What do you think of President Obama’s plan for a leaner military?

Eric Ringham January 6, 2012, 5:00 AM Jan 6, 2012

President Obama laid out his vision Thursday for a leaner military more reliant on sea and air power. While his strategy would be aimed at maintaining overall military superiority, it would no longer require that the United States be prepared to fight two ground wars simultaneously. Today’s Question: What do you think of President Obama’s plan for a leaner military?

About the blogger

Eric Ringham

eringham@mpr.org

Clark

Given obama’s far left radical view of the world, I don’t trust his motives. As China continues to expand its military, obama short changes U.S. military. We all know the primary reason is so he has more to spend on expanding the freeloader class in this country to insure we are dependant on government handouts.

Just like the recent recess appointments, obama now believes he is king obama, or perhaps president for life. Has BO been taking to Robert Mugabe?

Clerk

I always found the idea that we must borrow tens of billions of dollars from China to protect ourselves from China to be suspect…

Steve the Cynic

The best national security policy is to make more friends and fewer enemies. A leaner military will help with that and, paradoxically, make us safer.

Emery

Oh wow, a job killer. Military spending is stimulus.

I’m being facetious but the argument is made by GOP elected officials that military spending is good and good for jobs, as opposed to that other kind of government spending which, you know, isn’t. Doesn’t matter that much of our military spending occurs in other countries; it has magical properties here because it is military spending.

reggie

The proposed cuts in the military are a sensible first step toward rationalizing the way we use our limited resources. We simply can’t afford to continue to act as the world’s police force.

I agree with Steve that the best defence is to make more friends. The good news is that making friends costs much, much less than fighting enemies. China’s already figured that out in South America and Africa.

Gary F

We still have money to put boots on the ground in Uganda?

My plan would be to close/shrink bases in Europe. France, Germany, and Italy for starters. Give a signal to Europe that they need to start pulling their weight.

Then send a signal to Japan and South Korea the they will be next.

Steve the Scenic

All pretty sensible if somewhat overdue IMO. Top level messages:

The USA needs to spend less on military stuffs

Our allies (EU et al), need to spend more

Now lets sit back and wait for the “Money is no object when it comes to the defense crowd to swarm in and offer flimsy rationalizations as to why spending money on tanks and guns and planes is so much better than infrastructure investment or cutting the budget deficit 😉

Hugo

My money says I bet the military contractors have a better retirement plan and better wages than me.

Steve the Cynic

As long as we Americans keep assuming the worst of those we disagree with, instead of listening to each other with open minds, we have more to fear from ourselves than from foreign enemies. Clark, the idea that liberals have a hidden agenda of getting people addicted to big government in order to gain power is just as ridiculous as liberals’ accusations that conservatives just want to make the rich richer, keep the poor poor, destroy the environment, and enslave women to their reproductive biology. You may believe that’s what liberal policies will lead to, but that’s not the intent any more than it’s your intent to keep the poor in economic servitude and passively euthanize the elderly and disabled by abolishing the social safety net.

Rich in Duluth

I think it’s good.

A smaller military means there is less of a chance that the U.S. will use the military as a foreign policy tool, which only gets us into trouble.

We already spend 6 times as much (about $700-billion), each year, on the military as the next great military power, China. You conservatives say you want to cut government spending. How about cutting the biggest government program, the military?

Steve the Scenic

Let’s try to stay on topic today .If I want a sermon I can find one at church.

Your employer told you in November that you would get a $10/week raise in 2012.

Come January 1st, your employer told you that because of slower than expected business you would get a $5/week raise.

Is that a “cut”?

Only politicians and the media propel such stupidity.

Please excuse me while I go sniff a flower….

david

It’s about time, but the cuts won’t be nearly enough. If we cut spending in half it would still be WAY more then what China spends, but would almost be the same as a percentage of GDP. Like Clerk said, borrowing money from China to protect from China is a bit absurd. If China is such a threat, why do we do so much business with them? Just so CEO’s can move production there to increase their bonuses? And why are we slowly selling off the country to them? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. And like others have mentioned maybe we should try using more diplomacy in our foreign affairs. Me personally I think not sticking our nose in everyone else’s business would be the most pragmatic plan.

Rich

I won’t mention anything about the defined-benefit retirements that the military contractor workers have.

I just popped in to say, “I “still” like Ike!”

Alison

It’s a start.

Bruce

I think it is a great idea. Will it happen, No.

Chris in StupidMaine

Though history has proven that wars cannot be won using air and sea power alone, these things apparently work well as the pointy end of the stick. That being said, a focus on a leaner, better trained force seems like a good way to go. In any case, diplomacy should be our primary foreign policy tool. And closing bases on foreign soil? Yes, please.

Tumbling off topic to address Clark – it may interest you to know that Obama has made fewer recess appointments per year than his predecessors back to Reagan. Knowledge is Power!

Ron in Trailer

We don’t need thousands of nuclear weapons, we don’t need 12 aircraft carrier groups, we don’t need 800 military bases over seas , we don’t need an overpaid volunteer army, when draftees have actually won wars, where our existence as a country was at stake, instead of oil wars.

Given who we have in congress, even this weak proposal of less expansion will die a horrible death as god and patriotism take center stage.

Javen Swanson

At least as far as our military is concerned, we’re a little closer to living within our means. Isn’t that what people keep saying they want from the federal government? Those who think we need a gargantuan military ought to support a tax hike to fund it.
Rob

Its long over due, our military budget has been 4 times more than the next 10 largest military powers for the last ten years, prior to that it was 3 times more than the next 10 countries. Even if we halved what we spent, the true impact would be minimal to our military power. We have got to re double, triple, if not quadruple our efforts to fix our ailing economy, continue and speed up the job gains that are occuring, and reconcentrate on our infrastructure spending. Much like it was recognised during the era of the greatest generation that a 8th grade education wasnt sufficient, and that k-12 should be the standard, America has progressed to the point where k-graduate school should be the standard, because k-12 is no longer sufficient for the growth and economic health of our nation
Brian D

Our military budget is roughly equivalent to the military budgets of all of the other countries in the world combined. That’s insane. Any well-planned effort to cut back on military spending should be supported by Congress. Unfortunately there are too many people in Congress who look upon the military budget as pork for their districts and states. And of course there’s the issue of blowback for all of the hatred we’ve generated in the third world over the last hundred years. If we want to have a small military budget, we’ll have to change our behavior toward the nations and the people of the third world. Old habits die hard.
Larry M.

Considering that we spend over 6 times our nearest rival China and more than the next 22 nations combined, I think it’s about time! To spend that money elsewhere.
david

I don’t think the majority of Americans fully realize just how ridiculous our military spending is. Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream has a great video that was a real eye opener to me. Using Oreo cookies he shows how much we spend on the military compared to things like education in this country. He then goes on so show how much more we spend compared to our perceived and real military threats. You can see one version here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOIe5Ql0v8 Please check it out.
Surley the Cynic

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287320/america-s-disarmed-future-arthur-herman

Welcome back Carter.
Chuck

A leaner, more flexible, force able to respond quickly is a good thing. Fewer Generals, Admirals and Colonels would be a good thing. Better training and equipment would be a good thing. Fewer overseas bases – I don’t know why we need bases in Germany and England – would be a good thing. Better training and equipment for NG and Reserve forces is a good thing.

Need to control the growth of private security forces as well. The State Department spends a lot on their own private armies.

Fewer Stateside bases would be a good thing.

Fewer inteliigence agencies – why are there so many? But better, coordinated, intelligence gathering, analysis and distribution is needed.

An aside, the military is not overpaid. Join and find out.

Will it happen? Not likely. Congress holds the purse strings – they get a lot of money from the likes of Haliburton, Westinghouse and Boeing. None of the suppliers of military goods and services want to lose business.
Jefferson

I disagree with Obama on many issues but I think making the military a leaner, more specialized force is a very good idea. The essential tools the military uses in the future are going to be drones, special forces and intelligence. Having large numbers of ground forces doesn’t do us a lot of good and ends up being a liability in a smaller scale war (which is why IEDs are used so often by insurgents). We still need enough ground forces for a single ground war but we need to come to the realization that we need fewer soldiers and more high tech weapons. Lets hope that Obama can now find other ways to cut government spending in other areas of the federal budget, not just defense.
Greg

Bad idea. History does not support it. We end up spending much more having to rebuild what was taken apart. The President has been poorly advised.
Craig

I think it will get through.

Senior officers and politicians will support it because next-generation sea, air and cyber will mean big bucks for contractors that like to hire retired generals and make political contributions.

It is also the right move.

One purpose of the military is to give pause to the opposition. I don’t think the size of our ground force will ever give much pause to China, but game-changing technology might.

They have to sell it right.

Many people—in America and elsewhere—enjoy feelings of vicarious power via their national military forces. We will probably see a campaign inviting those people to fantasize about a new style of power.
David

As several readers have pointed out, we have been spending obscenely huge amounts of money on the military for way too long. Eisenhower’s worst fears about he military-industrial complex have come true. Obama’s cuts are a step in the right direction and they must be supported. But, make no mistake, we need to go farther.
JasonB

Anything that keeps the military industrial complex in check is welcome.
Al Johns

“Leaner and more flexable”, “more unmanned drones”, “less nation building”, “we need to let the UN be the world’s policeman”, these are all the same old, tired platitudes that are used to gut a military that is already streched to the limit. Many of our soldiers have been deployed into war zones mulitple times. Our reserves have been deployed for active duty at a previously unheard of rate. Yes, they all should be able to do more with less and there is a lot of waste in your military budgets but now is not the time to reduce our forces.
Joanie Jet

Obama’s military cuts were admittedly not done for any reason than to weakly

attempt to make his 2008 campaign promise of ” I will cut the national debt in half during my first year in office.” He has already cut $1 trillion from the Pentagon last year while also cutting $500 billion from Medicare for the elderly, as is outlined in his “Affordable” Obama Care bill. Our own top military leaders never recommended Obama’s military cuts.

So do we need a strong military when the Middle East Islamic leaders met last week and said, “Either submit to Islam and live under the scrutiny of Islamic law or you have

no right to exist.” When they still demand that homosexuals should be put to death by stoning can we say we need a smaller military as they expand their rule across the world?

This idea of “lets make more friends with them” is a naive KumbaYah nonsense that will only bolster radical Islam. In 1938 our leaders tried to be friends with Hitler, how did that turn out?

Iran has been at war with us since they bombed the USS Cole under Carter’s weak leadership and took US embassy hostages. It took a Reagan to make America strong again. Now we have another Carter mentality.

Why do liberal Progressives not stand up for human rights everywhere? Why do they give a supportive pass to radical islam when the liberals want gay marriage rights?

When we went to war in Korea, our ground troops were so understaffed and prepared, we lost our first division sent in. No one in their right mind can support a President’s decision to weaken our military, when the decision is coming from a man who’s only claim to fame before his election was nothing but a grassroots radical organizer and as a board member with terrorist Bill Ayers in the Chicago Annandale Foundation. No one can show what Obama ever did in his history to have any experience worthy of acting as our Commander in Chief.

Cutting the military makes sense when Obama did nothing when our stealth helicopter from the Bin Laden raid was left behind so China could take a look at it. He then repeated his blunder when he chose to not let the SEALs blow up or recover the super stealth drone that went down inside Iran. Billions of our technology given away to our enemies makes so much sense. He might as well pull all military back and de-fund it altogether. His idea of “Lets be friends for beer meetings” at the White House garden will surely work to preserve peace?
Steve D

This is a good first step. I do not think congress will pass this as proposed, but this is a good start. We needed to cut back in Europe long time ago. Lets do more with diplomacy and lees with guns!!!!
Mark G

I support the idea of a leaner military, but I suspect the idea will only last as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House. I have a hunch that if a Republican is elected, the country will once again see a huge military buildup and increase in defense spending, whether or not it is necessary, effective, or sustainable.
GregX

this was 20 years late. When the Berlin-wall fell – the entire reason for the old-line military system was over. We should have completely revamped what our military needs were by asking: (1) Is our military the world police force? (2) Are we a tax-payer subsidized corporate traffic patrol on the world oceans ? (3) When will Europe take care of its own back yard? (4) What is the ROI from military spending …to the TAXPAYERS? (5)
John P II

Fewer troops, more high-tech weaponry and cyber abilities, and overall reduced “mission” (one less fewer simultaneous ground war!) – what’s not to like? This seems like common sense. The devil will be in the budget details, but luckily both parties have all already agreed to significant cuts in defense spending (super committee failure.) I expect smooth sailing, kinda like holding the America’s Cup in the Strait of Hormuth.
Jon

I agree with the President’s step. Until we rebuild our economy we cannot afford to fight two wars at once. Why is it a sign of weakness to be clever instead of simply large? Why do we always want to fight the next war with the tools and approaches of the last?

Naval and air forces are the essential ingredients to project power world-wide as needed. We cannot afford, nor need, a wartime-sized infantry. How many more countries are we planning to occupy?

Leaner and meaner!
paul m

About time the Pentagon and Military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about had to live within its means, and learn to live with needs vs. wants.
Steve the Cynic

It’s a good idea to check your facts before going off half-cocked, Joanie Jet. The bombing of the USS Cole was more than 20 years after the Iran Embassy hostage taking, in 2000 on Clinton’s watch, and it was not Iran that did it but al-Qaeda. As for your sneering dismissal of making more friends and fewer enemies, it sure seems to be working for the Chinese.
Rheaah

“http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287320/america-s-disarmed-future-arthur-herman

Welcome back Carter.

Posted by Surley the Cynic | January 6, 2012 9:27 AM ”

I can smell the Tuna Casserole!!! Something is definitely fishy.

I welcome steps towards peaceful resolutions, but taking into consideration the past history I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.
David Poretti

Even taking these cuts into account, the U.S. military budget still dominates our federal discretionary spending (over 50%) and is more than the next 10 largest militaries combined – more than China + Russia + North Korea + India + Pakistan + Iran + Britain + Germany + Turkey + France. Without congressional agreement on the budget, across the board cuts in discretionary spending (including military) are mandated by law.

Terrorist attacks are the threat, not a conventional war with another major miltiary power. Air craft carriers, tanks and cruise missles will not stop a terrorist from blowing up a school bus or a McDonalds. Making friends by providing economic and humanitarian aid without exploiting the population or resources of the recipiant country will dramtically reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. It would be very hard for a terrorist organization to recruit suicide attackers when the U.S. is providing food and medical care to a potential recruit’s family.
Tim in Rochester

I guess it’s time to sell your Halliburton stock.
John

Its a lot of talk. We are performing war games with Israel in the weeks to come and provoking war with Iran, to “protect” Israel from bombs that Iran doesn’t have and Israel does.
Mary

We still are spending 687 BILLION on military, going further and further into our 15-16 TRILLION dollar debt. The war machine must stop! I’m voting for Ron Paul the only candidate that will stop this.
Bill

I agree with John. Israel controls the congress, the president and the banksters.

“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that… I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”

Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
Jo C

President Obama is NOT far left, he is not a socialist, he is an educated American with a family and country he is looking out for. He supports a capitalist democracy. I am glad he is trying to increase global communication and support using Hillary Clinton’s skills and raising respect for America around the developing world. When poverty , health care issues and women’s rights as well as the rights of all people are improved peace can be closer at hand. As the military starts to manage resources better we will be stronger as a nation and in the world. I support our President’s leadership in adjusting resources for the military.
Joel

What do you think of President Obama’s plan for a leaner military? Today’s pronouncement is all political posturing and not financial. Whether called “Security contractors”, “private military contractors”, “private security contractors”, “private security providers” or “military service providers”, these companies make up a huge percentage of the workforce and national budget. “Para-military” personnel budgets cost 50%-100% more than the same job in the regular military. Military contractors fill in the void that the U.S. military cannot. There are many things that the U.S. military is either not willing to do, or is incapable of doing. The real question is: Will the United States have an official uniformed military or rely on private paramilitaries?

As a candidate for president in 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton vowed to ban the use of private security contractors, which she referred to as “mercenaries”. Clinton sponsored legislation to ban these companies. Currently, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is presiding over what is shaping up to be a radical expansion of a private, US-funded paramilitary. The demand for the more expensive private forces is massively increasing as we pretend to downsize our massive geo-military complex.

As to maintaining “Nuclear” as deterrence? C’mon, the United States should be the last to threaten using nuclear bombs. They are certainly a danger to mankind but no longer a deterrent to terrorism or war. This is a sad day for the United States.
Jim G

I think the Marines are a good example. They are a smaller force focused on a specific mission. Give them what is needed, not what is wanted.
John

I think we need to look at how many people have been actually found as Terrorist by Homeland Insecurity, NONE. Billions and Billions on a wasted effort.
Steve the Cynic

What’s the difference between a security contractor and a mercenary?

No, that’s not a joke. It’s a rhetorical question.
John

Mercenaries can be cheaper depending on the country they are from or if Israel trains them in there fake Arab training camps. The Mossad has a long history of Terrorism.
Suzie

I think his plan is GREAT. I especially think it means that the military will think twice or thrice before they say – lets go fight another war. If there is a legitimate need, we will.
John

Suzie,

Unfortunately, you are so, so, wrong. Obama is a pawn in the game. The game of Zionist control of the US. Read, you must read.
(just) Steve

Let’s look at the overall actions in Iraq.

Pre-March 2003 (US invasion): Iraqis – Saddam – was killing Iraqis.

Post invasion to withdrawal: US troops were killing Iraqis, and Iraqis were killing Iraqis (Sunni/Shia bombings, be-headings, etc.)

Post withdrawal: Iraqis are killing Iraqis.

Regards
Rachael

@ Steve the Cynic | January 6, 2012 5:51 PM

But no other country faces the grave threat posed by Canada.

ps> what’s with the moniker?
Martin

I think Canada might have a higher percentage of gun-owners. There’s a pretty big gun culture in Canada. That’s why the US needs nukes.
Rachael

Wikipedia says 22% of Canadians own guns and Gallup says 30% of Americans own guns. So we got them beat but what about axes and hockey sticks?
Jack

I have to agree with the premise laid out by: STS January 6, 2012 7:23 AM

Anyone who is talking about concerns arising from the suggestion cuts to the defense budget is doing so out of political expediency or ignorance.

The facts are that the defense budget for the next fiscal year is slated to increase by ~$100 billion, and that so long as congress and the president agree, any further increases can be exempted from the cap on security spending in the Budget Control Act. Is the budget going to return to what it was on September 10, 2001, adjusted for inflation (roughly half of what it is today)? Of course not. President Obama even made this painfully clear in his speech yesterday when he said: “Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow…”

There is no plan for the defense budget to shrink. Only that the increases, still above increases to account for inflation, might shrink. Even then there’s no real guarantee. When are sensible people going to realize that these cuts to increases are not cuts?

@ Rachael, what the heck is with these pretentious monikers????
Mark

The pivot to the Asia-Pacific is essential because the region stands poised to become the centerpiece of the 21st-century global economy. By 2015, East Asian countries are expected to surpass North America and the euro-zone to become the world’s largest trading bloc. Market opportunities will only increase as the region swells by an additional 175 million people by 2030. As America’s economic interests in the Asia-Pacific grow, its diplomatic and military presence should grow to defend against potential threats to those interests.
Alison

It’s interesting to me that we live in a ‘Christian’ nation filled with ‘Pro-lifers’. How can so many people fail to see any contraction between ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ and building a massive military arsenal capable of killing everyone on the planet a dozen or two times over? Isn’t it hypocritical for a ‘Christian’ to argue to keep the capability to kill people in two countries at a time? What does it mean to be ‘Pro-life’? What should it mean?
Alison

Sorry – I meant ‘contradiction’.
Jim

Leaner and modern sounds like Rummy’s “Transformation”, but still better than bloated and obsolete. Real traction will be made when the MV-22, F-22, and some attack subs and carrier battle groups are cut.

Likely the Navy and Air Force have been spared in part because their weapon systems have strong(er) and more congressional backers. Easy to trim off a brigade without closing down an Army or Marine base. Harder to eliminate a ship or aircraft model without cascading effects all over the country. Good to know that security strategy is driving the bus.
This is NOT lucy

” How can so many people fail to see any contraction between ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ and building a massive military arsenal capable of killing everyone on the planet a dozen or two times over?”

Posted by Alison | January 7, 2012 10:54 AM

I suppose it would be the same as suffering from the affliction of “Thou shalt not covet…”
Craig

@Alison,

You misunderstand religion, which has arisen through natural selection. It supports a successful structure whereby less intelligent people are willing to fight and die for the group because they mistakenly believe there is an afterlife. Darwinian forces have bred religion into the less valuable members of the group in order to support war-making and to protect the more intelligent members. Bees have a similar structure.
Sue de Nim

Craig, you don’t know many religious people very well, do you? Your view of religion is just as bigotted as when people who don’t know any gays or lesbians assert that they’re all pedophiles.
This is NOT lucy

sue denim,

I believe it was meant to be a double edged, tongue in cheek.

of sorts.
Sue de Nim

@NOT Lucy,

Maybe so. But there’s so much ill-informed crap here that it can be hard to tell (unless you have some inside information, like you and “Craig” are the same person).
Craig

Sue, I believe Alison was asking why religious people cannot spot a contradiction between their religion and militarism. It is because religious people are illogical by definition, it is a prerequisite.

I do not know if you are religious, but your analogy of bigotry is illogical as well. Atheism and intelligence are demonstrably correlated. The two states in your unnecessarily salacious example are demonstrably uncorrelated.
Sue de Nim

Craig, the religion you sneer at is not the religion I practice. Your absurd caricature of religion is utterly dissimilar from the Christian faith I affirm, or anyone of my acquaintence affirms. It’s clear to me that you don’t know what your talking about. Do yourself a favor and find some thoughtful Christians to dialog with. Honestly, strident atheists like you are some of the most closed-minded, arrogant, smug, self-satisfied people I ever have to deal with. (I know, some Christians are like that, too, but that’s not what Christ actually taught. Judge no group by its worst examples, or the finger will point back at you.)
Craig

Sue, to stay near the topic, I am weighing in on the relationship between religion and the military. It would be contrary to my own interest to disabuse anyone of their beliefs. I benefit from the faith of others in various ways; belief in an afterlife emboldens soldiers, it can also preserve law and order by serving as a palliative for otherwise restless people. When religion is practiced in a certain way and to a certain degree it is part of a social structure that natural selection has rewarded.

But to answer the charge of closed-mindedness, I also reject the idea that lightning comes from Zeus. If you assert that it does, I assume you have a logical argument to make. But rather, I think you are attaching yourself to the philosophical elements of a religion while trying to downplay the hokum, which you don’t really believe, but have walled off from logic out of a fear of your own mortality.
Sue de Nim

See, Craig, that’s what I’m talking about. You presume to speculate on what I believe and why without any real information. If you think Christianity is merely, or even mainly, about allaying people’s fear of mortality, you are much mistaken. To say more about that would be too far off the topic for today, so I won’t. However, I will point out that your attitude (to paraphrase: Let those religious fools believe what they want, because when they act on their silly beliefs it benefits me.) is stunningly arrogant.