Subtraction by Addition
The Gates/Obama budget provides for the end-strength of the United States Army to increase, which makes it difficult to characterize as a cut. Nonetheless, Pete Hegseth at The Corner gives it the old college try:
However, for me (and fellow infantry grunts), the most disturbing portion of the budget is the de-facto cut (or non-increase, increase) in Army end-strength. Secretary Gates announced, “we will stop the growth of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) at 45 versus 48 while maintaining the planned increase in end strength of 547,000.” Gates cited “better manned units” and “an end to stop-loss” as the reason for this change.
There are two important parts on this: 1) the “planned increase” to 547,000 soldiers in the Army was proposed under Bush, and will now be funded under Obama. This is a good thing, but not really a new increase; 2) cutting the number of proposed BCTs from 45 to 48, in order to fully staff them, is an admission that we don’t have enough soldiers to fully support the needs of the Army.
Look, you can fairly say that this is “not really a new increase.” But it’s still an increase. There will be, in the future, more BCTs than there are now. And they’ll be better-staffed. This isn’t like one of these things where you enact a deep cut in inflation-adjusted per student spending and call it a “spending freeze” and try to deny that you’re cutting anything. Gates and Obama are proposing to increase the number of soldiers, they’re just planning a smaller increase than some might like to see. But it’s definitely an increase.
16 Responses to “Subtraction by Addition”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
But since defense increases aren’t really increases, then of course they aren’t increasing anything.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
cutting the number of proposed BCTs from 45 to 48
That’s really not a cut. Have Yglesias’s typos started spreading?
April 8th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
So, according to Hegseth, a new increase in funding doesn’t count as new so long as someone else proposed it earlier? So what counts is the proposal, not the actual funding?
April 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
It’s well played.
Hawks protesting his budget as a “cut” are self-evident loons (because, y’know, MATH) Doves who would like to show some budgetary restraint during a depression by defunding the military can’t really kick because the loons are already crying “Cuts!”
Everyone who could reasonably critique the budget has been pre-marginalized.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Well when they say it like that, it makes sense.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Full metal psycho.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
This is precisely why Obama should just cut the insane levels of military spending, because he’s going to get blamed for it anyway.
Here’s some basic facts to start from, no matter what Obama does he will be blamed for:
1) limiting access to guns, and probably for breaking into peoples houses to confiscate weapons — even if he doesn’t do it.
2) giving money to african americans — even if he doesn’t do it.
3) being against the military, military spending, or using the military enough — even if he attacks 12 countries every year.
So, why not make the proper adjustments. He’s going to take a beating either way.
A recent article, set at a gun show, had some oaf explaining how access to ammunition is drying up under obama (clearly blaming his policies) — though no action was taken on this front.
People are not very intelligent/tuned-in. They will believe their preconceived notions, so just set the best policy and bite down hard.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
really, any time one of these conservative loons rears their ugly (and I do mean ugly!) heads, just hold up a damn picture of the guy in the hood at Abu Ghraib, and say “you were saying what about how Democrats treat the military again?!?”
April 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
The Right won’t really be happy with our military until they’re turned loose to murder, maim, torture and generally engage in lawless mayhem free of meddling by the Left. Geneva can go fuck itself. Neutrality is for pussies. Diplomacy exists as a stalling tactic until better plans are drawn up for maximizing body counts. If you’re not white and Christian there is no good reason for allowing you to live. Anyone stopping the military from getting on with it can climb in the ovens with the rest of the Zogs & Fairies. That’s the world Republicans want to see.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
It’s not a lie if you believe it.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
The part that really got me was:
In other words, Hegseth’s vision of the future contains many more poorly-thought-out invasions and occupations. Wonderful.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
547,000 soldiers is about an order of magnitude too high for a peaceful nation.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
547,000 soldiers is about an order of magnitude too high for a peaceful nation.
But just about right for us.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Why does Obama want to increase the number of soldiers?
Why do we need soldiers stationed in Europe?
April 8th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
@ 14 Why do we need soldiers stationed in Europe?
We don’t. They only Army personnel we need in Europe are the medical personnel at Landstuhl.
@ 9 Ditto.
These people must be eliminated, using our methods, the ballot box. Beaten at the ballot, they will break off, join militias, become neuters through self disfranchisement, and be nothing more than a gnat like nuisance on the body politic for a decade or so until they wither and die.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
@ 15 Decade should read generation in my last sentence. I’m not THAT optimistic.