Why a so-called sweeping overhaul of defense spending is actually just more of the same.

[bigtree]

04/06/2009


Gates's defense deja vu

Just as it has consumed the press, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's decisions on hardware will completely preoccupy Congress. A major food fight is sure to break out over the capping of F-22 production at 187 very expensive, but not particularly impressive, fighter jets.

If Gates's defense budget proposal is approved, there will be no new presidential or search-and-rescue helicopters (for now) and no more C-17 cargo planes. Pork-hungry members of Congress are sure to object. Although the secretary promised increases in intelligence capabilities and many other things (including 50 new Predator and Reaper drones, accelerated F-35 aircraft production, and more), these projects will not be nearly enough to satiate those eager to "plus up" their congressional districts.

From a budget perspective, it does not appear that the basic Department of Defense budget has changed; this set of decisions may be budget-neutral, or it may even hold in its future expanded net spending requirements.

Nor does Gates's announcement reorder defense spending away from occupations in foreign lands (the advocates call it "counterinsurgency") or change the fact that the United States will continue to spend most of its defense budget on forms of conventional warfare most reminiscent of the mid-20th century. To fight the indistinct, unspecified conflicts that the United States may face in the foreseeable future, neither the strategy nor the hardware has changed.


read more: http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/06/gatess_defense_deja_vu

[babylonsister]

1. You know what they say about opinions. I've read several from

people who are pleasantly surprised...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/04/budget.html
Gates Proposes Radical Overhaul of Pentagon Arsenal

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...
The Defense Budget

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/06/gates-this-is-a-reform-budget/
Gates: ‘This Is A Reform Budget’

[bigtree]

3. It's destined to lead to disappointment and disillusionment

. . . to put such faith in the Pentagon to manage the expenditure of over $500 billion to our benefit, or, more importantly, to any outcome which reforms the priorities which led us to acquiesce to their dual-occupations and keeps us locked in a self-perpetuating exercise of the war-making materials sold to us as accessories to peace.

[babylonsister]

5. And you've already set yourself up for

disappointment and disillusionment, so this could be satisfying to you.

I'm keeping an open mind and trying to read as much as possible, because it's not just black and white, good vs. bad. This topic is way too technical for me, but you're going to find people who think this is a gigantic step in the right direction vs. those that don't. Same as it ever was.

[bigtree]

8. goddamn it

What an asinine crack. It's not enough that almost everything positive I've posted about Obama is ignored here, but it's just disgusting to have yet another defender of the president adopt the Bushian defense that folks who are critical of POLICY just want to see the president fail. I really don't know how you keep an 'open mind' with such a myopic and offensive view of critics of administration initiatives and actions.

Maybe you could point out ONE instance for me, babylonsister, where I've even HINTED that failure for this administration would be 'satisfying' to me. What an utterly SICK defense. Disgusting.

[babylonsister]

15. You and your outrage.

You posted a link, I posted three to dispute yours, and you never even addressed them. All I'm saying is your opinion doesn't necessarily make it so. But you have a hard-on for Gates and have for awhile, so anything he does, you're not going to like. I'm trying to see both sides. And I hate that we're in Afghanistan with no end in sight, just as you do. But I'm not the boss, nor do I have inside knowledge of what their reasoning is other than the broad outline we've heard.

And you're right, I know you're not hoping for failure, so that I take back, and I do acknowledge your positive posts when I see them. EDIT TO ADD: I didn't think you were hoping for failure, so you put words in my mouth. :spank:

Edit to add from Matt Yglesias:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/praise_for_the_new_defense_budget.php

Praise for the New Defense Budget

For more analysis on yesterday’s defense budget analysis see Robert Farley, Spencer Ackerman, Fred Kaplan, and James Fallows. All are impressed, and all rightly so.

This is the move that justifies the decision to keep Robert Gates on at the Pentagon. Any new Defense Secretary, no matter how brilliant, would have had to have spent his first three months in office building relationships with the top military commanders and focusing on filling out the DOD civilian staff. Only a Secretary who’s already been in office could have the ability to propose sweeping change. But only a president who’s brand new could have the popularity and honeymoon effect necessary to have any hope of driving the changes through congress. Hence the appeal of the odd alignment of new president and old defense secretary.

[bigtree]

16. I've actually bothered to address these issues of the budget directly in posts

I'm not going to debate a row of links.


What the Pentagon Wants to Spend More of Our Money on . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5402118&mesg_id=5402118

The Trouble with Budgeting for a Counter-Insurgency (You just might get what they're asking for )
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5407870&mesg_id=5407870


By the way, defense and foreign policy are the ONLY issues I feel strongly opposed enough with this administration to bother to work as hard as I do to comprehend them and respond to them. I have the utmost respect for the president's ability and faith that he possesses Democratic values worthy of support and promotion. But, it's been a horrible realization that the issues that I've been working so hard on for YEARS now are not being represented in the uncompromising fashion that I believe they deserve. The suggestion that there's some insincerity or some sort of self-gratifying mischief in those efforts of mine is baffling and exasperating.

Did anyone miss the advocacy I've made here for these issues since 2003?

[bigtree]

17. oh, I love the defense of Gates and Co. as cover for these policies

. . . as if Democrats holding the WH and both houses of Congress can't fight for what they want and win.

I still dream of an uncompromising administration which didn't give credibility to republican cons and obstructive schemes to substitute good Democratic legislation and progressive initiatives with milquetoast.

[redqueen]

18. They might be able to...

or maybe not. There are more than enough conservative dems around to screw up any major efforts to reform... well not just this but anything, really.

[Mari333]

2. moving the deck chairs around I see. nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

4. One question from me: Does the overall spending amount change?

If not, this "announcement" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. If, instead, the spending on implements of war goes down substantially, I will be first in line to applaud.

[redqueen]

9. According to another source i read, the net spending goes up.

Hopefully some of that increase is due to more spending on veterans.

[redqueen]

6. "the most ambitious set of cuts to well- entrenched weapons systems since the early 1990s."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5408592

Hard to cut through the spin... but I'm not ready to join in with the outrage just yet.

[bigtree]

10. to make way for the new-generation warfare

I'm underwhelmed.

[redqueen]

11. Where does it say that?

Are you talking about new programs that replace these?

Is there that much new spending on new weapons programs?

[bigtree]

12. the emphasis is on weapon systems and technology which will accommodate the type of missions

. . . which they're prosecuting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I posted a summary of views reacting to the effort to shift resources to mesh with the 'counter-insurgency' and 'irregular warfare' which Gates is so fond of in Afghanistan. Where do you suppose the bulk of the $530 billion plus will be reasonably and responsibly spent?


What the Pentagon Wants to Spend More of Our Money on . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5402118&mesg_id=5402118


The Trouble with Budgeting for a Counter-Insurgency (You just might get what they're asking for )
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5407870&mesg_id=5407870

[redqueen]

13. Well I hoped that there would be increases in spending for

veterans' care.

I figured there would be a lot of spending on the anti-terror stuff, wasn't sure which was the reason for this budget being higher than Bush's last one.

[bigtree]

14. Very commendable effort from the Pentagon on veteran and 'warfighter' care

Gates: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123904207376593845.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

- Continue the steady growth in medical research and development by requesting $400 million more than last year.

- Recognize the critical and permanent nature of wounded, ill and injured, traumatic brain injury, and psychological health programs. This means institutionalizing and properly funding these efforts in the base budget and increasing overall spending by $300 million. The department will spend over $47 billion on healthcare in FY10.

- Increase funding by $200 million for improvements in child care, spousal support, lodging, and education.



It doesn't look like these expenditures are the budget champs on the $530 billion price tag.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. New boss meet the real bosses.

In this case, the MIC and the alleged "liberals" in congress who will dutifully shoot down any effort at meaningful cuts in "defense" spending.