Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:52 AM Feb 2013

Sequestration Broadly Is Terrible Policy, But Our Military is Overdue for Downsizing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1179



Sequestration Broadly Is Terrible Policy, But Our Military is Overdue for Downsizing
by Miriam Pemberton
Published on Friday, February 22, 2013 by Foreign Policy in Focus

~snip~

If you’re an advocate, Iike I am, for revamped federal priorities that shift resources from a bloated Pentagon budget toward neglected domestic priorities, your take on this animal can’t be simple. You say cutting everything indiscriminately is a bad way to run a government (this view is nearly universal). You oppose the cuts in the domestic budget that will leave us with fewer food safety inspectors, medical researchers, Head Start teachers, and airport baggage screeners on the job. But you can reel off long lists of ways to cut waste in the Pentagon budget to the levels prescribed by sequestration, and show that these cuts will leave us completely safe.

~snip~

Gut the military? That’s what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been saying any chance they get. Sequestration would “invite aggression,” says lingering Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. It will “put the nation at greater risk of coercion,” says the Joint Chiefs Chair, Martin Dempsey. When asked at a recent congressional hearing which nation might coerce us, though, he couldn’t say.

In fact, sequestration will not “gut” our military. Our military budget has nearly doubled since 2001. Sequestration would take it back to the level it was in 2007 — when we were still fighting two wars. Adjusted for inflation, it would leave that budget higher than its Cold War average — when we had an adversary that was spending roughly what we were on its military. Now, as Michael Cohen notes in The Guardian, the closest thing to a peer adversary we have is China, and we are spending more on research and development of new weapons than the Chinese are spending on their entire military. We spend more on our military, in fact, than the next 14 countries put together.

After the longest period of war in our history, we are due for a defense downsizing. Sequestration would create a shallower downsizing than any of the previous postwar periods since World War II. We can do this, and we should. We need the money for other things.
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sequestration Broadly Is Terrible Policy, But Our Military is Overdue for Downsizing (Original Post) unhappycamper Feb 2013 OP
definitely overdue... daleanime Feb 2013 #1

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
1. definitely overdue...
Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:33 AM
Feb 2013

but the cuts shouldn't be spread around. If they were actually worried about the debt, they need to stop the wars, close down a few overseas bases(places no one wants us in to begin) and cut the military budget in half.

Then start investing in this nation.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Veterans»Sequestration Broadly Is ...