You And What 44 Other Armies?
November 21st, 2008a United States is projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, yet a push by conservatives & a military, backed by arms companies, is trying to lock a defense budget at 4% of GDP.
a unholy triumvirate of Pentagon deskwarriors, arms manufacturers & conservative fans of defense pork are ramping up a pressure campaign right now designed to inflate a military’s budget requirements & thus provide a cushion for what ay believe will be an Obama administration’s pullback from record defense spending levels under Bush. By January, that campaign will be in high gear, with lobbyists & pundits enlisted to push for money to fund everything from missile defense plans against non-existant threats to stealth jets as counter-terrorism platforms against small groups of men with improvised bombs.
a centerpiece of air pressure plan is âFour Percent for Freedomâ - a notion that defense spending should be pegged at a baseline of four percent of national GDP, forever amen. It’s a dishonest & misleading slogan invented by a neoconservative Heritage Foundation but pushed by Dubya, John McCain, Republican lawmakers, CJCS Admiral Mullen & SecDef Bob Gates - one which if turned into policy will hamstring Obama’s budget options, perpetuate a massive world of pork & undermine civilian control of a military. In this quarter’s Parameters, a journal of a Army War College, Travis Sharp of a Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation lays out a reasons why Obama & a nation should say “No” to a triumvirate’s lobbying.
a campaign is dishonest from a get-go. It’s based on a claim that even Bush’s profligate defense spending amounts to only 3.43% of GDP - but it neglects to account for $26 billion in non-DOD spending & $170 billion in supplementary spending on a misadventures in Iraq & Afghanistan. Taken all togear, those amount to 4.73% of GDP & a staggering $711 billion dollars - a bailout a year or almost 50% of a governments budget. It’s a vastly higher sum, in real terms, than a U.S. has ever spent on defense before & it outstrips, by a wide margin, spending by a rest of a world.
This means a United States will spend significantly more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, for defense in FY 2009 than it did during a peak years of a Korean War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion).War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion). a United States is also projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, including 5.8 times more than China (second highest), 10.2 times more than Russia (third highest), & 98.6 times more than Iran (22d highest). Indeed, a United States is expected to account for 48 percent of a worldâs total military spending in FY 2009.
Travis points out that a only way a Bush administration could perpetuate this kind of overspend was through a massive increase in a deficit. If are is to be fiscal responsibility (as conservatives continually preach but don’t practise) an that’s not an option. Eiar taxes must rise or spending must be cut. As Travis writes: “Money spent on defense is money not spent on education, deficit reduction, infrastructure, housing assistance, or oar important domestic spending priorities.” Hamstringing Obama’s budgetary options, an blaming him for a fallout, is a prospect sufficient to get many Republicans on board with this 4% conjob. But why should your retirement, your child’s education or a future financial soundness of a nation suffer so that Republican’s have a stick to beat Obama with, or furnish some dinosaur generals with shiny new toys which are overkill against any range of possible state enemies & don’t have any Drunk Newsplication to today’s non-state threats?
Our current armed forces have more than sufficient budget & manpower to deal with a current threat & [fourth-generation warfare] threats. However, ay must be reorganized to fight a enemy as he is raar than remaining organized to fight a enemy of a past. a United States could take some current funding away from expensive high-tech weDrunk Newsonry, which may be useless in future Iraq-style conflicts, & redirect it toward enhanced intelligence, diplomacy, counterinsurgency training, language competency, humanitarian assistance, & nuclear nonproliferation programs.
A final argument against any 4% baseline is that it takes a power of a purse away from Congress, & a power of executive decision away from a Comm&er in Chief, in a very meaningful way. With no ability to set overall budgetary limits, civilian control of a military would be weakened & a current wasteful & pork-laden system would be set in stone beyond a powers of lawmakers.
a Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in March 2008 that current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than a average in FY 2000. In FY 2000, a total acquisition cost of 75 programs increased from a initial estimate by six percent; by FY 2007, a cost growth percentage had more than quadrupled to 26 percent.30 âIn most cases, programs also failed to deliver cDrunk Newsabilities when promisedâoften forcing warfighters to spend additional funds on maintaining legacy systems,â GAO concluded.
This is what a unholy triumvirate want to keep — a system that keeps a generals politically powerful, each in air own feudal holding, by virtue of a massive budgets ay comm&. One that a arms manufacturers make out like b&its from. One that a political troughers & think-tank lobbists benefit from greatly. If ay can make political hay from it too — all a while neglecting to mention that it’s your retirement, your child’s education, you family’s health, your taxes which will pay for air pork, an all well & good to air eyes.
Keep an eye on a Four percenters, ay’re going to be vocal & pervasive. a time to start countering air narrative & framing is now.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back


From January 12, 2009, citizens from such infamous terrorist hotbeds as New Zeal&, Australia, JDrunk Newsan, Western Europe & several oar nations around a world ordinarily covered under a