Strengthen Our Security by Cutting Weapons
Eugene Jarecki's new book has spurred a good discussion this week. We all seem to agree that the country's economic crisis is part of a larger political crisis. And that real change must come from the bottom up, as Naomi Wolf argues. This will be particularly important as the next administration makes its budget decisions. Cutting entitlement spending could increase the suffering of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens and make our economic woes worse. Cutting some of the 100 percent increase the military budget has enjoyed over the past eight years makes more sense, but will trigger major political resistance.
It is unlikely that Eugene and Andrew Bacevich's suggestion of Barney Frank as the next defense secretary will take, but shaking up the bureaucracy is the right idea. Secretary Gates did a good job with the mess that Rumsfeld made during his six-year tenure. However, Gates and other Bush Administration possible holdovers are not the answer, even if Obama wins in a close, contested race. There needs to a fundamental shift from the Cold War policies of the past, especially in the area of defense spending and nuclear weapons policy. As president of the Ploughshares Fund, I have dedicated my life to making this change.
The next secretary of defense needs to reign in spending, to change the business as usual mentality, and restore the holistic view of national security that President Eisenhower favored and Eugene so eloquently describes.
I don't mean to keep banging the nuclear drum, but this is a great place to start, both for budget savings and strategic vision. We do not need the 10,000 nuclear weapons now in our stockpile. In fact, these weapons decreases U.S. security, as states seek their own nuclear forces to counter U.S. strength. The Bush and Gate's incrementalist approach will not work.
The President can and should quickly reduce the nuclear force to a total of 1,000 weapons on the way to complete elimination. This not only makes military sense, it saves money. A recent Foreign Policy in Focus study, "A Unified Security Budget," concluded that such a cut would save about $15.6 billion dollars.
The study also found that cuts in the US anti-missile programs could save an estimated $10 billion dollars. Under current plans, our government will spend an estimated $62 billion dollars over the next five years on missile defense. As they say on Saturday Night Live, "really?" That is the best place to spend our money? Really?
A recent Pentagon-funded report led by General Larry D. Welch, USAF (Ret.) concluded that rushing to deploy missile sites in Europe and elsewhere that haven't been properly tested hurts our ability to develop effective systems. As I wrote on the Huffington Post with my colleague Victoria Samson, slowing this "rush to failure" will not only save money it will actually improve the research we do on the weapons we do need to defeat the real, existing short-range missile threats.
So, there is a quick $25 billion in savings with just a couple cuts from the nuclear budget. Think of what we could do if we trim some of the other nonessential weapons programs. Believe me, you won't even know they are gone.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in this important discussion.
The only unilateral way to peace is surrender. That may work for you, but it doesn't for me.
November 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, shooter, then how come you're not over in a combat zone replacing a stop-lossed trooper who's there on his fourth tour against his will? All talk and no action, perhaps?
November 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Don, my tax dollars are fulfilling my role in the wars. Considering that the number of taxpayers is dwindling all the time, and soon to even more scarce, that makes me a valuable cog in the machine.
But, perhaps you've missed my call for withdrawing from the role of world policeman and abandoning all 700 overseas bases? I will happily surrender the world to itself, but I will never take the lead in surrendering our country to anyone. Mutually Assured Destruction is still the lowest common denominator in national security.
November 1, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter -- here's what your tax dollars bought in the past week, big spender:
Lance Cpl. Stacy A. Dryden, 22, of North Canton, Ohio -- Spc. Deon L. Taylor, 30, of Bronx, N.Y. -- Staff Sgt. Brian P. Hause, 29, of Stoystown, Pa. -- Cpl. Adrian Robles, 21, of Scottsbluff, Neb -- Lance Cpl. San Sim, 23, of Santa Ana, Calif.-- Pfc. Cody J. Eggleston, 21, of Eugene, Ore -- Sgt. Nicholas A. Casey, 22, of Canton, Ohio -- Sgt. Kevin D. Grieco, 35, of Bartlett, Ill -- 1st Lt. Trevor J. Yurista, 32, of Pleasant Valley, N.Y -- Sgt. Scott J. Metcalf, 36, of Framingham, Mass -- RIP, gentle heroes
November 2, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't buy death Don, but you sure are selling it. How's it feel to denigrate other people's ultimate sacrifice for you and yours? Tsk.
November 2, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter said:
shooter, if everyone saw things that way we wouldn't have any people in the armed forces.
November 2, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
So...?
November 2, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW, shooter,
I can't answer a question so profound, sorry.
November 2, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well actually John, since I've called for the bringing home of ALL overseas troops, in this thread, I'm morally superior to both you and Don. So whatever you have to say about the matter, matters not. Speechlessness is your best refuge.
November 2, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
changing the subject, nice maneuver. The topic was your profound question, and I quote: "So...?"
But, yes, you did call for all the troops to come home;
November 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to be a popular opinion. I wonder what the basis of it is. Is it last June's $162bn supplemental spending bill? The recent $542bn budget bill plus $70bn for combat operations? The man is no penny-pincher, that's for sure.
November 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Secretary Gates has done is to keep the toilet from overflowing all over the bathroom. (I don't mean to belittle that accomplishment, staunching the flooding after that paragon of ineptitude, Donald Rumsfailure, was a pretty deft piece of work.) It's still clogged and sloshing at the edges.
Don Bacon, nice response to 'shooter242'. I've noticed a definite pattern when I hear people spout such nonsense they invariably have never been in the military. Often they are medically unfit for one reason or other, compensating perhaps?
November 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
cmurry said;
Yep, Rush Limbaugh avoided Vietnam due to anal cysts, now THAT's original!
Oh, and lets not forget Mitt Romney's sons who did their part defending the country by campaigning for dad's Presidential aspirations.
November 2, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe, thanks for the insight. I agree wholeheartedly with the crux of your position, i.e., that the defense budget is killing us and is strategically wrong-headed to begin with.
However, I'm much more concerned about the "black budgets" that not only undermine the fiscal integrity of our economy, but ultimately turn the Constitution into a "quaint," historical document.
I need more hard figures and estimates, but it's not controversial that the numbers hover around several hundred billion dollars per year. Intelligence is where our defense efforts should indeed be concentrated, but because they are concealed from public scrutiny, I have no good idea as to how they might be tamed.
As for nuclear weapons, call me "old-fashioned," but I like the idea that the rest of the world's leaders know that they will turn to ash if they even think about associating themselves with a nuclear attack on us or our allies. I'm the furthest thing from a hawk without being an anarchist, but deterrence is tried and true.
It just doesn't make sense to ask anyone else to "trust" us that we are disarming, nor does it make sense for us to trust other nations in this regard. We have not left the nuclear age just because the cold war is officially over. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we run the risk of detonation on this planet.
Fundamentally we agree: the defense budget is out of control. And I actually agree with shooter about closing a majority of the 732 bases we have overseas. According to Chalmers Johnson, they cost about $50 billion per year to run.
Anyway, my education on these complicated issues is incomplete, to put it kindly, and I thank you for your contributions.
CAM
November 1, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2008/10/29/americas-defense-meltdown/
This is a tough issue in many ways. Personally I believe we have been running the Dollar Empire backed up by military force. This is not a popular view however. Just the mention of a 25% cut in defense spending has the contractors and lobbyists spinning up the right wing noise machine. The link I posted is for Defense and The National Interest website.
I'm posting it as often as I can in hopes that people will read the report they are doing. The folks on this site are all current and former military officers, Chuck Spinney veteran of the Pentagon, Winslow Wheeler, 31 years on national security for Senators of both parties and quite a few others. They are not liberal by popular definition but they all belive that we can and should cut defense spending as a huge amount of the money is just wasted anyway. The right keeps defense as one of its signature issues. We need to take it away from them and own it. After all its our money, our country.
November 2, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Micah 4:3) . . .And they will have to
beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. They will not lift up sword, nation against nation,
neither will they learn war anymore. . .
The problem with shooter and his ilk they haven't learned the ways of peace. They only know war.
Plowshares are more important than swords.
It's all about priority.
November 2, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink