Tars
02-03-2009, 09:07 AM
Interesting OpEd from Robert Kagan, in the 2/3 Washington Post, entitled:
No Time To Cut Defense" (Full Article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020202618.html)).
Mr. kagan is opposed to discussion by the Obama administration of cutting approx. 10% off of the 2010 defense budget, equaling about $55 million.
He suggests:
We shouldn't cut defense spending, because it helps keep people employed.
Defense cuts would "unnerve" our allies, making them less-likely to do what the U.S. wants them to do.
Defense cuts would embolden our enemies, because they'd think we're weakening ourselves.
I love this one: "If the Obama administration begins by cutting defense, it will be much harder to persuade Republicans to support foreign aid."
Heh... like they'll do it anyway. The GOP will support foreign aid programs the same way they "supported" fiscal stimulus. Well...they might support some foreign aid if we promise not to assist third world nations in any way involving birth control...
If there's any problem with cutting defense, it's that the proposed cuts are too limited. The U.S. is long overdue to chops major chunks of waste out of defense spending. We need to re-direct defense funding after so many years of "give defense anything it wants" budgeting.
It should be noted that Obama is not proposing personnel cuts, in fact, he's supported an increased military population. It's all those boondoggle military programs that could be lopped off - Osprey program, missile defense shield, etc.
My ideal would have the defense budget chopped, and much more money put into global humanitarian projects - helping countries improve their infrastructures, food production, medical facilities, schools. If we spent money on those, while at the same time expecting our "allies" to provide more for their own defense, we'd sharply decrease any rationalization for maintaining a bloated military.
No Time To Cut Defense" (Full Article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020202618.html)).
Mr. kagan is opposed to discussion by the Obama administration of cutting approx. 10% off of the 2010 defense budget, equaling about $55 million.
He suggests:
We shouldn't cut defense spending, because it helps keep people employed.
Defense cuts would "unnerve" our allies, making them less-likely to do what the U.S. wants them to do.
Defense cuts would embolden our enemies, because they'd think we're weakening ourselves.
I love this one: "If the Obama administration begins by cutting defense, it will be much harder to persuade Republicans to support foreign aid."
Heh... like they'll do it anyway. The GOP will support foreign aid programs the same way they "supported" fiscal stimulus. Well...they might support some foreign aid if we promise not to assist third world nations in any way involving birth control...
If there's any problem with cutting defense, it's that the proposed cuts are too limited. The U.S. is long overdue to chops major chunks of waste out of defense spending. We need to re-direct defense funding after so many years of "give defense anything it wants" budgeting.
It should be noted that Obama is not proposing personnel cuts, in fact, he's supported an increased military population. It's all those boondoggle military programs that could be lopped off - Osprey program, missile defense shield, etc.
My ideal would have the defense budget chopped, and much more money put into global humanitarian projects - helping countries improve their infrastructures, food production, medical facilities, schools. If we spent money on those, while at the same time expecting our "allies" to provide more for their own defense, we'd sharply decrease any rationalization for maintaining a bloated military.