of helpless, undisciplined girlie men. I would venture that a platoon of American Eagle Scouts could whup a battallion of Italian Army infantry.

Bring 'em home.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 9:19AM

What DOD should be doing is charging full price for our military services and let the host country decide how much “Defense” it needs.

All American American| 4.16.12 @ 9:43AM

Dixie I suppose that would be too "capitalist" of us or some other such PC nonsense.

Tommy Frisco| 4.16.12 @ 10:15AM

Excellent idea, Dixie.

John Navratil| 4.16.12 @ 10:42AM

Dixie Pixie,

When do we cross the line into being a mercenary force? If it's not in our interests, we should not be there period. If it is, we should.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 12:18PM

Remember Gulf War I when the USA led a coalition to push Iraq out of Kuwait?
The USA not only got paid for our troubles but even made a small profit.

The line has already been crossed.
Mercenary troops are now a major part of DOD and all DOD needs to do is add a Accounts Receivable Dept and Collections Dept.

Skippy| 4.16.12 @ 4:34PM

European weenies have been protected by Uncle Sucker for far too long.
Send them a bill or pack our troops up.
Nobody rides for free.

Conservative Not Republican| 4.16.12 @ 6:54PM

Nobody rides for free? Everybody rides for free except the US taxpayer and the 19 year old boys dying in the sands of Afghanistan.

W| 4.17.12 @ 11:42PM

I agree with you John.
Sell the lives of our soldiers.? The fact that we think about charging for "protection" is proof we should not be in those countries because it is not in our national interest but that it is in the interest of the country that may have to pay us.
I agree it sounds good to make Iraq, Germany, South Korea ,and Japan pay but the implication then is that they are buying their protection.

John Navratil| 4.16.12 @ 10:38AM

All American American,

I think you over-simplify the F-22 oxygen problem. The plane has been in service for seven years There is an identified problem, it's being litigated as to whether it caused Haney's death, and it is being worked on. If Lockheed-Martin is a ten-cent oxygen supplier, then heaven help us. Your $1billion cost overstates thing by, in the most expensive analysis, 50%. Still, if it isn't flying combat missions, it really isn't worth a nickel, is it?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that we spend too much defending those who can defend themselves. Still one must ask what the return on investment is to the world's largest economy for a complete picture. One may suggest closing airbases in Germany, but what of the value of the hospital there being nine or ten hours closer to the battle field than Walter Reid? What would the world of piracy look like if we put our Navy into port? Would you be so sanguine if Putin with his ambitions began patrolling the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf? They are re-establishing themselves in the eastern Med.

We can, of course, decline to exercise power and find ourselves like Britain. Unfortunately, we won't have a friendly super-power to protect us. What do you suggest?

All American American| 4.16.12 @ 1:06PM

Oversimplifying? I have family and friends who work in HQ ACC--I can assure you I am NOT oversimplifying it. For God's sake a half-billion dollar airplane is grounded because its life support systems can't keep the pilots conscious---and I'M oversimplifying???

If we stopped the stupid Wars of Empire in the ME we wouldn't need a hospital in Germany, would we?

What do I suggest? Troops on OUR borders. Shoot any invaders. On 9/12/01 we should have taken out the kooks on a 100-1 basis, meaning for every 1 of us they killed we take out 100. Any further attacks we add another zero. On 9/12/01 I would have bombed some muslim cities to the tune of 300,000 dead. End muslim immigration. Islam is NOT a religion, it is a political ideology bent on world domination. Throw out every last muslim, burn down every mosque.

As far as Russia goes I could give two shits. Reagan taught us how to deal with those drunk commie bastards. They wanna traipse around Eurasia whacking muslims, I don't care---less heavy lifting for us. Maybe if the Western European nations had their own militaries with some teeth in 'em, the Russians wouldn't be so bold? Naaaah, makes too much sense for neocon eggheads I'm sure.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:33PM

AAA: aaahhh, Nation smashing, not building. Would it be OK to turn Afghanistan into a parking lot and bring the boys home then? You know my views, I'm sure.

I don't believe in nation building Islamic countries as they are inevitably opposed to the US (at least now---the Shah of Iran (RIP) was a glorious exception). I do believe in Nation Smashing,however, and, when they are as beat as Germany and Japan were and NO harm can come to aid workers, then think about being nice.

Sharia Delenda Est.

Jack in Wi.| 4.16.12 @ 2:37PM

The Muslims didn't tank the economy.
The Muslims didn't ruin our culture with their control of the media.
The Muslims didn't kill 60 million people with Communism.
The Muslims don't threaten to kill millions in Europe with the Samson Option.
All I know is that 60 years ago most Muslim countries were backward 3rd world countries until we stuck a dagger in the Middle of them and keep picking at their scabs. Leave these people alone. Let Israel and it's neighbors learn how to live together, without our constant interference. People like Occam here, who continually call for nuclear genocide, are nothing but murderous scum.

Skippy| 4.16.12 @ 4:37PM

I'm with Occam.
We could send a city-buster over a vast stretch of ME desert and invite the mullahs and sheiks to a viewing.
Tell 'em the next one lands on your tent, Mo.

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 12:04PM

Jack, were we genocidal towards Germany and Japan? I don't think so. The Muslims have killed 270 million people with their 1400 year wars of aggression.

They had oil, we wanted it. We should have beat their skulls in when they wanted the money initially.

Poppakap| 4.16.12 @ 1:33PM

The last time I checked, Reagan kept the US forces in Germany locked, loaded, trained, and ready for combat. He also was striving for a Europe wide missile defense system. Not exactly the non-interventionist you suggest he was.

John Navratil| 4.16.12 @ 8:05PM

AAA,

OK, not over-simplifying - over dramatizing. At least you got the price a little more in line with reality.

If you wish to recede to Fortress America, good luck. I'm sure the N. Koreans will happily stop their missile development just for you. You know full well that the Chinese are not going to mass a couple of million troops on the Canadian or Mexican border for our guys to use as target practice.

Not everyone who thinks your and Ron Paul's foreign policy are idiotic are themselves neo-cons. Think up another pejorative.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:19PM

We need to let Europe defend itself, because they are worthless allies. But we need to be ready to take out Iran, as they are a real threat. Europe is already a dead man walking--perhaps a sharp shock like us leaving may wake them up to the need to protect themselves and have some babies that aren't named after a stooge.

Also, what Dixie says below: charge those worthless bastards for our services---but I would prefer NOT to use our men as mercenaries---bring them home to protect our border and be able to rotate our boys appropriately when we attack scumbags who threaten us---nation smashing, not building.

Poppakap| 4.16.12 @ 1:38PM

The best way to keep ourselves prepared to take out countries like Iran is to keep bases closer to it.

I agree we should charge allies a healthy fee for our services, but negotiating such an arrangement is one of those "talk is cheap" situations. To have a realistic chance at implementing such foreign policy would require consistency between US administrations for an extended period of time; something I'm not convinced is likely and is more like close to impossible given the lack of modern day statesmen.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 2:13PM

Greetings Poppakap

Nothing reenforces consistency like a paycheck.
Or do you go to work every day strictly for the amusement value.

W| 4.16.12 @ 4:32PM

Pop,
We should have bombed Iran in 1979 when it committed an act of war by attacking our embassy and taking Americans hostage for over one year. That would have ended Khomeni and prevented much of the terrorrism since then.
But we did not have a president. We had Jimmy Carter.

John Navratil| 4.16.12 @ 8:43PM

Occam's Tool,

I like nation smashing. Soldier's are good at breaking things, not so good as policing things.

Still, it helps to show the flag and the keys to the armoury.

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 12:08PM

Sure. But Europe should be paying for our troops over there. Marshall plan was over a long time ago. We have let them become infants, and they don't time bind---they don't think about their actions' effects on future generations. For example, to steal from Tom Kratman---"take Global Warming. Oh, I believe it's horseshit, but these folks really believe it's necessary---and yet they don't meet their Kyoto targets." (Yeah, Tom, some of your stuff I have read that often)

They are dying because they are children. Giving them adult responsibilities like defense may help them grow up.

Thom| 4.16.12 @ 5:57PM

"Before you get all bent out of shape about the F-22, do you realize its grounded because when pilots fly it they lose oxygen and pass out? Yeah, billion-dollar plane, ten-cent oxygen supplier, I guess."
"I have family and friends who work in HQ ACC--I can assure you I am NOT oversimplifying it"

AAA,
Can you tell me how that grounded plane is flying extended hours at night from that same HQ-ACC? Said grounded AC flys over my house many nights a week and I see it in the air all the time over that same base.... It has a rather distintive sound compared to everything else that flys. You can't miss it (at night) when a section of these things scamble off the runway after dark.

kwan| 4.16.12 @ 8:32AM

That's right let's continue cutting our defense capability until we reach the point that a motley crew of Somalian pirates will be capable of defeating our armed forces. Of course under Community Organizer-n-Chief Obama the money cut from the defense budget will go to more important things like the food-stamp program, hiring more useless over-paid government employees, and "green energy" development.

TLP| 4.16.12 @ 9:30AM

Think: Europe.

But don't you EVER question their PATRIOTISM, or call them WEAK ON DEFENCE.

You make me sick!

kwan| 4.16.12 @ 9:38AM

Timothy I notice you have a problem comprehending satire. Your reply makes about as much sense as something Purp would write.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:20PM

He will apologize later. Tim's a good guy. But this hurts.

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 2:40PM

You're an a** ... We're so far from being defenseless it isn't even funny. Trumped up issue for election year politics is all this is.

kwan| 4.16.12 @ 4:27PM

Let's take this slow and easy Purp. OK ready set go. Grasp your right ear with your left hand. Grasp your left ear with your right hand. Now with a twisting turning motion pull you head out of your ass. Getting some oxygen into that micro-brain of yours might snap you out of that leftist trance/hallucination that has you mesmerized.

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 6:12PM

Just what I expected from you ...

nathan| 4.16.12 @ 8:42AM

All American is on to something here. First let's remember right now we spend roughly, "roughly" about as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. Some say it's a 40/60 split, fine. Others say it doesn't factor the difference in purchasing power between various countries like us and Russia, fine again. But there is no getting away from the fact that we spend more on defense than Russia, China, all of Europe, India, probably all of South America, combined.

For some "conservatives" that's still not enough.

But part of the problem is what are our strategic goals here? How do we go about "defending" this country? Did the long running war in Iraq which resulted in 4500 American deaths, who knows how many Iraqi civilian deaths, the destruction of that country, etc, did that really add to the security of this country? No.

How about Afghanistan? OBL had no more than about 1,000 men under his command. The Taliban itself, while harboring him, never directly attacked us. 11 years after invading that country, are we TODAY more secure? Probably not.

Does having 30,000 troops in Korea really add to our security? It didn't stop that missile launch did it?

Do all those troops in Europe, a region whose combined GNP exceeds our own, add to our security? Hard to make that case. Can they not with all the money at their disposal, defend themselves now? Sure they can? The cold war after all ended well over a decade ago. Some make a convincing case why Europe still needs us to defend THEM. I don't think anyone can.

We have 800/900 bases around the world. Some in countries where the leaders are worse than Saddam was. Tell us that all those bases make us more secure. They don't. Would eliminating half of them threaten the security of the republic? No.

Weapons. The littoral combat ship starting at 250 a copy went to 625 a copy. Now put it close in to shore, subject it to a few cruise missiles, and it will be dead in five minutes. It was the wrong approach to the problem.

The F-35. Read the stories in Aviation Week and see how thrilled any of you are about THAT program whose total costs are going to be well over a trillion dollars.

And we can look at program after program.

The fact is we need to have serious discussion in this country about what "defending" this country really means, and what means we are going to use to do so.

Are we going to continue to have as one of goals to bring "democracy" to other countries at the point of a bayonet? In other words, are we going to continue the wars of neocon interventionism? How exactly did that work in Iraq? Or currently in Afghanistan? Or for that matter in Vietnam?

Again, let's have this discussion. Because when you're barrowing as much money as we are to pay for things, we can't afford not to have this discussion.

All American American| 4.16.12 @ 9:02AM

Nathan, all valid points. You're right, start with the question, "How do we defend the united States of America" and go from there.

Like you said, do 30,000+ troops in the ROK "defend America?" No.

Do the what, 100,000+ in Germany defend us? No.

Would putting a small percentage of them on the USA's southern border defend us? Ahhhh, now we're on to something, huh?

Let's be honest, the only thing our troops do in all of these faraway places is prop up local economies. That's pretty much it. We've defends South Korea's border for damn near 60 years. Howsabout we bring those guys home and defend OUR OWN borders? Having been stationed in the ROK I'm sure the South Koreans can defend themselves from the emaciated shells of human beings in North Korea.

Harry the Horrible| 4.16.12 @ 11:55AM

The South Koreans can kick the Norks from one end the peninsula to the other, without breaking a sweat; they don't need us any more. Like everybody else, though, they'll have to make accommodations with the PRC.
Who the heck does Europe need "defending" from and why can't the Euroweenies do it themselves?

We do have treaty obligations. We need to evaluate those obligations and abrogate the treaties that don't serve our self interest. We need to abide by the ones that do serve our interests.

But the days of "World Policeman" need to come to an end. All it does is cost us blood and treasure that would be better conserved.

Thom| 4.16.12 @ 7:12PM

"The South Koreans can kick the Norks from one end the peninsula to the other, without breaking a sweat; they don't need us any more."

On what do you base this? The same DMZ that keeps the 1.1 million North Korean Army on their side more than keeps the South's 600 thousand military force in place. The South has a relatively small Air Force, much smaller than Israel and the Israeli Air Force didn’t exactly have their way with the rabble that pitched a few thousand small rockets over the border a few years back. The North can generate a few thousand rockets and artillery shells an hour into much of the primary population center of the South and the only way the South can stop that is to invade the North and they don’t have the capability and capacity for such an operation. Do you know what percent of GDP the South spends on their military and they aren’t in a shooting war? The North spends a great deal more even with less advanced equipment. Why do you think the South did not respond to the sinking of their Frigate? The shelling of their island? To “kick the Norks from one end of the peninsula to the other” would require a capacity for offensive operations that the South has spent several decades not building. A new Korean war on that peninsula will look nothing like the one in the early 1950s. Then the North Korean Army only had 127,000 troops in the fight and they had nothing like the long range artillery and rockets they do today.

John Navratil| 4.16.12 @ 8:46PM

Thom,

And that assumes the Chinese aren't donning North Korean uniforms.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:21PM

Iraq would have worked well had we gone in, killed Saddam, and gotten out of there with NO nation building. Same thing we should do to Iran. Nation smashing, not building.

Nation building worked in Germany and Japan because the smashing was thorough. Until we extirpate sharia, we CAN'T engage in nation building.

Thom| 4.16.12 @ 6:02PM

"First let's remember right now we spend roughly, "roughly" about as much as the rest of the world combined on defense"

Have you looked at what we spend on Welfare compared to the rest of the world combined? How about education? Healthcare? 17 dollars a day is a good middle class wage in China and their per capita GDP is 1/7th ours thus they can maintain a larger overall military as much less than we can. If you don't get this try buying an Apply I-thing made in the US and find out what that would cost you in USD labor vs. Chinese Yen. Can you get by on 17 dollars a day here?

Frank| 4.16.12 @ 9:52PM

China alone spends quite a bit compared to us when you factor in the fact that their labor costs are 15-20% of ours. Notice almost everything is made in China because it is so much cheaper to do so? Why wouldn't defense product also cost less...

Clint| 4.16.12 @ 8:49AM

" The United States, with a 2010 budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion).

The Department of Defense budget in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 19% of the United States federal budget and 28% of estimated tax revenues. The U.S. accounts for 40% of the world’s yearly defense outlays."

Mike Hawk| 4.16.12 @ 11:54AM

.... and..... what is your point?? Those stats sound OK to me. Since defense is one constitutional duty of the Federal government, do you have a problem with that?? I guess your 'constitutionalist' Paulbot leader does.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:24PM

Again, Mike---the question is how we spend it and on what. I think we need forces that can take out rogue states. But we don't need troops in Germany and Italy doing nothing and keeping our guys in shitholes from being able to rotate home more frequently.

Personally, Europe is a dead man walking. They either need to wake up and grow up, or die so we can add those areas to the failed states we may need to destroy.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:28PM

By the way, Mike, I agree with you. But I would like to free up forces to do what we need to do, since force enlargement is currently on the table. Ideas?

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:29PM

Sorry "force enlargement is currently NOT on the table." Mike, you write brilliant stuff.

Mike Hawk| 4.16.12 @ 5:00PM

My question was rhetorical and elicited the response of a least oner dimbulb I was hoping would show up with the usual senseless drivel.

Clint| 4.16.12 @ 5:21PM

Dave Christian, Veteran & Republican Running For Bob Casey's Senate Seat.

" Christian said he would oppose any effort to raise the Social Security age limit and would immediately bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq."

Service to Country

At the age of seventeen with his mother’s permission, Christian enlisted in the Airborne/Infantry of the US Army.

The values and lessons learned from witnessing his mother’s perseverance during hard times served him well in the armed forces.

By distinguishing himself through demonstrations of leadership & ingenuity, he was able to rapidly advance from a private E-1 to an E-5 sergeant within eight months.

While at war, he served his country in both conventional and unconventional warfare in the following units:

Airborne
Special Forces, Green Beret
75th Rangers, Long Range Recon Patrol, (LRRP)
1st Infantry Division (Combat Recon Platoon Leader)

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 12:10PM

Yeah, but Clint is a C. Elegans. Seriously, can you extrapolate? You are brighter than me on this and I like to learn.

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 2:47PM

Hmmm - Seems like the Federal Govt is doing it's constitutional duty - else how did this happen? So let's defend the country - a country that can't feed it's people, let's the sick die, the elderly rot, the young fend for themselves, the disabled ignored. Let me ask, what kind of country is that to defend?
You've never lived in that kind of America, so I wonder why you hark back to those days? Thank God others don't think like you do...

Clint| 4.16.12 @ 3:41PM

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."

DAVID MENARD| 4.16.12 @ 9:05AM

Please stop bad mouthing the F-111! True, the
B model that was almost forced on the Navy was
a dog, but the AF models worked as advertised.
The ultimate model, the F-111F, could carry more
faster and further than today's F-15E Strike Eagle
can and was an awesome offensive weapon. Not a
fighter even with that F designation but she sure
handled all the dicey missions assigned.

Old Soldier| 4.16.12 @ 11:39AM

Sure - and in a decade or so we may find the F-35 is good at a particular mission too. Right now it's just a really really expensive idea replacing actual F-22's.

John - TMF| 4.16.12 @ 2:24PM

Actually the F-35 was intended to replace the F-16 and F-18 (A-D models). The Air Force version is basically an upgrade of the F-16 with lovely and fancy technology improvements... But the international model, its niche in the air superiority / strike scheme, and its supposed cost factor were originally intended to replace the Fighting Falcon.

The program was then larded up with a Navalized version to replace the previously mentioned early model F/A-18 Hornets. While that functional upgrade is possible, and the aircraft is under development, it is supposedly larger by some moderate factor, to account for landing gear designed for carrier operations (aka BIG and heavy) . There are also bracing and construction techniques necessary for carrier ops that land based aircraft don't need. The upshot is the plane has to be larger to carry the extra fuel required to perform a reasonable mission profile. It also has a single engine, that many naval aviator types are not particularly happy with... They'll live with it, like the Grumman jet Cats, Panther, Cougar, and Tiger. They have also flown the FJ-2 and the F-8 so it isn't a particularly bad thing, just some guys like two engines. This version is probably cost effectively doable, though it is more expensive than the land based A version by a good bit.

(The F-4 Phantom II was the model for this move, btw... not the F-111, though the F-111A/B was a prime example as to why it was a low wattage move to begin with - The 'Vark benefited greatly from the B though since the FB-111 actually used the B model's wing. So that wasn't a total failure- The F-4 started as a naval fighter and was "simplified" through five versions -C,D,E,F, and G- to make it the "universal" fighter that it was.)

The Marine version is what seems to be burning up the cost factor, it is too heavy, it's lift fan and rotating nozzle have had some serious operational issues. I haven't seen it's short takeoff profile, but given that huge "sail" that pops out over the lift fan, I am not completely sure that it's conventional takeof characteristics are any better than a standard F-35 (The world waits to hear more details which are not generally out there for the media to tout.). There are also fuel storage, burn rate, and weapons stores issues. The Marine version isn't particularly stealthy since it's stores are external and its doors, hatches and other vertical lift associated gear can't possibly be all that stealthy, either.

The problem is still basically cost... and it is not getting better its getting worse.

The F-22 is the functional follow on to the F-15E (Dual role-now, it used to be a C follow on) . It's cancellation after to few aircraft was a fundamentally stupid act. It is a necessary 5th generation fighter that is the proverbial machine gun at the knife fight.

That it had some teething problems and some very correctable issues with the oxygen system (not a flight related or weapons system related issue... mind you). They are flying again - roaring around the skys of Hampton Roads as they flick in and out of Langley AFB. Their normal flight envelope would snap the neck of any F-15 ground observer, the airplane seems to be alive like a huge falcon or hawk, changing direction on a dime, zipping out of sight into a cloud thousands of feet above it in an instant...

Yes it costs money... but the F15 it is supposed to replace is a 40 year old design, and the latest C and D models are nearing 20. What were we going to replace the Eagle with? A SPAD?

Guaranteeing peace means being the biggest toughest guy on the block. The world is not actually very civilized, and operates very much like street gangs. If you aren't willing to do what is necessary to stay in charge, well then you're someone else's butt-boy. Because he's going to see your weakness and kick your ass.

We live in the Kingdom of Man, not the Kingdom of God, which is available through the narrow door of a graced Death. I am not ready for that on a national or even personal scale just yet. God hasn't called me, so I am not volunteering to step through the "Eye of the Needle" just yet.

We need to get the AF order of F-22's back up to the 500 to 700 plane range, and build the snot out of the AF version of the F-35 to replace all F-16s. The Navy and Marine versions should be either cancelled, or combined into one navalized version for both Navy and Marines.

r/TMF

Old Soldier| 4.16.12 @ 2:44PM

It seems to me that the greatest feature of the F-35 is that a component is manufactured in every single Congressional district.

Thom| 4.16.12 @ 6:10PM

"The Marine version isn't particularly stealthy since it's stores are external and its doors, hatches and other vertical lift associated gear can't possibly be all that stealthy, either."

True but it is a lot better than a Harrier....and the choice seems to be the F-35 or nothing at all from the deck of Ampib "carriers" and invasion beachheads.....

John - TMF| 4.16.12 @ 7:04PM

On the Marine version:

Yeah and my aerospace engineer friends all still say it is TOO heavy. Which means, as you hint, that the airframe really can't accomplish the mission goals.

It almost reminds me of the Soviet Yak-38, including the big flapper dorsal duct behind the cockpit. Sort of sorry to say that, but it does.

My guess is that its legs will ultimately be shorter than the AV-8B's and though it might "work" I wonder what it can carry off of a little bitty flight deck, even with just enough fuel to tank once in the air.

On the AF version - the grape vine has gotten a tad quiet (grapes drying up) over the F-35A and C.

I know that there were more than a few complaints that the experimental prototypes had a better power to weight ratio than production versions, but at less than 1:1 - you are right, you don't get to supersonic cruise, and you certainly don't get to the capabilities of a 30 year old F-16C.

Sounds like an Edsal in the making.

Meanwhile the F22 has had most of the early bugs worked out of it, and it works.

Like I said, the F-35A can be salvaged, with a larger engine, (face it the thing really needs two), and a rework of the planform to more F-16 - X-35 proportions.

I am still wondering why the naval version is still under consideration given its inability to compete with the F/A18A-D models.

But that is the game... the old bait, switch, and kill both mode. Thus leaving us with what are effectively SPAD 13's to fight WWII.

We just never seem to be able to do something KISSed by sanity, do we?

r/TMF

Thom| 4.16.12 @ 8:08PM

I lived through the F-X F-111 trials and tribulations. Even as a teenager I thought the F-111B was a sick joke and of course it was and the F-14 showed why you can’t make one size fit all missions. A digital F-14 today would weight several tons less too.

I think the Marine version has more legs than you know but to get there and back it will have to carry extra fuel externally to keep what payload it can carry internally and always drop the external stuff (including rails) before making the IP and detection. That makes it expensive to operate from a limited platform like an LHA. I’m not impressed with all the complications of the vertical fan doors either. Clearly not something you can employ while moving a long… like for STOL with a payload.
It seems to be a universal curse of stealth that to remain stealthy you must carry everything inside which results in a larger and heavier aircraft which works against performance without a lot of power out the back. Remember when the F-16A weighted 12,000 before it reached its final form and weighted in at 16,000 empty. They’ve already taken several thousand off the F-35 basic frame and it will likely add some back on with mods…. Clearly this thing was designed as a replacement for the F-117s but somewhere along the line some dumbass saw this as a solution to problems only the bean counters can find. Since all versions outweigh any F-18 variant by a lot and have less thrust to weight ratio than any F-18 variant I would suspect once the navy starts shipboard testing we are going to start hearing the same kinds of complaints we heard with the F-111B. Too big; weight too heavy and it isn’t going to run away from anything once over hostile territory. The F-35 is clearly a product of a committee and none of them have combat experience I suspect.

Thom| 4.16.12 @ 6:30PM

"The program was then larded up with a Navalized version to replace the previously mentioned early model F/A-18 Hornets. While that functional upgrade is possible, and the aircraft is under development, it is supposedly larger by some moderate factor, to account for landing gear designed for carrier operations (aka BIG and heavy) "

The Marine version is the "lightest" version at around 29,000 empty, the naval version at 34,000. The Air Force version is between this and all versions are heavier than the F-15Cs and F-4s. It dwarfs and F-16 or F-18 empty. It won't hit a 1:1 thrust ratio with normal internal fuel and AA armaments. On balance it is going to come in as a better F-117 (from the front) but no one called that a fighter. The F-35 suffers from the same mindset that cut capability from the original DDG-51 class to keep it from competing with the “cruiser” version of the Spruance class “DD”. The only way to cut meaningful cost out of the F-35 in order to keep it from competing with the F-22’s cost was to cut an engine and stripe it of the all-around stealth capability and power steering. They’ve pushed the F-35 variant’s engine to the max they can get out of it and it won’t give the Navy and Air Force a bird that can outperform the F-18/F-16s it is to replace. I suspect the Marine version can’t lift off vertically with a full load either and is at best a STOL platform for attack and VTOL for landing only (and public demonstrations.) In the end it is going to cost as much as the F-22 in unit production and the annual buys will be reduced to save money which will push up per unit cost again.

Indy| 4.16.12 @ 9:13AM

Thank you McConnell, Reid, Boehner, and Pelosi and all who supported the "Super Committee"

Congress, instead of doing your job, you punted to create the Committee who then punted triggering the automatic cuts. We The People see the waste every day in all areas of the budget, we have to make cuts in our own household budgets, Congress should do the same for starters, all you had to do was get rid of baseline budgeting, this was not a difficult task instead the Committee became a political football.

Anyone going to watch the GSA hearing today? I'm sure there will be plenty of footage of Neely taking the 5th. I'll listen to the hearing online while working.

Cut the budget of every agency and department (except defense since that's been cut already), there is waste everywhere.

Indy| 4.16.12 @ 4:34PM

http://www.c-span.org/Events/L.....7429882-1/

While I'm working, I'm listening to the Oversight hearing (GSA), writing my tax check to accompany my 1040 and thinking about the blatant waste of taxpayer money is more than frustrating...

I doubt the media will give this much coverage, look for rightscoop to post is later...no new taxes, cut the waste and yes reduce Federal Employee headcount in all agencies starting with GSA.

Louis Jenkins| 4.16.12 @ 9:56AM

If defense has taken cuts so should other more public agencies. Cut them all in relation to the cuts that defense has taken, and then see what the savings are. We should be high on our own defense, but to have multiple bases sitting around the world not doing much of anything, that doesn't make much sense other than propping up local economies. Likewise, cut back spending on domestic programs, entitlements (real entitlements), education, and so forth. If defense is cut, so should other programs.

Harry the Horrible| 4.16.12 @ 11:57AM

You're right! Cut them ALL! Since "entitlements" are, by far, the largest part of the budget, they should get most of the cuts.

If we're going stop bankrupting our grandchildren, EVERYBODY will have to make some sacrifices.

albert constantine jr.| 4.16.12 @ 10:04AM

There is so much to say on this topic. I find much merit in much that has been written above, even if it is not what I would sign on to. A few points, though, need to be mentioned, even without comprehensively arguing my overall case.

I don’t think isolation works, and I don’t think it’s cheaper. While the current model of international defense may shift most of the costs to the US taxpayer, and certainly can be distributed more equitably amongst those who benefit from it, history tends to support the notion that defense is a “pay me now or pay me later” proposition. Later payments tend to collect more lives in interest along with the cash. Failing to act tends to delay having to pay, but some form of freedom gets reduced along the way (even if it is trade restrictions).

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t spend wisely or well on security, or that we hand out blank checks. One of the areas that the Constitution appropriately designates for national expenditure is defense. While there is bloat, corruption and poorly managed budgets, this is one area where you get to see where some of your money went when you view the aircraft carrier with its squadrons.

Our debt expands beyond control when we spend money on almost half of our population without asking back anything in return (except an expectation to support those whose voted for the transfer of wealth).

If you want to make defense cuts, they should begin in the Pentagon with the social experimentation programs. Give our uniformed men and women the tools they need to do the job we ask of them and what we might need to ask of them. Buying them later when we really need these things costs a lot more.

The Big E| 4.16.12 @ 10:06AM

There is a lot a of merit (in my opinion) to the ideas expressed by some above that we should get out of Afghanistan and stop defending the rest of the world against a threat (the Soviet Union) which no onger exists, but frankly, all of that is beside the point. Ending the war in Afghanistan, bringing troops home from ROK and Germany will not address the massive cuts heading DOD's way, and will be, like Obama's tax plan in the face of the national debt, a drop in the ocean,

The fact is that for at leat 50 years now, the left in this coutnry has been doing its utmost to render us defenseless, and now, through the "supercommittee" - and with the assistance of the Republican Wing of the Democrat Party - they are on the brink of success.

I'm sorry, but the Republican leadership in Congress cannot be THAT stupid, which leaves me to conclude that they have been wilfully complicit.

The older and more experienced in life I get, the more I am becoming convinced that the Republicans and Democrats are merely two sides of the same coin, with one side - usually the Republicans - there merely to provide cover to other, and to make it appear to the rest of us that we have a two party system, when in fact, we do not. A few who are not actually part of that structure may ascend to some level of power from time to time, but will eventually either be co-opted by the ruling class, or driven back into the masses. In any event, their efforts at reform never succeed, and ultimately only serve those whom they originally opposed by providing by furthering the illusion that we live under a two party system.

Bob K.| 4.16.12 @ 10:40AM

Everybody has a hobby horse to ride here! So the really one big issue is ignored.

The USA can't keep running $1 Trillion Dollar plus deficits every year to pay for the programs it runs. The money has to come from somewhere to pay for them. The only options for that are huge tax increases and/or inflationary printing of money so fast it will make Weimar Germany's inflation look like it was done on the cheap!

Alternatively a whole crap load of these programs, military and domestic both, are going to have to end and various people, all of them self important, will have to start using "Shank's Mare" instead of riding their hobby horses to prosperity!

There is also the possibility of increasing revenues along with cutting spending but it appears that this is politically impossible so it looks like we will have to wait for the inevitable doom of the laws of economics to run their gamut while we continue to babble about it on web sites like this!

All American American| 4.16.12 @ 1:14PM

"The USA can't keep running $1 Trillion Dollar plus deficits every year..."

Yeah, then there's that. $600B over ten years doesn't seem so much when you are running $1,000,000,000,000+ deficits every year.

old white guy| 4.16.12 @ 11:05AM

bb, you are right some many words such little action. the laws of economics will catch up.

Taxpaying Unit| 4.16.12 @ 11:06AM

This "perfect storm" is accomplishing exactly what it was designed to do: weaken the US militarily and economically enough to remove her sovereignty and independence as roadblocks to the establishment of global government. One of the saddest and most infuriating aspects of this fact is that although it defies our Constitution and first principles, to say nothing of the dictates of national survival, it is actually being done in full accordance with US law! Public Law 87-297, signed into law by John F Kennedy in September of 1961, lays out a multi-phase plan to disarm the US to the point where she is allowed to have only those armaments and forces necessary to "maintain internal order" and provide assets to the UN "peace force" which under the law is to be powerful enough to enforce UN dictates worldwide, and to not be seriously challenged by any national entity. Published concurrently with the passage of this law was State Department Publication 7277 which helps to explain the rationale behind it. It all sounds very flowery and love-in-ish, but should raise warning flags in anyone who has read his Bible lately. It is the mechanism by which the New World Order is being established, enabling the ascendence of antichrist and accelerating us toward the prophesied end times. Prepare accordingly by seeking out and embracing Christ while you can.

Tenn Slim| 4.16.12 @ 11:23AM

Aerospace Budgets follow a 18 month curve.
This is April 2012. Consider a win for Pres O in 2012, then the January Exec orders, then Obamacare implementation (revised), then April 2013. Anticipate Aerospace contracts to be terminated, production lines shut down, and the "Domestic Crisis" of Axelrods favorite dream is on us.
Prediction: Within 24 months, the US Dark Age will be implemented, Cloward Piven will rule at the Right hand.
SURVIVE
Semper Fi

shoebox57| 4.16.12 @ 11:57AM

One more reason, not that anymore are necessary, to vote ABO in Novemeber!

WE WILL REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER

Hal G. P. Colebatch| 4.16.12 @ 12:28PM

Australia is also considering cutting its order for F-35s. More economies of scale will be lost and unit-costs will increase for all parties.

Slacker| 4.16.12 @ 12:38PM

Bear in mind, for all our military spending, we never actually win. Every single time we use our military it turns into a political catastrophe.

The outcome is always shit. Experts then debate how bad the specific shit stinks and who is to blame. We may as well do train wrecks on the cheap.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:27PM

Well, Slacker, that's because we don't play to win anymore. We need to look at how we beat Japan again and again. Fanatic country, fighters to the death, etc. Very, very similar to what we are facing now. The Japanese have an interest in this as well, as they DON'T want Moro like neighbors with the largest gerontcracy in the world.

Occam's Tool| 4.16.12 @ 1:27PM

Sorry, "gerontocracy."

JFGalt| 4.16.12 @ 1:44PM

I'm confused by this article. The author complains about looming Pentagon budget cuts and then proceeds to give us a laundry list of military boondoggle projects, poor planning and poor decision making to seemingly justify NOT cutting military spending. Maybe if the Pentagon and the defense industry got their act together this wouldn't have happened. The Pentagon has been known for waste for a very long time yet nothing has been done except to continually expand their budget. Maybe they should try spending the money they get more wisely. Remember the $300 toilet seats or $100 hammers? Maybe if they were less irresponsible with taxpayers moneys they wouldn't be in this jam. What is the point of a strong military if it bankrupts us and destroys our economy - isn't that how we beat the Soviet Union? Are we doing it to ourselves now? We pay our front line troopers a pittance and barely take care of their families which really lay it on the line for this nation and then we throw tons of money away on useless weapons systems that don't work. Show us that you care how the money is spent and quick being so reckless with it and America will give the funding our military says they need.

Old Soldier| 4.16.12 @ 2:01PM

Maybe I'm inserting my own opinion, but...

I assume he is complaining that we will be cutting spending in all the wrong places. Instead of killing the F-35 program, they will chop Marine Regiments and Army Brigades (the people doing the actual fighting). While the Navy spends billions on the "new" DDG-51's, our soldiers will never see a modern rifle.

Drek| 4.16.12 @ 2:06PM

Rushbo has been right all along, --------- this guy is determined to cut America down to size!

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 2:32PM

Of course this is completely disingenuous of the writer because "Republicans seek to shrink government spending and the overall size of government, and therefore reject virtually any kind of increased tax revenue." - until they come to their senses and offer to raise revenue along with cuts, we're at a stalemate.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-1.....M:POLITICS

From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.16.12 @ 3:53PM

Penelope-Pink Keisha-Rachel Olbermann-Maddox Buffet-Pelosi,

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are in a state of suspended disbelief that you cite an article by three journalists at CNN after the comments made by John - TMF, Occam's Tool, Von Mises Jr, and Dixie Pixie, among others.

Even in a state of suspended disbelief our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots note even the baal worshiping John786 is writing with much improved grammatical syntax.

You are an embarrassment even to bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots.

- MM staff

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 6:13PM

Aren't you tired of your game? what a useless closet freak you are.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.16.12 @ 6:52PM

Pink-Buffet Putz-Rachel Pansy-Pantywaste Maddow-Pelosi,

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are surprised you didn't cite relevant facts about the game provided by MSNBC.

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots note your response is so lame it is obvious even you know you are an embarrassment and discredit not just to MM but to the human race.

Occam's Tool| 4.17.12 @ 12:11PM

Thank you. I'm honored.

Ben Hudman| 4.16.12 @ 3:09PM

Excellent article with alarming ramifications. It is amazing that we can watch horrific mistakes being made in real time but lack the ability to halt the destruction as it occurs. It appears that all the smart people have fled government to write editorials about government.

Petronius| 4.16.12 @ 3:30PM

There's no sense for a standing military in a country where the majority of the people will only fight for a handout. Robert Heinlein pray for us.

David Thompson| 4.16.12 @ 6:54PM

Mr. Babbin, please arrange a visit to Edwards Air Force base in California. There, you will see "concurrent development" being practiced on every airplane in the US Air Force inventory. The last B-52 was produced in 1962; rather than accepting it as a perfected strategic bomber, brave men are still modifying it and flight testing those modifications at Edwards.
The F-22 was in production when I visited, though it had not become operational in Air Force squadrons. The Flight Test Center was already pushing its envelope; no sitting still.
This practice is much less expensive than buying brand new aircraft every year, as we did in the years after WWII, when we bought a fleet of new jet aircraft, one from each of the numerous manufacturers.
Those manufacturers have consolidated into just a few. The Congress is not so willing to pay for increasingly capable, complex, and expensive airplanes.
It's a lot more complex that you make it sound.

Thom| 4.16.12 @ 8:33PM

David,
Can our current B-52s penetrate successfully Iran's air defenses, bomb their nuclear facilities and not suffer a high attrition rate? To penetrate at low level is a severe strain on the airframe beyond about 400 mph. For the B-52 to go in above tree top level would require an enormous SEAD package of tactical and support aircraft all of which light up the radar scopes for hundreds of miles. The last time the B-52 was used in “combat” contested airspace was over Vietnam before I was in boot camp in 1973. The bird is still in service because it has range, loiter time and can carry a very large bomb load including cruise missiles. It can’t penetrate modern air defenses without suffering a very high loss ratio as it did over North Vietnam. No amount of “concurrent development” is going to fix a flawed aircraft design just as the F-111B could not be made a Fleet Air Defense fighter even with the long range Phoenix system. The F-35 is too large, heavy and underpowered for a “fighter” role. Putting more engine in the same airframe just shortens it range and payload. The fix of the F-35 is the F-22B.

Dixie Pixie| 4.16.12 @ 9:07PM

The F35 was designed to be a low-cost utility fighter-bomber to the high cost F22 dedicated air superiority fighter-bomber.
It is part of the High-Low package that was proven successful with the F15 and F16 combination.

The F35 is the replacement for the F16 and was to free up the F22 so it could do what it does best, air superiority.
The F35 was to do all the other fighter-bomber jobs only a lot cheaper.

That is why so many were to be built.
Cutting short the planned production run only forces the necessary fighter-bomber missions onto the F22 at a much higher cost per sortie.

John - TMF| 4.17.12 @ 12:24AM

Dixie P.

That was the plan. The execution of which became an engineering nightmare and a first rate boodoggle, along with the classic gold plated monstrosity that ends up going into either a scrap heap, like the Navy A12, or into a rework program that ends up with a successful aircraft - the F-111C-F and FB-111 (we will give them a pass on the A... it had "issues" but generally worked) by dropping the gold plating and just making it do a job, and do it well.

There is no fixing the acid combination of program creep, big promises, big demands, and the violation of fundamental mechanical "laws".

My nephew worked for the F-35 alternate engine program for the B model. He told me flat out that it was a nightmare. The plane would not perform as advertised. It was way too heavy, and the engine was designed for a smaller airframe... without the addition of the huge horizontal fan kit... The lift fan has all of the nasty ring state stall characteristics of a helicopter, plus the same old advancing blade asymetric lift issues... so airflow has to be strictly controlled, engine operating temeratures and transmission function are a problem that no standard thrust aircraft has, so the Marine F-35B is an out of box failure or at least a near failure.

Thom is correct. The answer is the F-22's next model, and perhaps an F-22 with two seats for a RIO/WSO to help operate the increasingly complex systems. But the gold plated F-35 either gets back down to the 16 to 18K pound weight, or it fails.

The point of Mr. Babbin's piece is not just specifically about one issue, but uses the F-35 program as an example.

Old Soldier points out that we are hurting for the little things... like helicopters, tanks, rifles, pistols, ammunition. We need new armored and transport vehicles. We need a new self propelled field gun.

The Air Force needs new transport aircraft, the Navy needs new ships with guns as well as missiles. We are going to need several new carriers, one to replace the retiring Enterprise.

The Army is tired and its equipment worn out. The Marines are exhausted, and their equipment is worse than worn out.. The Navy has too many perfectly good ships that could have been refitted fully and put back to sea - floating off of Fort Eustis, Virginia, in the James River... collecting rust and barnacles.

We are not doing smart, necessary things to "provide for the common defense". We are going to pay for that lazy short sightedness.

r/TMF

Lucy-Lee de Cortez| 4.16.12 @ 8:45PM

What a howl

"Brave men are still modifying it (B-52) and flight testing those modifications at Edwards."

Brave men ?
Hey, if you can hit up Uncle Sam for a pension at age 42, after milking-it for 20 years at Edwards, go for it.
But really. With all the loonies out there, your average pizza delivery boy faces more danger.

BackToBasics| 4.16.12 @ 9:48PM

The fact the Republicans like Boehner, McConnell, Toomey, Kyle etc, went along with this charade is pathetic, sickening. If such as class was offered, Republicans elites know could not even pass a human nature 101 class. I'll bet the Republicans on the committee thought they'd be calling the democrats bluff on sequestration drastically cutting into the defense budget. I'll bet they didn't even understand or fathom that democrats would be GLAD to gut the defense budget. Just like they don't understand the shift in demographics against republicans by letting so many illegal aliens come in, many already vote and no doubt all will eventually be allowed to vote in the future.

Purp| 4.16.12 @ 10:15PM

If you really believe that, why are you an American? Leave already...

BackToBasics| 4.17.12 @ 6:44PM

And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not. Luke 8:45

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 4.16.12 @ 11:01PM

This is what happens when you elect the Wrong person as US President

Headline Quote-

"Obama Mulls 80 Percent Disarmament of Nuclear Arsenal"
Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012 03:06 PM- NewsMax.com

Caroline Glick from her article "America’s Descent into Strategic Dementia"- Mar 21st 2011

quote-

"Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama’s foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony.

Obama looks to the UN as a vehicle for tethering the US superpower. He views US allies in the Middle East and around the world with suspicion because he feels that as US allies, they are complicit with US imperialism."
-unquote-

Obama is an anti-American who believes that America, as well as Israel, is the problem of all the worlds ills. He is intentionally destroying America by bankrupting the US economically with massive unsustainable US National debt and deficits, as evidenced with all of his failed Trillion dollar Stimulus Bills and Bailouts, and instilling massive Socialist govt bureaucracy and unconstitutional govt. power into law, ie; Obamacare, which destroys private Healthcare in America, as well as denies Americans their Freedom of Choice which in destroys our Freedom and Liberty, along with suffocating the US Free Market Economy which in turn destroys millions of private sector jobs, and sabotaging our US energy supply and production of Oil, Gas, and Coal, then gutting out our US Military deterrent strength by way of it's military defense budget, technologies, and resources, and especially our nuclear missiles and their delivery systems, along with our nuclear warheads themselves, putting the U.S. at an extremely weak disadvantage militarily, thus sabotaging our US National Security and weakening our capability of waging a 2 or even 3 front war, against Russia, China, Iran at the same time. In conjunction, Obama is intentionally destroying any all Military and financial support to the State of Israel, along with propping up the arab isalmic muslims enemies of Israel with technology, weapons, financing, information, and so on..

This is the problem we also now face, when the electorate in the mass populace are apathetic and indifferrent to the real issues at hand concerning politicians either being a radical hard core far left liberal Socialist, or a Reagan constitutional conservative, or a moserate GOP progressive liberal establishment Republican RINO from Mass..

Thus this is now about the people's ability or inability, due to apathy, indifference, and or ignorance to discern the differences, problems, and issues at hand, facing what we are now faced with, and then adequately make the right decisions at the ballot box.

If the mass populace of America is determined to go into a state of constant delusional denial, and keep running into the same brick wall of stupidity, just like their choosing of Obama in 2008, a radical progressive liberal, they now choose instead a moderate progressive liberal GOP Republican establishment RINO elitist, aka Obama lite Mitt Romney, then the Constitutional Republic Nation of America is in more peril than we thought, as no Nation can stay Free and Independent when both sides of the political coin are liberally destructive. The left is a cancerous toxic ideology, and as history has shown, can and will completely destroy a civilized society of Freedom, Liberty, Democracy, and the Truth, in a blink of an eye.

That’s their choice, but in so doing will unfortunately continue the same old liberal dead end brick wall policies of the past, which means the continued rapid decline of America, domestically in our Fiscal and Financial Budgetary means, along with our US Military obligations as a force of Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy is an assured prospect.. And not just inside America, but the free world as a whole is affected as well, as our US National Security is the world's international security against the forces of evil, tyranny, and oppression.

Lucy-Lee de Cortez| 4.16.12 @ 11:08PM

Guys, look at Brazil

Like us, a big country with plenty of oil and other stuff. Bordered by weak neighbors and oceans. 6000 miles from the mideast.

They spend 5% of what we do on defense. Here's what they get: Security.
Theyve never been invaded or lost a war. They dont need body bags.

Our debt, the greatest threat to our security, would be zero, if we had followed Brazils lead since the cold war ended.

Sir, our greatest threat, our military elite.
Bringing freedom to far off bizzaro-world, sir. Sir, thank you for your 20 years of sacrifice as a contracts officer sir. Very brave sir, your mssion statements. Sir.

danf| 4.17.12 @ 7:03PM

We will find out how peaceful the world remains when the restraining influence of global US power is removed. We will see what military ambitions arise in S. America when players there realize there will be no US intervention to check anyones ambitions. We are embarking on a great historical experiment. Do not presume to think you or anyone else understands how it will turn out. All of history suggests that the coming disruptions to world order will kill millions between the grinding plates.

FeFe| 4.17.12 @ 11:50AM

Yes, but why are you bothering the landed gentry with such details? Go lay it at the feet of your party, bipartisan policy elite chosen, free-market and strong national defense moderate, Mitt Romney. (Hahahahaha! Tom Buchanan meet Jay Gatsby. -- Waiter, there's a fly in my oligarch soup.)

danf| 4.17.12 @ 6:55PM

This is of course exactly what Obama and the democratic party want to see happen. The end of American power is a long standing goal of the self-loathing party. Perhaps the world will be a better place 10 years from now. We shall see. My guess is that it wont be the bargain people thought it would be. As much of the blame should fall on careerist military leaders as on Obama. At least we all know that Obama hates America. Grocery clerk Generals like Dempsey ill serve the country and kiss ass for the sake of their own pathetic ambitions.

Martin Owens| 4.17.12 @ 7:53PM

Sounds to me like the defense establishment is the author of its own troubles. Far more interested in pushing ahead with the latest hyper expensive whizbang and PC social work, than in what will actually help to protect the country.

Seriously, what difference will a "littoral ship" make, to a Yemeni guerrilla in the Hijaz Mountains? And why do we have 324 ships with the appellation " U.S.S" - and 328 admirals? 6000 captains (0-6) and 5600 ensigns ( o-1)?

I could mention other examples far into the night, but the point is: they're not working for us anymore.

derfel cadarn| 4.18.12 @ 11:50AM

To continue to poor money into extremely pricey and ridiculous weapons systems is insane. Most of this is a flim-flam and nothing to do with defense. America needs to get out of the business of empire. Defending our nation and being a good neighbor does not require out spending most of the world on war machines. The "poor" defense companies have reaped excessive profits since the war of northern aggression,see War is a Racket, S. Butler. If they cannot withstand a little adversity in business then they should down. War may be the health of government but government is NOT conducive to freedom ,liberty and the health of the republic. To continue down the path you suggest will lead only to our downfall as a people. Note that even with all the bells and whistle weapons we are getting our butts kicked by goat herders using technology a minimum of 60 years old,so much for your super weapons.

POST American| 4.19.12 @ 2:09PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

Putting 'PAN--NET---A' and General
'BETRAY--US'
---the John Wheeler murder cover up
----the GM food halocaust
------the Gates-Rockefeller EUGENICS Halocaust
-------NDAA 1021
-------the FUKSISHIMA cover up
----------Ginzberg and Pelosi's treason
---------------and those hundreds of millions of
rounds of ammo being bought MONTHLY
by 'Homeland SICK--CURE--'IT'--he' et al
to one side

---is there anyone still out there who dares
dispute that we are,indeed, in the 11trh
hour of the CFR--RED China handover,
takedown, OCCUPATIONJ and FINAL
EUGENICS OP?

We'll wait. . .

Remember kiddies ---what you're NOT doing
will itself stand as a damning figure for all
eternity ---for this---IS--- the 11th hour.

TRULY

Marc Rauch | 4.19.12 @ 10:45PM

Obama is not just a terrible president, I feel he is an enemy of our country. You seem to agree, but you should really know why he is bad for our country instead of just parroting what you hear other people say. Your knowledge of business (specifically what supply and demand is) and your knowledge of the energy industries is terribly ignorant. It's just laughable.

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|51 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|45 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|63 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|16 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|19 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

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?