Eisenhower and the growing power of the military-industrial complex

[Old_Trapper70]

Let's take it step by step here. Your article in "the verge" (whatever that is) includes in the headline the $1.5 trillion figure. If you bother to click the Vanity Fair story that they link to and base their entire "story" on you quickly find this comment:

"Over the course of its lifetime, the program will cost approximately $1.5 trillion."

Since that might not be enough apparently to convince the illustrious readers of "the verge" how about this quote from Reuters:

"The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters."

Still don't believe the reality staring you in the face? Let's take a look at hard budget numbers. For the sake of simplicity we will look at FY 2006-2015 - as 2006 was the year we saw the first F35 flight. Over this time frame, the United States has spent roughly $6.5 trillion total as part of the defense budget. You contend that $1.5 trillion of that (or 23% of the total defense budget over the last decade) has been spent on a single program. It is as laughable as it is incorrect.

In doing some deeper research I find that while the program started in 1994, or 1996, there has never been an audit of the program. This is in spite of the knowledge that the program is using funding from other programs, and from outside the military. So, any concept of how much th eprogram has cost, or will cost, is "laughable".

Nowhere in Article 2 Section 2 does it use the word "after". It simply says the President is the Commander in Chief when the military is "called in the actual service of the United States." The military is a full time organization that is always in the actual service of the United States.

I do not argue that the President has the authority to declare war, I argue that he has limited authority (outside of Congressional action), as Commander in Chief to act to protect the United States. This is a debate that has been taking place since the Constitutional Convention however. You assume you are correct - but it is far more complicated than you let on.

The Foundling Fathers never wanted a permanent standing army. Save for the navy, and the marines, their concept was for the Militia to be the Army in time of need. And while I recognize the debate has been going on since the signing of the Constitution, the reality is that people have a tendency to make an issue far more complicated then it needs to be. The Founders did not want the US to be deeply involved in foreign matters. This was the position of Washington in his Farewell Address, as it was of Jefferson in his letters. One could make an argument that the permanent standing Army itself is unConstitutional.

Now we are talking about different things. I am talking about specific weapons programs, not simply base closures and realignments.

How have any of these affected the military readiness of the US?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100631673

 

[BigRob]

In doing some deeper research I find that while the program started in 1994, or 1996, there has never been an audit of the program. This is in spite of the knowledge that the program is using funding from other programs, and from outside the military. So, any concept of how much th eprogram has cost, or will cost, is "laughable".

You are the one running around citing a $1.5 trillion figure....that said, we can get a pretty good idea of what has been spent because we can read the budget. If you want to argue they are basically running the program entirely off books - that is indeed laughable.

The Foundling Fathers never wanted a permanent standing army. Save for the navy, and the marines, their concept was for the Militia to be the Army in time of need. And while I recognize the debate has been going on since the signing of the Constitution, the reality is that people have a tendency to make an issue far more complicated then it needs to be. The Founders did not want the US to be deeply involved in foreign matters. This was the position of Washington in his Farewell Address, as it was of Jefferson in his letters. One could make an argument that the permanent standing Army itself is unConstitutional.

It is entirely practical for a weak nation to seek to avoid major foreign entanglements. But let's look at how a founder, Thomas Jefferson, applied this concept. Instead of staying clear of foreign matters, he waded right into them. One can say the Louisiana Purchase was getting involved in foreign matters in a huge way. Avoiding foreign entanglements was never an ideological absolute for the founders, as seen by their actions. They recognized that we are inherently involved in foreign matters simply be existing. In reality, they seemed to seek to avoid foreign matters except when American interests were at stake - much the same as today.

How have any of these affected the military readiness of the US?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100631673

Missile defense immediately comes to mind. Canceling several programs like the MKV, the SM-Block IIB missile, and the cancellation of several other related systems puts our allies and forward bases at additional risk.

Cuts in personnel and reductions in other programs have slowed modernizations in many areas. Right now the Army really has only two fully ready to go combat brigades to respond to crises that might arise - same with the Navy, we really have no ships available to respond to a potential crisis in Latin America, the Marines have lost an estimated division worth of combat power, Air Force squadrons have been grounded and parts are becoming harder and more expensive to acquire due to aging systems.

Not to mention, with cuts the baseline for the budget is lower, and it will take even longer to catch back up and bring us back to where we really need to be.

**The White House put out an updated National Security Strategy today, but I have not had a chance to read it yet.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

You are the one running around citing a $1.5 trillion figure....that said, we can get a pretty good idea of what has been spent because we can read the budget. If you want to argue they are basically running the program entirely off books - that is indeed laughable.

Now you are acting even more of a fool then before. If the program is using money from other government sources, as is implied, and from private sources, which could be possible, and all of that without an audit, how would anyone know the actual numbers?

It is entirely practical for a weak nation to seek to avoid major foreign entanglements. But let's look at how a founder, Thomas Jefferson, applied this concept. Instead of staying clear of foreign matters, he waded right into them. One can say the Louisiana Purchase was getting involved in foreign matters in a huge way. Avoiding foreign entanglements was never an ideological absolute for the founders, as seen by their actions. They recognized that we are inherently involved in foreign matters simply be existing. In reality, they seemed to seek to avoid foreign matters except when American interests were at stake - much the same as today.

There is no such thing as an "absolute" since all things change as they remain the same. However, what one "could say" does not mean one should say. The Louisiana Purchase was great for the growth of the country, and to protect its borders. The same cannot be said for today. We have some 1000 bases, and outposts, around the world manned by some 200,000 troops. One could just as easily say they cause more of a problem then they are worth. Why should we defend Germany, England, France, etc.? Let Japan have its own military. Time for the world to grow up, and take care of itself. You might want to read this:

It wasn’t always this way, explains the late Eric Nordlinger, of Brown University:
“there is virtually no disagreement about isolationism’s having served the country exceptionally well throughout the nineteenth century” (p. 11). Even up to World War II, a noninterventionist foreign policy remained a viable alternative.
Nordlinger argues persuasively that “with the benefits of hindsight the reasonableness to full validity of most of the isolationist arguments can be readily argued” (p. 12).

The victors in America’s policy wars have written most of the histories, however, and so thoroughly have they trashed isolationism that virtually no one, whatever his policy proclivities, has voluntarily adopted the label. But Nordlinger accepts the challenge of rehabilitating it.

He begins by defining isolationism, a term often caricatured by its opponents, and goes on to write, “the strategic vision of historical and contemporary isolationism is one of quiet strength and national autonomy” (p. 5). The United States need not go abroad to ensure its security. On the contrary, doing so is counterproductive because
“[t]he United States is strategically immune in being insulated, invulnerable, impermeable, and impervious and thus has few security reasons to become engaged politically and militarily”

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=489

Missile defense immediately comes to mind. Canceling several programs like the MKV, the SM-Block IIB missile, and the cancellation of several other related systems puts our allies and forward bases at additional risk.

Cuts in personnel and reductions in other programs have slowed modernizations in many areas. Right now the Army really has only two fully ready to go combat brigades to respond to crises that might arise - same with the Navy, we really have no ships available to respond to a potential crisis in Latin America, the Marines have lost an estimated division worth of combat power, Air Force squadrons have been grounded and parts are becoming harder and more expensive to acquire due to aging systems.

Not to mention, with cuts the baseline for the budget is lower, and it will take even longer to catch back up and bring us back to where we really need to be.

**The White House put out an updated National Security Strategy today, but I have not had a chance to read it yet.

Well, we already know the right wing will not like it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf

As to spending cuts to the military, that too has been going on for a long time as modernization requires fewer personnel:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/the-case-for-the-sequesters-defense-cuts/

 

[Cruella]

I wonder what the trickle down effect of the cost of a military asset is to the rest of the economy. How many wages were paid, pensions were paid, suppliers were paid, and taxes were collected on those wages and profits, etc.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I wonder what the trickle down effect of the cost of a military asset is to the rest of the economy. How many wages were paid, pensions were paid, suppliers were paid, and taxes were collected on those wages and profits, etc.

Since it all comes from tax revenue, what would it matter? Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[BigRob]

I wonder what the trickle down effect of the cost of a military asset is to the rest of the economy. How many wages were paid, pensions were paid, suppliers were paid, and taxes were collected on those wages and profits, etc.

The military is a massive government bureaucracy. At its core, if you believe government spending on the military is a massive economic boom then the same thing must apply to government spending in other programs.

I don't believe we should simply maintain massive government in the military for the sake of economic growth - I think we need to maintain our military to meet our strategic objectives.

 

[BigRob]

Now you are acting even more of a fool then before. If the program is using money from other government sources, as is implied, and from private sources, which could be possible, and all of that without an audit, how would anyone know the actual numbers?



There is no such thing as an "absolute" since all things change as they remain the same. However, what one "could say" does not mean one should say. The Louisiana Purchase was great for the growth of the country, and to protect its borders. The same cannot be said for today. We have some 1000 bases, and outposts, around the world manned by some 200,000 troops. One could just as easily say they cause more of a problem then they are worth. Why should we defend Germany, England, France, etc.? Let Japan have its own military. Time for the world to grow up, and take care of itself. You might want to read this:

It wasn’t always this way, explains the late Eric Nordlinger, of Brown University:
“there is virtually no disagreement about isolationism’s having served the country exceptionally well throughout the nineteenth century” (p. 11). Even up to World War II, a noninterventionist foreign policy remained a viable alternative.
Nordlinger argues persuasively that “with the benefits of hindsight the reasonableness to full validity of most of the isolationist arguments can be readily argued” (p. 12).

The victors in America’s policy wars have written most of the histories, however, and so thoroughly have they trashed isolationism that virtually no one, whatever his policy proclivities, has voluntarily adopted the label. But Nordlinger accepts the challenge of rehabilitating it.

He begins by defining isolationism, a term often caricatured by its opponents, and goes on to write, “the strategic vision of historical and contemporary isolationism is one of quiet strength and national autonomy” (p. 5). The United States need not go abroad to ensure its security. On the contrary, doing so is counterproductive because
“[t]he United States is strategically immune in being insulated, invulnerable, impermeable, and impervious and thus has few security reasons to become engaged politically and militarily”

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=489



Well, we already know the right wing will not like it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf

As to spending cuts to the military, that too has been going on for a long time as modernization requires fewer personnel:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/the-case-for-the-sequesters-defense-cuts/

I still have not had time to adequately read your articles and give much thought to the President's new National Security Strategy - I'll have more to comment as soon as I get a little free time to go through those items.

 

[BigRob]

Now you are acting even more of a fool then before. If the program is using money from other government sources, as is implied, and from private sources, which could be possible, and all of that without an audit, how would anyone know the actual numbers?

Again - you cite the incorrect $1.5 trillion figure. What we know based on the best information is what I have posted. If you want to argue there has been a trillion in off the books spending on one program so be it - but it doesn't add up to me.

There is no such thing as an "absolute" since all things change as they remain the same. However, what one "could say" does not mean one should say. The Louisiana Purchase was great for the growth of the country, and to protect its borders. The same cannot be said for today. We have some 1000 bases, and outposts, around the world manned by some 200,000 troops. One could just as easily say they cause more of a problem then they are worth. Why should we defend Germany, England, France, etc.? Let Japan have its own military. Time for the world to grow up, and take care of itself.

In a post Cold War world, our troops stationed in Europe (or anywhere really) are not necessarily there to "defend" Germany etc. They should really be viewed as forward operating bases that gives American leaders increased flexibility to respond to issues as they arise. Additionally bases in Europe provide much needed support to operations in areas like Africa and the Middle East.

In Europe especially they allow for rapid response in the Middle East - as seen in Iraq. It helps foster better relations with our European allies through join training and NATO engagements. Scaling back in these areas will ultimately be detrimental to US interests, increase uncertainty on the European continent, fracture NATO, and limit the ability of American leaders to quickly and adequately respond to situations around the world.

You might want to read this:

It wasn’t always this way, explains the late Eric Nordlinger, of Brown University:
“there is virtually no disagreement about isolationism’s having served the country exceptionally well throughout the nineteenth century” (p. 11). Even up to World War II, a noninterventionist foreign policy remained a viable alternative.
Nordlinger argues persuasively that “with the benefits of hindsight the reasonableness to full validity of most of the isolationist arguments can be readily argued” (p. 12).

The victors in America’s policy wars have written most of the histories, however, and so thoroughly have they trashed isolationism that virtually no one, whatever his policy proclivities, has voluntarily adopted the label. But Nordlinger accepts the challenge of rehabilitating it.

He begins by defining isolationism, a term often caricatured by its opponents, and goes on to write, “the strategic vision of historical and contemporary isolationism is one of quiet strength and national autonomy” (p. 5). The United States need not go abroad to ensure its security. On the contrary, doing so is counterproductive because
“[t]he United States is strategically immune in being insulated, invulnerable, impermeable, and impervious and thus has few security reasons to become engaged politically and militarily”

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=489

The premise here is absurd. You cannot be an isolationist superpower. Nor do we live in a world were oceans keep us safe. A group of people sitting at computers half a world away can do dramatic harm to our country and our interests. We simply do not live in the world the author describes.

Well, we already know the right wing will not like it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf

As to spending cuts to the military, that too has been going on for a long time as modernization requires fewer personnel:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/the-case-for-the-sequesters-defense-cuts/

Well, I read it. My initial take is that it envisions and prepares for the world we wished we lived in, and not the world we actually live in.

 

[Cruella]

Since it all comes from tax revenue, what would it matter? Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Absolutely not. A government contract pays out the majority of it's cost to other businesses which in turn pays wages and those wages and business incomes are taxed, which goes back into the same government coffers from where the original taxes for the contract came. Those second tier businesses, in turn pay out to other businesses with employee wages and earn profits, which are taxed, and down to third, fourth and fifth tiers etc. Think of a pyramid.

 

[PLC1]

No fear, Obama is dismantling our military as fast as possible. Too bad we are in another World War with the Russian and Chinese jackals waiting for their move.

Military spending under the Obama administration:

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Military spending under the Obama administration:

C'mon, we all know it is Obama, and the Democrats, that are destroying the military. Republicans are the true saviours of the country:

"Defense Department officials are bracing for potential spending cuts in a deficit-reduction deal approved by Congress that could have financial impact on Texas and other states with military bases and personnel.Weapons systems, ships and aircraft could provide a target for a new congressional commission formed to find budget savings, but benefits and personnel reductions also are on the table. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned the armed services must prepare for spending restraints not seen over the past two decades, and he called for a review that includes a reduction in personnel, military pay and retiree benefits"

"Approved by Congress". And who is running Congress now?