- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 827
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07military.html?_r=1&hp
I wonder how much of an impact this will have? I don't agree with controlling the size of the military by comparing it to how robust our economy is. I guess unless the spending was truly exorbitant and shrinking our budget, I would agree. Our military spending isn't really to blame for the economy and I feel like we should be ready regardless of how things are at home. If according to the Chiefs of Staff our ability to respond to crisis wouldn't change with the reduction, why did we have that additional 6% funding in the first place?
U.S. Orders Biggest Defense Cuts Since Before 9/11
WASHINGTON — The White House has ordered the Pentagon to squeeze almost all growth from its spending over the next five years, which will require eventually shrinking the Army and Marine Corps and seeking controversial increases in the fees paid by for retired, working-age veterans for their health insurance, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday.
The reductions of up to 47,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps forces — roughly 6 percent shrinkage — would be the first since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, reversing the trend ever since. They will be made easier by the withdrawal under way from Iraq, and will only begin in 2015 — just as Afghan forces are to take over the security mission there according to agreements with NATO.
But Mr. Gates said the cuts in Pentagon spending were hardly a peace dividend, and were forced by a global economic recession and domestic pressures to find ways to throttle back federal spending. Indeed, the announcement of his proposal, which Congress would have to approve, came on the same day as word that he would be adding about 1,400 Marines in coming months to the forces fighting in Afghanistan.Mr. Gates said the budget proposals reflect the “extreme fiscal duress” felt by the United States Government, and he acknowledged that protecting American global interests and sustaining the entire gamut of American power required the military to take a tough look at its spending practices.
The Pentagon’s proposed operating budget for 2012 is expected to be about $553 billion, which will still reflect real growth, even though it is $13 billion less than expected. But then the Pentagon budget will begin a decline in the rate of growth for two years, and then will stay flat — even with inflation — for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Over five years the reductions would amount to $78 billion. (The Pentagon operating budget is separate from a contingency fund that pays for the military’s combat and stability efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
The actual size and shape of future military budgets will continue to be reset by annual spending proposals from the president, and those in turn will be based on shifting economic factors – decline or growth – and threats around the world, as well as by Congressional action.
But, for now, the Army is expected in 2015 to begin cutting its active-duty troop levels by 27,000, and the Marine Corps to reduce its active-duty ranks by up to 20,000. Together, those force reductions would save $6 billion in 2015 and 2016.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said all four service chiefs supported the proposals, and that the military would still be able to manage global risks.
I wonder how much of an impact this will have? I don't agree with controlling the size of the military by comparing it to how robust our economy is. I guess unless the spending was truly exorbitant and shrinking our budget, I would agree. Our military spending isn't really to blame for the economy and I feel like we should be ready regardless of how things are at home. If according to the Chiefs of Staff our ability to respond to crisis wouldn't change with the reduction, why did we have that additional 6% funding in the first place?