Our national security priorities were so screwed up when Obama became president that anything short of radical change would be insufficient. But I think we need to be thankful for small victories, and his success in trimming the defense budget by over $100 billion during wartime is definitely a small victory. John McCain was actually helpful in this task, and Secretary Gates showed a lot of leadership. I am also impressed that Obama has the courage to take his time and make up his own mind about the strategy for Afghanistan. There may be solutions but the implementation of those solutions are very difficult. I know I would feel overwhelmed by a problem with that many variables and ramifications to navigate. Even a decision to pull all our troops out would require a mind-numbing number of tasks and consultations.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Ah, so Obama had to fight for something to be seen as serious about it? I see.
Here’s a contrary point of view, noting that in the biggest economic setback since the Great Depression we still plan to grow the military (surely it will grow as a percentage of GDP):
Like most things Obama does, this is yet another elaborate ploy to make it seem like he fought to limit spending. A PR stunt. The military leaders probably intended this level of funding anyway (still, as always, increasing) and trotted out the age-old play of asking for more way more than they wanted so Obama could look reasonable.
It’s not reasonable. It’s insane. We will spend more than the entire rest of the world combined. Why?
Is that really a contrary point of view? Maybe it is factually, in the sense that it has some percentage number (from where, I don’t know) that suggests that the military spending will increase despite the fact that next year’s budget is over $100 billion smaller than this year’s.
But the overall point that we’re still spending way too much on defense is not contrary to anything I said.
When are people going to stop calling defense when it is nothing of the sort?
” . . .The act authorizes $550 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget in fiscal 2010 and $130 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That compares to a total of $654 billion for both accounts in fiscal 2009.”
They call that a shell game.
What’s interesting, besides the actual number, is that he cut the latest fighter. Especially the high-tech vector-thrust supercruise Raptor. If there is any element of the military that is lionized more than the jet fighter, I’ve yet to see it. Most people know what an “F-16” is, how many could identify an AH-64?
This isn’t simply like cutting a missile program, or halting production on a new type of casing. It’s a sea change in the way we wage war, and in some ways, the way we look at war. With the passing of the F-22, war just became that much less glorified.
There is no “passing of the F-22”. The Pentagon will still have 187 of these ultra-expensive airplanes that are unsuitable for use, and so haven’t been used, in the Long War.
You’re so right!
In the NY Times report which is linked, entitled, “Victory for Obama over military lobby”, the report asserts that
reading that, I’d forgive one for supposing that this means the F-22 program has been eliminated—even if only from the budget now under consideration.
In fact, as the House Appropriations Committee’s own webpage indicates,
here:
“SUMMARY: 2010 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL”
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/DoD_FY10_FC_Summary_07.22.09.pdf
and here:
Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act
Terminations, Reductions & Rescissions
[In thousands of dollars]
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/DoD_Terminations_List-07.21.2009.pdf
while some fighters have been canceled, the current appropriation still contains money for the purchase of 12 F-22 fighters. The recissions listed are, in certain cases, merely the result of “Reduction due to completion of procurement program”.
Yeah, this Obama guy is slick—at least when it comes to gaming his own political base! Sheesh!!!
Would you suggest they scrap 93 billion dollars of already-built planes?
Seriously, that one word was the source of your disagreement? What would you prefer instead of “passing”, “downgraded operational status”? “reevaluated program priority”?
That fighter is an evolutionary dead end, without having being superseded by a more advanced US fighter. meanwhile, the eight nations of the Joint Strike Fighter program will be rolling out a similarly 5th-gen plane, the f-35 Lighting.
Americans are no longer the world’s fighter jocks. That’s pretty significant, over and beyond how you’d classify the particular way the F-22 died/stopped/was canceled.
Robotic aircraft are now used for close air support and strike missions. Admiral Mullen has stated that robotic bombers will soon be active — it’s only a matter of scale. Cargo planes can be leased. Air Force generals won’t let the techno-geeks air-test robotic fighter aircraft which would have many advantages over manned fighter aircraft, because fighter-jocks are their last hurrah.
There’s a similar situation in the Navy with large manned ships, but in both services the porky procurements are promulgated for political purposes.