Tag: Defense budget
He’s completely wrong. Firstly, there are no American interests at stake in Afghanistan, and the war over that country is utterly unwinnable. True, American troops are still dying there – but it’s time to stop that waste of American blood by ending the war ASAP. Secondly, Republicans are not engaging in a “scripted apoplexy over Syria, Iran, and China”, they are rightly sounding the alarm over China’s huge military buildup (which long ago exceeded China’s legitimate self-defense needs) and Bashar al-Assad’s genocide of his own people. But I guess that Mr Miller would prefer for American troops to continue to die in the totally irrelevant quagmire of Afghanistan instead of defending America’s Pacific Rim allies (or America’s southern border).
Remember that even today, with most potential adversaries being equipped with advanced (or even upgraded legacy) Russian and Chinese SAM systems and fighters, which are proliferating globally, US aircraft would, in any plausible war, operate in heavily defended, heavily contested airspace defended by such SAM systems and fighters. This situation will only get worse in the future.
In FY2010 and FY2011, the Obama Administration killed ca. 50 crucial weapon programs (including the F-22, the ABL, the MKV, the KEI, the Zumwalt class, the FCS, the CSARX, the AC-X, and the CGX cruiser class). In 2010, the US ratified the New START treaty, which obligates only the US (not Russia) t0 deeply cut its nuclear arsenal and the arsenal of delivery systems (ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers).
This would totally gut the military and render it completely unable to defend America (not to mention its treaty allies). This also totally disproves Larry Korb’s utterly false claim that a defense budget of $472 bn (which would be a whopping $59 bn smaller than it is today) would “more than sufficient to protect national security”. No, it wouldn’t be. It would be woefully inadequate. Not enough for personnel, operations, maintenance, procurement, R&D, missile defense, health programs, or administration.
The sequester, if allowed to proceed, would cut defense spending WAY too deeply (on top of all the defense cuts already implemented and scheduled, including the $487 bn in defense cuts unveiled by Panetta in January): by $600 bn. In total, the cuts would amount to $1.087 trillion over a decade, not counting the savings resulting from withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such deep cuts would gut the military.
No longer will fiscal-only-conservatives (who are not really conservatives at all) have finally dropped their “conservative” masks and have shown their true faces. They’ve finally shown their true colors. They’ve shown they are not conservatives at all, not even fiscal conservatives, but merely libertarians who are out their to specifically gut defense.
Instead of seeing the military establishment as a threat to America’s civil liberties, its economy, or its prosperity, he called it “a vital element in keeping the peace” – which it is. Without a strong defense you cannot have peace.