[PassedOut]

Interesting article in the Post on the process Obama used to gain agreement on the appropriate cuts for the US military going forward: Obama and the US Military March In Step

Quote

The discussion carried over into an unusual meeting on Dec. 1, held in the East Room of the White House.

Obama convened not only his senior military leadership, with whom he had been working all along, but also invited combatant commanders from around the world and posted at the Pentagon.

The group sat around a set of tables arranged in a square with Obama on one side, flanked by Donilon and Lew.

He explained his views, and then, over the next hour and a half, listened as his commanders commented on the emerging strategy.

“He was testing his strategy principles, and things were flagged in the process that made the result better,” recalled one participant. “But this was also a chance for uniformed commanders to get their shot at the president. The result of this, of course, is uniform buy-in.”

The process — inclusive and long — represented a change for the Pentagon.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sought to ram his change agenda through the Pentagon’s bureaucracy with mixed results. His successor, Robert M. Gates, often relied on a group of trusted aides as he developed policy.

Panetta, who does not have as clear an agenda for changing the military, has focused more on reaching consensus than driving the Pentagon bureaucracy toward a particular outcome.

“Rumsfeld ran things on fear. Gates kept things to himself,” the senior military official said. “Panetta has been very collaborative.”

In my opinion, the planned cuts should be substantially greater, but I'm only a citizen, not a partner in the military-industrial complex. It's good to see a step in the right direction, if only a baby step. Next, of course, congress will do its best to make a hash of it.

[ggwhiz]

I'm Canadian and you guys are just leading the way on some things that must be done, granted with speed bumps as to what they are.

On a pro-rated basis, we are now up to carrying our share of the load, China MAY keep a lid on North Korea (in the common interest) and the Arab League may eventually grow a pair. Yeah I know, don't hold your breath but without U.S. leadership it ain't happening and Europe is financially awol. They owe you for the Marshall Plan.

As for Universal Health care, it's paid for here, just from a different end. Up here we pay through the nose for our booze but the liver transplant is free. Down there, the booze is cheap and the transplant is "holy crap!"

I've paid for mine and subsidized a few others already. Our speed bump is that this cash goes through the hands of politicians before whatever is left ends up where it was intended to go.

[cherdano]

nigel_k, on 2012-January-01, 15:26, said:

It looks big because they drew the arrows really fat and included places where no money is actually being spent. Somebody could probably work out how many hours or minutes per year of social security spending could be funded by stopping that spending but it wouldn't be much.

Total Social Security Spending in 2012: 767 billion $
Total National Defense Spending in 2012: 737 billion $

[Winstonm]

I am not against the military, yet at the same time we have reached a point where adult discussion is required instead of protecting a status quo we no longer can afford.

The Rand Corporation showed in a study that a military response was by far and away the least likely method to prevent and eventually stop terrorist attacks. The U.S.S.R. is gone, while China and the U.S. are too economically entertwined to actually count either as an enemy of each other.

This leaves as our major enemies as random, small countries who can house and offer support to terrorists or who may utilize nuclear weapons against their neighbors - but not against the U.S., certainly not as a large scale nuclear attack. I do not see why a star wars defense system in Poland would stop a terrorist attack sponsored by Iran or anyone else for that matter. Neither do I see the necessity of keeping an Army, Navy, and Air Force capable of repelling the Soviet surge into whereever.

The military-industial complex is a self-serving conglomerate that has long since outlived any usefulness it might once have had. But such a wealthy hydra will be difficult to behead.

[kenberg]

ggwhiz, on 2012-January-07, 16:59, said:

I'm Canadian and you guys are just leading the way on some things that must be done, granted with speed bumps as to what they are.

On a pro-rated basis, we are now up to carrying our share of the load, China MAY keep a lid on North Korea (in the common interest) and the Arab League may eventually grow a pair. Yeah I know, don't hold your breath but without U.S. leadership it ain't happening and Europe is financially awol. They owe you for the Marshall Plan.

As for Universal Health care, it's paid for here, just from a different end. Up here we pay through the nose for our booze but the liver transplant is free. Down there, the booze is cheap and the transplant is "holly crap!"

I've paid for mine and subsidized a few others already. Our speed bump is that this cash goes through the hands of politicians before whatever is left ends up where it was intended to go.

I don't usually vote posts up or down but I had to give this one a plus. I even like the typo about holly crap.

PS I'm not big on who owes who about what, the Marshall Plan was a really good idea for everyone concerned and was, I think, promoted on exactly that basis. But good ideas are always in short supply and it doesn't hurt to remember that maybe once in a blue moon someone has one.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2012-January-07, 11:44, said:

The question then becomes, then who keeps the world safe from us?

Ron Paul <g, d, & r>

[cloa513]

Winstonm, on 2012-January-07, 07:54, said:

Considering the U.S. has no single enemy anywhere close to the threat of the old U.S.S.R., this chart appears ludicrous:

No its much worse than having the USSR which was a moderately well defined threat- they have lots of threats- China, Russia, many unfriendly countries, irregular enemies (terrorists)- however the spending is a mess e.g. its equally split between the three armed forces because otherwise the generals would squabble (kindergarten children that they are)- does this budget include intelligence which is equally a mess with more squabbling disorganised branches than you can count on two hands.

[kenberg]

To me, the world seems largely out of control. We read that Iran is having economic problems. So they will drop their nuclear program in return for dropping sanctions??? Not likely. North Korea has been an economic basket case since it was created and it has not stopped them from getting nukes. What, really, are we to do? Beats me.
I am hearing that Al-Assad belongs to some Islamic sect I never heard of, and others of that sect hope he can stay in power because otherwise they expect some other variant of Islam to kill them. We should try to help who do what?
I'm sure that if I were a Christian in Egypt I would be taking the next flight out to anywhere. Probably we non-believers are not really welcome there either.

I sometimes come to pretty simple minded conclusions. The difference between me and some others is that I realize my ideas are simple minded. Eg: Put in severe oil and gas rationing as was done in WWII, pull entirely out of the Middle East, and tell them to have a good time killing each other just leave us out of it. Crazy I know, but then Reagan did something along those lines during the Iraq-Iran war. I always figured he consulted is advisers: "We have Iraqis killing Iranians and Iranians killing Iraqis. Remind me why it is our job to try to stop this."

All evidence to the contrary, I really do not think that most Americans are eager to bomb anyone. Somehow we have gotten into this mess. Getting out butts out of the Middle East would help a lot, but realistically speaking, can it be done?


If you think I don't know what I am talking about, yeah that's right. Others do?

[blackshoe]

A couple of interesting comments from Fox News (yeah, I know): "The US seems bent on making enemies everywhere" (a guy named Sheurer (sp?), former head of the CIA's Osama Bin Ladin unit, in an endorsement of Ron Paul, and "The Israelis say they're perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Why shouldn't we believe them?" (Same guy, I think, but I could be wrong).

[Winstonm]

(Getting out butts out of the Middle East would help a lot, but realistically speaking, can it be done?)

Ideology in a small population of influence can certainly create a climate that allows an insidious creep of responses that are in concert with the tenets of that ideology. To me, this is how the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex, which has become a cash-cow merry-go-round, evolved.

It is a difficult fix for sure.