Wednesday, April 08, 2009
When will the idiots in the US government get it....
From today's WSJ Opinion Journal, the spelling out of the causes of the surrender of the US in the future. Here are the payoff paragraphs:
Mr. Gates justifies these cuts as a matter of "hard choices" and "budget discipline," saying that "[E]very defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk . . . is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in." But this calculus is true only because the Obama administration has chosen to cut defense, while increasing domestic entitlements and debt so dramatically.....War is not a choice, only defeat or victory are the choices.
The budget cuts Mr. Gates is recommending are not a temporary measure to get us over a fiscal bump in the road. Rather, they are the opening bid in what, if the Obama administration has its way, will be a future U.S. military that is smaller and packs less wallop. But what is true for the wars we're in -- that numbers matter -- is also true for the wars that we aren't yet in, or that we simply wish to deter.
// posted by Bill @ 9:05 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Actually...if you read something other than right wing editorials...you will see that we are spending 21 BILLION more this year than last...what Gates wants is a military that can deal with the fights we actually face rather than buying weapon systems that only profit the builders and become Tom Clancy's latest wet dream....
I have been in the military and serve as a Major in the Air Force...trust me...our money is better spent on body armor and IED resistant vehicles than on some of the programs that exsist simply for bragging rights...
I have been in the military and serve as a Major in the Air Force...trust me...our money is better spent on body armor and IED resistant vehicles than on some of the programs that exsist simply for bragging rights...
# posted by 
: 1:40 PM
: 1:40 PM
I think that we don't spend enough as it is on our armed forces, whether for equipment, weapons, or salaries. How the money is allocated is a debatable issue. That the military budget is considered optional to social programs is from my view a direct negation of the main task of the Federal government--keeping us safe from external harm.
Your 21 Billion is less than 1% of what is being added to social programs which have a poor record of performance. I also question your characterization of stealth fighters, submarines, and aircraft carriers as Tom Clancy wet dreams. Such language reveals an ideological stance on your part.
Post a Comment
Your 21 Billion is less than 1% of what is being added to social programs which have a poor record of performance. I also question your characterization of stealth fighters, submarines, and aircraft carriers as Tom Clancy wet dreams. Such language reveals an ideological stance on your part.
<< Home
