The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Earlier today, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a lunch with a group of bloggers to discuss his new memoir, Known and Unknown.

During the discussion, Rumsfeld talked about how the amount of GDP we dedicate toward defense had shrunk over time. Given that this will become more of an issue in the coming decades with the explosion in entitlement spending, I asked him whether he thought defense spending could be cut without hindering national security, which even some conservatives have begun to suggest.

Rumsfed acknowledged that there were specific areas that could be cut, but warned against broad cuts.

“In any large organizations, there are things that can be reduced, that’s clear,” he said. “I think it was something like $18 billion in earmarks were shoved down the Pentagon’s throat every year. Congress wanted it, we didn’t want it. It didn’t have anything to do with defense capabilities. So are their things? Sure. When I worked at the Pentagon, there were pastry chefs. There were people standing outside the door, and wherever I went, they went with me. If everyone else could work there, why did I need somebody else helping me around?”

He exlained, “I’m looking at specifics. You start looking at the aggregate, and that’s something different…The defense budget is not what’s causing the deficit in the United States government. If you look at the percentage.”

He added, “Clearly there are things that can be done at the defense department. But if anyone thinks they can balance the budget on the back of the defense department, the answer is a) mathematically, it can’t be done, and b) you’ll be sorry.”

View all comments (3) |

c. j. acworth| 2.10.11 @ 5:48PM

Try a search for "U.S. military bases in Europe". Wikipedia lists 51 US Army bases in Germany. 51 for Pete's sake! How can they all be necesssary? No, we won't come close to balancing the budget even if they were all closed, but 51 in Germany alone sounds like a few too many.

Thom| 2.10.11 @ 8:13PM

What does the number of “bases” have to do with anything regarding cost? If we consolidate those 51 bases into 5 and the cost of those 5 is equal to the 51 what has changed? Bases can be a host of things both large and very small that have nothing to do with what each base actually cost to maintain. By your reasoning, New York City could save a bundle of money by eliminating most all of the police stations it has and it has hundreds. Clearly the number of “stations” it has serves a purpose not related to the overall purpose of having any police stations in a geographic area. Same with military “bases”. The number is dictated by geographic necessity military function not cost. Where I live there are numerous “bases” some of which are quite large and some much smaller and very specific to a dedicated military function. None of them duplicate the other’s function and where “bases” have been consolidated, the cost remains relatively fixed as long as the function is still performed at the consolidated location.

C Bowen| 2.10.11 @ 5:56PM

This is the guy who thought Iraq was a threat, right?

More Blog Posts by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/10/rumsfeld-warns-against-sweepin

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT