Obama proposes largest defense budget since WWII

[justasimpleguy]

kmb is right, more or less. The defense budget is huge because Obama's administration hasn't been trying to sneak military spending in through extra appropriations. Doesn't make me feel any better about it.

Being the "arsenal of democracy" hasn't made us too many friends. Not to mention how often we end up getting shot at with our own guns by people we trained. Or how often those people commit horrible human rights abuses.

If I were king, we'd be doing some serious "swords to plowshares" action.

 

[houtx48]

yikes..... smartransvestor was stunned into silence

 

[Qua]

Yeah...I read that and went

 

[dandelion]

it is a truth that left wing politicians are frequently afraid of carrying out left wing policies, and similarly right wing afraid of right wing policies. Because they are sure of their own support but always trying to attract the other side. So it makes perfect sense if what is said above is true, that Obama comes clean on the true scale of defense spending and makes no cuts.

The thing you have to decided is what you want the US to do. Half measures are usually bad. Either you need the worlds greatest ever armed forces and go round the world invading, policing and generally upsetting everyone, or you stop trying and go home. If the US military official position on recent wars has been anything, it has been that more troops (etc) were needed from the start. Bush was afraid to send them, being right wing and sensitive about left wing views. Obama likely would have chosen not to fight the war, but being in it he is not so afraid to use the force which is needed.

He is also in the difficult position, I presume, that the military are telling him that if they get this and this, then they can win. I find it impossible to believe the US can find a peaceful solution to the situation in Afghanistan which will suit US policy. No one else has despite a hundred years of trying. As to Iraq, I suppose it not much worse than it was before being invaded and may return to a stable regime. Fundamentally the invasion was a reversal of previous US policy in the region, which just means be careful what you wish (and pay) for because it may be all change next year.

 

[LambHair McNeil]

We have an ever-larger defense budget yet we put to sea fewer aircraft carriers than we did in 2000 and our overall Navy is smaller now than it's been since before WW2. We have a rapidly aging Air Force, with fighter planes often older than the newly trained pilots hired to fly them, not to mention our most reliable bombers first flew when JFK was still alive. And so on.

I very much favor a large, robust military but am lamenting the tremendous expenditure/shrinking force structure predicament we find ourselves in. Fans and foes alike of a sizeable U.S. military focus merely on the size of the budget and ignore the performance of what it's bought, which kind of sounds like another size argument one might make at this website...

 

[dandelion]

We have an ever-larger defense budget yet we put to sea fewer aircraft carriers than we did in 2000 and our overall Navy is smaller now than it's been since before WW2. We have a rapidly aging Air Force, with fighter planes often older than the newly trained pilots hired to fly them, not to mention our most reliable bombers first flew when JFK was still alive. And so on.

Was thinking until you got to the end that you were from the UK.

I very much favor a large, robust military but am lamenting the tremendous expenditure/shrinking force structure predicament we find ourselves in. Fans and foes alike of a sizeable U.S. military focus merely on the size of the budget and ignore the performance of what it's bought, which kind of sounds like another size argument one might make at this website...

Yes, but what has it bought? WW1 and WW2 were quite cost effective for the US. Have the wars paid off since? We started to give up dreams of empire about 1920, so probably not quite got to the centenary yet.

 

[LambHair McNeil]

I do have some fairly recent vintage Brit blood coursing through my arteries.

Those stmts can apply to most Western nations, including the UK, as you rightly point out. With the US tied up in Worthless War 1 and Worthless War 2 (Afghanistan/Iraq) and the triumvirate of the UK, France, and Germany being relatively toothless tigers, is it any wonder a nation like Iran ignores our collective roars or indignation over their nuclear program?


The one thing robust military strength does buy is moral and political authority. Economic hegemony can also achieve a large percentage of that, but it still has to be honed by military power (witness China expanding military spending by 10-15% per year). However, as Vietnam, Iraq (part 2) and Afghanistan prove, just being able to do something doesn't mean it should be done.

Great Britain lost her empire due to several factors. The overarching moral reasons, to me, were set forth by Woodrow Wilson during the Treaty of Versailles regarding self-determination and Lloyd George with his repeated talks on the 'rights of small nations'. Those speeches and talks echoed beyond just the participants at the negotiating table.

But you can also point to the decision to enter WW 1 (incurring both astronomical casualties and debt...with the U.S. as 'holder of the mortgage'), Churchill (as Chancellor of the Exchequer) squeezing even more out of the Royal Navy in the 20's than the Washington Naval Conference sought, successive governments in the 30's ignoring the threat posed by Hitler and repeatedly postponing rearmament, and then Neville Chamberlain giving a war guarantee to Poland on March 31. 1939 as the policy mile markers on the road to Britain losing her empire.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

We have an ever-larger defense budget yet we put to sea fewer aircraft carriers than we did in 2000 and our overall Navy is smaller now than it's been since before WW2. We have a rapidly aging Air Force, with fighter planes often older than the newly trained pilots hired to fly them, not to mention our most reliable bombers first flew when JFK was still alive. And so on.

I very much favor a large, robust military but am lamenting the tremendous expenditure/shrinking force structure predicament we find ourselves in. Fans and foes alike of a sizeable U.S. military focus merely on the size of the budget and ignore the performance of what it's bought, which kind of sounds like another size argument one might make at this website...

Predator drones are cheaper and just as good for what they are needed for.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

it is a truth that left wing politicians are frequently afraid of carrying out left wing policies, and similarly right wing afraid of right wing policies. Because they are sure of their own support but always trying to attract the other side. So it makes perfect sense if what is said above is true, that Obama comes clean on the true scale of defense spending and makes no cuts.

I'm a little shocked that anyone thought anything was ever going to change and the level of excuse making that is being made.

Step one. Ignore the left/right thing. Once they get to that level, they're all the same colour.

How was this guy ever going to change the game when he goes and hires the biggest bunch of Wall St crooks to run the economic side and has people like Zbigniew Brzezinski endorsing him as president and then advising himon national security? And rehires Robert Gates as SecDef?

The only change that was to be permitted was a change in how the staus quo is presented. Old boss = new boss.

 

[LambHair McNeil]

Predator drones are cheaper and just as good for what they are needed for.

True enough they have a role to play, as would Brazilian Super Tucanos or updated P-51 Mustangs if you are talking pure-counterinsurgency ops. But their effectiveness is maximized when airspace control isn't in doubt. Try using any of those options in anything other than 100% secured airspace and get back to me on how that works out for ya.