Change you can believe in, Defense budget up to 680 BILLION now

[Shivetya]

2008 under Bush it was 482 + 141 for the Iraq/Afghan war... which is 623 BILLION...

but it doesn't include Homeland security which gets 48 BILLION

48 BILLION for home land security to include
* Allows the Pentagon to block the release of photos that show the abuse of prisoners.
* Includes $60 million to help states improve drivers-license security standards under the REAL ID program.
* Includes $266.7 million in earmarks for lawmakers' pet projects in their home districts.


or 133 BILLION for Veteran Affairs and Construction..



meaning, he is more than happy to use US Military might and spending to impress/dictate to/intimidate the world as he claimed Bush was doing, but its OK because HE is doing it.

So not only does he keep just doing everything he said he would not be goes and spends even more money doing it.

[Blue Velvet]

...its OK because HE is doing it.


There are many, if not most, on the left that would argue that it's not OK. In fact, a rise of 4% in the Defense Department budget was met by cries from Republicans that it was somehow weakening America. The hilarious mistake that many conservatives make is that they assume Obama is some form of socialist liberal... which is why Robert Gates (R) is the Defense Secretary. Makes sense.

But the real story is not the amount, it's how they're planning to spend it:

With thousands of jobs at stake, political battles over the proposal are likely to be intense. The defense secretary is seeking a wide range of cuts, affecting pet programs at almost every major U.S. contractor, as well as several high-profile contracts with European companies.

Mr. Gates's proposed baseline 2010 Defense Department budget of $534 billion is up 4% from last year. But it signals a major departure from business as usual at the Pentagon, with a heavy emphasis on overhauling a procurement process that he and congressional leaders have decried as being too heavily influenced by powerful contractors.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123903026250593091.html#mod=rss_Page_One

[quagmire]

Oh I love this. The Republicans always complain that whenever a democrat is in power, that he is going to lower our defense budget and destroy our military. But, now that Obama raises it( which I disagree with), Republicans complain about unnecessary spending.......

[leekohler]

Oh I love this. The Republicans always complain that whenever a democrat is in power, that he is going to lower our defense budget and destroy our military. But, now that Obama raises it( which I disagree with), Republicans complain about unnecessary spending.......

Similar things happened with Clinton. He'd give them what they wanted and they'd complain.

That said, I disagree with this increase as well.

[Lord Blackadder]

Obama inherited two wars. Shrinking the budget now would be a tall order even without all the domestic issues we are dealing with.

With that said, it's clear that the administration intends to cut a lot of proposed defense spending and increase accountability.

[hulugu]

2008 under Bush it was 482 + 141 for the Iraq/Afghan war... which is 623 BILLION...So not only does he keep just doing everything he said he would not be goes and spends even more money doing it.

Once again, in an effort to attack Obama you miss the larger picture. According to a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040304080.html):

Several experts said the Pentagon budget plan last year was an effort to force the hand of a new administration and stands as a textbook example of military service pressures that have driven the growth in recent years of the defense budget, which has more than doubled since 2001.

Moreover:

Among the programs expected to be heavily cut is the Army's Future Combat Systems, a network of vehicles linked by high-tech communications that has been plagued by technical troubles and delays; with a price tag exceeding $150 billion, it is now one of the most costly military efforts.
Gates also is considering cutting a new $20 billion communications satellite program and reducing the number of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10, and he plans to eliminate elements of the decades-old missile defense effort that are over budget or considered ineffective, according to industry and administration sources.

The Obama administration is working with Gates to cut the overall military spending on expensive and dubious projects, but is also in the process of reorienting a military towards Counter-Insurgency and localized warfare. This is going to take time and money over the short-term, but by next year I'd expect to see either a static budget or a drop.

Considering that we're still engaged in two wars, as well as CI operations throughout the world, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a drop in the DoD's overall budget for some time.

[Counterfit]

Okay, so back in February, Obama was being vilified for "cutting" the defense budget from $487b to $527b. This followed along the same traditional GOP line of Democrats being weak on national security.

And now he's getting blasted by the same group for not cutting the budget.

So the question is, were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

[KingYaba]

I wish I had an updated graphic but what would you cut or reduce in the military budget? Not asking a specific person in this thread just like to hear some of your guys/gal's thoughts.

Of course ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce the budget. That's obvious.

[thegoldenmackid]

I just want another F22 Raptor.

[hulugu]

I wish I had an updated graphic but what would you cut or reduce in the military budget? Not asking a specific person in this thread just like to hear some of your guys/gal's thoughts.

Of course ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce the budget. That's obvious.

Well, I tend to agree with the aims as described by the WaPo article:
Future Combat Systems
An 11th aircraft carrier.
The ABM program—especially the strategic programs, which seem to have the most trouble. I think the theater-wide systems make more sense and are more technologically feasable.
The Comanche program, which I thought was already dead, but it's still mentioned on the budget above.
Maybe the V-22, although this, like the Littorial ships fits future needs even if the programs are a mess.
The Longbow Apache

[Counterfit]

I just want another F22 Raptor.

Just one? :p


I see there's $700m being spent on the TRIDENT II ballistic missile as part of the Navy's "procurement", which, I presume, means they're buying more of them. I think we could probably do away with that.

[Wotan31]

With two wars going on, it's no surprise at all that the defense budget is increasing. It should absolutely increase if we want success in these efforts. And success is what will allow us to withdraw down the road.

W's big mistake with Iraq and Afghanistan was not going to war, but rather going to war and trying to do it on the cheap, with the smallest amount of resources possible.

Iraq has roughly the same population that as Germany did in WWII. Yet we went into Iraq with less than 1/4 of the troops!! A half-million allied troops were occupying Germany after WWII to keep the peace and rebuild the country. 500,000!! And it was a smashing success. But they tried to do this same thing in Iraq with less than 150,000 coalition troops. That one single factor right there is the reason for the civil unrest in Iraq. In 1940's Germany, any time a German citizen set foot out of his home, there was NO question in his mind who was in charge and running the show. Troops and tanks and armored vehicles on every street corner. In Iraq, there simply isn't enough troops to establish a commanding presence, except in a few major cities, and that's why you've got wild-west like conditions and anarchy in many places. It's all about the numbers.

[Counterfit]

W's big mistake with Iraq... was not going to war,

Actually, that's exactly what his mistake was.

[hulugu]

With two wars going on, it's no surprise at all that the defense budget is increasing. It should absolutely increase if we want success in these efforts. And success is what will allow us to withdraw down the road.

W's big mistake with Iraq and Afghanistan was not going to war, but rather going to war and trying to do it on the cheap, with the smallest amount of resources possible.

Iraq has roughly the same population that as Germany did in WWII. Yet we went into Iraq with less than 1/4 of the troops!! A half-million allied troops were occupying Germany after WWII to keep the peace and rebuild the country. 500,000!! And it was a smashing success. But they tried to do this same thing in Iraq with less than 150,000 coalition troops. That one single factor right there is the reason for the civil unrest in Iraq. In 1940's Germany, any time a German citizen set foot out of his home, there was NO question in his mind who was in charge and running the show. Troops and tanks and armored vehicles on every street corner. In Iraq, there simply isn't enough troops to establish a commanding presence, except in a few major cities, and that's why you've got wild-west like conditions and anarchy in many places. It's all about the numbers.

I agree with you—I'm just as scared as you are—about the numbers, but you also have to remember that the remainder of the German military and police forces remained in their respective positions. The other mistake in Iraq was disbanding the Iraqi military and police forces entirely, rather than making the difficult choices of either combing through the ranks for hard-core Baathists or simply allowing them to retain their positions. This was Paul Bremer's decision, but it was encouraged by White House officials.

Germany was also a nation that had endured years of bombardment and also had the Russians brutally occupying half the country. There's a lesson to be learned from WWII, but we also have to remember that Iraq in 2003 was not Germany in 1945.

It's also worth noting that several generals spoke about the need for 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq and were rebuffed and even smeared for stating their opinion by the White House.

[Wotan31]

Actually, that's exactly what his mistake was.
Now you go upstairs and play with your toys, mkay pumpkin? Let the adults have this discussion.

Germany was also a nation that had endured years of bombardment and also had the Russians brutally occupying half the country. There's a lesson to be learned from WWII, but we also have to remember that Iraq in 2003 was not Germany in 1945.

It's also worth noting that several generals spoke about the need for 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq and were rebuffed and even smeared for stating their opinion by the White House.
True there are other factors at work, but I still see it as a failure to go into Iraq with so few troops. Even more so, since a "show of arms" and overt displays of strength are highly respected in middle east culture. Being meek and timid and yes-sir polite will get you nowhere. Showing up with a parade of tanks and armored vehicles WILL gain you respect amongst those people. It's a cultural thing.

If we look at the medium sized towns that are far away from major cities, they have NO permanent troop presence in them. A convoy will roll though once per week, for an hour or two, just to check things out, and then the citizens there don't see a single coalition person for another week. Meanwhile, the local thugs with guns and rocket launchers have set up shop there and are making the rules. You just can't compete with that. You're not running the town if you only make a brief appearance, once per week. Of course the people in that town are going to side with the local thugs, because they are clearly the ones in charge. Had we gone in with a sufficient troop level, 500,000 or so, and established a permanent presence in *every* town and city, the rebuilding of the country would have gone so much smoother. It would have been the smashing success everyone hoped it would be, and we wouldn't have all this violence and bombings like we have today.

[hulugu]

True there are other factors at work, but I still see it as a failure to go into Iraq with so few troops. Even more so, since a "show of arms" and overt displays of strength are highly respected in middle east culture. Being meek and timid and yes-sir polite will get you nowhere. Showing up with a parade of tanks and armored vehicles WILL gain you respect amongst those people. It's a cultural thing.

I think you and I agree on the problems of troops numbers, but I disagree with you about why this caused so much chaos.

I don't think it's a cultural thing, but rather the reality of replacing one government with another without an interim regime capable of keeping the people safe and the infrastructure working.

We have to remember that the failure of the CPA also contributed significantly to the chaos in Iraq, and all of this should be laid at the previous administration's feet.

...It would have been the smashing success everyone hoped it would be, and we wouldn't have all this violence and bombings like we have today.

I don't believe that had everything gone right we'd have a quiet and safe little democracy in Iraq. It's clear that Cheney et al watched the final credits of several WWII movies and completely ignored the bloodshed it took to get to the scene with the flowers and the dancing, and also forgot that it took another decade of peacekeeping operations before West Germany or Japan became working Democracies.

However, I do agree that failing to send it the requested numbers of troops did help form the very situation we've been fighting for six years.