EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's New Military Strategy Doesn't Add Up
We're Not Stepping Down From Being the Planet's Top Cop
President Barack Obama ordered up yet another strategic review last year. This one explicitly aimed at bringing the nation's military posture into line with something we can afford.
In response to that review, his administration forged a plan, unveiled during the first week of the year, which takes a few modest steps in the right direction. The job description for our self-appointed role as world policeman will be trimmed a bit. We won't be patrolling everywhere all the time, but we'll be doing something more like check-ins in places like Latin America and Africa. Some of those U.S. troops that have been guarding Europe since World War II will probably come home. The Army and Marine Corps will shrink modestly. There's a verbal commitment, at least, to share more responsibilities with allies. And we'll cut a few more Cold War weapon systems. That's probably a safe move, now two decades since the Cold War ended.
But we're not stepping down from being the planet's top cop. We're holding onto the idea that we need to maintain a global presence and the ability to "confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world." And we'll be projecting more power in China's direction.
The glaring question is, in this portrait of a smaller, leaner military, what happened to the idea of saving money? The speech Obama gave when he presented the plan was contradictory on this point. He first referred to necessary reductions in military spending, and then promised that the Pentagon's budget "will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership."
How can he have it both ways? A look at the approximately $523-billion military budget proposal that experts expect him to release after the upcoming State of the Union address provides the answer. That proposed military budget, which excludes the hundreds of billions of dollars Washington spends on nuclear weapons, the wars we're actually fighting, and subsidies for foreign arms sales, would be bigger than last year's. It would be smaller than what the administration had said last year it had in mind for 2013. So Obama has revised his plans to boost military spending. And adjusted for inflation, it's an actual reduction of about four percent.
This confusing presentation is an attempt to placate multiple constituencies at once. To Republicans seeking every opportunity to say Obama is weakening U.S. military forces, and to Democrats still nervous about that charge, he points out that this military budget will exceed the budgets of the next 14 largest militaries put together. To fiscal conservatives, he offers a budget that, in real terms, takes a tiny step in the direction of the $487 billion in military cuts the 2010 debt deal demanded.
But the predictable cries from the Heritage Foundation's James Jay Carafano and other conservatives that Obama is "gutting" U.S. military strength are ridiculous. As the president himself points out, his next Pentagon budget will be larger than it was during most of President George W. Bush's tenure.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta referred to this new strategy as a "historic shift…after a decade of war and large increases in defense spending." A shift worthy of the term "historic," however, would lay out a path to rolling back the past decade's sweeping military expansion.
But the Obama administration has no plans to do that. It's time that we replaced our country's global military overreach with a posture more deserving of the name "defense."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
73 Comments so far
Show AllHis highest duty is to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Oops!!
A country whose borders do not include the Persian Gulf, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.
Top cop? No--the US is the world's Top Bully. We pick on countries smaller and weaker than ourselves, we push them around with our hi-tech weapons, and we threaten their women and children with exorbitant sanctions. Who else but a cowardly bully would do this? And the poor, deluded military grunts go along with this, thinking that it's all about "patriotism." There's no excuse for such ignorance in today's information-saturated era. Nor is there any excuse for the ignorance of the American people, who keep voting into office these mass murderers. This country is economically and morally bankrupt.
Therein lies part of the reason for the collapsing amerikan empire; delusion is a national condition. What will happen in the next few years will make the Occupy Movement look like pre-school.
"global responsibilities that demand 'our' leadership" What does he mean? The purpose of the Pentagon is to protect the worldwide assets of the CORPORATE WELFARE KINGS.What Obomonable/Borg means is the Pentagon protection racket scheme funded by the FORCED CONTRIBUTIONS, withholding taxes, by taxing USAn labor to protect the CORPORATE WELFARE KINGS, which don't want to pay for their own protection. AL CAPONE did not protect those that didn't pay for it. CAPONE had more integrity than the USG, which steals from USAn taxpayers to pay for the protection of others. Donna, excellent comments, thank you.
As citizens, it should be our highest duty as well.
I'm not American, but, fuck, no. What kind of completely stupid idea is that. Even if you discount its obvious ideological background which is at this moment already has some quite reactionary effects, it's still a 200 year old document, way too much behind the times. The idea that there is some document that needs to be revered and protected is stupid and imo pretty dangerous. It's the other way around: constitutions should serve the citizens, not the other way around. Your "highest duty" should be to yourself and your family and friends within your community and within the larger global community of people and the Earth in general or to your morals, world view, principles and so on, definitely not some original fundamental document.
It has served us well in the past and will serve us well in the future. The ideas and protections embodied in our Constitution do serve our citizens and serve them well. The problem comes when politicians and Judges subvert it or some little group thinks they know better.
If you want to see how a "democracy" quashes its minorities without a Constitution to protect its citizens, simply watch Egypt. Be a Christian, Gay or a woman, be one tribe rather than another. The idea that our Constitution is out of date is quashed immediately by actions in many other countries around the world.
There is no "Global" community of people nor is there any world government. You seem to be missing the race to Nationalism on every side. The "Highesty Duty" you mentioned is one and the same with our Constitution.
"It has served us well in the past and will serve us well in the future. The ideas and protections embodied in our Constitution do serve our citizens and serve them well. The problem comes when politicians and Judges subvert it or some little group thinks they know better."
Not at all. The problem comes when phenomena (like corporations, imperialism etc) emerge, partly even based on it (and sometimes very much in its spirit), that the constitution is not equipped to handle, because the people who created it weren't gods and couldn't see into the future (and of course the world they tried to create wasn't exactly democratic). Politicians and judges (people with power) will subvert anything they can in the service of power, and while the American constitution tried to create some balance between centres of power, it has by now failed - not because it was bad (although it wasn't perfect) but because it is impossible to create a set of rules that work for hundreds of years in the fastest changing era in human history.
As for "little groups thinking they know better", are you suggesting that it's impossible to know better? That it is not possible to change the constitution or write a better one? Or change political systems completely? Seriously?
"If you want to see how a "democracy" quashes its minorities without a Constitution to protect its citizens, simply watch Egypt. Be a Christian, Gay or a woman, be one tribe rather than another. The idea that our Constitution is out of date is quashed immediately by actions in many other countries around the world."
And creating a Constitution in Egypt would change all this? What a ridiculous idea. There are loads of historical, economic, cultural and social differences between Egypt and America, and those are what count, not the simple existence or non-existence of a document.
"There is no "Global" community of people nor is there any world government. You seem to be missing the race to Nationalism on every side. The "Highesty Duty" you mentioned is one and the same with our Constitution."
Man you are pretty scary with this bullshit, along with all the rest of the Americans who actually seem to religiously believe in the American Constitution. There is no "global community" of people? What the hell? The "highest duty" is one and the same with the constitution? This I think is borderline fundamentalism.
Oh please. It's pretty simple. The preamble says it all, in general terms. Promote the general welfare (of the group), establish justice (amongst the group), provide for the common defense (of this group). And WHATEVER works to fulfill this mission is worthy of consideration (no mention here of private property, capitalism, corps, religion, socialism, etc...WHATEVER WORKS). This is as ancient as tribal society itself. As timeless as right now. The rest of the document consists of the details for fulfilling this "mission statement". When there is a fuckup in fulfilling the mission statement, means are provided for ammending (changing) the details for fulfilling the mission statement, to get rid of the fuckups-in-the-details, where "the devil" resides (such as the one about drinking alcohol). Of course there are powerful factions within the group who want to sabotage, paralyze, and/or ignore these rules. That's the real problem, NOT the simple, straightforward ideas in the document. And the Declaration suggests an idea for dealing with these bastards.
The goals very vaguely declared in the Preamble are sort of OK, although they're far from sufficient at this moment in time, but the Constitution itself includes concrete mechanisms, like representative democracy, and of course it reflects a world view also. I simply find the reverence for it quite stupid, despite its qualities and historical importance.
The actions of the two most recent US Presidents have rendered any possible interpretation of the US Constitution meaningless. Their actions have demonstrated quite plainly that the US operates on 'might makes right' and nothing more.
Bush II was more right than he knew when he declare the US Constitution a "god-damned piece of paper!"
One thing that worries me about Republicans honoring the constitution is that they often have a diabolical way of interpreting the constitution in incomprehensible ways.
Democrats have been fully on board with the destruction of the Bill of Rights.
ATOM: A clerical mistake allowed corporations to enjoy the rights of persons. That is not part of The Constitution. And as I posted recently in response other posters, how is it that you think amid a climate as jingoistic, intolerant, fear-based, and scientifically illiterate as the USA, today, you'd find a group of enlightened citizens who could improve upon The Founding Documents?
Look who's running things!
Look at the types of amoral clowns put up as Republican contestants for the already pre-selected Presidential prize.
Consider the way prisoners of war are defined as "enemy combatants" precisely so that they cannot "enjoy" any of the rules that govern prisoners of war.
Consider how the premise of torture has been convoluted to make anything savage an acceptable "tool" of state.
Consider the new "law," NDAA that can effectively incarcerate ANYONE without the right to a trial on spurious information, rumor, suspicion, innuendo... just like the witch hunts of earlier totalitarian phases.
Consider how the war against Iraq was predicated on falsely construed evidence, the item that constitutes a Crime of Aggression... The Supreme Crime against humanity, and no on was held accountable. (Pity instead, the poor whistleblowers who let the unfortunate cats out of the bags.)
And consider the millions who have been bamboozled by fundamentalist religion, and/or Fox News and its idiot ilk, to disbelieve what's right before their eyes in the form of climate change.
In THIS climate you would expect to find enough honest, thoughtful, enlightened, unpaid non-partisans to draw up documents of supreme importance?
Please. It's enough that Bush upended the checks and balances placed in the Constitution specifically to avoid a single leader acting like a king whose absolute power might then go on to absolutely corrupt him, and his policies.
Karmic blowback's momentum is too strong to offset at this point. The nation is undergoing a series of collapses due, in large part, to the acts its warrior class has set loose on numerous foreign lands. Now, that same depraved indifference to life is coming home in the form of Disaster Capitalism's favored program cuts; added to Gaia's responses to so much untimely, unnecessary killing.
It ain't pretty, and a bunch of corrupt insiders is in no position to fix things at this fateful hour.
Perhaps once all the debris has fallen... such things may be considered in the starting over phase.
"enemy combatants", The NAZI'S used the term because they construed that enemy combatants would be treated as POW according to the Geneva Convention to which Germany was a signatory. Now, this is frightening, the NAZI'S having a more enlightened treatment than the USG. What two leaders created false pretenses for the explicit purpose of invading other countries?Hitler, to invade Poland and Bush to invade Iraq.the fact is that the USG will not use higher standards than the NAZI'S. Ed Rollins, former Repubican National Committee Chairman declared the Republican use the same tactics that the NAZI'S used because if the tactics worked for the NAZI'S they will work for the Repubicans. Why wouldn't we[Repubicans] use the same tactics as the NAZI'S.
It's idol worship, a sin according to the Bible.
The US Constitution has "served us well in the past?" That is absurd.
Who is this group you belong to that has been "served well" by the US Constitution?
Poppycock.
The constitution was and is a disaster. It was drafted by the Moneyed Elite of their day for the express purpose of maintaining their status as the Moneyed Elite. It has worked exactly as they envisioned it. For them.
You might try reading No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner (for starters).
The Federalist ideology prevails in Wash.,DC, now. The Federalists didn't like the Bill of Rights and they've a 200+year strategy to eliminate it, mission accomplished. It will never be resurrected, government and the politicians will never allow that to happen. The Constitution is a flawed document from the start, slaves counting as 60% person hood.The electoral college which facilitates a bloodless clue, like it did in 2000, when the Cuban vote in Florida enabled Bush to be selected as President.,These voting foreigners also elected Nixon. A bloodless coup in this country does not require a national strategy, just corrupting the voting and/or counting of votes in a few key states.
Fake cut, only in the rate of growth.
When we are campaigning rather than governing we tend to try "to placate multiple constituencies at once"
A cut in the increase is NOT a cut in military spending. In fact his "Plan" is nothing more than Donald Rumsfeld's strategy dressed in new gift wrap.
By a two-to-one margin, Americans believe the U.S. should bring home its troops currently stationed in Europe. This is part of a larger belief that our military should be focused on defending the U.S., rather than policing the world. No American is fool enough not to recognize the dangers we face, but most want our money spent wisely, not for party political gain or to reward our political cronies or contributors.
Excellent article.
The military strategy of the United States of Israel is to promote war with Iran, to continue stealing Palestinian land and keeping them locked up like animals in cages and to escalate the tensions with China so they can claim the need for another arms race which will make the war profiteers even more money with the never ending expansion of the empire..
" We need to maintain a global presence and the ability to confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world". Translation: Our American Empire needs to be able to confront and defeat any threats to its hegemony, anywhere in the world, either through subterfuge and covert means or if that doesn't work, murderous wars of aggression. Orwells doublespeak at its finest!
The "global presence" is the Pentagon protection racket scheme which is to protect the worldwide assets of the CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS which bribe all those necessary politicians, think tanks, churches so that these WELFARE KINGS are not taxed to pay for their protection. Instead, the FORCED CONTRIBUTIONS, withholding taxes, by taxing USAn labor to pay for the protection of the WELFARE KINGS. The FORCED CONTRIBUTIONS also pays the INTEREST of the COUNTERFEIT DEBT of the WELFARE KINGS.Al Capone had a protection racket scheme and Al didn't protect those that didn't pay for it. Capone had more integrity than the USG when it comes to the administration of crimes.
The United States stupidly spends more on military sending than all other countries in the world combined. As former British MP Tony Benn once wisely noted:
"If we have the money to kill people [with war], we've got the money to help people" and that would be by creating jobs, building infrastructure, implementing universal health care, etc.
Dismantle America's military bases abroad and bring the soldiers home-NOW!
"Dismantle America's military bases abroad and bring the soldiers home-NOW!"
Works for me. We could close 85% of them tomorrow and it would make no difference to the saftety of the sea lanes or our National Defense.
I would argue that it would increase our National safety.
One wishes that having the money to kill meant that one's country already had the money to help its citizens, but the condition of accumulating wealth is brutal indifference to those who were exploited in getting it. Our nation's blood money came from one third of a millennium of African labor & from the expropriation of land via a re-definition of the sovereign peoples that inhabited it as "tribes", The US is a military camp to its core and always has been.
As far as I'm concerned, the bases on US soil should be closed as well.
It's high-past time to grow up and remove the occupation of "soldier" from our consciousness. We can keep a few planes, tanks and battleships around as monuments to our infinite stupidity.
These bases will be used to suppress any/all protests by the mass public.
The key lies in this phrase: "self-appointed role as world policeman..."
Was the United States democratically elected by the world's populations to play that role?
And then there is this gem: "we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership" (Obama said).
Any other country have "global responsibilities"? How come?
Oikos
You have to remember that Obama is on record stating during the 2008 presidential campaign that the United States has no need to apologize for any of its actions that it has committed overseas. One strongly suspects that the victims of those families who had been on the receiving end of America's bombs and bullets would strongly disagree with Obama's claim that the United States can do no wrong.
Obama's new military strategy adds up perfectly for his 1% masters. MLK must be rolling over in his grave !
Obama has sold out his country; his well meaning, but naive constituents; his own people; and MLK; in order to remain the one percents house boy in their whore house and play President.
Nice comment, PR.
I too wonder what the Slaves would think of the 1st Black President just being another slave to the White powers.
I would be embarrassed if I was him, but I have a conscience.
I welcome this frank, no hand-wringing, no nonsense, and to-the-point article and I very much thank the author for saying it like it is.
The piece could be harder hitting, though.
If all you care about is money and not policy then let's stop the outrageous profiteering by the military industrial complex
the MIC costs waaaay more than government provided services
The continental United States has not had any belligerent foreign uniformed troops walk on its land in eons. It happened on a couple of occasions and was so negligible and short-lived that barely anyone remembers it.
The continental United States is basically unassailable. Add to that all the defense systems in place (which did not work on 9/11, but, hey, that was merely a "coincidence" or the result of a "lack of imagination" or a breakdown of communication among intelligence agencies), and the place is really a fortress. That is all that is needed for a country interested in defense. On that ascertainment alone, one can see that the Department of Defense is mislabeled. As long as there are U.S. troops circulating, and garrisons stationed all over the planet, it really is a Department of Bullying and War.
Also, if the United States were really only interested in defending itself, it would have a people's army, a military staffed by conscription of all able bodied and mentally fit citizens, not one of wage-laborers (paid soldiers or mercenaries), some of whom are not even citizens (the United States military enrolls foreigners desirous to obtain legal resident status, with the proviso that such status is not automatically granted to the foreign mercenary).
The continental United States is basically unassailable?
I disagree - the US, like any open, highly technological society is infinitely vulnerable -- if real terrorists existed (not the fake Al-qaeda one the neo-cons invented), they would have no trouble making your life unbearable - blowing up levees, pipelines, electrical lines, generators, transformers, water treatment plants - all the things your military does when it attacks third world opponents (Gaza, Falluga, Afghanistan - Iran is in the cross-hairs)... Snipers in the trunks of cars shooting out of peep-holes (the belt-way sniper)...
The only true security is to be friends with everyone - so everyone's safety and security is mutually assured.
Astute observation; thanks, RickOshea.
Rick O Shea: Thank you for the very enlightened comment. For the trillions wasted on war in Afghanistan & Iraq (primarily), hospitals could have been built, and the standards of living raised both at home and abroad. Instead, apart from the million-plus dead, our own broken soldiers (in body and mind), the D.U tainted infrastructure, added to so much suffering... our nation has seen its treasure go into weapon building, and the pockets of the very rich, while for at least 80% of U.S. citizens life is tougher, harder, and far less sweet. What a bargain all this "Defense!"
Rick,
Excellent post. Thank you.
Thomas Gilbert-
"0ur man" not giving up on the US world policeman role! Hey, he's no Dwight D Eisenhower who inveighed against same.
I think a more fitting title would be The Department of Indiscriminate Slaughter.
Any cuts to personnel will be used to pay for more drones. Less 'manpower' more 'drone-power'. The US Military DARPA is actively researching autonomous combat capable drones. You might know them better as 'Terminators'.
The US will still be a failing Empire, and nothing will change.
The Department of Warmongering for Global Corporate Domination exists to make certain that the Undefensible subjugation continues.
To believe that these actions are about "defense" is to believe that the government is there to promote democracy. THAT is clearly ridiculous.
The government is now an agent of corporate profit. The constitution of the United States of America no longer applies. It is merely a tool of deceptive PR which the corporate elites use to sell us our shackles.
"Paint your shackles with red, white, and blue and rejoice when they start to bleed away your life", is what they mean when they spout drivel about "freedom".
The U.S., China, Latin America,.....wherever.
For the worshippers of Capital, All of these places and the people who live there are merely material resources to stoke the engine of the Machine of corporate profits.
REJECT all of those who masquerade under the titles of republican and democrat.
They are there for the benefit of the greediest and they are liars to the rest of us.
The 1975 movie Rollerball starts at a sporting event where the audience recites the Corporate World Anthem. The world is governed by the corporations that prevailed in the Corporate wars.
Looks to me like Galenwainwright, Jan 9 2012 - 1:45pm, is right.
Definitely not done for saving money. Saving soldier's lives by increased drone use is better publicity for the MIC.