In GM’s case, its market share rapidly eroded as gas prices climbed higher, the economy slowed, and consumers turned to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. GM found itself building a fleet of SUVs and trucks that consumers did not want and could not afford. Similarly, DoD now finds itself saddled with a number of weapon programs whose capabilities are ill-suited for the types of conflict the military currently faces and whose costs have risen beyond what the Department can afford. Many of the new weapons being funded today are optimized for middle-of-the- spectrum conflicts—that is, conventional, military-on-military conflicts such as Operation Desert Storm in 1991. But adversaries are well aware of the United States’ overwhelming advantage in the middle and are instead moving to either end of the spectrum: irregular warfare on one end and high-end, asymmetric warfare on the other. The challenge for DoD, as it was for GM, is that the competition is adapting faster than it can keep up.
That’s Todd Harrison of the Center on Strategic and Budgetary Priorities, arguably the best think tank in Washington for analyzing defense spending in the context of overall national questions. I can also throw Winslow Wheeler at the problem, a man who’s been on the Hill fighting Pentagon bloat longer than I’ve been alive:
The additional $33 billion will bring the total DOD budget for the current fiscal year up to $708 billion. That amount is more than we spent on the Pentagon in any year since 1946 – in dollars adjusted for inflation. It is an amount just under what the entire rest of the world spends for defense. It is about three times the combined defense budgets of China, Russia, Cuba,North Korea, and Iran. The Defense Department spends in a few hours more than al Qaeda spends in an entire year.
The point, in other words, is that the problem’s even worse than Glenn Greenwald portrays it. Everyone in Washington who studies the Pentagon budget quickly finds gobs and gobs of wasteful spending. Not some people. Not dirty hippies. Every. Single. Defense. Analyst. If I was so inclined, I could spend my days doing nothing but attending conferences on the latest defense jeremiad or policy paper about how to cut it. I already spend too much of my time reading this stuff on defense-community email listservs.
For the Obama administration to exempt defense spending from its kinda-sorta-spending-freeze is a position that makes no sense from a policy perspective. None at all. From a political perspective, it only begins to make sense because a brain-dead media would amplify the braying ignorance blasted from a GOP congressional megaphone about Defense Spending Cuts OMG. And even then it doesn’t make sense. A holdover Republican Defense Secretary is now the biggest advocate of an even slightly sensible defense budget in the Obama administration.



40 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Exempt, not excerpt.
Thanks for this dose of reality.
Now, make them listen.
Obama declared himself ready to be a one term Prez. I hope Democrats will unite to accommodate him. Having reached the pinnacle of success, his ambitions have no place left to go other than reaping pecuniary rewards for his misdeeds. Democratic Senate and House members, on the other hand – if they’re ready to be embalmed – should absolutely be obliged.
President Obama has transformed himself within one year to President Dumbass.
If we wanted Herbert Hoover-type economic policies, we would have voted for John McCain.
Now, Obama adopts McCain’s domestic spending freeze idea, thinking this will buy him more middle-class support as a deficit fighter.
It’s clear that Obama is nothing more than a political opportunist at this point, adopting policies based on triangulation and transitory, misleacding polling data. Polling data doesn’t predict turnout.
Obama’s turnout in 2012 will be much lower than 2008 and he is basically done.
Just another lying, owned politician. And, at this point, almost a certain 1-termer.
Similarly, DoD now finds itself saddled with a number of weapon programs whose capabilities are ill-suited for the types of conflict the military currently faces
Obviously, we need more submarines and aircraft carriers that are able to launch star wars missile shields. That should really put the kibosh on those pesky IEDs…
It is not supposed to make sense, Spencer.
Dollars are its aim. For the deserving few.
Forever.
Peace won’t work to make sufficient easy money for them.
Ergo, endless war and endlessly swelling defense (Ha!) budgets.
Until there is nothing left.
Then, and only then, will VICTORY! be declared.
If they even bother …
How do, Spencer?
DW
There are constituents which count and constituents which do not count.
Hint: the constituents which count are the ones who get paid no matter who is in power.
One might think that those progressives who get paid to follow the “national security” bouncing ball might have figured this out by now.
This whole freeze that really isn’t a freeze, that cuts but doesn’t cut is exactly the kind of wonky, difficult-to-explain, technocratic tinkering that will make John Kerry slap his cheeks in awe, but will fall flat with the rest of America. It’s going to be framed as “spending freeze” with no qualifications, leaving people either confused or outraged. Down the road Robert Gibbs will be complaining about how the finer points of the idea were lost and that’s why no one bought it. He’ll be right, and yet he’ll be wrong for expecting any different.
Obamatrolls will now have to make a stark choice; FDR and Keynes, or Reagan and Hayek, – which side are you on, Democrats?
Salma Hayek? That’s a consideration…
Oh. That other Hayek? Never mind.
100% correct. It’s like he’s going to spend his post-Presidency as Bush’s house boy/bathroom attendant at Carlyle Group board meetings.
Obama has made it clear that either he is OK with (or convinced now is not the time for “change”) the status quo.
He is so far from putting a strong hand on the MIC budget its not even funny.
There is so much low hanging fruit in this and many other things that he has not come near. I fear he either was of the bubble – or is now in the bubble.
Noam Chomsky:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/07-1
Sickening.
It’s time for progressives, moderates, independents, populists and honest Democrats to begin a search for a legitimate primary challenger to Obama. Waiting for Obama to have an “epiphany” and dramatically change his MO is wishful thinking. His mediocrity will result in a one term Presidency.
Remember when the president claimed a tactic like this would be taking an axe when you needed a scalpal? Does he even realize we have tapes?
http://forwantofanail.com
How obvious is it if we fired the mercenaries aka “private contractors” and had the military do their own work again we’d easily cut 1/3 of the cost of fighting the wars. At least. And we’d need to hire more military personnel, so it would create work.
Personally, though, I think we should shut down the professional military. At the very least eliminate all of our bases all over the world, the Cold War has been over for decades.
Make jobs, not bombs.
The U.S. is incapable of having an honest debate on defense spending. It’s a prisoner of it’s own myths and rhetoric.
End both wars then cut the military budget to twice what Russia spends if the GOP screams weak on defense we ask the GOP if they think our army can’t beat the Commies with twice the money.
I Love trap questions:)
Toys for big boys that give jobs at retirement are hard to kill because of the every state gets some contract approach that the military industrial complex uses to buy legislators.
It is another area – like base closings – that requires Presidential leadership to sell a “weapons closings” commission – and this president is coming up short on leadership where it involves conflict with corporations.
A simple savings is to get rid of the hangup on headcount of workers for Fed and Military – the use of contractors adds 20% to 50% to the cost of infrastructure. Of course military management of a contract is a great deal easier than actual management of men and projects – so we may lack Generals that can lead in addition to lacking a President that can lead.
(I just saw that that puppethead at 15 said similar things – so let the record note I was late to the table – again :-) )
The meteoric rise and flame out of Barry Obama, Preznit USA.
I have often been consigned as a “conspiracy theorist” since I believe (I know that this will shock you) that the CIA murdered JFK in Dallas. You know, like they killed world leaders who got in their way (usually in the way of corporate acquisition of natural resources) all around the world.
I could go on for hours, but people who refuse to look at evidence don’t look at evidence. So let’s all just pretend that there was a coup in 1963. The U.S. government is huge, so just bumping off the top guy doesn’t guarantee you absolute power but if you plan it right you generally get your way in the bureaucracy, and if there’s a problem you can eliminate your opposition more discretely (blackmail, bribes, bullets, airplane crashes, etc.).
So if the CIA, which was founded by Wall Streeters and bankers, and had heavily infiltrated the military by the end of the 50s, wanted to wage wars, then who is going to stop them? We all know the “war on terror” is a blank check to seize oil in foreign countries for corporations, don’t we?
When Lieberman argues against the morality of a public option, or if Ben Nelson shouts “abortion” until he gets his cut, it’s easy to recognize their real motives (money). But when Obama says absolutely stupid things and acts against the interests of Democratic constituencies and even the country’s economy, people are left scratching their heads. Could he be this dumb? Of course not. The Presidency is not as powerful as the CIA/NSA/military-industrial complex. He serves at their pleasure.
Folks need to get rid of that “3 Branches of Government” chart you learned in grammar school. The CIA, and the interests it represents, are on top of all the branches.
Nice article, but I wasn’t aware that our country had a sizable defense budget …?
When was the last time our military was primarily purposed toward defending us? As long as I can remember, its most prominent missions entailed some sort of imperialism or invasion. It might be defending someone’s interests, but they’re definitely not my interests. In fact, I’d even say that I’m less secure for each dollar spent, since all the violence and murder incites both reasonable and insane people to retaliate against my country.
Language is powerful, so I’m not going to call it “defense.” We’ve got a massive MIC / invasion / offense budget. I encourage others to avoid the subconscious rhetorical trick subtly implying that those who are “tough on defense” actually want to defend you. They don’t; they’re just offensive monsters.
Obama has been co-opted by the military/industrial complex since day one. His first “exception” to his no revolving door policy was to put Lynn in as DepSecDef. Nothing like having a Raytheon lobbyist be the inside guy to run the Pentagon.
And it has all gone downhill from there. Obama is worse than W, at least we knew who we were dealing with when Bush was there.
You’ve got it, fwoan. I refreshed my memory here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyr2noZ57Ww
Most of the procurement budget continues to be for goldplated weapons systems. My take is that most of them continue to reflect Cold War military thinking but have been sort of jerry-rigged to a still fairly conventional attitude toward protection of oil producers and the routes used to ship oil. Most of the irregular and asymmetrical stuff occurs elsewhere in the DOD budget in the military intelligence and JSOC areas which are murky to black and essentially without oversight. The Army (and to a lesser extent the Marines) continues to do most of the heavy lifting but is configured completely wrong for its missions. The Navy as piracy around Somalia has shown also has considerable misuse issues as well.
A WAG on my part but I would say that a third of the defense budget is pure waste, a third represents misallocation, and a third actually does something useful and necessary.
Oh, I should say I disagree with Spencer, Gates wants to increase military spending. It’s just another bait and switch: see I’m cutting some stuff over here. Don’t look at the big increases over there.
That might end up being the optimistic scenario. The more uncheck money that is dispersed more or less exclusively to the military and the financial bailouts, which are still going on, the more debt that will have to be paid and the weaker the general economy. As bad as the last bit of weakly targeted stimulus was it was certainly better than throwing it down the two previously mentioned giant ratholes. It at least it had the potential to help the middle-class and the poor. In the case of Hoover he was only protecting the financial institutions. Obama’s mediocrity of vision may land the country in a place where we start wishing that we only had a simple economic disaster as he pours resources into Wall Street and our Praetorian Guard.
From Wikipedia:
Once we stopped playing defense it was time to change the titles to imply that we were. History shows that your argument is correct.
1.) I find the timing of this announcement interesting,especially on the heels of the SCOTUS ruling last week regarding corporate campaign contributions
2.) Waiver from taxation for defense companies has been in place for a long time-however Bush amped it up somewhat.To wit:
————————————————————
Sat May-27-06
“What really happened the day Porter Goss resigned”
(Bet this will help Diebold and Halliburton,Raytheon,GE,etc.,etc., and the campaign coffers.)
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf2…
President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.
Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. (The timing of Bush’s move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration’s top intelligence official.)
William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission’s former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies “to play fast and loose with their numbers.” McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: “It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about.”
NOTE: If the SCOTUS can deem a corporation a person, surely the WH can deem an entity of their choosing to be designated as “top secret” defense project ,imho..
It’s just another bait and switch: see I’m cutting some stuff over here. Don’t look at the big increases over there…
Or the fact that these bilion dollar contracts may not be providing any SEC disclosure about accounting and securities obligations.
How do you keep progressive liberals busy? Lure them into a morass of cynicism.
Sorry if this was all ready pointed out – US defense spending has increased 45% in the last 10 years….US defense spending is 41% of the WORLD’s defense spending…http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
No serious analyst ever defends the military budget on defense grounds. The argument, always and from every defense-dependent member of Congress, is that cuts will cost jobs.
There will be no military budget cuts until the entire body politic finally comes to the realization that these armaments (not “defense”) jobs are unsustainable, and economically and morally destructive.
Does anybody know if these big defense companies pay taxes?
If they are subject to a waiver, how could one verify if the actual amounts paid are accurate?
If you are correct then Spitzer found out.
Selective use of power (killing, jailing, denying money) is what can be most critical, or most dangerous.
Way back when, my dad received an advance copy of a booklet advocating Star Wars/ABM/Missile Defense/Whatevuh and passed it on to me as he wasn’t interested. I read it and went “Uh. Mah. Gawd. They can’t be serious!!!” Well, here we are, decades later and the US is still pouring money into that rathole.
When the ABM system gets cancelled, then I’ll know that, okay, the US government is really determined to save money.
I was employed by a firm with some DoD contracts back in the ’80s and did an evaluation on using doD quality standards for “SDI” (Strategic Defense Initiative – St Ronnie DoD’s name for “Star Wars” at the time).
The total consensus was that no system could be built that could stop incoming. The cost of overcoming was a fraction of the cost and NO software intensive program (which SDI and all it’s later iterations are) could be adequately built and tested before deployment so would almost by definition have unknown problems with the code.
I find it ironic that most Americans, who favor our war in Afghanistan, tend to be right wingers, who also tend to be strong advocates for states’ rights, but they’d rather see Afghanistan have a strong central government than a bunch of various tribal governments, which are nothing than Afghanistan’s version of our state governments. I think this reinforces the notion that warmongering right wingers are such bigots that they view Afghans as not being human enough and thus not being worthy enough to be allowed tribal rights.
Pentagon’s Black Budget Grows to More Than $50 Billion (Updated …The Pentagon wants to spend just over $50 billion on classified programs next year, newly-released Defense Department budget documents reveal. That’s the.
http://www.wired.com/…/pentagons-black-budget-grows-to-more-than-50-billion/ – Cached – Similar
The United States Defense Department has a “black budget” it uses to fund expenditures it does not want to disclose publicly. Such an expenditure is called a “black project.” The annual cost of the United States Defense Department black budget was estimated at $32 billion in 2008[1] but was increased to an estimated $50 billion in 2009.[2]
It claimed that the black budget can be determined by adding up all US government expenditure listed in the budget and subtracting that amount from the total budget. The inference is that the black budget is included in the total budget amount but is not listed in the budget breakdown.
(Wiki)
sorry, wrong post
All or nothing
The reason that we keep weapons programs and force structure in place for the middle of the spectrum you define, is that capabilites at that part of the spectrum are no more or less foolish and unnecessary than capabilities at the two extremes you define. Yes, terrorist plots such as 9/11 cannot be addressed directly by armored divisions, but they can’t be addressed by anything else military either, unless you want the military running some sort of secret anti-terrorism police, which wouldn’t work anyway, even if we wanted such. And yes, armored divisions can’t counter WMD directly either. But neither can anything else, and we have admitted for generations that MAD is the best we can do at that end of the spectrum. Actually, we have MAAD (Massively Asymmetrical Assured Destruction) on everybody else these days, so we could cut our nuclear forces by 95% and still be more secure on that end of the spectrum than we have been since the start of the nuclear era.
But armored divisions can defeat foreign armies and occupy their countries, or threaten to do so, and that can indirectly affect both extremes of your spectrum. That indirect effect, plus the direct effects of the mid-range, are, in fact, all that military power can do. The mid-range is the military. If capabilities in the mid-range really aren’t that useful, and to that proposition, you have my total agreement, then we can, and should, go back to our practice of before WWII, and disband our military forces down to a corporal’s guard in between active wars.
You either go with the default assumption of our republic for most of its history, that we keep a military establishment between wars only sufficient to defend our own shores, for which we need no more than that corporal’s guard, or you believe that we need forces capable of world domination, and there really is no rational limit on what we need, because that’s a thoroughly mad project. No position in the middle is really sustainable. Organizational inertia is the only thing keeping us there in that middle.