Obama is Reorienting Defense Spending, Not Cutting It
An excellent point from Brian Beutler about the media’s weird framing of the current defense budget debate. Barack Obama and Robert Gates are proposing big cuts in a number of programs in order to finance increased spending on other aspects of defense that they think are more important. This, though, is being reported as if they’re taking an ax to the defense budget, when they’re not:
In other words, by retooling the Pentagon, Obama and Gates plan to move a lot of money around, but they also plan to increase the overall defense budget. In the final year of the Bush administration (and excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) the defense budget was $513 billion. In FY 2010, if Gates and Obama get their way, it will be $534 billion–$534 billion that will be spent much differently than last year’s outlays were.
But you’d never know that from the news coverage.
This does relate to the prospects for overall reductions in defense spending, since if it proves politically impossible to do a restructuring of the Pentagon budget that would indicate that it’s not politically possible to ever cut it. But the actual program here reflects a philosophical disagreement about the nature of defense spending. Relative to his predecessors, Gates and Obama are trying to put less emphasis on expanding the technological gap between the United States and other major countries, and put more emphasis on relatively flexible systems, on the military’s human capital, and on the ability to do low-intensity operations.
Framing the spending shift willy-nilly as “cuts” helps allow the defenders of the status quo to paint themselves as more committed to national defense than their opponents. In reality, they’re just more committed to parochial interests.
34 Responses to “Obama is Reorienting Defense Spending, Not Cutting It”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
In other words, they want to re-orient the military towards Empire-building . .. er, “Nation-building” efforts. To be honest, this strikes me as somewhat amusing, seeing as how Americans barely have the patience for one major nation-building project, never mind a whole army’s worth of them.
Not to mention that they’re ignoring the US’s advantage in terms of military capabilities, which has always lain in superior firepower and superior technology.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Gates and Obama are trying to put less emphasis on expanding the technological gap between the United States and other major countries, and put more emphasis on relatively flexible systems, on the military’s human capital, and on the ability to do low-intensity operations.
I’m not sure I like any of their proposed improvements much. I know journos do, but It Still Does Nothing.
Framing the spending shift willy-nilly as “cuts” helps allow the defenders of the status quo to paint themselves as more committed to national defense than their opponents.
Actually cutting spending (whether reoriented or not) would require reducing missions, and clearly, no one from either party is willing to give up on their internationalism/imperialism. So I am thinking it is effectively politically impossible to introduce cuts whether the budget can be reoriented or not.
max
['There are two iron triangles.']
April 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Great point – and it’s why people like Inhofe are out there screeching about how Obama wants to destroy the military at a time of war. Thank you media, for contributing to this misconception.
Still, it does represent a significant change from the past. And you’re right in pointing out that Gates is the right guy to implement this change, despite the fact that much of the blogosphere’s louder voices threw a tantrum when Obama announced he would keep him.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Is that an old picture or is Gates still having trouble with his arm? Wasn’t that Feb of last year that he fell in his driveway. His arm still can’t be in a sling from that?
But on the subject- Godspeed Secretary Gates. I do not envy the enemies he is making. Right now Scitor, Raytheon, Lockheed and SAIC are all sharpening their knives to slash his throat. They need a total reorg of defense spending. An independent commission like when Clinton did the base closings. Take it out of the hands of Congress so we get the programs we need, not welfare for defense contractors.
“F22 is make in 45 different states?” What an amazing coincidence. I am sure it is easier to make one product in 45 places and then ship hither and yon to put it together. No way it is just a back door way to get 45 senators doing your bidding in Congress. Bring Back Bunny Greenhouse!!
April 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Media fail.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Advantages whose value varies based on what type of conflict you’re engaged in.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Look how the WSJ ties itself up in knots to pretend it’s still a cut.
Idiots.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
And Mark Halperin is involved in this distortion? I’m shocked, shocked!
April 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
And what you’d never know from Matt’s coverage is that the US remains a military-industrial state with Obama sucking up to the military-industrial complex with his pointless expansion of war in Afghanistan and his intent to start a war with Pakistan – and probably Iran at some point.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Defense = Procurement.
–a
With $300 million per example aircraft, $3 billion-a-ship ‘destroyers’, etc., the MIC is slowly evolving a defense posture that someday only buy hardware, and stiff everything else — training, maintenance, operations, intel.
World peace and national bankruptcy will arrive simultaneously.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Not to mention that they’re ignoring the US’s advantage in terms of military capabilities, which has always lain in superior firepower and superior technology.
Only since the last years of World War II. Prior to that, the American advantage in any warfare was always in high-quality infantry and lethal artillery. The only conflicts in which Americans made really good use of superior firepower and superior firepower and technology were the Civil War and World War II. Even then, veteran soldiers and hard-drilled sailors under competent, adaptable officers were needed to make any use of our technological advantages. Whenever our leaders have tried to win victories based on our technological edge, we’ve embarrassed ourselves, at least in the opening battles.
If we want to have a policy of avoiding big, bloody, destructive wars that make us more enemies we need to be able to be able to win small-scale engagements for limited political goals. Violence only when necessary, targeted only at the bad guys, protecting the locals, over quick and clean as can be managed.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
We’re talking about reorienting the armed forces towards fighting low-intensity conflicts in worthless third-world countries. Bashing the Fuzzy-Wuzzies.
Which is fucking pointless. Why do we feel as if we have to control every square foot of sand? We don’t. There’s no payoff, other than making more insignificant enemies for the _next_ round of the Long War.
Gates is a fool: so is Obama. Not the same kind of fools as the previous set of assholes, but fools for all that. Under this policy, no sensible person – no patriot – would ever join the Armed Forces, except the Navy, which hasn’t quite figured out how to fully participate in this nonsense.
Although they’re working on it, of course.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Re Al’s comment “You guessed it – the “base” budget, which is supposed to exclude war costs.”
———-
So the military budget is not supposed to include the cost of waging war?
You Republicans are so deceitful you end up lying to yourselves, Al.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Brian Beutler is doing great work over there at TPM. He has probably the most sophisticated point of view of their entire crew. He is going to be a big star.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
If Al’s right, than this represents a significant cut in Defense spending, since the supplemental spending on the wars has been well over $100 billion per year.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“This, though, is being reported as if they’re taking an ax to the defense budget, when they’re not..”
Well if they’re not they should be, because any ass can see we can’t afford this crap.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
We’re talking about reorienting the armed forces towards fighting low-intensity conflicts in worthless third-world countries. Bashing the Fuzzy-Wuzzies . . . Which is fucking pointless. Why do we feel as if we have to control every square foot of sand? We don’t. There’s no payoff, other than making more insignificant enemies for the _next_ round of the Long War.
Any actual evidence that Obama or Gates have the least bit of interest in empire-building? Some statement or report indicating such a policy? They’ve both spoken thousands of words on this topic. where’s the proof that they are going to try to control “every square foot” of anything?
April 7th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
We should not have invaded Iraq. It was strategic blunder.
That being said, at this stage in our history, after having spent 20 Trillion on our military over the last 60 years, Iraq should have been an easy victory. In, out, a reasonably stable government left behind.
Our Armed forces need to be radically redesigned. The Pentagon is still preparing for and obsessing over a battle in the Taiwan Straight. Much of our military expenditure reflects this thinking.
Future military planning should mainly focus on post victory nation building. Our Armed Forces will continue to win future battles, but winning battles in the modern era is almost pointless.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Too bad. He should take a knife to the defense budget– propose $100B in cuts to get 50. But he’s pretty cool on his own terms, at least.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
We’re adding troops to Afghanistan, and I certainly can’t see any point to that. Can you? The arguments we use for Afghanistan (’training grounds’) apply to every square foot of sand not dominated by the US. They’re based on the belief that a few bandits are a ball-breaking threat to the country: untrue.
We already have a strong propensity for interventions that do not further US interests: if we optimize the military for such things, we’ll likely do more of them. In the same way, if you give a moron a BB gun, he’s more likely to put someone’s eye out. The comparison of the Feds with a feeb is deliberate: as an institution, they have the brains of a coral reef.
Better to make such adventures almost impossible: why do you think Creighton Abrams insisted on a key support role for the National Guard? To make intervention politically more difficult. He was a smart man: we should do the same.
Gates wants the US army to be better at rocking the casbah: I don’t, since I don’t want it done.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
We’re adding troops to Afghanistan, and I certainly can’t see any point to that. Can you? The arguments we use for Afghanistan (’training grounds’) apply to every square foot of sand not dominated by the US. They’re based on the belief that a few bandits are a ball-breaking threat to the country: untrue.
Geeze, why do I have to keep explaining this to people . . .
For the last year or so, while all that political upheaval and debate about “The Surge” and getting out of Iraq was going on, we were, without any great fuss being raised, losing the war in Afghanistan, loosing it big time. The Taliban not gained full or partial control of a good chunk of the country, they accelerated their bombing campaign, rubbed our noses in it by turning downtown Kabul into a shrapnel gallery, and cut the NATO supply line through the Khyber Pass.
I expect that, right up past last year’s American election, there were Taliban leaders fantasizing every night about getting in the history books alongside Dost Mohammed, the Afghan king who exterminated an occupying British army between Kabul and the Khyber back in 1842.
There are a lot of bad things that could happen to the Obama administration in the Middle-east in his first year in office, but the one possible event that could cripple his presidency would be a military defeat in Afghanistan. No matter how badly Bush and Cheney bungled that war over the last six years, no matter how futile a long-term occupation might be, if we are perceived a being run out of Afghanistan by the Taliban Obama would have to take the blame.
It would hand the Republicans a mighty political weapon, one they could use to obstruct or block Obama’s domestic program and use against the Democrats in the next election cycle.
I agree that we need to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later. However, a negotiated settlement is the only short exit possible, and the Taliban have little motivation to negotiate right now. We need to a least fight them to a draw before any other policy can be put in place.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
In military terms, Iraq was an easy victory, but administering and controlling a foreign country is a different thing to smashing its military or deposing its leaders.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
should read…whole comment
April 7th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Ask the Soviets how their firepower and technology advantage worked when they were in Afghanistan…
April 8th, 2009 at 12:53 am
A 26 I totally agree, except possibly the last paragraph. We need better than a draw. Negotiate from strength, if you negotiate at all.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:23 am
You’re not going to fight the Taliban to a draw.
You’re going to fight them until the US economy collapses and the troops come home because there’s no money left to pay them.
Oh, wait, suckers like you will take a tax increase just to make sure they get paid and can stay in Afghanistan forever.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:45 am
A 26 I totally agree, except possibly the last paragraph. We need better than a draw. Negotiate from strength, if you negotiate at all.
It’s a good concept, but a dangerous one in asymmetrical warfare. What we want in Afghanistan is to get the hell out with something resembling strategic stability. If our special forces guys can figure out a way to break up the Taliban’s communications and logistic network, peachy. A real military victory is impossible as long as we are seen as a foreign invader.
A better solution, and one that appears to be our current goal, is to separate the hard core Taliban from the xenophobes–the ones fighting only because they don’t like foriegn invaders–and trade them a share in the government in exchange for throwing Al Queda under the bus. Then we can burn up some opium fields, declare a victory, and go home.
You’re going to fight them until the US economy collapses and the troops come home because there’s no money left to pay them . . .. Oh, wait, suckers like you will take a tax increase just to make sure they get paid and can stay in Afghanistan forever
Sigh. I have to keep reminding myself . . . the function of trolls and eeyores is to prompt the rest of us to have rational discussions amongst ourselves.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Re Midland at 26:
“There are a lot of bad things that could happen to the Obama administration in the Middle-east in his first year in office, but the one possible event that could cripple his presidency would be a military defeat in Afghanistan. No matter how badly Bush and Cheney bungled that war over the last six years, no matter how futile a long-term occupation might be, if we are perceived a being run out of Afghanistan by the Taliban Obama would have to take the blame.
It would hand the Republicans a mighty political weapon, one they could use to obstruct or block Obama’s domestic program and use against the Democrats in the next election cycle.
I agree that we need to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later. However, a negotiated settlement is the only short exit possible, and the Taliban have little motivation to negotiate right now. We need to a least fight them to a draw before any other policy can be put in place. ”
——————-
So how does considerations re Obama’s political standing justify the sacrifice of even ONE American life? How does your amoral political mindset differ in any way from Bush and Cheney’s mindset?
The ONLY justification any President has for putting a soldier in harm’s way is to defend the United States. Given that AL Qaeda has attacked the USA, there is an obvious need to wage war on them until they are dead or we have reached a peace agreement.
Re the latter approach, I suggest the first step would be for Obama to refute Bush’s Big Lie and at least tell the American People the truth re the three grievances that led Al Qaeda to attacked us on Sept 11. I don’t think it helps to country to be waging war –and losing lives — in support of deceit and private agendas.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
So how does considerations re Obama’s political standing justify the sacrifice of even ONE American life? How does your amoral political mindset differ in any way from Bush and Cheney’s mindset?
Really, you would think the last eight years would finally pound it into the last few clueless heads that politics is not a g**d*** game!
Every president has to consider politics in every decision he makes. In a dictatorship he might be able to ignore everyone else’s grumbling, but in a democracy the executive depends on his political skills to get his program through the congress, to gain popular support for his foreign policy, and to keep his faction in power long enough to do what he things is good for his country. You cannot separate politics from policy. The president has to be thinking about politics every hour of his working day, or he will not be able to run the country or defend it.
The disastrous reign of Bush and Chaney is the clearest possible demonstration we’ve had since the Civil War of how important it is which party is running the country. It matters that we have a centrist technocrat in charge instead of a gang of incompetent psuedo-facists. It matters that we have a majority party that wants to fix the economy instead of one that would let it sink into depression and ruin. It matters that we have an administration who believe in science and facts instead of their own propaganda slogans.
I’d have no problem denouncing a president indifferent to the loss of life involved in a military operation as a sociopath. I’d also be willing to declare that any president who didn’t weigh political factors in this kind of decision to be a complete fool.
For examples, read up on how Abraham Lincoln used his political skills to save the country from dissolution back in the 1860s. For a more recent crisis, study the political maneuvering around Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt back in 1939 and 1940. Churchill just barely became prime minister and his failure could have taken the British out of World War II and handed control of Europe to Hitler. Roosevelt walked a razors edge for two years to keep Britain fighting and get the United States re-armed for the war he knew was coming, sooner or later.