By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
Everyone in Washington this week is having a nightmare about a guillotine. I'm talking about the proposed cuts to the Defense Department.
If the Congressional super-commission cannot agree on ways to reduce the debt by about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, that pulls the trigger. And half those cuts automatically come from expenditures on national security.
I say, let the guillotine fall. It's about time.
The Defense Department's budget has risen now for 13 consecutive years, which is unprecedented in American history. In the last decade, overall defense spending has risen to about $700 billion, which is a 70 percent increase. If you include the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, we now spend $250 billion more than average defense budgets during the Cold War. Now, that was a time when the Soviet, the Chinese and all East European militaries were arrayed against the United States and its allies.
Today, with no serious adversaries in the world, the United States spends more than all other countries on the planet combined. Even as a percentage of GDP, the number of countries that spend more than us is very small. Eritrea, Iraq, Saudi Arabia - so they're either war zones or oil states.
Cutting defense spending as we wind down military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be difficult; it's not unprecedented.
After the Korean War, President Eisenhower cut defense spending by 27 percent. Nixon cut the budget by 29 percent after Vietnam. Even Ronald Reagan scaled back military spending in the 1980s as the Cold War was becoming less tense. And, of course, as it got over, that process was accelerated by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton - all of it adding up to a 35 percent decrease in the defense budget by the mid '90s.
Given the enormous run-up in spending under George W. Bush, even if Obama made comparable cuts today, defense spending would remain substantially above the levels under all those presidents. After all, remember, the Simpson-Bowles plan proposes $750 billion in defense cuts over 10 years.
A recent report by Lawrence Korb, who worked at the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan, posits that a $1 trillion cut over 10 to 12 years is feasible without compromising national security.
The Defense Department is the best example of waste, fraud and abuse by far in the American government. Even when the results are pretty impressive, the costs and the cost overruns are eye-popping. Take a look at these F-35 planes. They can take off the traditional way, as well as vertical. But the Joint Strike Fighter Program that commissioned the jets to service the Air Force, Marines and Navy, has been plagued by years of design flaws and massive cost overruns. The total cost for this fighter program is something like $300 billion and counting.
Robert Gates has called the new designs for its second engine extravagant and unnecessary. That could be said of large swaths of the defense budget, "extravagant and unnecessary".
Budgetary measures aside, perhaps this is a chance for us to rebalance American foreign policy.
For too long, Congress has fattened the Defense Department, while starving foreign policy agencies. Robert Gates himself once pointed out that there are more members of military marching bands than servicemen in the Foreign Service. The result is a warped American foreign policy. It conceives of problems entirely in military terms, tries to present a ready military solution.
As he came to the close of his presidency, Dwight Eisenhower said, "Every dollar uselessly spent on military mechanisms decreases our total strength and, therefore, our security." It's time for a more balanced national security strategy. If the budget deficit forces that shift, so be it.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
In times of economic downturn, it is cheaper and more sustainable to apply diplomacy than weaponry to resolve a conflict. Maybe this global financial crisis would bring people closer together in a rocking boat.
well said. but even if there is no economic crises – diplomacy works. or are you suggesting that America return to war once we have the money again! (i dont think so- but just checking)- ):
Sorry, but you can't reason with people who value your death more than their own life.
In addition to the jihad guerilla threat, the US also faces a mid to long term threat from countries like China and Russia. China is spending large amounts on Defense and neither are our allies. China now has a stealth fighter and on this site a few days ago, a new Chinese Aircraft Carrier that makes a quantum leap over anything the US has.
Against a country of 1 Billion, the US's only hope would be a technological advantage and that gap is being rapidly closed. Without National Security, nothing else matters. There is no economic growth, no jobs, and no money for pet social programs. Mr Zakaria continually neglects that point and creates a straw man argument that the US "has no serious threat". Perhaps we are not on the verge of conflict today, but then again, neither were we on Sept 10, 2001.
OFFENSE is the best DEFENSE and readiness is essential. The US must maintain R&D programs to develop new aircraft and ships and invest in a strong standing military. President Obama has stated that the most important jobs are government jobs. Why not "stimulate" the economy and reinstate military positions cut during the Clinton admin? That would be an "investment" that will actually help us "win the future" Mr Zakaria. Perhaps you can tell the Pres next time you are advising him.
Scott, you clearly have a row to hoe for the Navy – either that or you are just misinformed. The gap between the PLA and the US Military is closing – slowly – but it is enormously wide. If we stopped all R&D right now, even by the most liberal realistic estimates it would take the PLA about 3 decades to truly match or overtake us. Their Varyag aricraft carrier? It's a second-rate Soviet hand-me-down that cannot even be considered alongside any of America's current carriers.
Also, are you implying that Russia and China want to "see us dead" so badly they cannot be bargained with?!? What alternate dimension are you from? Believe it or not, nations can compete without becoming maniacally devoted to each other's utter destruction. China and Russia, and even states like Iran and North Korea are "bargained with" all the time. That's literally why we havn't gone to war with any of them since the 1950's.
Scott In terms of weaponry we've been more than ready for far more than a decade – just align ourselves to nuke Mecca & see how quickly Islamists back off.. We got Osama, get out of their countries & get them out of ours – minimal trade only. Instead we are waging wars on their soil and bringing their refugees into the USA to undermine us from within. How stupid is that? But follow the MONEY and see why we aren't satisfied to man our own borders/cities – where would we sell drones & advanced weaponry? Trillions in national debt due to wars & collapse of USA – who cares?
Just recently a senior Chinese businessman stated about the United States: "We don't want to kill you. We just want to sell you everything you want". The future global war is about economic dominance, not military dominance. No one is interested in invading the U.S.A. where everyone is armed to the teeth (just in case the English King gets any fancy ideas). The U.S.A. only gets into armed conflict to protect it's own selfish interests. You don't need an army capable of holding off the imagined yellow or red hordes for that. The history of warfare is that today's generals fight with yesterday's tactics.
Scott:
Only a couple of points you make are worth making: spending on R&D is one. But thinking that bigger bombers and faster jets are going to defeat jihadists living in a cave or in the desert is extremely misguided. Think Special Forces, which don't require all of the expensive hardware (high-end logistics, communications equipment, etc. are orders of magnitude cheaper than bombers and fighters, for example) that you think is sacrosanct–it isn't.
"China is spending large amounts on Defense and neither are our allies. China now has a stealth fighter and on this site a few days ago, a new Chinese Aircraft Carrier that makes a quantum leap over anything the US has."
China spends about 7.5 times less than we do on defense. WOW China has a stealth fighter I am scared... how many of them do they have? BTW China has no aircraft carrier.... and certainly not one that has more technology than we do. Your speaking of something they have been talking about for years but it doesn't actually exist yet.
"Their Varyag aricraft carrier? It's a second-rate Soviet hand-me-down that cannot even be considered alongside any of America's current carriers"
The Varyag is not an operational carrier. It was towed to China... stripped of all its weapons and components for study. They are planning on making it into a museum. While they've been talking of building one... none is acutally under construction.
China does have aircraft carriers under consturction, and the varyyag will not be used as a museum or a restaurant, or a casino like they said it was. It's going to be real, if outdated. The ones that come after that, who knows. They have no experience with carriers which is a good thing, but I see no reason to let them play catch up.
diplomacy is what Obama promised. Easier said than done. A lot of our enemies can't be reasoned with on any issue.
The world dlslikes Obama as much as Bush, maybe more.
"The world dlslikes Obama as much as Bush, maybe more"
Yeah...no. Thats why he's welcomed by politicians and citizens alike everywhere he goes.
mcp123....2011 != 2008.
You haven't been paying much attention lately have you?
MCP===Exactly! Thats why when Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize thought global community agreed. Whether anyone in this country agrees or dis agrees the global communityt thought Obama was deserving of the honor. Dubya ignored Richard Clarks warning of an impending Al Queda attack in the same fashion as he ignored the victims of Katrina with the same apathy he displayed by letting Bin Laden go at Bora Bora.....and you can never spin that into anything positive
What enemies? The only enemies we have are the ones we keep manufacturing ourselves. If we'd just bring our military home and stop acting like the Earth's police force – then we'd have a lot less "enemies" to worry about. We could even use the military for -heaven forbid = actually defending our borders and keeping all these mexican maggots from flooding across our southern border.
Not only do they not like him, they have no respect for him.....they see him as weak and you can see the liberties many enemy countries have been taking with the U.S since obama became president.....although many countries may have hated Bush (even though these muslim enemies would hate any American president), they feared him and knew he didnt play around....
JG, the border is left open because american farms and factories pressure our goverment to allow this labor to come in. Do you reallt think we can find Bin Laben and Saddam but can't keep illegals out of our country?
Obama disliked as much as Bush around the world ? Are you kidding ? Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney were the most hated in recent time..........still are. Obama is received warmly in most countries as we have wittnessed.
Right on, Daisy! Diplomacy has worked SO well in getting Iran to end their nuclear weapons program.
Street smart: Obowma had been in office for two or three weeks when the nominations for the peace prize closed. Could you outline for us what his great accomplishments in furthering world peace were at that time?
Diplomacy by missile strike is ALL we've gotten from this President. President Bush actually used REAL diplomacy more than President Obama...
I don't even know how to respond to your stupid statement.
tcp dude I guess u read way too much about Diplomacy, missiles and Bush to compare them with Obama (due for u to read)..U r a classic T-partier.
Really? I guess by diplomacy, you mean lying to your own country about WMD in order to incite a war that didn't need to happen.
Sure, war against Iraq on fals pretenses was not my idea of diplomacy.
Pres. GW Bush – spelled diplomacy as – s h o c k a n d a w e – and lived every day to see his power and authority in action!
So lying about WMDs is diplomacy? Dubya gave our nuclear secrets to China, China gave us a bunch of oranges to return the favor. Dubya let Bin Laden go, Obama coordinated efforts to have him killed and did. What the hell are you trying to convince everybody of anyway?
This is bs.
We had so much wartime success under Bush, leading up to his "Mission Accomplished" speech and banner on board a battleship during the Fall of 2003.
Are you kidding me??
Wow! That is simply beyond stupid.
tcp – you have got to read other sources than Fox for your news sources.
Yes...I can't tell you HOW WELL that worked in the 1930s.
" how well that worked in the 1930's"
We were in no more danger of external invasion then than we are now. Actually even less danger now since we have 1,900 nuclear weapons (even half that would do). The REAL fact is... with the missiles that exist today we don't even need surface ships at all. How many battlegroups do we have by the way? It's 11... 1 battlegroup is match enough for any navy on the planet currently. You obviously can't see what the word overkill and unnecessary means.
The government needs to cut a lot more than just defense. Reduce spending by 1.5 trillion over 10 years, while we're overspending by that much in a single year now? Are these people retarded? Imagine this. You're about $450,000 in debt now, you make $75,000 a year, and you spend $100,000 a year. So you figure, well if I only spend $95,000 a year that will fix things, it's going to be tough, but I can buckle down and do it. Meanwhile the interest you're paying on your debt grows each year, eventually swallowing up your entire income.
It's not a matter of whether the U.S. defaults on its debt, it's a matter of when, and that time isn't as far off as people think. The craziest part of this latest so called solution is the rationale that we can cut spending over the next 10 years and that's going to get us through another year with the debt ceiling. This is ridiculous. What the heck will we do when that is used up? The time for thinking about that isn't something to postpone like this.
There will need to be some serious cuts that will need to be made. This won't happen though until it's way too late. That is the nature of our system. These people don't even care to look beyond their noses. It's all about their re-election chances. However, it's the people who are to blame, who don't want to see the party end. It must though, one way or another.
Tlalk about waste, fraud, and abuse!!!!! What about all the entiltlement programs. Foodstamps, welfare, grants,etc. That is also why our Medicare and disability are so high to maintain. Lets be fair, there is fraud, waste and abuse in all government programs. Seems if you fill out the paperwork with just the right words, you get money.
What programs that will provide direct benefits to you are you willing to have cut and by how much?
This one is for Ken.
Let's continue your analogy. You spend $100K per year but only make $75K. You have two choices, cut your spending or increase your income. Every one of us can't do the second one, but the government certainly can. We call that tax increases, and there are times when it is justified and necessary. Oh, yes we hear about how these are sure job killers, but we know that's just right wing propagada with no empirical proof. During the early 1990's we heard the same dire warning from the right when Clinton and the Democratic Congress raised taxes. The result was the best economy we've ever had, full employment, a booming stock market, and a budget surplus that allowed us to begin paying off the national debt. No one serously questions the need to reduce spending, but only a moron or a self-serving ideologue wil question the wisdom of raising taxes as part of the solution.
Hey CAL USA,
The United States has, by continuously (and heretofore “routinely”) increasing it’s “debt limit”, shown itself to be fiscally insane well beyond “unsustainable. Both parties participated in this political debauchery.
We need to get through "denial", "negotiation" and "acceptance" quickly if we are to timely map out a workable course back to a stable and promising economy. Failure is not an option.
To give Congress additional revenue before they can separate "needs" from "wants" and limit spending to available revenue would be like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline. Additional tax revenue is the drug of choice of every politician, regardless of party.
When President Clinton raised taxes, it improved the economy and we were able to pay off some of the debt. When President Bush cut taxes, the economy tanked and deficit spending increased adding to the debt. The recovery from the 2007 crash has been slowed by the extension of those tax cuts. Right now, revenues are at about 14% of GDP. America has been at its best, economically, north of 18% of GDP. Revenue needs to be increased. We, the voters, need to find more responsible people to elect to Congress.
Well said Ken, If the Gernan people could have looked into the future and viewed their own destruction, would they have been so eager to support the military buildup that preceeded their destruction? Is our self destruction forthcoming? What would curtail it? Nigeriaj Feelaf is right, as are those in other countries looking at our machine. The bigger it gets, the hungier and more food required to feed it; the more feed it gets, the bigger it gets, and so on....
But, Hillary prefers B-2 bombers to delivery humanitarian aid.
The world is & always has been a dangerous place and history has taught that you negotiate(diplomacy) from a position of strength. There will always be the school yard bully and will also always be the rogue nation ready to commit acts of terrorism or war in our country if they perceive weakness and many foreign countries perceive talking or negotiating as weakness. I'm all for cutting un-necessary defense spending but maybe should start at layers of bureaucracy at pentagon, not our weaponry, but that will never happen. Our defense as % of GDP is less then any of the Presidents you mentioned, so that makes your argument somewhat invalid. Problem is and has always been.......we spend too much as a nation and a people.
To live on borrow money is shameful and wrong. We are broke buddy.
Bin Laden always stated his goal was to bring down the enemey economically by war. He used Russia as an example.
Look at the USA now.
It's a nice thought but the reality is very simple. Human nature won't allow it. You are obviously a reasonable person. but remeber those bullys in school? Now imagine one of those bullies as the leader of a country with a military. As long as there are people on this world we will have bullies and the ocasional psychopath who will become a leader and want to take things from their neighbors without asking. These people prey on the weak. For our own safety and the safety of our neighbors in the world we need to maintain a strong military. It is a necessary evil. And the trueth is military spending in this country may have risen. but so has all government spending. The military budget is still less than 10 percent of the total government spending. Far less than our potential adversarys.
US Military Budget for 2010
Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion -1.8%
Research, Development,
Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion – 20.2%
** Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%
Programs - 2011 - Budget request[11] Change, 2010 to 2011
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1%
Ballistic Missile Defense
(Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3%
Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0%
Brigade Combat Team
Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8%
DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6%
P–8A Poseidon Subs $2.9 billion -1.6%
V-22 Osprey $2.8 billion -6.5%
Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8%
F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4%
Predator and Reaper Unmanned
Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8%
Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5%
CVN Refueling and Complex
Overhaul $1.7 billion -6.0%
Chemical Demilitarization $1.6 billion -7.0%
RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7%
Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4%
TOTAL Budget Breakdown for 2011Incl. RELATED COSTS
Defense-related expenditure 2011 Budget request & Mandatory spending Calculation
DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency"
---------------------
PLUS RELATED DEPARTMENTAL COSTS
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales.
At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion
Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion
Homeland Security $54.7 billion
NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion 20% and 50% of NASA's total
Veterans pensions $58.4 billion
Other defense-related $7.5 billion mandated expenditures
NOTE THIS
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $114.8–$454.2 billion
Between 23% and 91% of total USA interest
Total Spending $1.060–$1.449 trillion War funding: 2001 to present
In order to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Presidents Bush and Obama have spent more than $1 trillion on direct costs alone – these wars were Never Budgeted!! Thewre IS your deficiets!!
On top of that, annual defense spending has just about DOUBLED since 2001, rising to almost $700 billion in 2010. Military spending now accounts for more 20% of the entire federal budget.
For fiscal year 2012, $118 Billion additional dollars has been requested to fund the (several) wars.
You've done a great job of presenting real data. That one-year list of expenditures, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. We'll spend $5B on one attack sub, but multiply that by the other 16 the Navy expects to build and you have some real money. By the way, we have 58 of them now, and their mission was supposed to be to counter Soviet Ballistic Missile subs. How many do we need now? How many more aircraft carriers do we need? We have almost as many as when we were fighting wars in Europe and the Pacific, and each one of the current ones has more combat power than the entire fleet had then. We can spend ourselves into the ground on military power and go the way of the Soviet Union, or we can recognize that our national strength has to be based on our economy, not the other way around.
Excellent information! Thank you.
CAL USA – I agree, someone needs to look at the Defense budget with a critical eye. What, indeed, do we need with more CVNs; especially with a 95% cost over-run. And, it becomes a never-ending cycle. They build, let's say, three CVNs. They have to have 9,000 sailors & Navy airmen to man the three ships. Now, they have to make cruisers, destroyers and frigates, etc to be assigned as escorts and support to the new CVNs. Those ships have to be manned, too. a good estimate might be another 2,000 to 3,000 per CVN. Add another 100 or so to each CVN for the flag officer staffs. That's about 5,000 additional Navy personnel that the Navy needs to recruit. And on it goes.
Cut social welfare
Fareed will be attacked by the RepubalicanTeaBaggers with charges of treason for his suggestion that the Defense budget be cut. The end of Pax Americana is happening and few realize it. The GOP wants to keep the American Empire going at any cost but the simple truth is that their action will speed up its destruction. The irony of the GOP insisting that no cuts be made in the military budget is self-delusion on an epic scale. Only Republican Ron Paul seems to understand that the military budget must be cut back but even his proposed cuts will just be the beginning. Some other nation will have to step forward and maintain world order, the US is economically exhausted and can no longer afford it.
Leave it to a Muslim commentator on what he thinks the US should do with the defense budget. Why should we decrease when the Russians and Chinese are increasing theirs. IE The Chinese missile that can take out a US aircraft carrier. The Chinook huelicopter that crashed is 50 years old. Same with the ac130 hercules. Cuts means jobs also ! let's put more people out of work!!!
Fareed's faith has nothing to do with this. He is the one of the most honest journalists in mainstream media. People like you are destroying this country with your support for irrational militarism, hate and the jingoistic leaders that come with the package.
Don't be consumed with hate. That makes you no different than the Al Qaeda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ld2KCFAsmk
As we have seen on Wall Street today, Pres. Dwight D.Eisenhower was quite right. Every year since he left office, the military spending went up astronomically. Unfortunately, the general public chose to turn a deaf ear to all this and go blindly on with this nonsense. We need to make at least a $600B cut in military spending, but won't unfortunately due to the many special interest groups in Washington.D.C. aka the MIC(military-industrial-complex)!
The problem with this country is that the general public turns a blind eye AND a deaf ear to everything that congress does. Elections come and go but the same old fogies stay in Washington and do whatever they want regardless of what "we the people" want them to do. Why? Because we don't FORCE them to work for the good of the country.
The military absoluteley needs to be scaled way back. The problem with our govt is that they all make great promises to get elected but are unable to follow through. The power of the MIC and the bankers on Wall Street handcuff anyone who takes the oath of office. Look at the promises Obama made for transparency and holding those responsible for the financial meltdown. There was a dog and pony show right after the election, but did anythign come from it? NO. New politicians just don't gain enough traction to influence change. We would literally have to replace every politician on the hill to gut out all of the seniority and political favoritism.
Actually like the vast majority of citizens (judging from those w/whom I correspond, And the Numerous remarks on these blogs) feel the 'the people' have virtually No ability to "Force" our "political" Representatives to do anything!
These are sooo many Hundreds of Millions / Billions of dollars spent Annually by Corporate Lobbyists and other large special intrest organizations, that (despite "Contacting" directly) the American citizen has virtually No Influence!
– Serious Campaign Reform, And Lobbists Restrictions Legislation are imperative for "equaliyt of influence" to he Real!
RogerOhio: The problem you are stating won’t get solved even if we replace every politician in office. The replacements will do the same or will do even worse. The way to solve the problem is to reform the election funding regulation in our country. Just think about it, election funding is the point in our political system irrespective of the party affiliation, where the Wall Street Bankers and the Military Industrial Complex exercise their financial power even before a politician gets elected to office. Only candidates that get their blessings, get huge amounts of money to spend on election campaigns and brainwash people just before elections and get a chance to even make it to the final ballot and be one of the choices we get to vote on. We are made to believe that we are living in a democracy and we elect our officials, but in reality we live in a RICHOCRACY where a shortlist of candidates who have earned the blessings of a few groups with extreme wealth, gets handed down to us, and we get to pick one out of their short list.
Exactly where would you cut?...do you not think the same logic can be used in EVERY other area of Government? Infrastructure and security...the two MOST important jobs of a FEDERAL Government and you want to decimate one of them...
Infrastructure? We've seen how that is sorely UNDERfunded. Defense? No reasonable person can argue that we might as well p*ss about 25% of that budget down the toilet through waste, fraud, and unneeded weaponry. For all the Tea Baggers who gripe about any misspent dime of the "taxpayers money" or any issue concerning public teachers unions, where is the outrage for this bloat and excess?
Easy. Start with the aircraft carrier program. These giant relics cost about 3 billion to build and many millions yearly to maintain, but are basically obsolete. They are "hot spots in a cold ocean", meaning they could be readily attacked by long range missiles in a combat situation. And what is their purpose? –to carry and support manned aircraft, while manned aircraft themselves are rapidly becoming obsolete. Drones can handle three time the Gs that a human can withstand, are more nimble, require far, far less support than manned aircraft, and can be carried on far smaller boats than aircraft carriers. The Defense Dept has order a new aircraft carrier a year for the next three years, to bring our fleet to 15. But trimming it down to 6 would be a much better way to go (and replacing with drone carriers). The main reason we do not do this is because the politicians want the 100-200 million per year in economy boost the carrier port brings to the state that docks them.
"Easy. Start with the aircraft carrier program. "
Finally someone who sees as I do.... $ 8 billion dollars for the Gerald Ford... a lousy president anyway. Aircraft carriers are as obsolete as battleships were when Reagan spent a few billion to reactivate WW II relics. A modern torpedo could split one in two as easy as you crush tin can. China is developing a ballistic missile that can be fired from hundreds of miles away and go into orbit then send a warheard to an aircraft carrier. Anti-ship missiles today are extremely powerful... and if you think the Phalanx could stop a swarm of them... it won't.
Unfortunately you have to continue to build certain things so you maintain the skill set within the country. That is not something that can be outsourced to China or Russia. As long as a small number of these programs are built and maintain, not to mention being constantly improved, it should not be a problem. So we have to build a new submarine, and new aircraft carrier and other ships and airplanes is small numbers to maintain the skill set. As long as all branchs of the military can get along with this it should be fine. That skill set is extremely importpant, but maintaining it should not be taken advantage of.
You bunch of lefty pansies...if it were up to you we would be overrun by enemies...first thing you want to cut is the defense of this country...I even heard one writer say it needs to be scaled wayyyy back......maybe we should stop spending billions on the worthless UN, illegal immigrants etc....Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran etc are arnming to the teeth to destroy America and you want to scale back....you people are pathetic.....maybe obama shouldnt have given billions to large corporations in a bailout....maybe we should stop funding the worthless UN...maybe you should all go to work instead of looking for handouts....
Jordan: it's hate mongerers like you, capable of seeing only one side when you even bother to open your eyes and ears, that foment the ignorance that pervades the right wing population. If Russia is arming to the teeth to do us in, then they would be capable of crushing a little insurrection within their own borders, which they can't. If China were doing the same, then Taiwan would be back with the homeland already. And Pakistan? Are you really that ignorant? They only want to crush India so they can rightfully have the little bit of tall rocks in Kashmir that is theirs anyway. Diplomacy has achieved so much more than force down the centuries, with force only used when necessary to turn back real threats and demons like Hitler, Napoleon, and such. When American adventurism oversteps itself, such as Vietnam, Iraq and even to a certain extent with Afghanistan (the unwinnable "right" war), we as a people are saddled with the consequences for decades to come.
The general public turned a deaf ear because the politicians and those who grow fat with military expenditures continue to find new ways to frighten the public.
Americans should get wise to this and toughen themselves against the fear-mongers. Our ancestors didn't ask for zero risk when they ventured west to conquer this continent. We need to be the Home of the Brave again.
All empires fall because they overextend themselves. All the resources go to further imperialist ambitions, while the infrastructure and services at home languish. The American empire comes with a big price tag. It's about time we reined in military spending and started spending that money at home, to repair our infrastructure, and to honor the promises made to the American citizens.
Agreed, Mary.
It is time to return to the Republic and abandon the Empire.
Thank you, Mary. I couldn't have said it better myself!
Mary, you are 100% correct. Eisenhower was correct about military spending getting out of control. I firmly believe that we must maintain a strong military, but get real, their is so much waste and fraud with military contractors and their politician puppets. We maintain bases around the world that should have been closed 20 years ago. We have started and stayed in wars simply because people and corporations have and are making tons of money. The exact same thing happened in Vietnam. The American voters have to put enough pressure on the politicians, Demodratic and Republican, and force them to cut back. The current politics of both parties is destroying this country.
Well said Mary.!
Mary, the "military-industrial complex is, today, the goose that lays the golden egg for capitalist enterprise.
Back in the sixties on occasion military bases would pay the troops in two dollar bills to remind communities of how those dollars circulated up to five times the original amount in the local economy. Look at what people regularly buy today. Your computers, wide screen monitors, satellite TV, iPods and cell phone technology originated in military funded research.
Such products have produced and supported an overall economy of indescribable wealth. The only real problem is that if our government managed the desert, there would quickly be a shortage of sand.
Well Greg, what do you expect, as long as the US mostly produces military gear. Everything else is made in China....
That's not true I just bought a lighter from the store to support our troops, let me turn it over and see where its made...... DAMN YOU CHINA!
What about the report that estimates that one out of four dollars given out in welfare is fraudulent? Can we cut all those programs by twenty five percent as well.
Yes, we can. I have personally witnessed this fraud and Welfare could stand to lose around 25% of its funding too.
I'd rather deal with the report that says math teachers don't know squat about teaching math... we should cut their budget by 100%...
Try doing some fact-checking before blowing out the same tired old canards about welfare fraud.
"The US Department of Labor has reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program" (whereas the L.A. Times erroneously reported 24%)
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm
Thats about 2 cases out of 100. Cite a refeered journal article or government report that backs up your claim of 25% fraud. No, you won't because you can't. (No the right-wing Heritage Foundation is not a scholarly unbiased source, OK?) Yes there are notorious cases of abuse that the Glenn Becks of the right-wing propaganda machine love to cite. Yeah right, our economic woes can be attributed to the masses of "welfare queens" gaming the system. Let's kick them all into the gutter, huh?
MathReach1, 25%? Really? Cite the source of this report. Is it a newspaper or a right-wing think tank? Please cite a vetted Federal study or a refereed scholarly journal article. Glenn Beck said so"" doesn't cut it.
I rather suspect the "authorities" reporting here "with direct experience"would be singing a different tune if they should lose their jobs, burn through their retirement savings, and wind up on the street. Or is it just poor people of color that they have a problem with?
Mr. Zakaria is an educated man who is well informed however I believe that we are overlooking a key component to the cost wrapped up in the Defense budget. Though I do not deny that there are areas of waste in the DoD it should be said that for the service components most of the funding goes toward paying for personnel, active duty, civil service and retired members of both groups. We must realize that the reason the MIC representative are in Washington is because ever time there is talk to cut the Defense budget our leader look to slashing funding for retirements and health care for citzens who have served. Many may say that is good and that will level the playing field for all however there are thing that service members perform that normal citizens do not and will not if given the choice and it is our the responsability of our country to take care of those who sacrificed thier dodies and thier lives in it's defense. Otherwise we should do as other countries and make it mandatory for young men with able bodies to serve and stop the madness of demanding that those who are willing to volunteer and not be compensated for it when they can no longer serve.
US Military Budget for 2010 – total Direct spending $685.1 billion +3.0% /2009
Programs – 2011 – Budget request[11] $721.3 billion
TOTAL Budget Breakdown for 2011 Incl. RELATED COSTS
Defense-related expenditure 2011 Budget request & Mandatory spending Calculation
DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales.
At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion
Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion
Homeland Security $54.7 billion
NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion 20% and 50% of NASA's total
Veterans pensions $58.4 billion
Other defense-related $7.5 billion mandated expenditures
NOTE THIS
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $114.8–$454.2 billion
Between 23% and 91% of total USA interest
Total Spending $1.060–$1.449 trillion (Rob Soc.Sec. to pay for Wars) DOD OWES SocSec over $225.-BILLION !!
War funding: 2001 to present
In order to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Presidents Bush and Obama have spent more than $1 trillion on direct costs alone.
On top of that, annual defense spending has just about DOUBLED since 2001, rising to almost $700 billion in 2010. Military spending now accounts for =>>> more 20% of the entire federal budget.
For fiscal year 2012, another $118 Billion dollars has been requested to fund the (several) wars.
BOTH Middle-East WARS HAVE BEEN CARRIED "OFF-BUDGET" FOR TEN YEARS –
COSTING TAX-PAYERS OVER $ 1.3 TRILLION (==>> There'Z your Deficit)!
I think they ought to pull everyone out of Iraq and Afganistan today and bring how our scrap iron with them give it to congress so they can balance there budget . Then send all the national guard and reserves home . There is no more defecit . Also leave the contractors over there BUT cancell there contracts
Agree. Bring them home to defend our Southern border.
Isolationism has ALWAYS worked in the past...
Yes, it certainly worked during the 19th century, when America drew immigrants to these shores without offering them government services, but promising them freedom. We didn't have to go abroad, looking for "monsters to destroy," occupying lands where we are not welcome (continental territories excepted), and throwing American taxpayers' money down the rat hole just to keep over 100 military bases in 100 countries.
Our empire comes at a great expense. It doesn't keep us safe. In fact, it puts us at risk.
Remove Zakaria from CNN. His views are totally biased and outrageous. He is a disgrace to CNN.
You are a tea party terrorist...
Zakaria is right.
I particularly like how you managed to use the words tea party and terrorist in the same sentence. The fact that your response contained nothing else underscores your bias to villify that which you can not debate.
@Jon: I find it pretty ironic that you are defending the person who first put up such a ridiculous comment to begin with that is rife with opinion and has no examples whatsoever to base his assertion on. How is this person contributing to a "debate" when he just spouts off some lame opinion. Everyone has an opinion and everyone knows what good they are.
No serious Adversaries?? Hmmm..that's rich coming from someone named Fareed!!
Jon, Bush also raised his eye brows like u when Hans Blinx -UN watchdog told him that no sign of WMD in Iraq..but still Bush waged the War and made american fearful abt sumthing that didnt exist. Knowing the term like 'civil debate' is admirable but u gotta realize that U need a brain to participate in a 'civil debate'.
Hey Jay the pundit, how many cents the defense contractors or lobbyist had paid u to be an idiot in this comment section?
Yet again, a perfect example of how an individual who can't articulate a point, merely resorts to narrative statements and the use of labels such as "idiot". I see that a lot here and unfortunately it detracts from any type of civil debate.
I agree with you Jay. The reason we are spending more for defense is because technology is more expensive now. I want our troops home, and I want to be able to afford to protect us at home. If they want to cut defense then let all these other countries take care of their own problems. Stop the foreign aid, stop holding out our hands to help everyone. If people see a problem with that then tough. Cutting defense will be bad. I don't know about you all but I don't want to send our men and women anywhere with nothing more than sticks in their hands.
Yeah, it's much better to waste 300 billion on sticks that don't work.
how can any reasonable look at our spending and the facts that show we spend more on defense than all countries in the world be defended? It's like saying that your family is drowning in debt but you don't want to exchange the Ferrari in your gargae for a Camry. Ridiculous.
Sorry, Amy. You need to do your homework. Not only is our defense spending inflated, but we are less secure because of it. If it was a matter of the necessary tools costing more, then you would have a valid point. But the current problem is rampant spending to support incredibly expensive yet strategically outdated or unimportant technology.
Cut defense and raise taxes on the wealthy too. Everything should be on the table.
Why should an individual pay a higher percentage of his income simply because he has the ambition, work ethic, and intelligence to earn more?
Dm, you're dim.
Cut the military generally and not specifically, after careful review, and the U.S. gets conquered. That's a hard way to learn a lesson when the ambitions of Russia, China and the Islamists are obvious and undisputed.
Put a high level of tax on our successful, and they either leave or they are less successful. Increase or maintain an unsustainable level of handouts to the unproductive and the undeserving, and you get more of them. What part of cause and effect don't you understand?
How is it outrageous to recommend reining in military spending when our country is so far in debt? Eisenhower himself said that we should spend no more on defense than we have to. We are already engaged all over the world, and involved in a quagmire in Afghanistan. The only people who want more military spending are those who are profiting by it. The rest of us would like more of our tax dollars to stay at home.
I agree with Jay that Fareed is a propagandist who should be fired by CNN. I wonder who Fareed really works for?
Jay, have you ever read or listened to Zakaria? Did you even read this column? He is about the most even-keeled and intelligent pundit across the board. His ideas are usually well supported. And he doesn't use one or the other side's talking points or inflammatory rhetoric. You couldn't be more wrong.
Dscot is correct. Read Zakaria's colums for a month and then get back to us. Admittedly, it will be more taxing than reading Fox News but far more reasoned and balanced.
I agree with Jay. It looks to me like "Fareed" would like us to be weaker militarily, and be more tolerant of "islam". Hmmmm. I think he has an agenda, and is using the PC enabling dupes at CNN to further that agenda. How does he feel about sharia law or a world ciaphate?? I don't trust him, or what he says\writes.
Basically, Fareed is not trustworthy because 1. He is muslim 2. He is brown 3. He wants to limit defence spending...All he is doing here is using one of the most patriotic, heroic leaders in american history, the hon. Dwight Eisenhower, to make a very good point that wasting money on useless military projects will weaken the economy, thus weaken the secuirty of the nation!
NOT more tolerant of Islam. Rather, get OUT of their sh:tholes and get them out of our country. Instead we are bringing the Islamic haters into our country by the ship/plane load because we have made them into 'refugees.' Oh boy, now they can overtake us from within by stealth jihad – how clever of us – NOT! Isolate from their madness, allowing minimal necessary trade only. No more muslim immigration or 'refugees,' no more mosque building (most of which teach hatred & plan for Sharia Law in our future), strong deportation laws for misbehavior.
Really? WHere did he say we must be more tolerant of Islam?
HarshReality, how ironic, your moniker I mean. You should be HarshFantasy. Again tell me where the author stated we should be more tolerant of Islam. Or do you just make stuff up as you go. Even if did say that, since when is tolerance a four-letter word? Of course, even if "the Muslim author"(@Sandra) didn't write that, you are sure he is an Islam-sympathizer, very likely a communist or a terrorist, a man Big Brother better keep an eye on. Oh, Isorry, you didn't qactually say that but,,,
Seem to me you are the disgrace. You ought to remove yourself from this board and make room for intelligent discussion.
Why should he be removed? Because you don't agree with his analysis? He works for CNN incidently, not Fox news. That means Fox news can't fire him, but maybe they would hire you. Not likely though, huh?
The Defense Department is the best example of waste, fraud and abuse by far in the American government. Absolute truth, if spending cuts are to be made, military spending should be cut first. We can insure our security without waging war 10,000 miles away, in one of the worlds most remote places.
Because the DOD is engaged in combat overseas, that is not "waste" for the DOD; it's their job. The DOD does what the politicians want them to – blame the cow punching moron.
Ten years ago, if you asked a person where Afghanistan was, chances are they wouldn't know. September 11th happens and nearly everyone knows where Afghanistan is and why we are there. Have you forgotten? I bet you have no clue about what miltiary spending has brought to the country; medical advances, technological advances, even your GPS that has caused you to be unable to read a simple map- they've all been part of that fraud, waste, and abuse spending.
Think about where and who you work for. Think about if your boss decided one day that they were cutting half of the budget. No matter where the cuts come from, it's the workers who end up on the losing side.
What do we need new fighters or naval vessels for? To cut maintenance costs of the aging fleets that are currently in place. Do some homework and see how much it costs to take care of the older Air Force jets and see how much is saved in a decade by getting new planes.
The only rationale way to reduce defense spending is to reduce the commits that the US military has. If you keep the commitments the same and still reduce spending, the only possible results are bad – extended tours with fewer people, not modernizing equipment, etc.
Precisely. We need to commit ourselves less to foreign adventuring and more to the American people. I support our troops: Bring them home.
So much talk, so much cry and so much waste of our tax money.
Imagine, just cutting foreign aid to Israel ($3.2 billion per annum), Egypt ($1.6 billion), Pakistan and all others ($14.2 billion), getting out of unending problems in Afghanistan ($110 billion), quitting support of notoriously anti-American Iraq ($50 billion) would result in $180 billion annual savings. Think of it. Charity starts at home. Let others build their “democracy”.
even being from a third world country – i agree!! american money forces the peoples of third world countries from self-sufficiency to foreign dependence. Somalia would not have problems but for aid that causes population to grow in unsustainable environments. its not food the world needs but condoms. if the population is controlled – the meager resources suddenly become enough for all.
Well said and good point I am sure many have not spent the time to think of it that way. The basic problem is too many people for too few resources. Since some areas of the world do not have climate capable of producing the needed resources, the only answer is a reduction in population. China realized that and while unpopular they are doing something about it and it is working
Very well said. Thanks for a thoughtful comment.
See my blog: http://www.we-do-care.com
North Korea.......China.........Libya......Afghanistan.....Iraq.......Yemen.......Iran......Somalia......Venezuela.......Mexican Drug War.......Russian shenanigans.......etc etc etc
Please tell me where you want us to withdraw/let our guard down?
North Korea.......China.........Libya......Afghanistan.....Iraq.......Yemen.......Iran......Somalia......Venezuela.......Mexican Drug War.......Russian shenanigans.......etc etc etc
Get the picture?
i agree with balance the budget- none of the above actually can/even want to invade this country. a good police, intelligence and special forces can take them out if given the right resources and info. plus border security. If money/ size mattered America would be the safest country in the world- but everything points otherwise!
Open your eyes please. If we cut defense then we can't defend ourselves against these other countries that do want to do us harm. China has just spent a ton of money on new defense, other countries are stocking up too. I'll pay whatever I have to pay to keep the US safe.
Look at a map. We are isolated in the world geographically. None of these countries can attack us and we would know if they were trying. As for terrorism, who cares? The chances of you dying in a terrorist attack are so slim it is probably not even a measurable percent. You have thousands of times more chance to die in a car crash on your way to work this morning. We are all going to die and I don't need anyone to protect me. If a terrorist does get me, so what? Something will. Is it somehow worse to die at the hands of a terrorist instead of a fellow drunken American who runs me over?
"As for terrorism-who cares?"
That's quite possibly the most selfish and cowardice thing I've ever heard. Who cares if someone else dies in another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? Who cares if an outside group or nation attacks our people and kills them over some individual's agenda? Who cares if innocent people are slaughtered in some heinous attack? Who cares if another child's parent won't be coming home because of some extremists act? As long as it's not me, is that your rationale? Well sir, as someone who has served and defended this nation for over 16 years, I care! I care that someone wants to do harm to our people. I do my job so that people like you don't have to worry about terrorist attacks. I willingly accept the risk so that others don't have to. I ask all to remember that on September the 10th, 2001, we thought that we were king of the hill and that no one could ever hurt the U.S. We were the lone superpower. It's sad how 24 hours changed all that. We have an old expression that says, "No one loves a Soldier until the enemy is at the gates." It takes a lot more than a car magnet or bumper sticker to truly support the military.
When this country fails to preserve the “military-industrial complex” NECESSARY to field the absolute best against any and all who would challenge us the U.S. will quickly fall before all who hate us.
Our lack of resolve and success in controlling our borders make the continental U.S. vulnerable to suicide bombers. We now have home-grown terrorists. You seem unaware of the danger from simple dirty bombs that can make any population center of 50,000 and over uninhabitable for lifetimes.
Democracy depends on an informed population voting. Those who think as you do don't qualify, and put the rest of us at unnecessary risk.
Any one of those or all of those for that matter are not a threat to the citizens of the United States here at home, and if we had kept our nose out of the middle east I believe the twin towers would still be standing.
This goes to show you how little most Americans know about the world. Asides from Russia and China, none of those countries can even come close to harming America due to geography, political weakness or lack of foreign scope.
China is your biggest creditor... and producer of goods. Without America, China would be broke. As for Russia, maybe they pose a threat, but they are not interested in any conflict. Russia is slowly moving towards Western Europe (Germany, France and the UK).
Fareed Zakaria is right: funds should be invested in foreign services (and I would add EDUCATION...). It's amazing that some argue not to cut the defense budget. Do you really need that $35B stealth jet to blow up a tent in Afghanistan? Or a tank that has a jet engine propelling it? You could stop your military arms programs and it would take the rest of the world 35 years to catch up!
I have no problem with cutting defense spending significantly, but let's bear in mind that both Medicare/medicaid and Social Security are about the same scale of expenditure as defense, which at least has the distinction of being a necessary public good and generating gains through R & D. Bear in mind that many of the personnel who will be downsized will be unable to secure ready employment. Bear in mind also that many of the costs of ongoing care for war wounded will be more or less permanent expenditures, at least if you show any regard for those who have served.
So, suppose we were to cut $750 billion from each of those three expenditures over 10 years? That would trim government by $2.25 trillion. You'd probably cut SS and medicare by significantly increasing the age of eligibility. As it is, we spend about twice what we should on healthcare as a percentage of GDP. We must spend far less publicly and recognize that universal public healthcare is simply not a fiscally sustainable option here.
So.... you do have a problem with cutting defense spending.
sorry kris , none of those countries has troops on foreign soil, nothing to let the guard down about
and with fifty million Americans hungry, nothing to guard
People will rant and people will rave, but an easy solution to that problem is to either deport the 25 million illegals in this country or start making their country pay for them. They should be willing to go back on their own now that we are totally broke. I like number 2 better.
Sure, just bear in mind that all of your cheap housing, agriculture(food), and wal-mart products go away completely if you have to pay real Americans to do this work. Why do you think Rick Perry is against the Arizona law in Texas. All that put together isn't a drop compared to what we've wasted in Iraq however.
Deporting the illegals is the right thing to do, but it will not make enough of a difference. And, Swanne, Perry is against the AZ law because he's a Republican running for office. Republicans need all the Hispanic votes they can get and they also need to protect their business votes.
The journey of a thousand miles still begins with a single step and a destination! All we have to do is ENFORCE existing law(s)!
Let our guard down? We've already done it in Wash. DC.
we need to cut defense spending. I'm currently in Aghanistan and for what i see the american tax payers money are being wasted over here. So many people are here without a purpose or mission. Dont get me wrong there are some special forces members, infantry guys, EOD and some others out here that doing work but for the most part the rest are just sitting here for no reason. time to come home!
We spend twice what we ought on healthcare as a percentage of GDP because we have put our healthcare in the hands of private, for-profit insurers.
Fareed, you are to be commended. I wish more reporters did their homework and made the types of intelligent contributions that you do. Too many are 'Fox News' types that just speak without any real knowledge. They will take on any topic and make pretend that they are experts. They express opinion and emotion, but add nothing of substance. This was an excellent report of great substance. And yet, a gullible public accepts their reports as facts. Unfortunately, it will likely fall on deaf ears for a large portion of congress. Excellent work!!!
Did you already spend the sawbuck Fareed gave you to post that drivel?
It's so damn obvious that America needs to cut it's military spending. It's corrupt and immoral. Period.
Defense spending as a percentage of the budget is about 19%. Its about 4-5% of our GDP. There are certainly efficiencies that need to be resolved but targeting DoD for budget cuts in light of our current threats is foolish liberal emotionalism. What makes the other 81% of the federal budget sacrosanct?
Nothing, but it IS being cut, yet the DOD seems to be immune to cuts and and still grows and grows and grows – even in times of an expanding federal budget (i.e. under GWBush and Republican Congress), it still managed to become an ever greater percentage of the growing budget. $700bn? Are you kidding me? And we don't even get to fight a war on that number, but have to borrow even more to pay for those? Take a hatchet to the whole DOD. Time for the Pentagon to become a triangle.
America spends over $720 Billion PER YEAR on Defense; more that the rest of the world combined! It's up almost $300B since 9/11 and has TRIPLED since 1997.
Bin Laden's dead and Saddam is too. Seems to me we can go back to the pre-9-11 levels and save $3 TILLION over the next 10 years. The sacrosant treatment of DOD spending is over.
The whole federal government can and should be cut drastically. Don't let them have you believe that the cuts should come from defense. Here is my list of cuts: foreign aid-eliminate all together, social programs-cut in half or 2/3rds, dept of education-eliminate, dept of energy-eliminate, income tax-eliminate and install a national sales tax. This is just a small list, but the whole federal government should be cut in half.
I like my child to learn and know that he's getting the same education as everybody else. I like roads and the people who take care of them. I like turning the lights on in my house and knowing that there are regulatory agencies out there who make sure they are doing their job. I'm sorry, you're full of it.
You've made it quite clear that YOU got "the same education as everybody else". You're supposed to KEEP reading and learning, silly!
I totally agree with Zakari. This is the first place they should cut. And, compromising security is a joke. To think that we need to spend more on our military that all other nations combined is not rational at all. Cut, Cut, Cut..
A lot of wasteful spending occurs just prior to October, when the new fiscal year begins. Commanders are faced with either spending every dime in their individual unit budgets, or losing them, as there is no rollover. Some of the stupidest items are bought not of neccesity, but just to use the money alloted. Many units choose the July – September timeframe for maneuvers not for decent training, but just to expend unit funds. The soldiers end up pracitsing to be miserable.
You think?!
Please CNN & Mr. Zakaria, keep talking about cutting defense! It is the most obvious step we can take to regain some balance in our spending!
Cut foreign aid, stop spending tax payer dollars outside the US.
I am a member of the military, and Yes, the defense budget needs to be cut. However, the items that should be cut are the least likely to be cut. There are too many Senator and Representative pet projects in the DOD, most of which are frivolous and unneeded, but those will end up being the most protected items from budget cuts. In the mean time, the necessary items like actual manpower, service-member salaries, training, equipment maintenance, and the like will be the first to go. Many people forget so easily that under the Clinton administration, many of our service-members had to find second jobs just to stay afloat financially. Many had serious money problems, because the things that got cut by Bush 1 and Clinton were thos necessary to benefit the individual service-member, while all of the unneeded projects that were Congressional pet projects continued to receive funding. At the end of the day, this will simply reinforce the fact that America and our weak leaders don't really care about the soldier when he comes home from service. Oh they say they care, but they really don't. If America truly cared about its service-members we would have the Veteran's Administration...at least in its current form.
Very true. We would also stop making the military a place to try social experiments. How much does it cost to convert submarines to allow for males and females? How much is it going to cost to allow gays to serve openly?
Yes. we need to cut down the Military Industrial Complex. We also need to stop sending money overseas.
But more importantly we need to go back to the principle of living within our means individually and collectively. Social security and medicare should be only for those truly in need.
@Jake. I cant hear you complaining about military pay. The average E5 with 1.5 kids has a high school diploma and say 6 years service and he makes $46000 a year with more than 14000 NONTAXABLE. The average 24yo hs grad onthe economy makes half that. The average 24yo Lt with 2 years service just out of college and not married yet makes around 60K! are you kidding me!! Medical Paid. Great benefits. Forget it.
I LOVE my military folks but stay away from the pay argument. And i havent even started to talk bonuses, oversees pay, family separation, etc.. Theres LOTS of occupations that put themselves in danger everyday war or not.
Having said that, the military needs to take a cut just like every other dapeartment of Gov.As many others have said, it wont happen til you get rid of the politicians and let business people run the gov for a while.
And whiile im at it, if you let the under-educated, under-employed, under-achieving vote for anyone that promises to give them free stuff, then this problem will never go away.
Fareed Zakaria is one of the few who sees things clearly. Maybe because he's smart as hell, not a native born america (I believe) and can see things objectively. If we can take his advice and also include term limits for elected officials, a flat tax, and ending the George Bush tax cuts, this country would begin to fulfill the promise of being the greatest country in the world. This is what most of us were taught in school. I want to believe that it is still possible.
There must be something REALLY good in that Kool Aid you two are drinking!
Fareed: thanks.
Amy: think of the children.
Yes, balance is needed – but for many decades, US foreign policy has been either non-existent or was dominated by banana/oil/coca/other short-term military strategy thinking rather than the long-term interest of a prospering, democratic world.
Cut the military budget a lot, increase that of (an entirely revamped) foreign relations, start proper E/PO for what the US and any democratic nation needs both internaly and in the world at large, and don't let religions influence the real aid starving nations need.
I'm don't belong to any religion. but many religious groups donate a lot of money to overseas needs. Some do come with strings attached, but many don't. Not just Christians either.
"Today, with no serious adversaries in the world.." – Sure, if you don't count China (who could beat us, currently,) the Russian Republic, North Korea (not a threat by themselves, but aligned with China), a nuclear Iran (who can align with China and North Korea.) Fareed, only a wide-eyed globalist buffoon such as yourself doesn't realize that China is an enemy nation...a huge one.
Even Zakria raises a good point, he shows he can be somewhat clueless about the big picture. I think that come from intellectual bias. Still, like many on the left and right he is worth reading. We just need to be sure we know the authors and their biases and take all that info and form our won conclusions. Not everything anyone on either side is worthless.... usually.
China, an enemy? Then why did our congress give it special nation trade status? Was it because of the Chinese lobby? Whasup wiith NAFTA, GATT and all the other free trade agreements (South Korea, Panama, and Columbia? I don't want to pay to fight a war with China we caused ourselves by unwise trade treaties. Building China up just to tear it down is a colosssal waste of money and America lives. Making money only for 1 per centers.
"Today, with no serious adversaries in the world,"– Are you kidding me? Really? Let's not sit in the corner and pretend we will never be in a conventional war again. Go ahead and cut spending, and don't be surprised when when 40 years from now we're undermanned/underequipped in another World War....
Mike, if we don't cut spending now, in 40 years we'll have nothing left to defend.
And if we go after the defense budget blind, swinging at the piñata, we can be conquered in only ten years. Sure, let's go for the "fast track" to oblivion.
why am i not surprised that this guy wants a weaker US army?
why am I not surprised that so many posters here want to bankrupt our country by continuously fattening our already insanely bloated military budgets?
Why aren't you? I think most Americans understand that a balanced budget is imperative for continued economic prosperity. But we must defend our country from those who wish to destroy us and what we stand for. That is also why I am not surprised that this guy isn't keen on defending it...
@trueamerican – most Americans may understand the concept, but far, far too few – it seems you included – understand the need to cut the DOD budget dramatically. The uncontrolled growth of the DOD budgets is forcing us to cut education, healthcare, research and development efforts, and a host of positive programs just so we can continue to feed senators' pet projects and let them be "strong on defense" – what a joke! These creeps – on both sides of the aisle – are driving us to insolvency.
Talk about being part of the problem – if you aren't in favor of cutting the DOD budget, then trueamerican – it's YOU that needs to step up.
@logan – of course we must balance our budgets. I think this must come from taxing the richest earners. And enough about taxing them will destroy jobs. Legislature should be smart enough to be able to craft a tax reform legislation that exempts job creators from any significant increase.
There is no question that the budget must be balanced. It's just foolhardy to cut defense, just as it is unwise to cut education spending. Fareed is trying to send us down a self-destructing path...
Taxing the richest earners? That tired old argument again?
Do the math – if you confiscated 100% of the income of those making $10 million a year, you'd run the government for less than 6 months. Does that solve the problem? As a "true American" are you in favor of confiscating peoples' income this way? I'm not.
Studies show that we have more than 50% of the US population paying ZERO net income taxes these days. These aren't the rich – although to be sure, there are some rich creeps able to weasel out of their fair share of taxes – but it's the middle class and below who increasingly don't pay.
The top 10 percent of earners pay for virtually everyone else. Fact.
Spoken like a "true ignoramus". The minute someone has an non-Christian name, you must of course assume that they want to harm American/Christians/West. Wake up and smell the coffee. US doesn't need to keep sending troops and interfering when not required. It's precisely this nature that the world cant stand. Obama is only cleaning up what Bush did. This is a wakeup call for the US to acknowledge that it's not the superpower it once was. Finally with all this debt, you wont have money to invade other countries. And Fareed is probably more educated than your entire family put together.
Obama is only cleaning up what Bush did? Really?
What was Bush doing in Libya? We have no dog in that fight at all. Yet, Obama is spending hundreds of millions supporting people that – if this destructive campaign is even successful – will then turn around and hate us anyway.
Stop with blaming Obama or Bush – Both are correct. Both are defending our country from existential threats.
I am concerned about immigrants telling us how to defend our country. Not because his name is different than mine, but because it's entirely likely that he has come here with an agenda. Interesting that his stories often have an international theme, isn't it...
With regard to education, my wife and daughter are both university professors and I teach in a college. I don't insult the intelligence of Fareed, just his allegiance.
I work for the Department of Defense, and I see fraud, waste and abuse everyday. I totally agree that the budget could be cut substantially, and the Department would be fine. It would force everyone who works within the Department to be smart about what they spend the taxpayers money on instead of holding their hand out for more.
then you have a responsibility to report this fraud. why aren't you. if you don't, then i think you must question whether you have a hand in the wrecking of our economy. Step up|!
True American, do you honestly expect this DOD employee – not sure what his/her level is to challenge the $720Billion Machine that is the DOD budget? Get real. Now, there are "whistle blower" provisions that provide a potential windfall for those government employees that are willing to take the risk and rat out major fraud.
If you care about the truth, there was one recently at the NSA, I believe that was profiled on 60 minutes. The bottom line is they rolled over the guy and he's the one that was left out in the cold. Think about how Bush treated Valerie Plame and then multiply it by a factor of 10.
No serious adversaries? What planet are you on?
Pulling our troops out of the Mideast sandbox would be a good start to reducing the deficit. See this eye-opening site: http://costofwar.com/en/
It is always so simple and easy to solve our problems. Just cut defense, no just cut medicare, just reduce healthcare costs, no just raise taxes... these singular easy solutions would be answers if the problems we have were simple, but our problems are not simple. We have a country with a serious debt problem, serious economoic problems, serious unemployment problem... not to mention a seriously divided population. This article oversimplifies the situation by proposing the "defense budget is fat so cut it". The "opinion" piece derides defense industry as inefficient, and suggests that the levels of spending today are unnecessary. This all is suggestive that defense cuts are "easy" and "common sense". This is fallacy, as I stated before, nothing to do with our national problems is simple. So Mr. Zakaria, how about the jobs that are created by defense spending. Is it intelligent to cut this spending that creates jobs to ensure spending on other programs that are less effective at creating jobs? In ths economy, really? What about national defense, do you honestly think the world today is truly more safe than during the cold war? Perhaps safer from nuclear decimation, but even that is debateable as Russia loses track of their nuclear program, and I do not believe we are actually safer as a nation when it comes to direct attack. The threat of attack may be on a smaller scale, but the likelihood of attack is actually greater due to the fact we cannot directly respond to those responsible. On top of this, there is a growing Chinese military threat. You can debate China's motivations for their military buildup, but the result is still a threat. Russia has become increasingly detached from their "friendship" with the US. Many middle eastern nations are hostile as they always have been. All these points could be discussed as counter-points to the "defense is fat, lets cut it" argument. Yet, as with most biased "opinion" pieces, these points are conveniently ignored. The populous wants easy answers and scape goats, rather than honest analysis. The honest analysis is that all of our expenditures should be up for debate, as should revenue increases, and difficult decisions will need to be made.
Every time spending needs to be cut, cutting Defense has been a knee-jerk reaction of the Left. How unoriginal and uninspired. Zacharia points to the fact that Defense spending has increased by 70% over the last 13 years as the fundamental reason that it MUST be THE place to look for cuts while ignoring the fact that the rest of Federal expenditures have almost TRIPLED during that same time period. Further, Defense is about 22% of expenditures while everything else is, obviously, 78% of expenditures, most of that being structural debt that must be dealt with if Federal fiscal sanity is to return. While there certainly is room to cut some Defense spending, cutting Defense is a little like a family cutting the kid's allowance to avoid bankruptcy instead of selling the new BMW's and McMansion and skipping the vacation to Europe.
Zacharia, along with the rest on the Left, flatly refuse to see the elephant in the room.
Jim – I totally agree that cuts needs to be made across the board to get us back into line with revenues. However, your comparison to a kids allowance is just plain silly.
22% of the total US budget is hardly trivial. It's roughly the same as we spend on Social Security and on Medicare/Medicaid.
I'm fine with making hard choices on those as well. No more sacred cows!
Logan- Comparison is spot-on considering the TENS of TRILLIONS of unfunded liabilities generated primarily by SS and Medicare. Just because they are currently off budget, doesn't mean that they aren't owed, just like Bush's off-budget of a Trillion dollars to fund the Iraq war. BTW- At nearly 35% of current expenditures, SS/Medicare is MUCH larger that Defense. You may be thinking of "Wefare & Unemployment" catagory being similar to Defense spending as W&U is about 20%. You and Congress keep looking for budgetary salvation in the same small corner every time while giving lip service to the far more substantial and fundamental problems. Be honest- you'd go apoplectic if any social program was seriously being considered for cuts.
I've read a few of your posts here. You're a Liberal idealogue sticking to the script. We get it.
Oh my lord – you're completely clueless and obviously cannot read if you think I'm a liberal, a conservative, or any other label you want to put on me.
Here's a label I like – a non-knee jerk reactionary like you.
If you could read, you'd be able to comprehand my writing again and again that we need to cut spending ACROSS THE BOARD. Wow. You're a poster child for improved education, if ever there was one.
JIM – Social Security IS Self-Funded – And has been since its inception -> Look at your PayCheck/s!! SomeOne PLS inform Faux-Newz (And ALL of our Politicians) that Soc.Sec. IS NOT A GENERAL BUDGET Expenditure! FACT CHECK!!
In fact (for UnFunded DOD expenditures) The GOVT OWES the SocSec Trust Fund OVER $225 – Billion!!
Ah- an "anti-label " Liberal who can't argue against the facts, so resorts to deflection and name-calling. Excellent.
Um...what "facts" are you referring to? That you call me a Liberal sticking to some "script" – that's been refuted already. Again, please get help with your reading comprehension.
We spend almost equal amounts on social programs as defense spending. Defense spending is good for the economy as the majority of money spent goes to American companies. For the most part, social spending is throwing money out the window.
Hmmmm – expand the Military as much as capacity will allow – it is good g=for the economy –
and as for the unfortunates in the population – send them to the Camps. And be Done with them!!
just-a-recollection!
and your point is...?
Just a quick correction- Social programs currently account for about 60% of expenditures, or almost three times the Defense budget.
If Bush had given the extra three months the United Nations requested for an extended inspection (looking) for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Irag we would not have been in this needless war.
By definition, a weapon of mass destruction is defined as a hand grenade, land mine, IED, truck filled with explosives that blow-up buildings, etc. Only the brain-dead liberals think weapons of mass destruction are nukes. Hussein used chemical gas against his own people. He had to be eliminated just on human rights issues.
As someone that started as a $26K per year engineering at Boeing and is now a $300K per year executive at Northrop, the defense industry has been good to me over 25 years. That said, those of you who are defending the current levels need to take a step back.
First of all, military contracts overrun as a matter of course. If any other industry missed it's cost targets so frequently, they'd be roasted by their customers. In DOD spending, when this happens, somebody spouts off about the threat from Kim Jong Il, Stallin, Castro, Chavez, etc. Then some Republican wants to beat his own little chicken chest [which never went into battle] about being a patriot and "supporting the troops" and before you know it, enough low information voters align their self-worth with the strength of the American military [as represented by siad weapon system] thereby casting anybody who dare oppose the overrun [and enforce the ultimate accountability for it] as a traitorous Communists/ [or Socialist, take your pick]. What a business! You can repeatedly fail to meet cost and schedule and still get paid. You want to talk about "wasteful spending". Man you have no idea.
Then you've got the pet projects. Did Reagan really need 3 bomber projects [the B-1, the B-2 and the Stealth Fighter - which wasn't a fighter but rather a bomber]? Before you answer recall that the B-52 was then and still is flying. It was feeding at the public trough and it blew up the National Debt.
If the Reagan reference is too dated for you, consider John Boehner, who in 2010 insisted that the DOD buy more M1A1 tanks from a DOD contractor in his district, despite the fact that Army said they didn't want or need them.
Scott H said China could beat us today – no, they can't. The Russian republic – no they can't. Russian and China together, no they can't – they'd never team – and if they did we'd bring Canada, Britain and France into it. The point is stop with the boogie man talk. We can't afford it and we don't need it.
Well said.
ENLIGHTENING ! Thanks fo your Candor and Clarity!!
Obviously you can afford to be on all those drugs, but it ain't helping your brain!
Look at the "debt deal". Defense will be "on the table".
Look at the "triggers" if our political bozos can't agree on cuts. Defense gets hit, big time.
Go back to your plush office and quit bothering people that would prefer to remain free during their lifetimes.
We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense. If we can't cut our defense drastically we are no longer America home of the brave, but America land of the wussies. Air power is what turns wars in ones favor. Keep a strong air power and cut the rest drastically, and if we go to war once we have reduced our enemy to rubble we can decide then to increase again if we need to.
Air power is a great example of us buying stuff just to buy it. The F-15, a 1970's-era aircraft is known as the Air Superiority Fighter. It does Mach 2.5 and is still a bad mother. Sold for about $50M last I recall. With missles and radars that can see our adversaries and shoot them down BEFORE they can see us, we still own the sky.
Yet, Lockheed was able to sell the Air Force on the need for the Air Dominance Fighter, the F-22 – a stealthy beast to be sure – and much better MPG at F-15 caliber speeds. But being a 25 year newer design and with all the bells & whistles, it's cost was SEVERAL $100M(s). Lockheed fought a the lobbyist / political game and the F-22 purchases were stopped after about 22 had been delivered. With a little be of planning we could have saved the 10's of Billions spent on development of the F-22 not to mention what we paid for those 22.
Now, mind you, at the same time, Lockheed was also developing the F-35 Lightning II (the Joint Strike Fighter) which they project will sell 3,000 copies around the world. The point is, there is no critical thinking that goes into the big picture. It galls me that Republicans in Congress accused the President of wanting a "blank check". It's these pro-defense Republicans that want the blank check – - they've never met a weapon system they didn't love.
Though they tout it a little more in election time. Defense spending and wars is hardly a republican monopoly.
I agree that we need to reduce defense spending. I cannot agree with the statement "Today, with no serious adversaries in the world..." We have many serious enemies – acts of terrorism (and piracy on the high seas) still take place today, and while the death toll may be small, I do not want anyone I know (or not) to be a victim. How do 'we' propose to handle those items? I'd be in favor of not only decreasing defense spending, but decreasing foreign aid as well, particularly to those countries who attack us or other friendly nations.
Lu – yes, we definately have serious adversaries. The most dangerous is US – that is, our own inability to live within our means.
We are on the path to defaulting on our debt. Both parties are to blame, and both parties must work to fix it. But with the current morass in DC, I can't see that happening. The rancor is too strong. Our childen will suffer.
And yes, that makes me mad as hell.
Obama lied
Still in Iraq
Increased our effort in Afghanistan
Then attacks Libya:)
He just changed his mind
Actually Mark, you're wrong. Obama promised to begin the draw down in Iraq, which he did and escalate in Afgan, which he also did. Selective memory?
Well done London.
Well done.
I don't think that even a true conservative (like me) can deny there are cuts to be had. The problem we have to be on guard for is the left's penchant for stupid cuts that leave the military and intelligence capabilites eviscerated. An equal if not bigger problem is both party's desirte for pork and forcing the Defense Department to take or continue weapons systems or programs they don't need or want. My approach to the Defense Dept would be: If Defense says they don't want it or don't need it, no debate it is out of the budget (who knows better than those that fight the wars?) . Then we only debate what they say they need and wrok from there.
Bill –
Lefties making stupid decisions ... come on, don't go there. Recall, that we had members of your party saying that August 2 wasn't a critical date and that it wouldn't be a big deal if we defaulted on our debt. With over 2,000 points off the dow in a couple of weeks, I'd say those "conservatives" were members of the "flat earth society".
Agree to go back to our spending before 9-11. The concerns about where to prioritize that pool of money is a different discussion.
The DATE wasn't critical. There would have been no default even if the deal had not been struck. What was critical was there needed more cuts. S&P said the expected $4 trillion.
See Bill – this is the problem. even in the face of facts you guys won't admit the obvious. If the DATE wasn't critical, why did Boehner want to rush out some bill, anything, a week prior so that the Asian markets wouldn't tank on the Monday prior to August 1st.
This isn't some "left-wing" version of the truth. You can go to YouTube and find video of Boehner openly and freely admitting this motivation.
The minute we miss a payment on any contractual obligation [which all payments authorized by Congress are] we would have defaulted. Moreover, to those that say, oh we could have just paid the interest. Let them try that with their mortgage payment – - just pay the interest and not any principle that is due – - and then see if the bank finds you in default.
We have bonds that mature every month. That means both interest and principle have to be paid.
Let me be sure I understand you. You want Defense to identify what they can do without, take that off the table, and then negotiate, absolutely knowing that everything further you want to cut will be something that Defense professionals think is necessary?
Let me guess...public education? Learning and the search for wisdom is life long, and you're stuck in the opening gate.
How can anyone view Zaharia as a propagandists when he quotes Gates and Eisenhower. These quotes are fact.
Propogandist? Not really. Left wing biased, for sure. But then everyone has their biases and opinions and that is all this is. His opinion. Doesn't mean there isn't some truth in here but if you read him critically, there is a certain cluelessness about some of his comments like......."Today, with no serious adversaries in the world"
The US pays for 75% of the cost of NATO. Does anyone really think we need to protect Italy, France, Germany, Spain, the UK et al? really now...from who?. NATO's time has come and gone. Nobody in their right mind would want to invade Europe - to what end? So they can assume the debt of an ailing continent?
Acknowledge a change in the world and dismantle NATO - and then close our bases in Germany, France, Italy, and the UK – they are no longer needed. Bring the troops home; work on homeland defense; and put the military to work back here in the US rebuilding our infrastructure. If we can build roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals for the corrupt afghan government; we can do the same here in the US
You do not see China or Russia spending the dollars on defense that we do - and their economies are thriving. If the US is to be defeated in the 21st century, it will be because of our vast military and its costs - how ironic. So many weapons and so many bombs, but nobody to drop them on. What shall we do; what shall we do?
I've been saying this emphatically for months, and discussing it for years. It's about time someone hit this topic on a major news network.
I wholeheartedly agree with this article. We waste far too much money on the Department of Defense. And I say this as a veteran.
Leo..."whole heartedly agree"? really? Even when he says "Today, with no serious adversaries in the world". C'mon.
CUT, CUT, CUT the MILITARY BUDGET!!! America, land of the "free", home of the corruption.
With our unemployment rate and job situation, what do we do with all of the military people who would need to leave the armed services in a downsizing? If we used the soldiers for public works projects like bridges, windmills, border patrol... maybe we could downsize the military. I respect former President Eisenhower's foresight. It has come to pass. The unfortunate thing that none of us saw coming was the total division of our country. I believe we are in civil war without the weapons. How do we citizens find common ground withone another?
You've made an excellent point, teacher. And I think you've answered it to large extent as well. We have crumbling infrastructure al across this country. Bridges, roads, schools in desrepair – we need to repurpose those DOD dollars into these areas and we can employ people in porjects that will continue to return those investments for decades to come. We'd gain the taxes, improve the nation's morale through fuller employment, and offer TRUE hope and change to those in need across the spectrum of income-earners.
But you're right – it seems a pipe dream, because the disingenous cowards and thieves in Washington are operating on their own partisan agendas, to the detriment of our nation.
sorry for the spelling errors – I can't type straight when I get worked up! lol.
Public works projects are bull crap. They are great for about 6 months, or a year, then those people go back to being unemployed. Ironically, had we not gotten into WWII, we would have seen that the New Deal was just a bandaide on the problem. It was WWII that got us out of the Depression, not Roosevelt.
Excellent – so your solution is to start a world war. Wonderful thinking, that.
You should run for President.
So, by today's GOP logic, it would be a mistake to raise taxes during the depression / pre-WWII era. Yet you cite the war as bringing the economy back.
My question then is, who paid for all that war-related production that brought the economy back? Sounds to be like it was government spending with borrowed money ... what today certain factions would call wasteful, deficit spending on the credit card. Either that or we raised taxes. So which was it?
Either way the point is the enabler to the solution then was one of the two things a minority of the Congress, the Tea Party, refuses to discuss.
Logan,
Please. The price of freedom is to be forever vigilant and forever prepared. Never again will a conflict last long enough to gear up to meet the next Hitler or Stalin. Pull your head out of your...the sand and open your eyes!
Hold on here. Clinton CUT the defense budget deeper than anyone in history. That's how he saved $1.3 trillion. Our defense sending is 4% of the GDP, which is much lower than most nations with a defense force. During the Cold War, it was 10% of the GDP. As you can see, it has surely gone down. If you are going to throw out large numbers, at least equate it correctly to inflation.
Cutting defense spending would be a tragedy. We are too weak now to protect ourselves!!!!!!!!!
RamRod -
We just snuck into Pakistan, right under their noise, so how weak are we?
We run joint military excercise with Taiwan which China does not like but they can't stop us, so how weak are we?
We've got the Russians negotiating with Moammar for him to leave – - the outcome the US wants – - so how weak are we? Really?
Ramrods-
U are crazy. 'We are too weak ...'? c'mon. Get real!
Yes, we need to cut defense spending in half because the Cold War is over and right now the United States has three times the weaponry than any formidable military powers in the world and significantly more than Russia. I know deterrence is important to the US especially if you're going to assume the role of leader of the free and democratic world. But our nuclear Trident submarines and our massive aircraft carrier alone serve as a major deterrent to other militarily advance countries that can be a challenge to us. However, this sort of military supremacy do no serve as a deterrent to those radical extremists who carryout violence around the world. So let's cut defense spending and concentrate on building smart weaponry to take the position of our soldiers and let's focus on minimizing our military bases overseas and start bringing our troops home.
The headline reads, We have the best military in the world. They fight for our freedoms and liberties. While we keep ourselves busy denying freedom and liberty here at home, the USA. But we have the best military in the world. The best workers in the world, right? So what if our economy has soured, we have the best workers. We are the freedom loving liberty country, so long as we deport all 12 million illegal aliens that are causing all the problems. But we love our freedom and liberty. We have god on our side, right? He'll help us. Texas Governor Perry says so. Good. We have great people running for President next year. Great people, with great idea's. I'm not sure a single American can name any of these great idea's, but they are great grand inspiring idea's. We can be inspired by these candidates, right? We have the richest people in the world living in America. They are a great inspiration. Lately they have been busy building walls around their homes. But atleast we know we have them amongst us, part of us. We now have a 3rd party named after some long ago act of rebellion, this is good, we know they have the best interests of the country at heart. This new party has been a positive change in the debate on spending, rational and just as they may appear.
I would say we are in good hands, like the insurance company.
Cut DoD and all of our problems are solved!! No efficiencies needed in the other 80% of the federal budget!! Go see your therapist....you liberals are in lala land.
Why is everything a zero sum game with you? Why isn't there calls for cuts across the board?
Maybe you're a beneficiary of the DOD complex?
Oh I forgot, one more thing....
In London, cops shoot man citizens riot for 3 days.
In America cops beat disabled man to death people videotape.
What an uniformed opinion that was to actually get on the air at CNN.
Hello Folks! The part of the budget in the 80's vs. now, around 35% vs. just 19% for defense spending. And guess what, take a look at how much of that is the pay and benefits of the soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen as voted by Congress, a TON!
We are not talking about not building a few tanks, planes or ships, we are talking about FIRING our people in uniform. What does that mean, more unemployed. Fraeed, next time put some numbers where your mouth is, maybe you won't open it as quickly.
Totally agree with Zakaria. We need to charge every cent for our defense services provided to country like Iraq. We will be in better shape soon.
We do charge them, we just don't make them pay it back, and seldom have!
S&P cuts government rating, trillions lost in stock market,millions take to keyboards.
Egypt erupts in rioting, force president out.
Syrians fight to death to rid country of tyranny, hundreds die.
Libya erupts in fighting as population riots to rid country of dictator.
Tea party holds Americans hostage in debt talks, takes country to the brink, millions take to blogging.
What's wrong with this picture?
You know absolutely nothing if you think the Tea Party is to blame for this...
It's frustrating to hear people that have likely never served talk about "wasteful military spending". Talk about completely ignorant of what the military is or does.
@ Frustrated, I think I i disagree with you if your point is that a green-suiter is more qualified to speak on "wasteful military spending". The general public shows appreciation and respect to active duty personnel for the sacrafices they make but extending that to them having "expert knowledge" about fraud, waste and abuse, especially in large weapons systems like FCS, Crusader, V-22, JSF, MRAP, etc. etc. is not warranted. The idea that John McCain was particularly qualified to be President because he had been in the Navy was just plane silly.
A solider can speak to what works on the battlefield; but he can't speak to how inefficiently it was produced and that is where the waste is.
Time for some good old fashioned isolationism. Bring the majority of the troops home. Let the special forces and the drone aircraft keep the insurgent leaders on the run. Remember the USSR collapsed because they could no longer afford the arms race and bankrupted the country trying.
We will be the first super-power to collapse due to parasitic leadership. Rome had barbarians on the frontier, Russia went bankrupt after 40 years of cold war against the richest country on the planet, but we will fall to ruin as victims of our own military industrial complex and the corporate leaders who control Washington like a puppet.
You are clearly yet another a unwitting victim of the Media-Academia Information Control Complex.
There are so many people employed in this sector. They are talented, work hard and deserve their jobs. Dont make hasty decisions. Besides, the defense industry is America's shining beacon and the military is America's insurance policy (this is fact, whether you agree or not). I say increase spending on science and technology, because thats an investment in the future, be it in space, defense, medicine or energy. Protect your strengths instead of eroding them. If you want to reduce debt, increase revenue by exploiting domestic reserves of oil and other natural resources in America. Dont feel shy to get oil from Iraq and natural resources from Afghanistan.
DoD is always a favorite topic for Progressives but a budget cut is also gaining traction with independents and moderate Republicans. The question is if we reduce the budget how many jobs are affected: ie how many people become unemployed because of these cuts. The Democrats and the Administration took a large swipe at NASA and literally tens of thousands of NASA employees and contractors are out of work compounding our already difficult economic situation. Let's understand that answer before we just blindly go after DoD budget dollars because of blind ideology. Zakaria's analysis is purely political. He and others in this debate need to take a more pragmatic view of the economic impact or such changes instead of just proposing decisions based on progressive biases.
Wow did this clown really say "Today, with no serious adversaries in the world" where have you been these last 10 years or so....IRAN, NORTH KOREA and all the other ISLAMIC EXTREMEISTS out there..Im sure you would love to see the defense budget cut and the money spent some where else like OBAMACARE and WELFARE...certainly not on the defense of this country...I can see why your a writer for CNN
Sure the military should be cut, and unnecessary wars should end. But we should learn from the past that everytime the USA disarms, it has to play catch up in the next war which always comes, we are human after all. The one thing that I find strange is that as a country our GDP is 14 trillion bucks, our military spending is about 5 percent of that, ten countires have a higher expenditure percentage and about eight other countries are near the same range. 5 percent of the total economy does not seem to be much, it will probably lessen once the wars begin to drawdown. The question I have is then this, what is going on with the other 95%????. The mian problem the United States has is a lack of efficiency, it has so much money that no matter how bad things get it should be able to spend it properly. But there is fraud by citizens against social services that is never caught, waste, pork, and ballooning of prices for military weapons. What the USA needs is an architecture that can be used to direct spending. This architecture would make every dollar count and should be implemented by every agency and service. I bet if something like that was created there would be a lot of savings found.
Defense only needs to be 3% of GDP, which is what we ask of other NATO nations, but most do not do it.
America spends more on defense than every other nation in the world combined. Is it necessary? Well, not for us. But for them, it is. Why? Much of Europe gets by on slim defense budgets because the USA will come in and save the day for them.
I work for the defense department. I think it does need to be cut, and have a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse put to an end. But just cutting defense will not fix all our problems. Entire departments need to be cut, and the other agencies need to have their budgets slashed.
I'm all for spending less on national defense but you've got to cut the military commitments first. The spending is so high because we have so many people deployed in foreign lands.
Bring all of our people home and then cut defense spending.
We are the apathetic generation. Uninvolved lazy indifferent.
We will videotape Rome burning and tweet it.
But what the hell, we have the best military in the world, right?
Zakaria is correct. We must cut defense spending. There is no reason for us to be able to kick ANY country's a$$ several times over. The cold war is over. Let's get the heck out of the middle east and quit spending/giving money to countries like Pakistan. I don't know how we got started down the road thinking we were the world's policemen/father.
Financial Investors reap huge profits from defense appropriations, This special interest voices in America dominate the political lanscape and promote public opinion to their goals.
If half the cuts were diverted to domestic programs focusing on raising the opportunity and the quality of life for Americans, THe UNited woudl tremendously benefit.
The goal of America should be the welfare of its entire people, not the welfare of investment bankers.
Fareed Zakaria is like Paul Krugman...everything they say is always 180 degrees opposite what should be done.
I'm sure that all the folks demanding that we cut defense spending are calling and writing to the congressman demanding that all DoD bases in their state be closed and that any contracts with companies on their state be cancelled.
Face it, hippies. Defense spending injects money into the economy. What you call waste another man calls his paycheck and he uses it to feed his family. Are there some pretty extreme examples? Sure. Have there been a few boondoggles? Absolutely. But if we're going to be giving out gov't dollars, frankly, I would RATHER it go to a PhD in Mechanical engineering who develops a kickass laser that has civilian uses. Alot of this stuff that you decry because it fails is stuff that pushes the envelope of science and technology. The waste that you'll find and I've seen, comes not from some geek engineer laughing his way to the bank or even some executive banking 300K. It the day in day out Joe Union shlub that thinks his GED deserves 80K a year, full medical, full pension, and retires after 20 years "service to his country" for taking out the trash.
Good idea Fareed! Then he can complete the comparison to Jimmy Carter! The drastic defense cuts leading to an inept military was the last building block.
"Then he can complete the comparison to Jimmy Carter! The drastic defense cuts leading to an inept military was the last building block."
It's funny that you think the military was inept...rather than the case that they spend way too much money on gee whiz weapons and massive ships like aircraft carriers rather than concerning themselves with the correct maintenance of aircraft and pilot training. The simple fact is that a concept called MAD applied now as it did then... we have enough nuclear weapons to effectively end life as we know it on this planet. That is our defense...attack us and we may use them is all that is needed for a military.
Defense is the most important thing to our well being and there should not be any compramises. Having said that, we need to make sure that money is spend well on our troops, veterans (especially the disabled ones) and better and more advanced weaponary.
There does not appear to be any logic in having ineffective State and Defense Depts with large budgets. Just like corporations these departments need to having measurable performance standards and should be evaluated every quarter against established goals.
Finally, someone says it! Shut down the European military bases ... let our "allies" worry about defense spending. Reduce our military by a quarter and let solve our illegal immigration problems by having our undereducated and underachievers do some work instead of running off to enlist.
I agree with the Z man. Been thinking along the same lines for a decade.
I was also wondering this morning if the far right republicans in the house have the votes to force the guillotine? Is it already a done deal if you tally the house 'representatives' stance on the previous bill? (I quote representatives because they only represent one side of the votes for or against them, the 49% who voted against them
have no representation).
No real adversaries? How about Muslim extremism? They're different from conventional national foes, but nevertheless have demonstrated an intent to deliver significant harm and suffering right to America's shores.
My hubby & I spent 20 plus years in the military. We know there is a % of waste , fraud & abuse therein. We also know that "MEDICAID" has a huge % of waste, fraud & abuse; as does other "social" programs. So, what's your pleasure......give more food stamps, medical care, etc. to illegals, shiftless Womb – To – Tomb bottom feeders & leeches, or a strong deterrent to rag....head's who would kill us in Times Square? Liberals, dems, leftists & progressives JUST don't get it. AND....when the "FLAG" (as we say in the military) goes up, who is the first agency called to defend them......you guessed it.....the MILITARY! Behold a Pale Horse; Liberals, dems, leftists & progressives "SCREAM" for the military. Go figure.
Yes, we should cut the fat from Medicaid. But we should also cut the fat from the military budget. There's NO reason to spend more than every other country combined. We could annihilate any country 5 times over. We're just wasting money at this point. We should fight our enemies and not do nation building. Close those huge bases around the world. You can't run a country by using the military for job creation.
It's simply time to get back to basics. We cannot afford 25 billion a month to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. George Bush Sr. had the right approach. He went in, drove Iraq out of Kuwait, and came home – THAT was the mission. His son however, set the stage for another long drawn out Vietnam. Now, after seeing that it wasn't as successful as planned, we're trying to paint it as almost a humanitarian effort. Oh, we have to build schools, oh we have to teach their soldiers, oh we have to re-build the buildings we bombed. Come on guys. The mission in Iraq as we all knew was to oust Saddam – we should have left the next morning. The mission in Afghanistan was to capyure Bin Laden. DONE. Now get out – 100% of the troops home! The problem is that the US is so caught up in trying to be everyone's big brother, that it cannot see that it will never happen. The Middle East has been in turmoil thousands of years before the birth of Jesus. And it will always be in turmoil. That's how things are there. Its the culture. You cannot "impose" a new culture. Cultures take hundreds of years to evolve and change. So, bring the boys home, mind your own country and your own troubles, balanvce the budget, and regain better than a second rate status as a country with a second rate credit rating. Just get the job done guys. And start by cutting where most of the dollars are wasted – from Defence Department.
Our defense is the government's most important mission. As it stands now we have had few technological upgrades since the 1980's. Research and development has been dropping during the last decade. We are already slashing $400 billion and now we want to make it a nice even trillion. All of this at the same time that China is developing stealth technology and closing the gap on our technological advantage. I know some people believe that major wars of the last century are a thing of the past, but this will significantly hurt our edge in even smaller conflicts. Just look at the recent helicopter shot down in Afghanistan.
Here's another person of obvious limitations. No wonder this country's in trouble!
Please explain my limitations. I live in the real world where diplomacy with Iran has failed, sending an ambassador to Syria has failed, Hugo Chavez still laughs at us. Even after wrapping up two wars we will have soaring health costs in the defense budget. Some of our soldiers actually had to buy their own body armor. Now as a way to pressure legislators we will automatically cut $500 billion more. Let's not pretend we didn't just cut $400 billion.
simply not true. military is not the primary role of government.
if everyday needs of citizens are not met (infrastructure,
education, health), there is no point in maintaining a large
military to "protect" our "way of life". the military has become
an abused form of corporate welfare to a segment of "industry"
and a class of citizens that aspire to activities that dont help
our nations GDP.
Well said!
George, you can't make a liberal logical by sharing facts. They think and react emotionally. When they get tired, they get more quiet. Patience.
I just can't believe the very ignorance of some people here who are naive enough to advocate more defense spending, saying that $783B is not enough. Just what planet do these people live on anyway? And who is currently threatening us? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out just how much our unnecessary military spending is now hurting the national economy!!!
Hey, as long as you all are cool with the next war we are forced to fight has about fifty to a hundred times the death toll of these little brush fire wars... Sure, cut the military. Because we all know that waiting for someone to gather their forces beforehand is always an easy win. That isolationism sure helped in the 1940s!
Fifty to a hundred times more?
That’s chicken scratch!
If a comparable was to WW2 were to develop, you might see deaths to be at a rate 10 thousand times higher than today.
In addition, if the Hindu's come in against the Muslims and it goes hot, you might see death tolls some would say were inconceivable.
About 3.5 to 4 percent of the world population died inWW2 as a direct result of conflict, and perhaps another 1.5 to related causes. This was also a 99 percent conventional war.
If you assume nukes are 2.5 percent more effective, which gives us 12.5-kill ratio. Based on an estimate of world population, we could see almost 847 million people die.
We'll have the best military in the world. Bigger than China.
We have the best colleges/universities in the world. Better than China.
We have the best workers in the world. Better than China.
We have the best freedoms in the world. We are more free than China.
We have the best newspapers in the world. Better than China.
We have the best cars in the world. Better than China.
We have elected officials we can vote for/against. Try that in China.
We make the best products in the world. Better than China.
How come we hate China so much, again?
Are your figures in real dollars, ie deflated for inflation over the years to make the figures comparable, or have you left the figures in nominal dollars?
When the only tool one has is a gun, is it any surprise that an assesment of our enviorment seems to find only other great gun wielding threats?
I am far from a pacifist, but it seems to me that as a citizen of a country that spends what we do on the military, I DO have a right to ask why we keep losing!
Defense is one of the PRIMARY rolls of the Federal Government. The biggest waste (40% of tax dollars) is used for debt payments. When the debt is bigger than defense, you're hosed...
Why is Zakaria even allowed to write articles...hes an anti american bum...who the hell are you to tell the US to cut defense spending....are you stupid? Or just ugly?
Ronald Reagan should be famous for three things: increasing defense spending beyond our means, cuttings taxes on the wealthy and a stupid economy fantasy called supply side economics. Charlie Wilson from Texas deserves more credit for bringing down the Berlin Wall.
And Obama will be famous for 3 things: losing our country's AAA rating, increasing our debt beyond sustainability, and the stupid economic fantasy called "Keynsian" economics.
Having the most intelligent military has proven itself against sheer numbers of men under arms. Perhaps the executive branch and those that support them can operate the same way. .
The American people 2011. Apathetic uninvolved lazy indifferent.
We have a great future ahead.
But we still have the best military in the world, right?
Vietnam War: Lost
Iraq War: Lost
Afghan War: Lost
Libya War: losing
But hay, we have the best military in the world!
Wars are more complex than that and each of your points can be debated.
Well this is disturbing. I agree with Fareed on something. We should look at our military from this stand point. What do we need to defend our country?
Yes. We just don't need to go rabbit hunting with a bazooka.
Go back to your muslim land Zakaria. You area wasting your and our time on your biased opinions. I bet Iran and Al Quaeda are celebrating your article.
Fareed is from India, Vijai. Get a life.
May I remind you that with spending cuts for the military we put ourselvs at risk of experiencing another 911.
Does Blackhawk down ring a familiar bell of what happens when you make cuts and dont take care of what you have. Maintenance falls short and people get killed. The spending has to be monitored for the military.so it is used wisely.
Yes there were spending cuts made by different administrations before now, however, the enemy was defeated and there was not a need to continue on spending.. However as long as there is a holy war against the united sates and israel there is a need for superior military.
Least we forget how ww2 started. we had a weak military resting oin our laurels. Is that what you want Mr. Zakaria?
Fareed Zakaria, you are good on history but you negate the obvious. you are selling the country out that you live in. I can tell you are a intellectual that is highly opinionated.Of course opinions are like asshol s, everyone has one and they all stink.
'...opinions are ...all stink' including yours.
I love how fareed says that with no serious adversaries in the world, defense should be cut. No serious adversaries? Is he kidding? liberals LOVE to hide their collective heads in the sand.....can you say russia? china? north korea? iran? wahabism? islamism? syria? hezbollah? hamas? al qaida?
as for a new foreign policy, by that he means, in his veiled language, throw israel to the wolves....israel, who is the ONLY democracy in the very important middle east....israel who has been on the front lines fighting your battles...fareed is just a sauve looking mouthpiece shilling for obama and what he has ALWAYS intended to do.... american soldiers are NOT put at risk because of the US foreign policy vis a vis israel, american soldiers are at risk because the muslim world hates western values and freedom....america was at war with muslim countries lonnnng before israel was reborn....go back to the barbary wars....learn some history fareed...not just how you spin it....
better america should raise some taxes on EVERYONE, not just the so called "rich"(raising taxes on just the rich wont dent the debt) and maybe even apply a goods and services type tax...but to cut defense when russia and china are expanding theirs and retooling their militaries is foolish...the world is becoming more chaotic and more adversarial by the day...to cut defense now would be absolutely criminal....but hey, obama and his minions, fareed included, believe that words can bridge differences, that enemies can be assuaged, and that if we just appease and play nice to those who want to behead us we can go forward with less defense and less deterence. How many times does history teach us; it doesn't work. Those who dont prepare are doomed to defeat. Europe almost lost all of her freedom as a result of NOT being prepared and as a result of a foreign policy called appeasement, of which brack obama now wants to replay.
Oh that would be perfect. Obama and his wonderful policy's have done so much to further the United States' economic powers. We're a regular economic powerhouse right now. To make sure that the Dear Leaders plans are complete in ensuring that the US is reduced to a second rate power like the Russians, let's go ahead and give up the most powerful military force in the world. We wouldn't want to be be better than anyone else would we. How anyone can think that this is a great idea and will make the world a better place is beyond me. Take a look at the road that lead to WWII. It is paved with morons who thought the same way. Only this time there will be no "greatest generation" to win the next one.
hey eunuch boy,
aren't you supposed to be behind the high walls of the Forbidden Palace?
why are you out here spewing you poisonous nonsense to the masses?
No cuts in defense
The debt and deficits are horrible, straddling our children with debt cut spending
No cuts in defense
Sound familiar
Lets at least get out of Iraq it was a big lie that cost a trillion dollars and 4000 plus brave American soldiers lives on a Bush/Cheney criminal lie.
Coming from someone who has never spent a day in the military, this does not surprise me. Mr. Zakaria obviously would choose to cut spending from something that is so transparent to himself, members of elected positions and 80% of americans–security. It's really sad to see how much people take it for granted because they have never personally been exposed to a situation where their life was in danger. Maybe it will take another homeland attack for people to start realilizing this again. Hope it doesn't happen...
Come to think about it Zakarai very much resembles an Eunuch I saw profiled in Time magazine. Zakaria is not a writer. He is a sicko and should be sent back to Mecca with his sick sermons.
Although Fareed may be right in taking a good look at defense spending for possible cuts, his reasons reflect his usual shallow thinking, and lack a firm grip on the fundamentals of the problems he is trying to solve.
Looking at defense cuts thru blinders is a dangerous move, particuallary in the precarious state of the current American economic recovery. Without a plan on how to replace the defense spending with (private) spending on the right types of goods and services, Fareed is simply recommending tp pour gasoline on a fire already out of control. This problem is harder to solve and takes more than a one step solution.
Any spending cuts must be replaced by smarter spending that creates what I like to call recyclable wealth. In other words, spending that ignites more spending and not just more debt.
Solving half the problem Fareed, is not solving the problem at all.
Could we -please- stop calling welfare for military contractors "defense" spending.
According to David Petreus, we have 140.000 of the most expensive military troops in the history of the world, fighting in Afghanistan against 50-60 Al Qaeda operatives (and losing).
What exactly are we "defending" against?
And how is it exactly at one million dollars per soldier per year in the tenth year of a stalemated war, that our soldiers still don't have proper equipment to fight and we have to have bake sales to get them toothpaste and toilet paper.
Kind of makes you think your money is going somewhere else, doesn't it.
I don't feel like I am being "defended" against anything in any way whatsoever. Killing indescrimanately all around the world certainly doesn't make me feel safer versus terrorist attacks. And pouring money down the rathole of the Department of War certainly doesn't protect our troops, or win the war, or make America any safer.
We are just blundering around, blowing up the homes and murdering the families of thousands of innocent people, needlessly killing more and more American soldiers and making more and more enemies all around the world in order to give more welfare dollars ($ 316,000,000,000.00 this year alone) to British Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop and General Dynamics.
How is this "defense"?
For those of you that do not understand why defense spending is so high, please take a look at what you're talking about. Our biggest edge in the world is the technology we field (that and tons of training). Those of you that think there is nothing to fear and nothing to defend against are living in a world of fantasy. Being the number one country in the world makes you a target for everyone, period. Some of the other countries do not actively attempt to subvert the US or at least only conduct minimal acts, but if you think some of the other countries are not plotting our downfall – you have lost your damn minds. Look at the headlines once in a while – there was a five year hack that was recently discovered by McAfee (which they would not attribute to any specific country but speculation was the emerging superpower in Asia). That hack compromised all kinds of networks in our country, especially financial networks. What do you think they were doing while "in" those networks. Defense spending is one of the places where our country is trying to fight things like this – it isn't just buying new planes and ships. WAKE UP PEOPLE! The downfall of America equals the rise of another country. You don't think that's possible? You idiots that are for cutting defense spending need to look at the other waste in our government spending – $90 million a year to the Palestinians; $800 million in military aid to Pakistan; another $90 million in medical research funds to China, for a problem that ONLY exists in China. So, China holds a large portion of our debt. We are borrowing money from China and then turning around and giving money to China, then paying them back the money we borrowed PLUS interest. What kind of math is that? This all started with that BS bail out. AND, not only did it start with the bail out, but we bailed out Standard and Poor's – the crazy company that just downgraded our debt rating. We should have let them go bankrupt. There are SO many places where we can cut spending without having to cut it in the place that SECURES our freedom (the Defense Dept). How about we stop welfare to people that are not even in the country legally? It's a little old, but look up Yuri Bezmenov and his talk about "useful idiots" on You Tube. The same situation applies here and now – and most of the posts I read on here qualify as talk from "useful idiots." Most of the people on here disgust me.
I've never won an argument by first trying to convince someone they are an idiot.
Maybe you don't wnat to change people's minds, maybe you just want to hear yourself talk.
Doodle,
Maybe if we just ask what village is missing you?
"today with no serious adversaries..." The writer/editor must live under a rock (like the guy in Geico commercial) I doubt his/her sanity.
The debt ceiling crisis seemed to wake everyone up. "What do you mean we won't get our cheques?' Another reason that the US is in such financial trouble is because you guys just don't pay enough taxes. I have many friends from Canada who moved to the US to work after college simply because it's a well known fact up here that taxes are rock bottom in the US. Here in Canada, evey two weeks I pay $765.00 out of my paycheck for taxes. Right now I am paying $133.4 per litre of gas (that's approximately $6.00 a gallon) We pay a 14% sales tax at the mall on everything except food. We pay property taxes and water taxes, and the list goes on. Now all that sounds really nasty! However, I can go to my doctor this afternoon, he can give me X rays, CT scans, ultrasounds, blood work, and whatever. I walk out and don't pay 2 cents. He can refer me to a specialist for further investigation and assessment. They can operate on me and I'm in the hospital for 3 months. When it's all over, I get in my car and drive home. So yeah, paying high taxes is a pain, but free health care is great. Yes sometimes we have to wait for an appointmtnt to see a specialist, but so do you. I started out this rant by saying that if you folks paid even 2/3 of what we Canadians pay in taxes, your 300 million+ citizens would be far better off. The government would actually have enough coming in to run the household. The other thing the US need to do is cut the fat. You guys need a President who would come in for ONE term, make absolutely draconian changes and cuts, and then get voted out. Why? Because the only two things that can save the US on the world financial stage are higher taxes and drastic and immediate cuts. Rough times call for bold choices and it's time for Obama to step up. He's a great communicator – a great campaigner. That's all nice and pretty – BUT what the US needs now is a "don't give a damn" kind of leader. One who will make those bold choices and not look back. One who will sacrafice his second term if thats what it takes to fix things! You need Obama to go after the economy the same way Bush went after Iraq. The economy needs a shock and awe period through which the goverment overhauls things, people complain and gripe for 6 months, the markets go into a tailspin.....but in 6 months all that would settle and things would be much better. The US used to be the greatest country in the world who made the tough calls! So prove it once again and have the guts to make the tough calls on the economy – whether the electorate like it or not.
Dave
Canada does not have the burden of defending freedom.
If the US stops protecting you, you will have to pay your OWN bills.
Right, William, because there is a flotilla of warships in two oceans just waiting to attack Canada the moment the USA lifts their protective shield...
LOL good one.
Well said, William. But you can't convince Socialists with capitalistic facts.
WELL PUT !! – The US used to be the greatest country in the world who made the tough calls! So prove it once again and have the guts to make the tough calls on the economy – whether the electorate like it or not.
I for one don't mind defense spending at all – since if the governement must spend $3trillion+ (which it says it must).
At least all those dollars go to American workers, whether in the factories building the machinery or to military salaries.
Where does all that socialist spending go to: Chinese made goods, far east clothing and imported food products.
In case it is lost on all, the main reason why the Keynesian multiplier doesn't work is because the multiple goes to buying overseas made products to give them jobs.
Big shock. Anti-Imperialist Zakaria is telling us to dismantle the empire.
US Military Budget for 2010 – total Direct spending $685.1 billion +3.0% /2009
Programs - 2011 - Budget request[11] $721.3 billion
TOTAL Budget Breakdown for 2011 Incl. RELATED COSTS
Defense-related expenditure 2011 Budget request & Mandatory spending Calculation
DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales.
At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion
Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion
Homeland Security $54.7 billion
NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion 20% and 50% of NASA's total
Veterans pensions $58.4 billion
Other defense-related $7.5 billion mandated expenditures
NOTE THIS
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $114.8–$454.2 billion
Between 23% and 91% of total USA interest
Total Spending $1.060–$1.449 trillion (Rob Soc.Sec. to pay for Wars) DOD OWES SocSec over $225.-BILLION !!
War funding: 2001 to present
In order to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Presidents Bush and Obama have spent more than $1 trillion on direct costs alone.
On top of that, annual defense spending has just about DOUBLED since 2001, rising to almost $700 billion in 2010. Military spending now accounts for =>>> more 20% of the entire federal budget.
For fiscal year 2012, another $118 Billion dollars has been requested to fund the (several) wars.
BOTH Middle-East WARS HAVE BEEN CARRIED "OFF-BUDGET" FOR TEN YEARS –
COSTING TAX-PAYERS OVER $ 1.3 TRILLION (==>> There'Z your Deficit)!
Just the other day I saw a list of military cuts over the years. Each time the number of planes, battleships, bases etc, have been slashed. We are half of what we were 20 years ago. I do admit that an increase in efficiency and technologies have had to play a role. Cutting defense spending when we KNOW there are plenty out there who want to destroy us is imbicile unless we plan to wipe out our enemies first.
Pray tell: How is the USS George W. Bush destroying Islamic terrorists. You need more special ops guys not more weapon systems at 5 billion a pop.
I just said "enemies", which includes Islamic terrorists of course.
Fareed is absolutely right. Cut defense. It supports relatively few jobs in the grand scheme of things.
In addition Fareed, please push the following job support idea as applied so successfully by the Germans. Example: If Lockheed want to axe 10000 workers, uncle SAM can pay part of the salary for each worker. In addition Lockheed can also save money by reducing the weekly hours from 40 to say 32. The 2 pronged approach will negate the need for layoffs. This is what intelligent countries are doing!
Zakaria... do us all a favour and put a sock in it.
We could significantly cut out military and still be many times over capable of completing any missions ahead of us. Russia/China in a conventional war is out of the question.
The problem is the budget cuts from the 90s to present and multiple wars/conflicts along with normal aging have taken their toll on military equipment. There is equipment that is 40-50 years old, mostly aircraft, that need to be replaced. You can't have 2 major and extended wars while reducing taxes at the same time. Raise our taxes and support the troops. You lived the benefits of the tax cuts, now it's time to pay the piper.
Obama's Presidency has been one large dog and pony show distraction with Republicans cheering him on while he pretends to work on stuff, with minor exceptions.
Obama seems to have plans to cut into Social Security & Medicare while sticking us with his awful Obamacare plan (a privatization of parts of Medicare), and I am guessing he will not touch the Defense budget.
The DOD must have some kind of magical protection against budget cuts or a Presidential voodoo doll.
The man puts on an act of disappointment / disapproval at times, but it just an act.
That would be the Lobbyists working on Congress & DOD & related – muck like the Corporate (HealthCare, Rx, Auto, OIL& GAS) Lobbyists have soo much influence on OUR LAWS and the Congress-People (POLITICIALS) who establish Federal Laws.
A couple of observations and one comment; it appears that progressives resort to insults when their liberal orthodoxy is challenged. Calling someone an idiot is not making a point. It is hiding behind name calling. To those advocating a cut in defense spending make your case. Suggest areas to cut. Then in a reasonable manner we can agree on a course of action.
Diplomacy without backing of a credible military force only works when negotiating with allies, not with adversaries. Just look at the Middle East or Korea today. History is repleat with examples.
This is not to say that we cannot reduce defense spending, we can, but we must stay strong in defense of our freedom and western civilization.
The answer has been staring us right in the face every day:
$1.2 Trillion in spending on Iraq/Afghanistan since 9/11. Problem solved
“Been there, done that and returning to do it again (and again)”
The Cost of all six of our war operations is more like $4 trillions and counting.
http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary
Otherwise, I like what you had to say Fareed. Thank you.
Common sense is dead. There is only one person left in the whole country with integrity that I see on a daily basis that can make a difference. So I elect we move to appoint Judge Judy as interim government, not president, but let her run the whole damn thing unimpeded for a pre-detrmined time. The crap would be over
Why is the US the main provider in NATO. It should be more evenly shared by other countries.
If the middle east countries (Saudi Arabia etc) are not contributing troops to a common cause/conflict in the middle east, they should at least fund it in a major way. Countries like SA are getting off easy. They're not providing anything (to speak of) while our hard earned tax dollars and men/women are providing for their defense.
Mr.Jakaria is very critical & crucial in assessment of defense expenditure with data. Defense sector is one which has certainly become expensive head after end of cold war. R&D expenditure, homeland security & rapid action forces bases & international patrolling & intelligence are important but now deploying American forces abroad are not desirable. Democratic forces working in other countries could be helped financially, materially & morally on international forums & supported. All countries with democratic craze should come up at their own & forces of democracies encouraged with defense support, material & moral not directly at the cost of American people. All these measures will save colossal amount of money at least till the debt is paid off inclusive of interest on debt & lives of Americans above all recover lost image of American forces of excessive casualties with no direct benefit to nation & American people. American WH & Politics has to take a quick decision to reverse history of help & philanthropic look with at least balance look to prevent America being drained gradually of its financial independence, military strength & moral rating instead of just AAA rating. Troops coming from abroad should be usefully retrained & redeployed for national resurgence in industry, military tactics & R & D & developments of new weapon system based on the experience in terror ridden countries which is a new type of war with civilian casualties with counterproductive results. America has invested in other countries in billions with no returns from 1945 & may be earlier too.
2012: Sorry Mr. President we need more time
2014: Sorry Mr. President we need more time
2020: Sorry Mr. President we need more time
2025: Ahh F&%$ it!
It is well known that there are $ trillions & billions of dollars missing from the DOD, and many other government organizations. Perhaps this information can be used as leverage in any budget negotiations.
* In estimates quoted by former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, we were (at that time) missing upwards of $2.3 trillion dollars.
* The Pentagon's own auditors could not account for 25% of spending.
* Jim Minnery of Defense Finance & Accounting Service and Franklin Spinney of Department of Defense Analyst called Defense Department accounting "a coverup" and "those numbers are pie in the sky and the books are cooked routinely year after year."
* Jim Minnery's supervisor also said, "why do you care about this stuff?" when he attempted to investigate the missing money further.
* Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan was quoted as saying, "With good financial oversight, we could find $48 billion dollars in loose change in that building (the DOD) without having to hit the taxpayers."
* After 9/11 the hunt for the missing $ trillions died down. The two units that were actually impacted by the plane/missile that hit the Pentagon happened to be the Office of Naval Intelligence and a group of accountants who were trying to track down the $2.3 Trillion.
Admittedly, much has changed at the DOD since the year 2000, but the situation should be given due consideration since they will fight any cuts proposed and use scare tactics.
Links ...
Missing Money Article:
http://solari.com/articles/missing_money/
Trillions of dollars missing from Federal Government:
http://whereisthemoney.org/
Financial Coup d'etat:
http://solari.com/blog/?p=2058
The Pentagon’s Broken Book-keeping:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-pentagons-broken-bookkeeping-01945/
Fareed is absolutely right. Whatever we're doing in Afghanistan–whatever the hell it is; I sure don't know–is a waste of time and money. Keeping garrisons around that were put in place as a result of a war that ended two-thirds of a century ago is a huge waste of money. Whatever we've wasted in Iraq–billions? trillions?–is enough–it's time to cut the Iraqis loose.
National defence is essential, but what we're doing is vastly more than what could even remotely be considered necessary for that purpose. Nation-building isn't our job. Being the world's cop isn't our job.
The cost of all six of our wars is $4 trillion and counting.
http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary
The level of Defense spending in the US is a classic example of how bizare our politics have become, value is not part of the debate. When you add the base budget, the wars, the black programs and intel you approach $1.4T annually. And the number two spender in the segment – China at an estimated $100b. Kind of embarrassing. Also of note, we always are trapped spending on yesterday strategy. China is killing us on cyberwarfare – for pennies.
Of course, the real challenge is the job impact and how effectively the DoD and Defense contractors have distributed their spending to ensnare congressional support.
I hate the balance budget amendment conversation, but it might be the only tools we have to get these dolts on the hill to do something right for the country.
The balanced budget amendment has never been used since Thomas Jefferson's time. Why did these guys think it would work now?
Mike, at the end of the day it is about value and priority. It is not at all clear to me that we need the best military in the world and certainly if it comes at the cost of programs like the future combat system and the F-35. Sorry, but if we think all this crap is important to protect a strategic interest in Afghanistan or Somalia – we simply need to learn more about the history of those places.
It is time for pragmatic value based decisions not emotional flag waving.
Written by a bomb thrower. how appropriate
How quickly we forget 9/11. I bet all you lets cut the military pundits would be all over the military nuts again when some more buildings come crumbling down and we lose thousands of innocent civilians again. You people make me sick!
What you said merely sounds like a threat.
Kind of like firemen planning fires.
Grow a frigging brain. We had a strong military in 2001 but it didn't stop 911, did it? We don't need a huge military. We need a smart military.
Agreed. Please don't listen to any recruiter that will talk to you.
America is much more likely to implode due to financial collapse than from any external military threat.
BTW, he should get his facts straight and really try to understand history. Tradiationally Ameriica has never kept a large defense. At the start of WWII we had an army of what ~ 150,000 troops. After WWII we cut defense drastically. So when the Korea war broke out we we caught off guard which cost american soliders lives. Then Vietnam , 911 etc... He seems to think we live is such a peacefully world. If this where true we wouldn't need such a large defense. Its ignorance like this that causes the next war not prevent it.
Are you out of your freaking mind? Whenever a Dem becomes our nation's leader, the military budget gets cut and we fall into the abyss. Look what happened to the military after Carter, Clinton and now the Obamination administration. Come on you fool, get a life! Take off the rose colored glasses and see the world for what it is. Name me the countries that use diplomacy VS Tyranny. I'm sure the latter will have more names on the list. You liberal mainstream media boneheads make me sick!
Do you really think a puppet like Obama will touch the Defense budget in any serious manner? This is just a dog and pony show for the public.
We could be pleasantly surprised with some defense cuts rolled out over 10 years (totally insignificant LOL), but I doubt it.
No single party owns a hold budget cuts to the military. I lived through budget cuts under Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. We lived through budget cuts while my squadron was year round in Afghanistan and my sister squadron supporting iraq.
One thing that gets ignored about military budgets of today. Compared to wwII, a majority of the research and development is funded by the DoD, not the companies building the big ticket items. You do not have a mulitude of aircraft manufacturers developing new products on their own at their own financial risk. The DoD now helps absorb a major portion of the risk. That costs quite a bit.
Mike, under President Obama defense spending has increased very very fast. It has not been cut.
But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
So I guess we should fight Cyber Terrorism using a division of M1A1s...smart.
It is not equitable for the American tax payer to fund policing the world. Other countries MUST step up and do their part.
Right. When you figure how to do that and actually collect the money, please tell the President, State Department, Treasury Department, etc., OK?
Just be careful in your hacking and slashing. Every $150 billion cut from government spending, defense spending or non-defense spending, is a reduction of 1% of GDP, and a bunch of layoffs of government workers (including military servicemen and servicewomen) and government contractors (which are solid middle-class and upper-middle-class jobs) which will make the economy that much worse in the short-run.
Slow and steady. If you are for a balanced budget, and I think you should be, you are talking about a 50-year project at a minimum. It's not going to happen in 10 years, or even 20.
Correct, but you have to start somewhere and sometime.
It will correct itself whether you like it or not. The US share of the global economy is shrinking rapidly. The top-heavy budget at the Pentagon will crash within five, not fifty years.
Perhaps, but I think it is possible that we bring the defense department in for a softer (crash) landing.
That said, nobody seems to be even hinting at long-term ideas like this, let alone doing something about it.
Obama is an epic failure. So many promises. No action. All talk and talk has done nothing to solve any of our countries problems
We're in manufacturing and have been working 7 days a week for over a year now, filling orders for GM and Chrysler.
Mr. Zakaria usually sounds like a pie in the sky pseudo academic, but he's right on here. We have 11 aircraft carriers. No other nation has more than two. We can and should pair that down. The problem arises with the representative system. Everyone may agree that cuts need to be made, but when the base or plant is in your district, Democrat and Republican alike, they'll fight to keep it. I was impressed that Bill Clinton managed to shut down SAC in the 1990s, but I don't see how something like that can be done now with the current political climate.
I agree, Austin, but consider if we reduce the number of aircraft carriers from 11 (or 12?) to something like 6 or 7, and reduce the number of deployed carriers from 4 or 5 at a time to 2 or 3.
What are all those people going to do? They have pretty good jobs right now. Dump them on an already challenging job market and things will get worse.
That is, we need to couple cuts to defense spending with something that increases jobs–and good solid manufacturing and engineering jobs, not retail or McDonald's or mowing lawns for rich people–somewhere else.
If you average DoD spending from 1946 to 2009 you get an annualized expenditure of $356 billion. The figures leading to this average exclude the overseas contingency line items, which are the direct costs associated with material and personnel to support in theater operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you bring the average forward to 2012 or three years at a rate of 2.5% (inflation) you end up with $383.4 billion. This figure excludes contingency planning, people and family initiatives (a relatively new focus) so a requested base budget of $533 billion for FY 2012 is not way out of line. I am referrring to base budget to OC.
Befor we all start running around through green meadows holding hands whatching MTV videos we need to consider that a number of factors must be considered.
· What is the opportunity cost of not having a defense infrastructure that can respond to an immediate threat?
· When capital expenditures by the private sector are collapsing why should we add insult to injury by reducing military spending.
· When we are trying to kick start an economy, where two-thirds of GDP is driven by consumer spending, do we really want to put defense workers out of a job?
· Maybe not?
We need to reduce the national debt, no argument there, and the concept of a national debt as a percentage of GDP is a great academic discussion, but we cannot count on a continually growing GDP to supply the base to absorb national debt interest payments. One thing is certain, we need to grow GDP, reduce the trade deficit and reduce the national debt. It is as important as maintaining an effective military posture.
The defense budget includes private contracts for design improvements/development. If we cut that portion, them we create more unemployed Engineers & Designers. And understand that the cost of National Security is going to rise because more of the world is becoming tech-savvy, and everyone has a list of rights a mile long that helps protect them.
The revenue needs to exceed the spending, no doubt ... but, people need jobs or we haven't really fixed anything.
More over, private defense contractors working government contracts are one of the last bastions of actual manufacturing that we have in our economy. These are not just jobs we're talking about, but solid middle-class and upper-middle-class jobs.
If we cut defense, we better have something for these people to do, because they won't make for very good McDonald's employees...
Defense is NOT manufacturing. Manufacturing makes things for mutual business benefit. With Defense, only one side benefits. Although SOME defense spending is necessary for the (only) proper functions of government (enactment and ENFORCEMENT of laws), having expenditures that top the rest of the world combined is a HUGE red flag that spending is very awry. Of all the admirable activities of human activity, making weapons to DESTROY humans, is WAY down at the bottom of the list. One of the things government should do, is what is done in Lean Manufacturing – assess value-add on a NEEDs, WANTs, and total WASTEs basis, and start eliminating the (true) non-value-add activities.
I agree with you, Yesman, however we need to be careful with our rhetoric, because those jobs (and yes, they most-certainly ARE manufacturing–have you ever seen an aircraft carrier being built?) are good jobs, and if more and more people like that suddenly end up unemployed we will have a worse problem on our hands than the wastefulness of military spending.
Put those engineers to work doing something productive not destructive. Renewable energy, better transportation systems, elegant manufacturing solutions, better medicine. There's a world of improvements these people cam make that will improve people's lives, not destroy them.
What often gets overlooked is the significance of financial power and resources in prolongued conflict. The US might today have the best equipped and trained armed forces on the planet, but will this continue to be the case down the road, say in 30, 40 or 50 years? As Mr. Zakaria has pointed out, today the US rules supreme in the military sphere with no one having the capacity to cope. But the catch is that all those fancy weapons and good training has for the better part been bought with borrowed money. In other words, the Americans of tomorrow have been called upon to pay for the weapons of today's in a situation where there are no large scale "state" threats visible (except for transnational crime & terrorism). From a strategic point of view, I'd say that the current debt-financing of the American armed forces poses probably a bigger threat to national security than any nation potential could. Why so? Because an exhausted borrowing capacity, the lack of abilty to fund a military when there is a need for it, can be outright lethal in conflict. Are all those fancy projects from F-22's, F-35's, Zumwalts' etc. that are already or should come online in the next few years really worth the debt spent when in say 40 – 50 years a WW2-like conflict arises? Or does the US risk fighting a war with obsolete weaponary without the means to acquire new ones? Financial ressources in times of large scale conflict are as important as the number of fighter craft you can muster, getting more important the longer or larger the potential conflict (for the importance of finances in war only look at the Spanish-Dutch 80-years war). Buying fancy weaponary on debt today, in a situation of relativ security, could rob the future generation of the financial means to defend itself when need be and leave them with potentially obsolete weapons instead (think of fighting a modern War with Sabre-Jetfighters – certainly a fine aircraft for its time – but today without the slightest sliver of chance).
Well done London.
Well done.
If we want to lead the world we will do it best with full employment, and a stable stock market. We need to wind down this ridiculous monster military, if we even can, and use the money to improve infrastructure, educate our citizens, and grow the economy.
couldn't agree more Scott.
there is no need to invade other countries anf engage in large scale military operations to fight terrorism affectively....the wars in irak and afghanistan were the result of bush letting the military industry going their way in getting those big contracts....
A voice of reason speaks. Reagan/Bush get credit for using the arms race to sink the USSR. Bubba/Obama are on their way to sinking the US exactly the same way. It is way past time we brought out troops home, from everywhere. There is no sane reason to maintain troops aroung the world. It only continues to make the rich richer. The way things are going we'll have to start buying our weapons from China. We no longer have the factories and/or skilled workers to make our own.
Actually, Clinton cut defense spending by quite a bit if you care to check the facts. The "peace dividend" (remember that phrase?) was part of what eventually became a budget surplus.
I was active duty during the Clinton years...the cuts that we sa, at the deckplate level, resulted in a less prepared military, and cost that much more when we had to spend the money to get our forces back to a decent level of readiness.
I was also active duty in the Clinton years, and that was not my experience at all.
As far as "readiness" goes, you have to ask, "ready for what, exactly?"
The problem is not with defense spending levels as a dollar value, but rather our vision for foreign policy and the role of the military in that same vision. THAT is where the problem lies, and nobody is even starting to talk about that.
You are sort of correct, though–the Bush I / Clinton – era cuts to defense were not combined with a new foreign policy that reduced the need for a military that is as big as it is today. Moreover, it was the Bush II foreign policy (unfortunately never stopped by President Obama for some reason) of unilateralism and preemptive strikes and trying to turn places like Iraq and Afghanistan into shiny new Jeffersonian democracies, as if that should be our goal as a nation, that led us to the monstrously large military we have today that is "ready" to carry out that most-ludicrous mission.
The fact is that the Bush I / Clinton military was downsizing because it no longer had the Soviet Union to coalesce its vision. Boy they were sure lucky 9/11 happened–what a boon to defense industries!
All you whining civilian pukes make me sick. Maybe, instead of cutting defense spending we should cut Fareed Zakaia's throat. One less arab makes the world a better place.
Tom
U.S Army (retired)
Tom, fyi, Indians are not Arabs. They're closer to Persians, but they're not Persians, either. They're Indians.
Oh, and you're an idiot.
Tom, you are not retired Army, no one as stupid as you could have stayed in long enough to retire.
Zakaria, I couldn't agree more on this wonderful article. Washington lacks sanity and intelligence and that's why we are in deep s... I think there are three major contributors that are making sure this country continue to slide (from its good old days):
1)Republicans: They don't want any tax cuts, no defense cuts and make sure Democrats are f....in whatever they do.
They also do not believe in bringing the jobs back home and continue to tout for elite 1% of population.
2) Democrats: They don't want to touch social security and medicare, want to please all the unions, busy blaming
republicans and no balls to kick start domestic infrastructure projects. Basically all talk and no action.
3) American people: a) No clue about the whole thing and continue to be a puppet for either party. b)Spends like there is no tomorrow c) Kids going to school doesn't believe in maths and science (instead they opt for stupid majors like literature and music) d) We also make sure during election times we vote for the most stupid and corrupt guys.
I am sure fixing these issues will fetch wonderful results. But hey who the f.... cares...
THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WILL DRIVE US TO ECONOMIC RUINS. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WAKE UP?
Perhaps the MIC already has driven us to economic ruin. That's no excuse, however, for caps lock abuse.
But...let's us not forget-cap lock abuse prevents shift key abuse.
Kill em all and let God sort em out....no you idiots, I am not talking about our supposed enemies.....I'm talking about our idiots in D.C.
Our enemies in Washington are much more dangerous than the Islamist.
Why Mr. Fareed wear no turban?
Who do you think wears turbans? You are certainly an idiot
interesting that when "experts" talk about how much we spend on defense, they never speak to what percentage of the GDP our defense budget is. Look it up, the defense budget is an ASTONISHINGLY low percentage compared to what the Gov spends on everything else. They also don't speak to all the assistance the NG and AD provide, and if that were gone states would be stuck with the bill. I propose meth heads pay for rehab, baby mama gets less cheese and abortion as means of birth control get defunded before we scale back on defense while we are in two wars and have NK, Somalia, and the Libyan issues going on.
Actually, Randy, why don't you look it up? What is defense spending today as a percentage of GDP? When was the last time it was higher than this percentage?
What was it when Clinton and a GOP Congress managed to put together a budget surplus?
Oh, I see what he's doing now. Yeah, I agree that if you look at only a part of what the government spends on defense (the defense "base budget") then the 3.6% of GDP number is pretty low.
Sure, but if we're going to ignore all of the other money we spend on the military (you know, Iraq and Afghanistan and all that rot, not to mention defense's share of the debt-service, which brings that number up above 5%) so that we can pretend that defense spending is at an all time low, why not go all the way and pretend that defense actually MAKES A PROFIT by ignoring all of the expenses and counting the taxes paid by everyone employed by the military and the defense industries?
As a verteran I couldn't disagree more. Look at these posts and see how many defenders of defense spending are arguing in favor of increased wages and/or benefits for troops. They want to spend more on bombers and less on the VA. Remember W Bush praising the troops, who lacked adequate equipment, at the same time he was supporting cuts in the VA benefits of the casualties? Cutting defense spending only works if the fat cats who own our politicians would allow it. The same reason there will never be meaningful reform in health care.
We have the best government money can buy and we've sold it to the defense, insurance and drug industries. The facts and beliefs of the voters are irrelevant the profits that make the decisions.
Tom, you are an idiot and if you are a vet, it'd have to be army because of their low standards. I'm ashamed to admit I have something in comman with you.
Will anything good come out of us now? What is wrong with our system? What is wrong with us?
"No serious adversaries"??? He considers the current massive Chinese military biuld up as no threat or serious adversary? Really???? Given that how can anyone lend any credence to the rest of his arguments? Yes, the system is imperfect, and bloated to some degree, and is in need of serious reform but to weaken the nation at a time when so many seek to do serious harm (the threat from China and a resurgent Russia not withstanding) to us is absurb. as others have intoned here diplomacy works for "normal" peoples, however, it doesnt and wont work with those who seek our downfall an ANY cost. i question the loyalty and whats more the sanity of anyone who advocates cutting defense spending.
Are you seriously scared of the Chinese military? What do you think they can do to us?
That's interesting, though. I wonder if the Chinese will be the new bogeyman for defense hawks now that Bin Laden is dead...
You know what's funny? The "American People" who are supposedly better than their own government, have a debt-to-GDP ratio that is three times what Uncle Sam has.
Stop telling me about how "household" budgets are run. In this country, if you make $65,000 per year and owe $195,000 on your $250,000 house, you're actually considered fairly well-off and in pretty good shape in our new middle-class sort of way, in spite of having a personal debt-to-income level of 3.0 whereas the federal government is just now approaching 1.0.
Thanks for the bass ackwards reasoning, there, Bruce!
Mr. Zakaria,
Having served myself in the military, I readily agree that defense spending can easily be reduced by say $500 Billion over a decade w/o compromising national security.
My question to you is this:
While it is the norm for "progressives" to call for reducing defense spending, what cuts to other programs/departments would you enact elsewhere in the US Federal budget? What reforms (much needed) to Medicare/caid and Social Security would you call for?
I ask for specifics since you cite some specific items in your article. I eagerly await your response.
Keith, the norm for actual progressives is that Keynesian economics demands you don't reduce government spending in an economic recession, you increase it to spur growth in the GDP. If budget deficits are indeed a problem (and right now they aren't because, let's face it, it's really really cheap to borrow money nowadays if you are the US government), then you reduce deficits by increasing revenues rather than decreasing spending. You just have to be careful you don't increase revenues in a way that hurts growth, because that would be counterproductive.
What's crazy is that it wasn't all that long ago that p1nk0-c0mm1e Dick Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter!" and now the GOP is all about deficits-are-the-devil.
What's even crazier is that there are no progressive champions in Washington (I'm looking at YOU, Mr. President) actually supporting progressive ideas such as increased deficit spending to spur the economy.
Bruce,
I am not going to debate past policies or comments of Cheney (btw – I disagreed with him then and now) or anyone else. We need to look at the here and now as well as the future.
The stimulus packages have failed to revive the US economy as the Obama administration predicted they would.
Still- my questions remain and address them if you can. What reductions in other govt programs/departments will you enact? What reforms to Medicare/caid and Social Security do you propose to keep them from going totally bankrupt?
And, since you mention further stimulus spending, what exactly (and I do mean specifics) do you propose for stimulus spending? And please, do not state the usual "roads and bridges" mantra of the progressive lot.
Furthermore – how will you pay for all of that spending? And again, just raising taxes on the "rich" won't even come close to covering Medicare/caid and SSI as they stand now, much less any new "stimulus spending"
Keith, I don't think you understand. A true progressive ideal is not to cut spending during hard economic times, but to increase spending. So, when you ask what programs a progressive would cut, the answer would be "none." Zakaria is actually stepping away from progressivism by asking for defense spending cuts to lower the deficit. What you should be asking is something more like what programs would you INCREASE to offset the cuts you propose in defense? The progressive/Keynesian answer is pretty simple: investments in infrastructure like roads, bridges, railways, sewer systems, electric power, and the like. This takes money away from defense, which does not give as much bang for the buck in terms of economic growth, and puts it into things that actually spur GDP growth in the long term. Why should I not repeat the "roads and bridges" mantra? You asked what the progressive stand is, and that is the progressive stand. Infrastructure investment is Keynes par excellence. Why should I apologize for something like that?
The progressive answer to deficits is not balancing budgets through tax hikes and/or budget cuts. The progressive answer to deficits is GDP growth, which raises tax revenues and reduces the cost of social safety nets like unemployment benefits.
I agree that the stimulus proposed by this President didn't work. That's because it was a stimulus focused on the financial "industry" and, while a great boon for banks, never "trickled down" to the consumer. The other stimulus of a payroll tax holiday, meant to spur growth by increasing consumer spending, was also misdirected. Our robust consumer economy is not based on people spending money they have, so it is not reduced when people have no money (they use credit, fyi), and it is thus not increased when you put more money in their paycheck for the same reasons.
The stimulus did not work because it wasn't the "roads and bridges" mantra of progressives. In that, the President has failed as a champion for progressivism. Progressives are actually quite critical of the President for these very reasons. Even Zakaria (if you know how to read him) voices his criticism of the President for these same reasons.
Did not read article. Refuse to read article written by a guy named "Fareed" about cutting defense spending.
Don't bother. You wouldn't be able to understand it anyway.
Don't think you understand it either, Bruce.
I read enough to know it's typical Fareed candidate-style liberal talking points. Take money from everyone who works, give it to those who don't or can't, without any constraints or boundaries, cut defense, bla bla bla. The guy doesn't analyze the information and form a conclusion, he starts with a conclusion and picks and chooses the information that is consistent with the conclusion.
Except that Fareed doesn't call for taxing the rich and increasing social safety net spending. He calls for increasing deficit spending (in the short term), borrowing money from a credit market that can't seem to get enough of T-bills and thus will pay top-dollar for the lowest-interest and lowest-yield investments available today, and using that money to pay construction workers to build roads and bridges and electric power transmission lines and sewers and whatnot.
The GOP hates that because these workers belong to unions, and nothing is more scary to a Republican than the idea of collective bargaining!
Bruce, you draw a check, don't you?
Yes, Joe. I do draw a check. Why do you ask?
Isn't this the same guy that was calling for an "innovation tax" (an oxymoron if I've everheard one) a few months ago? The examples he gave of how government could help spur innovation were all defense department programs. Now he wants to cut their budget. I'm sure in his mind the reasoning is perfectly sound.
James, you're right. This seems to be a big shift for a Keynesian like Zakaria. This is the first time he's called for cuts in any kind of government spending in the name of deficit reduction. The GOP's victory is apparently complete now...
Here's the solution to the defense budget, the social security budget, and the medicare budget all in one fell swoop:
1. Reinstate the draft.*
2. Start a war with really really high casualties on our side.
3. ???
4. Profit!
*The key to this is that only people over the age of 65 are eligible for the new draft.
I do have an alternate idea that goes by the code name, "Soylent Green."
I could not agree more with my progressive friends. I think we should disband the military and create state militias made up of the very folks who support deep cuts in the military as espoused in these comments. I am sure they would be honored to serve as long as it doesn't interfere with them watching "Jersey Shore" or "The View". We could then take the money we save and send more government checks to people who don't want to work. Who knows maybe we could increase the percentage of people who don't pay tax to 60 or 70 percent from the 47% who don't currently. Furthermore, let's tax those rich sob's who don't do anything but sit on their private jets and collect oil subsidies. Wow, its all so simple.
Let's make love not war
But seriously you are spot on on your analysis fareed. The US spends over proportionately large amount on defense budget and it is high time we rein in on that.
Hey Fareed. Have you ever served? No? Thought so.
How anyone could possibly argue it makes sense for one nation to spend more on defense than the entire world combined is baffling. At times it makes sense to spend billions of dollars on defense, but I am hard pressed to see evidence of why we need a fleet of 10 Aircraft Carriers, 71 Submarines, the two largest air forces (in terms of personnel and equipment) when our enemies live in caves and have to rely on targeting civilian targets using crude explosive devices or commercial transit. Especially when we have the ability to deliver nuclear warheads by way of ICBMs (so we do we need nuclear attack subs?) and can essentially over-run most other military forces with relatively small scale deployments.
Unless we intend to be an occupying army and act like one (i.e. – plunder the resources and wealth of the nations we occupy to pay for this military), we have no business spending this kind of money on the military. Moreover, don't overlook Dwight Eisenhower's (accurate) warning that when you spend a lot of money on the military, politicians will be motivated to use it (as recent events have shown). At the end of the day, this translates into young American men and women loosing their lives...and for what?
And Russia/China? We need to worry about them, still? They're both third world countries with a decaying military. We could cut our defense budget in half and STILL pay more than these two "Goliaths." When they start building up their military substantially, THEN we can revisit spending $700+ billion a year on defense.
Thank you for being a voice of reason here among all the noise and din of phony flag wavers and fearmongers
Fareed I'm going to take your Keynesian credentials away from you if you cede the primary argument to the Friedmanites. You propose reducing defense spending now, in tough economic times, and pretty dramatic reductions at that, without increasing spending somewhere else to make up for it so the GDP isn't waylaid in the process.
You said yourself that deficits and debt aren't solved by cutting spending and/or raising tax rates, but rather they are solved by GDP growth. Why do you forget this now? Is the Tea Party victory over Keynes now complete?
Oh, and if the Fed actually wants the private sector to stop hoarding cash and start using that cash to invest in something like expansion, then they should feed inflation a bit (but not too much). The Fed's mantra of low-inflation-no-matter-what has produced a private sector that is satisfied with T-bill-type ROI.
Let their cash get gobbled up by inflation for a while. That will get it out of their pockets...
Not an unreasoned argument, but one which fails to acknowledge the potential military threat from China. With more than a million soldiers more than the United States, a domestic security force as large as its foreign counterpart, and billions being pumped into Aircraft Carriers, next-gen fighters, and other hardware....how can anyone doubt that china has serious military ambitions that are hostile both to America, its allies, its interests, and its values?
People who call for us to cut our military mistake its cost for its power....we have nowhere near the largest army on Earth...we simply have the inconvenience of having to pay our soldiers rather than kill those that refuse to serve.
China has a large military, but it cannot project power across the Pacific Ocean. The only way China can hurt us is if we are over there with our military equipment (e.g. Chinese submarines could conceivably sink an aircraft carrier).
Unless you think that China is gearing up for a war over limited resources, such as access to Middle East oil reserves?
The Chinese would have literally nothing to gain from aggression against the United States – we're by far their biggest customer in every way. If we continue to pump cash into our military at the rate we currently do, we only weaken ourselves... and what do we have then? A bigger military wouldn't reduce the casualties in a war with China (which is a nuclear power). Bottom line – the biggest advantage we have is our financial strength and influence. If we lose it, we become totally irrellevant. Overspending on military the way we do while carrying $14 trillion in national debt is a formula for disaster.
Thank goodness somebody finally stated the obvious! Our military spending is INSANE. It doesn't matter which party you favor... EVERYBODY would rather see this country in substantially better financial health, and there is no need for the kind of spending we're doing. Absolutely we need a military, and absolutely it needs to be strong, well trained, and well equiped. That could easily be accomplished but with much smaller size and more efficient use of technology (for example, using drones instead of live pilots which cost a fraction of the cost and do not risk the lives). Why doesn't anybody in a position of influence have the stones to step up and do the right thing in this country?!?!
Zack is working within the system to destroy.
This article sounds like it was a 8th grade project. Almost sounds like it was plagiarized.
@Mike SA ... "paying attention" Obama has been greeted warmly in many countries and in 2011 as well. If you have evidence to the contrary provide it.
"and you can see the liberties many enemy countries have been taking with the U.S since obama became president"
Really? What liberties? Evidence? Links? I just love all the unfounded statements the anti-Obama crowd makes.
Mr. Zakaria.....get your head out of your ass.......diplomacy doesn't work with people whose sole purpose in-life is to end yours and mine.
The only thing terrorist organizations understand is death. Death to them and death to their families. The military is the venue to carry that out. Don't cut them...instead, get rid of the archaic rules we put into place that ties their hands when they engage the enemy.
It's one thing to maintain and support our troops to adequate levels. It is another to give billions to Blackwater and Halaburton to fund mercenary services. Our troops are still under funded and poorly equiped. Why doesn't anyone, especially veterans, care about that? Better pay, better equipment, better benefits for the best miltary in the world! No funding wasted on mecenaries who don't even serve in combat areas. Escort VIPs on tours of the green zone. What did Halaburton do with the missing 8 billion?
RIGHT ON!!! We are involved in wars that are for NOTHING, serve no purpose. It's not like we're fighting Hitler. This is an unconscionable WASTE of money and some of it has been stolen from Social Security and other sources that are NEEDED by the American people. George Bush had us looking for terrorists under our beds - they weren't there then, and they aren't there now. He started a war with Saddam Hussein who had NOTHING to do with 9-11. It's high time we acted like intelligent human beings and stopped the killing and the hating and used the money we have to do good for our citizens instead of buying tools of merciless slaughter and sending our sons and daughters to their deaths.
ending the never-ending wars is a good start - "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican President and WW 2 General
Fear has and always will be the way to maintain political control. The real question that should be asked is what is it exactly that we are afraid of. We live in a country of 350 million plus with a couple hundred million guns. We have two oceans on each side and no military threats to our north or south. Zero chance of an invasion. Terrorism? Any idiot with a gun is a potential terrorist(DC snipers) and virtually impossible to stop 100% of the time. Spending us into oblivion trying to stop that which could occur anywhere or anytime is simply a waste of funds. Cut our budget in half, start charging a fee to every 100 + countries we have a base in or start sending the bills to the arab countries that actually benefit from a regime change or occupation of their neighbors. I dont care which but american blood and money has to stop flowing to these countries now.
/////////////////////////whooo is ZAKARIA //////// Who cares what he thinks, sounds like a muslim to me.
Doesn't matter what you think because you aren't very bright anyway. Jerry sounds like an IRA terrorist name to me LOL
I've been saying to cut Defense for a while. it's incredible how this sacred cow can never be touched
Why do we, or anyone, care what this guy thinks? Report the news, CNN. What Zackie thinks is not news. He has influence over just about diddly squat. We need to hear from people who do have some influence, because what they think and do might actually mean something. Interview them, not self-styled experts with an obvious anti US axe to grind.
I care more about his opinion than a foolish one like yours. every time someone mentions the cutting of Defense the phony patriots and flag wavers get all upset. I wish then that defense was funded by someone like you
Jerry,I was going to ask the same question.This wind bag has avice on every subject always with a muslim slant.What makes him an expert on evey issue ?He needs to go where his heart is.It sure isn't here in america.
rubbish.
Instead of cutting defense spending what say we cut out all aid to all Islamic countries.Cut out all trade concessions to everyone.Outlaw N.A.F.T.A. and penalize any company outsourcing jobs to another country. Level the playing field for companies keeping their jobs in the U.S. Pay all elected officials the min. wage only for the hours they actually work and Cut out all so called "perks".
on colossal military might fools depend, while real security rots from within
The so-called War on Terrorism has become an excuse and the buzz word for fattening defense contractors' bank accounts as those contractors lobby Congress for money-wasting pork-barrel projects and Obama presses forward with his intent to conquer Afghanistan. Add to that the the increasing Predator drone wars in other parts of the world. An irony is that such wars increase hatred for the U.S., which increases paranoia among U.S. politicians and the military, who then argue for ever more enlarged budgets Also, taxpayers will wonder whether the burgeoning U.S. "intelligence" gathering industry, now with some 900 taxpayer-funded companies in operation, are considered part of the defense budget or are funded in budget items which are in addition to the defense appropriation. Zakaria is correct.- it's time to draw in the purse strings on what has become a waste bin of spending and reduce deficit spending, which if it continues will bankrupt the U.S. as the Soviet Union bankrupted itself primarily because of its defense program.
No matter how much we spend on the military, if we are falling apart economically, the military spending only hastens the decline.
The military budget needs to be cut in half.
I find Fareed's piece somewhat lacking in depth, though the cuts to the defense budget are indeed coming.
Precipitous (and indiscriminate) cuts to defense spending following WWII and Vietnam each created a "hollow" military that translated directly into cost in human lives – Task Force Smith and Operation Eagle Claw serve as painful reminders of US service personnel unwittingly sacrificed at the alter of myopic cuts to the defense budget.
Secretary Panetta has already gone on record to say DoD "must be part of the solution", but such cuts must be intelligent and calibrated to avoid the repeated mistakes of our not-too-distant past. All this while mindful of the threats to our security and prosperity that do indeed exist. What truly remains to be seen is if those in Congress can make responsibile decisions in this regard, even if it means they'll lose jobs in their district when funding for a needless aircraft part is on the chopping block.
You must have missed the part where he said "today, with no serious adversaries in the world, the United States spends more than all other countries on the planet combined".
@Jose – No, I didn't......
If China's military is seen as a threat by some posters, our military, which is many times bigger, must seem like an immense threat to the Chinese.
Good to know we can depend on the Paki to lull us into a false sense of security....
Why does CNN continue to publish this guy other than they are a liberal new opinion company. This guys opinions do not benefit America. Yesterday he wrote that we did this (speaking of the economy) to ourselves. What does he mean, "we". I don't consider Fareed to be an equal to me as an American. He is welcome to return to wherever he came from. As far as the military... I am all for getting rid of true waste and fraud. I think everyone convicted of defrauding the government should be put in jail and get hard labor. All of those convicted of serious treason should be executed. However the Military needs to be very strong. The US has very few true friends (England, Canada) that could be relied upon if push came to shove and most of our supposed "allies" don't spend enough on defense. China and Russia have both drastically increased military spending. China is waging a fierce cyber war on us right now. We need to focus our spending. I say cut foreign aid to all countries with the exception of Israel.
yes his opinion does benefit us. i'm sorry he doesn't match up to your superior American-ness. We are already strong, we don't need to listen to more fearmongering like yours to keep up an insane military budget
Who cares? The biggest mistake was to have George Bush as President in 2000 and then again in 2004, who took from budget surplus to budget deficit and his cronies are getting hardened day by day with Tea party and other divisive agenda. How many days was Senate allowed to work from 2008-2010 and thereafter how many days has senate and white house been allowed to work? There can be no compromise with junk hard boned red necks of GOP and Tea Party. The frankestiens refuse to take ownership of Iraq war, spending in Afghnistan for 8 years without Osama and they refuse to credit Obama for getting Osama.
It is NOT "Defense Spending" : It is "Military Spending" and "War Spending" !
Call it what is IS ! ! !
I don’t understand why each time cutting the deficit comes up the Defense budget seems like the favorite one. Defense spending accounts for a small portion of the government’s budget, 16% percent to be exact. There are other programs in the budget that can be cut, for instance welfare for 2011 accounted 11% of the budget. Why not cut that portion, and don’t tell me that there is no wasteful spending or abuses with welfare.
Oh Zak. Zak. In the few short years you have been on the planet you are also a defense analyst now? Are you expecting me to believe that you, smilin' Zak, have fully evaluated existing threats and have also projected all possible future threats and have concluded that we can stand down now?
no thanks Zak. I am not buying it. What is YOUR motive?
That's why they said we needed the F-22. Look at it now, the most expensive fighter aircraft ever, grounded and can't fly. Hasn't seen a single day of combat. We've all be brainwashed to fear the unknown. We can't go on being a country in endless conflict, why can't we be at peace?
@Benibiker, I cannot agree more... Whats wrong with the American politicians.... If you had sent flowers to iraq and afganisthan, you would have made friends and maybe could have transformed people...
Look at what Gandhi did to drive the british away. If only India, during the independence struggle, had to increase defence spending, it would have been a joke...Iam sure thats what America would have done, if they had been in India's shoes.
Unless America really cleanses its mentality there is no hope for the nation.
I totally agree with this article. However, I think they should allocate a small amount of defense spending to programs like the PEACE CORPS. I feel those volunteers can win the hearts and minds of the world and provide a much more valuable defense than any $300 billion dollar plane.
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) got where we are now, broke. I saw it first hand, money for everything and anything from the GWOT account. Plasma TVs, computers, it didn't matter, the money was there and it had to be spent or some other unit would take the money and spend it. Things no one needed, they got because this endless account called GWOT was there. What a waste... Cut DoD's spending NOW!!!!
Why does the US have to be in constant conflict? We're always making someone the bad guy. Sure WWI and WWII were real, but the others were made up. What did we get from Korea? Vietnam? The current wars? Nothing, a bunch of wasted money and American lives. It's time to force the DoD to live within its means too. I have to, why can't they?
Well Fareed or whatever your Muslim name is, you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. You need to do your homework before reporting entirely misleading information. Have you ever served one day of active military service for our beloved America? First the military requires more money than other agencies of the government because they need state of the art equipment so our armed forces can meet and stop any Muslim Terrorist country that tries to terrorize or attack any part of our U.S. soil. You might not think that is necessary since you are probably not a legal citizen and would like to see our military reduced not only in numbers but in total strength. There are other agencies in the government that need a long look at for cutbacks as well as elimination due to duplication of effort. Of course you probably don't know many agencies or bureau's as all you Fareed's have a one track mind and that is "death to the infidel's". It is my opinion that you have no business reporting any type news either on CNN or a garbage dump.
One more thing Fareed, the Koren War was not a war at all it was classified as the "Korean Conflict". The Vietnam War was not a war either, you look it up and report back as to what it was really classified. The thing in Iraq was not a war either nor was the Kuwait thing or the Afghanistan thing. Do your Bucking homework before you write your Muslim loaded articles.
Zakaria, You're a liberal fool.
Fortunately, even most of the libs in DC understand that if you draw down the military to the point most of these paramecium want, you can never get it back...too expensive, too hard.
Well, since Fareed is "one of them", I guess he would love to see the US go lax on military spending. It would help "his people".
Only a mental midget bigot like you would think that everyone who has skin darker than you is from middle east or "one of them" as you said. Zakaria is an Indian American.
Wrong, he is from a Pakistani family.
Excellent article.
Hear, hear! We spend too much money propping up other governments (some of them dictatorships) and too much money sending our troops to fight in other countries. And what does it get us? A war with islamic terrorists that wouldnt have cared about us at all if we werent messing around in their country. We have been pushing in the middle east since 1953 when the cia instigated the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the shah as dictator. That intrusion lead directly to the Iranian revolution of 1979. And what did we even gain out of it? Greater profits for certain oil corporations, and many many enemies. We pay for oil profits in blood.
Are we supposed to be surprised that a Muslim author wrote an article about his desire for the US to cut defense spending?
Fareed Zakaria...you are a joke, man. I have read a lot of articles from you, from previous years, in which you vehemently rallied for military action, when none was needed, really. I cannot understand how you can call yourself a journalist, or even how can CNN or Time have you working for them. Get another job, punk.
No siree. We need another war once the one in Afghanistan and iraq winds down. You can bet our brothers in Israel will drag America in to another dog fight in Iran. They are just itching for it. North Korea and Iran is the next two wars that we must fight if we want to continue to create jobs for the Republican bases. It is the ONLY way. WAR WAR WAR! Baby!
War has acheived nothing in the world, except for death and destruction and egoic triumphs....
Its time humanity wakes up and understands that war is a waste of time.
America could have spent a fraction of that money on R & D in various fields and made the world a better place.
Will somebody PLLELEEEAASSEEE shut this freaking Paki traitor up? He is not an American, he never was an American, and he needs to go back to his country.
So many posters need to go beyond his name "Fareed". He is of Indian descent. Yes he is Muslim, but take a look at his credentials and not his religion. And he's a liberal Muslim while you are behaving like fundamentalist Christians (which in my opinion is just the same as a fundamentalist Muslim). All of America's enemies are self-created. Osama/Saddam etc. You support them when you want to and then dont when you're done with them. So you're asking for trouble.
When you're spewing so much hate on these forums for people of other religions and countries, don't be surprised when you dont have any true allies. No one likes a bully. And America is the biggest bully around. Your country is in its biggest crisis ever and tough measures have to be taken like cutting war spending. The Iraq war was totally unnecessary. And Afghanistan was a losing battle from the beginning. At the end of the day, Osama was found in Pakistan who is apparently your friend. Really, US foreign policy is the worst. And dont know the meaning of diplomacy but only might. Other countries have terrorist attacks happening all the time, but no one else goes and invades ( if you're not invited, you are invading) countries. Not saying you should sit back, but there really is no need for "war".
America is founded by immigrants. The only true citizens are the Native Americans. If someone legally becomes a citizen but is not white, why do you automatically assume that they need to go back to their own country. Can you get more narrow-minded that that? And FYI, Fareed probably pays a good amount of taxes. He has a right to say what he wants in that case IMO. It's his tax dollars going into defense spending too.
Some cuts can be made but some things need replacement. Chinooks are 50 years old. AC130 are getting old also The spending will go down once we leave afghanistan and Iraq. But remember too China and Russia are spending more on defense every year
I agree with you that the military budget needs to be cut considerably. But while "currently" there are no state actors that pose a threat, the U.S. still must maintain the ability to respond to regional conflicts in concert with other countries, as well as respond to asymmetrical threats. A highly-trained, well-equipped, military is a policy tool that is utilized when diplomacy fails. Cutting the defense budget without changing our strategic vision would be a mistake. In December 2003 former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld supported a policy of "places, not bases". Perhaps more thought should be given to expanding this policy by totally eliminating the bases and conducting military exercises with individual allied countries, as well as regional military exercises to provide an integrated response to regional conflicts. The US Navy could maintain a permanent presence regionally with their carriers. We would save billions!
When interest rates drop, homeowners take notice. If rates dip lower than your current rate, refinancing may allow you to lower your monthly payment, potentially reducing the interest expenses you’ll pay over the life of the loan. Shop around use sources like "123 Refinance" to compare rates
Cut the defense budget again?!?!?! Yeah that worked well the first time under Clinton right? Let's see more americans unemployed, more US companies shutting down, lower quality items being made overseas, and let us not forget that when we close our overseas military bases they seem to increase "aid" to those countries because of the loss of jobs and businesses in those countries. Yep I can see how that will work out just fine.
I am sorry but cutting defense spending is not a solution to the budget. Yes it will look like it our budget is better, but once the exsisting defense contracts end you will have higher unemployment and less companies making things in the US. Not to mention that the military will cut back on personel adding to our already high unemployment. The military is still using equipment well beyond it's original service life. How many of you own a car older than 10 years old? The military is still using equipment made in the 1950's!
You complain that the military budget has increased over the last 13 years. Well when you use lower quality parts you have higher failure rates and use more parts. When the military was cut way back in the 1990's they cut way too much. When things happened globally there was a need to increase the military. If they would have scaled back a little instead of hacking it apart, You would not have needed to the larger increases. Using antiquated equipment requires more money to maintain. Many parts used to support some of the old equipment are no longer made because the huge defense cuts caused many smaller companies to close in the 1990's. Now in order to maintain the older equipment they have to have custom parts made which cost way more than the original parts and the newer parts are made overseas with lower quality materials so they do not last as long.
Cutting the defense is not a solution, it is a temporary bandaid that will eventually hurt the US in the long run. It was cut in the 1990's and in less than 10 years we saw how that affected our ability to protect our citizens who worked in a few buildings on September 11th.
Ronald, I would respectfully disagree. Having spent 20 years in the military I completely understand your argument though. During the Clinton years there were many accounts of "scavenging" just to make equipment work. It is also quite true that when the military cuts to trim the fat it seems they end up cutting off an arm and a leg before they realize what they have done. However, putting more effort toward addressing the root causes of conflict rather than addressing the conflict after it has erupted would seem a more viable and cost effective solution. Does this mean more aid to some countries? I doubt it because with our economy struggling the American people are much less inclined to assist countries economically just for the sake of lessing the impact on another country's economy. Defense industries will survive. They have survived every cut in the past. Cuts would take place over a number of years so the impact would be minimal.
With regards to September 11th, it wasn't military cuts that resulted in this horrific event. It was the failure to recognize the threat and intelligence/law enforcement organizations ignoring or compartmentalizing information which should have been shared with other agencies. A large military is not a deterrent to Al-Qadea.
Cut defense spending again? Excuse me... defense spending has been up every year year after year since Bush became president... sitting currently at over $ 682 billion. It's now the most expensive military in the world by a factor of 7.5 and it simply doesn't need to be.
BTW those who were saying China is constructing an aircraft carrier. No they aren't ... at least not yet. All they have is a land based test ship and the never finished Soviet Carrier Varyag. None of these is some super ship capable of beating a U.S. carrier.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm
I love Fareed's opinion pieces. He is ALWAYS right on the money. This country would be a lot better place if his insights would be actual Washington DC policy. We should have Fareed as Obama's top adviser instead of the Wallstreet thugs our president is surrounding himself with. Great guy.
How did you see to type that comment? One wouldn't think there would be room in your rectum for a flashlight with your head all up in there.
Fareed posits that since there is no substantial threat to the US there is no harm in cutting defense spending. I don't very often think of Fareed as naive, however, in this piece he not only displayed naivete, but he was wrong on the facts.
China is taking its' first aircraft carrier to sea trials, and it will be operational soon. One needs only consider how the modern aircraft carrier has expanded US influence around the world in order to understand the aspirations of the Chinese. The Chinese are investng a great deal of their GNP in to defense. While they have been a benign world power in recent years, it is clear that they aspire to much more.
Second, the value of a strong military is not just that it can address imminent problems, but that it serves as a deterrent to would be belligerents. While our lack of political will to fully use military power has made the US something of a paper tiger, a cut in defense spending will likely make us a paper tiger in fact. If the US lacks adversaries of substance it is largely because we had the might and were willing to use it.
Fareed says if the defense budget must be cut, "so be it". It has the ring of an academic who has no skin in the game.
Carl Woodard
Fareed, take your sorry @zz on out of my country and take your liberal peace-loving, tree hugging opinions with you. You are so wrong and mis-informed on so many levels I don't understand how you can label yourself a journalist. Much less get this garbage past your editor. You are a typical libtard who confuses education with intelligence. Go away and write no more.
We shouldn't cut defense spending; we should cut war spending.
"....then there is the problem of a weak economy now. In the short run you’re trying to create jobs. In that context, dramatic cuts in government spending further depress the economy. They put more people on unemployment insurance, which means fewer taxpayers and fewer secondary and tertiary jobs created by the service sector. "
F.Z. May 2011 lobbying for increased government spending
"I say, let the guillotine fall. It's about time."
F.Z. August 2011 lobbying for cuts in government spending
Partially right. We need to keep our military strong and ready. However, cuts can and should have been made already. They are building a half billion dollar hospital to replace one that has been remodeled and is pretty much up to date. This is at Fort Hood, Texas. They could have save millions just by enlarging the current building and further upgrading. What a waste!
Cut defence spending? that is one industry that we have with strong exports. Reduce defence and watch our enemies take liberties all over the world. Wether we like it or not we are the policeman of the world, relinquish that and experience the same events unfold as to the years before WWII. People that dream of a peaceful world never studied history.
Wasn't it just last week that Obama was wringing his hands that without raising the debt limit the military would not get paid?
Now he wants to cut their pay.
"cut their pay"
Obama never said cut their pay... cite a source when you make a statement. Cutting defense spending doesn't necessarily have to mean cutting pay. Payrolls yes... and the super gee whiz weapons the Pentagon likes too much and doesn't really need because their are more effective means to an end.
One way to cut back on spending end the deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. Then close some of the installations around the world like the Air Force Bases in England and Germany.
There is no need to cut "Defense" spending. It's "Offense" spending that needs to be eliminated, not just cut. It seems that America is now in the "Business" of fighting wars for the sake of fighting wars. Winning is optional and an unfortunate byproduct if it happens because that means another war has to be manufactured. All this warring means massive profit for the military industrial complex. The war on drugs, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the action in Libya it's all the same. None are truly about "defense". They are about making more weaponry at taxpayer expense. It started in Vietnam and has been going on ever since. These conflicts are not about freedom, justice, defense or any other noble virtue. They are about making money for the industrial military complex that Eisenhower warned about.
"Today, with no serious adversaries in the world, the United States spends more than all other countries on the planet combined."
Did you ever stop and think that one had something to do with the other?
cut the defense budget. now. a lot. bring the troops home. balance the budget. remember the alamo. walk the walk. do the hustle.
you rock, pete.
No, YOU rock, Pete.
Amen. Let's cut the defense budget from $700 billion today to $350 billion over a decade. We have allies. Use some of the savings to finance education, infrastructure and green energy, the keys to competing in the future.
I’m currently working with http://www.militaryeducation.org. They specialize in educating others who are interested in Military Scholarships.They have created a new Military Infographic, which I thought might interest your readers.
You can review the graphic at http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipment/. If you like the graphic, I’d appreciate if you could add it to your blog or share it through your social media accounts. Thank You!
I've been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or weblog posts in this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this website. Studying this info So i am glad to express that I've a very excellent uncanny feeling I came upon exactly what I needed. I such a lot indisputably will make sure to don?t put out of your mind this site and provides it a look regularly.
I wanted to post you the very small remark just to say thanks a lot once again for the spectacular strategies you've featured in this case. It was simply strangely generous with people like you to give openly just what a lot of folks could have distributed for an e-book to help with making some bucks for their own end, principally seeing that you might well have tried it in case you desired. Those principles additionally worked like a great way to recognize that some people have the identical interest similar to my very own to learn a great deal more in regard to this problem. I'm certain there are several more pleasant times in the future for those who view your blog.
Thanks for any other informative blog. The place else could I get that type of info written in such a perfect method? I've a mission that I'm just now working on, and I have been at the glance out for such information.