Get News & Views Updates
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 AllHey, which president ever thought of bringing the troops home? At least Obama trying. Obama certainly disappointed many people, including me but his actions could have been constrained by other powerful forces that would have made us as disappointed with anyone else, save for the high hopes that so many put in Obama. A more active progressive movement could have pushed him in a better direction if it had happened earlier but that's water under the bridge.
It may not be possible for a good president to solve our problems, but a bad one certainly can make matters much more difficult for us. When Bush was in office my feeling was we just had to wait until he was out of office for anything to improve; I don't want to live through another term like those Bush years. At least with Obama there is hope that he may sometimes do the right thing.
I may be disappointed in Obama but Bush was much worse and I don't see a Republican alternative who would be a big improvement on Bush. Obama may not be the solution to our problems but he is not even close to being as much an impediment as another Bush would be.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 !!!
Few are glad to see you back, Shawn. Did you finish another tour of combat and are now back at "The desk job?"
Maybe you're a computer program;and someone failed to program in the NEW data. Your line comparing the present Obama team to Bush definitely indicates a time warp, or similar programming error. (And give my regards to Cass Sunstein, would you?)
"
Glad to see ya welcoming me back Rosie.
What does one do if the 3rd party whose platform
is most in line with one's values (say, the Greens),
ALSO shows itself to be corrupt?
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/texas-green-party-entangled-in-quite-a-mess-781437.html
What should one do then?
If one refuses to vote for a corrupt party,
if that's the line-in-the-sand one will not cross,
should one vote for a party
whose platform one doesn't like,
simply because it hasn't yet shown itself
to be corrupt?
Of course not; that would be absurd.
Your absolutist, idealist rationale for voting
seems extravagantly unhinged from
real world politics.
Third party votes only serve to take Democrat votes away,
essentially giving an advantage to the regressives.
If you serious you got to fix the system first,
3rd party votes are ineffectual.
3rd parties always lose.
It's part of a repug con game to get
as many progressives as possible to splinter their votes,
so they won't be real players in the tabulations that matter.
It's an effort that's alive and well,
right here on the comment board.
If it is all as hopeless as you say, then people may as well vote Green. You defeat your own argument. Nothing promotes the Green party more effectively than your argument does.
If voting Green thwarts the political agenda you represent, then we all should vote Green.
I guess you are not being very realistic and pragmatic, are you?
As is true with so many Dem party apologists, you are more interested in smashing the Left than you are in stopping the right wingers. Yet you accuse others of being purists and self-defeating and unrealistic. Talk about projection.
You side with power and then think that makes you and your arguments powerful. Nothing could be furhther from the truth. Your posts reek of weakness and desperation.
The Green Party is corrupt and were caught last year taking money from the Republican Party in exchange for helping them with their TeaBagger agenda. It happened in Texas and Pennsylvania. In Texas, they in trouble and facing charges. They a failed party who have nothing to add to the political discussion. Too bad they could have been a force for good. But they were horrible organizers and were timid and weak. Tiny little effete Green Party (0.12% of 2008 vote) is asking the muscular, active, broadly-supported #occupy movement, "Will you be my daddy?" How cute, in a politically slutty sort of way. Ditto for all 3rd parties.
The 32 most successful 3rd party runs for president in the last 150 years (getting over 1% of total vote). None have won. Only one finished as high as 2nd, and it had an ex-president behind it. 32 times over 37 different elections, a third party managed more than 1%. Hundreds more got less than 1%. Those aren’t mentioned here. 24 of those top 32 got less than 3.4% of the total vote. The elections listed below as “none” doesn’t mean there were no third party efforts. It means none managed 1% of the vote, like in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, the Greens got 0.12%. Constitution Party, 0.15% Libertarian, 0.40%. Independent, 0.56%. Every one of the hundreds of third party efforts represented a serious effort by a segment of concerned public, which concluded it was USELESS TO EVEN TRY to work within either of the major parties. THEY ALL LOST. None even came close to winning. The lesson is, change happens from within one of the two major parties, not by opposing them both. If you change just one of them, the entire system changes. That’s the only way history tells it happens.
Lincon’s repug party changed to become McKinley’s, which quickly changed to become TR’s, which changed by Hoover’s time, which changed again by Eisenhower, which was different from Reagan’s, which was different from Bush’s.
Jefferson's Dem party was changed by Jackson, which changed by Buchanan’s time, which changed again by Wilson, which was different from FDR’s, which was different from LBJ’s, which was different from Obama’s.
During all those changes, the only constant was, 3rd parties never won.
3rd party supporters are suckers for the fallacy that major parties won’t change.
Today’s Dem party sucks big time but I take that over loser 3rd parties. The only disagreement here is over strategy, not goal. 3rd party efforts splinter and weaken forces for change within a party. That’s why supporters of the status quo love them.
Supporters of the status quo hate voter revolt within the party. 3rd party efforts outside the party defuse tensions without them losing grip. 3rd party efforts appeal to a certain theatrical idealism, or faith-based belief, but evidence shows they aren’t the most effective avenue for change within the US constitutional system. Effort spent on them is self-indulgence, and wasted as effective energy for change.
Some people’s faith-based belief tells them that teaching “abstinence only” is the best way to curb unwanted teenage pregnancies, even though all historical evidence points to the contrary. Other people’s faith-based belief tells them that 3rd party efforts are the best way to foment political change, even though all historical evidence points to the contrary. They both the same thing – bad strategies to achieve a desirable goal.
3rd party supporters today who don’t see themselves in these past failures
are living in a dream world. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. What you don’t learn from history, you’re doomed to repeat.
1864 - none
1868 – none
1872 – none
1876 - none
1880 – Greenback Labor Party / Weaver / 3.3%
1884 – Greenback Antimonopoly / Butler / 1.7%
-------Prohibition / St. John / 1.5%
1888 – Prohibition / Fisk / 2.2%
-------Union Labor / Streeter / 1.3%
1892 – Populist / Weaver / 8.5%
-------Prohibition / Bidwell / 2.2%
1896 – National Democratic / Palmer / 1.0%
1900 – Prohibition / Woolley / 1.5%
1904 – Socialist / Debs / 3.0%
-------Prohibition / Swallow / 1.9%
1908 – Socialist / Debs / 2.8%
-------Prohibition / Chafin / 1.7%
1912 – Progressive “Bullmoose” / Roosevelt / 27.4%
-------------(only 2nd place finish for a 3rd party)
-------Socialist / Debs / 6.0%
-------Prohibition / Chafin / 1.4%
1916 – Socialist / Benson / 3.2%
-------Prohibition / Hanley / 1.2%
1920 – Socialist / Debs / 3.4%
-------Farmer-Labor / Christensen / 1.0%
1924 – Progressive / LaFollette / 16.6%
1928 – none
1932 – Socialist / Thomas / 2.2%
1936 – Union / Lemke / 2.0%
1940 – none
1944 – none
1948 – States Rights “Dixiecrat” / Thurmond / 2.4%
-------Progressive-Am Labor / Wallace / 2.4%
1952 – none
1956 – none
1960 – none
1964 – none
1968 – American Independent / Wallace / 13.5%
1972 – American Independent / Schmitz / 1.4%
1976 – none
1980 – independent (no party) / Anderson / 6.6%
-------Libertarian / Clark / 1.1%
1984 – none
1988 – none
1992 – Independent / Perot / 18.9%
1996 – Reform / Perot / 8.4%
2000 – Green / Nader /2.7%
2004 – none
2008 – none
See that? 3rd parties never win.
I don't care what anybody else says or thinks, Shawn Berry. I plan to either vote for a third party or do a write-in at this years POTUS Election polls, no matter what, since both major parties (i. e. the Democrats as well as the GOP) have proved themselves to be too disgraceful for me to vote for either of the POTUS Candidates in either party.
I am not a fan of the Green party, by the way, so you are barking up the wrong tree there, and all "wins" for the working class people have come from outside of partisan electoral politics so your argument about "winning" by supporting this or that political party is nonsense.
The Republican party won in the 1850s, and was most assuredly a "third party." Other third party efforts have had profound changes on the two major parties.
Only by taking a simple-minded view of politics and the world, as you are doing here, can one think that your horse-race view of politics is very meaningful. Your view is closer to that of a sports tea, fan than it is a serious political observer or analyst.
In any case, the idea that voting third party merely hurts the Democrats is false and not supported by the historical record. Often, increased votes for the Socialist parties, for example, or for Abolitionist parties means increased votes for the less reactionary of the two major parties.
It is not a very good political strategy to tell people they are trapped and have no options. That leads to more hostility toward you and toward the Democrats, not less. It leads to more frustration and less interest, and that always favors the most reactionary politics. Discouraging people about politics - as you most certainly are doing here - can only help the Republicans. So not only are your arguments illogical and unsupportable, they also have the reverse effect from the one you claim to be seeking.
What you are doing not only hurts the interests of the general public, and the Left, and whatever progressive forces there are in the Democratic party, it does not even help Democrats to get elected. Plus, it is really, really boring and extremely annoying. Some of us have been hearing your arguments for 40 years or more. They are a smokescreen for moving the party, and the electorate, further and further to the right. Your arguments were not valid 40 years ago, and they are not valid now.
See that? "Lesser of two evils" arguments never win.
Good comment.
The definition of political insanity is: Voting for the same 2 corrupt parties over and over and over and over again and expecting a different result !
It is the endless talking about voting and the forcing of all political discussion into that realm that does the damage.
Voting is relatively harmless. We can't say on the one hand that voting does not matter, and then on the other claim that not voting does.
The best strategy for a 3rd party would be to target specific states in hope of getting the votes of the Electoral College as a bargaining tool for cabinet ;positions exchange for the votes. Even this could be curtailed as state legislatures can control how the electoral college votes are cast.
Only an idiot (or a masochist) would vote.
Voting is nothing more than the warden allowing the prisoners a chance to vote for tomorrow's gruel to placate them into thinking that they have some kind of say in the way the prison is run.
Keep slopping that gruel. Mmmm, good ain't it?
So, how come Obama-boosters never speak in specifics, i.e., which "actions were constrained by other powerful forces" and how? Bush was "much worse" how? I am not necessarily disputing either somewhat generalized assertion, for now, anyway. I am just asking, how come no specifics? Why do Obama-boosters always seem to be floating in this bland, disengaged haze, vaguely holding out "hope" for Barry and mumbling robotically, "he's better than the other guys..."?
It kind of reminds me of what some of Nixon's supporters in 1972 said: "vote for Nixon, he's the only one we've got!" Huh? WTF does that even mean? How far into the fog do you have to be to content yourself with this incoherent babble?
The large Corporations that produce Weapons for the Military, and Civilian use do other things which would Constructive rather than Destructive. There is no Time like the Present to Change. How much longer do you think China will keep purchasing US Treasury Bonds knowing their investment will used to buy Weapons that will be pointed at them?
The idea of stream-lining the military sounds good: it makes the ordinary citizen believe that costs WILL be cut. What is not mentioned is the amount that will be spent on contracts to private security firms and other companies to pick up (and
expand) what the pared down military will supposedly NOT cost us.
To RickOshea, Jan 9 2012 - 3:11pm:
As the context of my remarks makes clear, I was talking about warfare conducted by uniformed soldiers, not terrorist strikes here and there.
Terrorist strikes usually are not considered to be cases of warfare, which is why most nations treat them as criminal acts.
Of course, the United States is an exception: it immediately considered the 9/11 attacks as acts of war (a reaction which I am tempted to see as a kind of smoking gun), although when India wanted to retaliate militarily to the Mumbai attacks of 2008, the United States hastened to dissuade India from doing so (and it is easy to see that a war between India and Pakistan would have been detrimental to the United States' machinations in the region).
No nation can completely be safe from terrorist activity, especially when terrorists are willing to die in the carrying out of their deeds. Suicide missions are very difficult to prevent.
Obama is a Neocon war criminal who just murdered 100,000 Libyans (and who knows how many Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Somalians, and Ugandans). Do not forget his proxy wars against Syria (funding and organizing terrorist attacks that have killed thousands) and Palestine. Its time to break with the reactionary, anti-democratic Neocon parties: Democrats and Republicans. Join Rocky Anderson's new Justice Party: justicepartyusa.org
seems to me we might be better advised to take up shadow boxing to meet and defeat aggression anywhere in the world. not everyone views our self-anointed belligerence in the same light as we do when we undertake foreign adventures for 'freedom and rights'.
Two Presidents in recent memeory--Bush I and Bill Clinton--actually made the military smaller. Clinton even made the Federal government smaller! This seems incredible in the Obama Era.
From a retired U.S. Army Sgt. (me): The shear size and reach of our overseas Armed Forces is entirely too great. Without reducing troop levels, the Department of Defense could easily recall most of our "overseas" personnel, and deploy them usefully here at home. Weapon system reductions are another story altogether. The research and advancement of our weapon systems is driven by the Military/Idustrial Complex, and is an area that is generally considered taboo for consideration of reduction. The highest concentration of expenditure on overhead is the annual cost of maintaining Personnel and Bases abroad. This is where the intial reduction of expenditures should come from.
The bases abroad best facilitate the graft and corruption because of there proximity to foreign banks and won 't be closed for this reason.Also,the USA was recolonized in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve, The City of London banksters, in conjunction with the Democratic Senators to, recolonize the USA for the purpose of providing cannon fodder[troops]treasure, weapons, weapon systems to be used for the world banksters plot to colonize the planet. The Federal Reserve was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson during the Christmas holidays in 1913, on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. Funny how these country destroying laws,are enacted to keep them obscure from public scrutiny. The new years eve signing of the NDAA, which virtually eliminated the Bill of Right and the Federal Reserve law which recolonized the USA. Just a coincidence.
"Obama's New Military Strategy Doesn't Add Up"
This should come as no surprise to anyone. You can't expect a community organiser who has never managed anything, and with no military experience whatsoever, to know what he's doing in military matters any more than in healthcare, economics, energy, foreign affairs, etc.
This is just the general "ineptitude defense" pseudo-argument, entirely bullshit. The problem is not with lack of proficiency and knowledge and experience; the problem is not even with the military strategy "not adding up". It is with saying one thing and doing another, nothing else. Making mistakes or wrong decisions because of lack of knowledge or aptitude or experience is a smaller problem than intentionally committing crimes. Of course this "mistakes are forgivable" thing only applies to people above the masses. If you're a cleaner and you mess up your job, that's unforgivable. If you're a financier and "mess up" your job and earn a few million bucks in the meantime, there's no problem. Honest mistake.
The entire amoral "professionality" approach to politics that eliminates all ethical considerations except on a very small number of relatively fringe issues (and even with these the dishonesty is evident) is idiotic. If you really think that what Obama or any other president or candidate lacks is knowledge and experience, you're playing along with this game of stupidity. Obama is doing very nicely for his real constituency thank you. He is efficient, professional, knowledgeable, everything the idiotic "specialist expert" approach to politics would need. The problem is with his other side: that he is also an immoral, unethical, hypocritical person serving the opulent minority while pretending that he cares about the average people. Basically, he's just another fucked up CEO.