Gates vs. Paranoid/Bloated-Defense "conservatives"!

[Mr. Shaman]

Oh......this is gonna be gooooooooooooood!!!!

​

"As the Bush administration was drawing to a close, Robert M. Gates, whose two years as defense secretary had been devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, felt compelled to warn his successor of a crisis closer to home.

The United States "cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything," Gates said. The next defense secretary, he warned, would have to eliminate some costly hardware and invest in new tools for fighting insurgents.

What Gates didn't know was that he would be that successor.

Now, as the only Bush Cabinet member to remain under President Obama, Gates is preparing the most far-reaching changes in the Pentagon's weapons portfolio since the end of the Cold War, according to aides.

As a former CIA director with strong Republican credentials, Gates is prepared to use his credibility to help Obama overcome the expected outcry from conservatives. And after a lifetime in the national security arena, working in eight administrations, the 65-year-old Gates is also ready to counter the defense companies and throngs of retired generals and other lobbyists who are gearing up to protect their pet projects."

 

[bododie]

Shaman this will probably come as a surprise to you, but some people are able to change, learn and get past...the past. Others, obviously don't have that ability, so are unable to recognize it in others.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Shaman this will probably come as a surprise to you, but some people are able to change, learn and get past...the past.

....And, lemme guess...they're Republicans, right?

After all.....when a Dem does such a thing, they're considered flip-floppers.

​

 

[BigRob]

Oh......this is gonna be gooooooooooooood!!!!

​

We are currently spending (including the war costs) less than 5% of GDP on defense. Typically we will sit around 4% and it is easily maintainable. Do we need more things to better fight insurgents? Sure. Is it wise to let the rest of our force age (as we are allowing to happen in a big way) and focus solely on fighting insurgents? No.

 

[chestnut]

Maybe the bad guys can go after Shaman first. Then he will wish the government did not cut military spending.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

We are currently spending (including the war costs) less than 5% of GDP on defense. Typically we will sit around 4% and it is easily maintainable. Do we need more things to better fight insurgents? Sure. Is it wise to let the rest of our force age (as we are allowing to happen in a big way) and focus solely on fighting insurgents? No.

I think the problem is the huge cost of useing million dollar bombs and missles to fight armies that live in cages and have often times very basic training. Had we , before afghanistan and Iraq spent more money and training, and development of new training ideas...and less on anti missile shields, ships the navy does not want/need, and many wasteful programs...we could have been much better off. Our current army is to dependant on technology and billion dollar weapons..that should a time come of protracted war against a major enemy ...we will spend outself to death before we can win the war. A good book on this was "the sling and the stone" by Col. Thomas Hammes. New training, new outlook on security, and I think much better suited to the wars of the next 20 years or so.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

We are currently spending (including the war costs) less than 5% of GDP on defense. Typically we will sit around 4% and it is easily maintainable. Do we need more things to better fight insurgents? Sure. Is it wise to let the rest of our force age (as we are allowing to happen in a big way) and focus solely on fighting insurgents? No.

the old idea of , you can always makes statistics work for your side is at work there. a 1% differance seems small...unless you take into account the size of teh GDP.

also you can look at the fact we spend almost half the wolds total budget on defence. ( 48%) buy comparison...Europe 20%, China, 8%, Russia 5%....While of course our costs are higher as we do much...but begs the question are we doing to much and also there is clearly to much waste.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I do find it funny when republicans cry we need less spending, but will never let you touch the thing that is the largest part of spending...about 20% of its total.

 

[BigRob]

I think the problem is the huge cost of useing million dollar bombs and missles to fight armies that live in cages and have often times very basic training. Had we , before afghanistan and Iraq spent more money and training, and development of new training ideas...and less on anti missile shields, ships the navy does not want/need, and many wasteful programs...we could have been much better off. Our current army is to dependant on technology and billion dollar weapons..that should a time come of protracted war against a major enemy ...we will spend outself to death before we can win the war. A good book on this was "the sling and the stone" by Col. Thomas Hammes. New training, new outlook on security, and I think much better suited to the wars of the next 20 years or so.

I disagree with this assessment. If we did not have smart bombs etc, we would be fighting a much more costly war (in terms of human life) trying to root out those in the caves.

There certainly are wasteful programs in defense spending, same as all spending, but there are many programs we are not funding that need to be funded. For example, our tanks are aging, our nuclear force is in atrophy. We don't really have any long range bomber to speak of (outside of the B-52, which is quite old) with very small exceptions. The F-22 can replace the very old F-15. Stealth technology is over twenty years old. We are falling behind in force modernization and need to spend on it.

You can debate how heavy the Army should be all day long, but it needs to be prepared for every threat. Light and mobile will not win a heavy war. I think discounting the notion that we will find ourselves in state vs state conflict again in short-sighted.

 

[BigRob]

I do find it funny when republicans cry we need less spending, but will never let you touch the thing that is the largest part of spending...about 20% of its total.

Well the Constitution does say "provide for the common defense." This line comes before it says "promote the general welfare."

 

[BigRob]

the old idea of , you can always makes statistics work for your side is at work there. a 1% differance seems small...unless you take into account the size of teh GDP.

also you can look at the fact we spend almost half the wolds total budget on defence. ( 48%) buy comparison...Europe 20%, China, 8%, Russia 5%....While of course our costs are higher as we do much...but begs the question are we doing to much and also there is clearly to much waste.

My point is that 4% of GDP is easily maintainable. In the Obama budget for the coming years the money going to the military is less than projected inflation rates. It should at least be held constant.

Further, we are the world hegemon, of course we are going to spend more than Europe on defense. Europe relies on the United States to defend them for the most part, why on Earth would they pour money into defense programs they do not have to?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

My point is that 4% of GDP is easily maintainable. In the Obama budget for the coming years the money going to the military is less than projected inflation rates. It should at least be held constant.

Further, we are the world hegemon, of course we are going to spend more than Europe on defense. Europe relies on the United States to defend them for the most part, why on Earth would they pour money into defense programs they do not have to?

and I see no reason we should have to play that role to the degree we do.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I think the problem is the huge cost of using million dollar bombs and missles to fight armies that live in caves and have often times very basic training. Had we , before afghanistan and Iraq spent more money and training, and development of new training ideas...and less on anti missile shields, ships the navy does not want/need, and many wasteful programs...we could have been much better off.

....Or, we could participate (more-fully) in European-style efforts; good, ol' fashioned police-work!!!!​

"It's not glamorous work, but last year Interpol played a role in 4,500 arrests, including a war criminal from the former Yugoslavia and an al Qaeda terrorist connected to the Madrid train bombing."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I disagree with this assessment. If we did not have smart bombs etc, we would be fighting a much more costly war (in terms of human life) trying to root out those in the caves.

Yeah, how could anyone possibly compete with our high-tech weaponry?!!

Hell.....we have patents on everything!!!!

​

 

[BigRob]

and I see no reason we should have to play that role to the degree we do.

I think the benefits gained by being the dominant world power outweigh the costs.