Comments on: Reset Wins Over Modernization: Sen. Levin

By: dlw

dlw — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:50:45 +0000

levin and the other leftist dems think American power is the problem. Curtail the ability for America to project power and their leftist allies the world over succeed…

So the chicomms plan to build aircraft carriers and the Russians produce new nuclear weapons systems, while levin is directing our forces to become meals on wheels for the 3d world.…

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:46:41 +0000

Its about winning the war we are in NOW. There are not enough JTACS to go around, UAV’s…all these things needed for troops to win on the ground. Put that FCS stuff on hold for now.

By: Jax

Jax — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:19:21 +0000

Sounds like he’s on the right track to me. He isn’t advocating gutting the military. He just recognizes that we are in a fiscal situation in which every department, including the DoD, may have to reevaluate what is needed and what is not. When your house is being threatened with foreclosure you might have to make do with last year’s 47″ tv for a year or two rather than going out shopping for a new 70″ one. The military is not in danger of losing wars because of technological advantage or lack of troops who are skilled, trained and courageous but because of the lack of clearly defined objectives. We should have learned from Vietnam that you never fight a war without knowing why you’re there, what you’re trying to accomplish and where the enemy is. With more than enough done in Iraq maybe we’re finally focusing on what we should have from the beginning — eliminating Osama and Al Quaida.
The Soviets learned the hardway what trying to solve all of their problems with military spending does to your economy — hungry, angry people on the homefront, rebelling in the streets. Fortunately, in America such revolutions come through the ballot box. Military spending accounts for more than half the discretionary spending of the U.S. and is more than the rest of the world spends on defense combined. For years the DoD budget has been a sacred cow that no one dared question any aspect of. A sizable portion of that spending isn’t even accounted for accurately. I suspect that the biggest bill of this war will come after the battles are over as our troops come home suffering physical and mental wounds that will require billions of dollars to deal with through our VA and other healthcare facilities. I’m glad Levin and even Defense Secretary Gates is questioning where our dollars go for a change. If not, someday the generals may turn around asking for more money and find out the cupboards are empty. Then maybe some of them will join the great unwashed in the unemployment lines and know what real fiscal discipline is all about. I believe it was Mao who said “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them” and Eisenhower who said beware the military industrial complex. Both may have been right and this may be the era that proves it.

By: Clyde

Clyde — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:53:59 +0000

Despite 4 years USMC and 16 years DoD, I’d say, “about time”.
This techo-military thing is child of the Manahttan Project gone completely wrong.
The lesson of the Cold War is, “nobody wants to blow up the whole world” Sso, F22, ect-forget it.
Little wars-we lose them partially because we try to fight a low tech but cunning enemy with high tech, and they wear our wallets out.
Yup! Nothing cunning about us!
Cunning is a lot of work, but it’s also a lot cheaper than push button fighting. Maybe forgettting about the Tactical Eldorado will bring soldiers back to their art and craft and we’ll start winning these things. It’s not like it hasn’t been done, you know. Just, hasn’t been done lately.

By: mike j

mike j — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:32:09 +0000

bobbymike– first part of my post was @ the gallery, not really directed to you.

The House did pass its version but it’s not law, yet. It’ll probably get worse before it’s all over, right? But I agree, essentially– put the money where it does the most good, just not sure defense spending does enough. GI Bill certainly paid long term dividends post WWII, so it’s not something to turn our noses up at. The Bonus Marchers also come to mind. As you say, what we need is to stimulate the economy *ASAP*, not a year or two along.

Anyway, military haters exists. I just consider the source and let it drop, no use getting twisted up over that ignorance. The real danger is not understanding what the military actually does, and either discounting or overestimating its usefulness & ability. I recommend Andrew Bacevich’s latest books for more on that.

By: bobbymike

bobbymike — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:29:10 +0000

@mike

I’m not talking about defense stimulas as my post is absent that phraseology. I am advocating a properly funded military and my argument is that there is obviously enough money in Washington that defense does not have to be cut.

The Dems just passed $800 billion in new spending — most of which, according to the CBO, will not be spent until 2010 and 2011, please explain how that is stimulas.

Large capital projects whether defense or civilian are inherently inefficient. I would rather spend money on the brave men and women of our military and provide jobs for scientists, engineers and yes even aerospace union workers.

As for the leftist base. How could you not read some of the stories and blog posts at Huffington, Moveon.org and Kos and say that is not hate for the military. But I will amend my statement to “far left of the Democrat party” from my orginal “party base”

By: mike j

mike j — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:38:44 +0000

The way our defense industry is set up, “defense stimulus” will not work nearly as well as civic and infrastructure. “Pork” is NOT always a negative, especially if it provides good jobs and stimulates the local economy.

bobbymike– you’re not wrong about the Democrat party, but the Repubs are equally bad. For all the hot air they expend on defense, look where things actually are. And the Democrat party base hates the military? I don’t think that was true even 30 yrs ago, and it’s definitely not the case now. We have in this country is an Establishment Party with two faces, and they both suck.

By: bobbymike

bobbymike — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:08:12 +0000

@ old391 RIGHT ON THE MONEY (no pun intended)

The stimulas bill is loaded with enough waste and pork to easily add $100 billion to the defense budget. There is $4 billion for “community stabalization” American communities or just say a reward for ACORN. What crap! The Dems can only find cuts to defense even at a time of war.

Everyone at DOD Buzz should ask why the Dems do such things. Answer; Everything the Democrat party does is about power (their power not military power obviously) and votes. What is the one area of government that does not vote for them…the military!! When you add that to the fact that their base voters hate the military you get the cuts.

The world got a little more dangerous today.

By: Scot

Scot — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:43:05 +0000

Much of the problem in Big Military Programs. Is not so much the Contractors or even the Military Services. But the POLITICIANS.….….…..talk about who is calling the kettle black!

By: old391

old391 — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:33:34 +0000

I think The President and Congress have seem to have forgotten that they swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States which states that they WILL PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND PROMOTE GENERAL WELL BEING.

Seems like the President and Congress wants to PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON WELFARE AND PROMOTE COMMON DEFENSE.

Why is defense being cut but not the Democrats social programs that do not provide JOBS and are a DRAIN on the economy?

Political Pork as usual by the Democrat President and Congress

By: rfl

rfl — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:46:34 +0000

He wants the Afghan army to move to the border. There is no single statement which reveals the depths of ignorance about the situation; the Afghan army exists only in support elements to NATO; how would it move to the border and to do what exactly! Fight the extremists as identified by Washington. The absence of realistic goals for Afghanistan is clearly the major challenge, not simply transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to avoid brining them homw