# Obama's New Defence Budget-Effects? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2012, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605 "2012-01-06T06:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/21 "2012-01-07T02:04:51Z")
Defense cuts? My understanding is the military budget will still increase year over year. Just not at the outrageous pace in recent years. If your calculating the rate, be sure to include all the “off budget” Iraq/Afghanistan special appropriations - not in the budget; just print more money, no probllem. Any actual cut would have been suicide in this election year. Our elected [del]leaders[/del] self-serving gutless drones would never cut their own throats. On review, the above sounds a little harsh - try reading it with a smile. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/22 "2012-01-07T02:15:34Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > Defense cuts? My understanding is the military budget will still increase year over year. Just not at the outrageous pace in recent years. If your calculating the rate, be sure to include all the “off budget” Iraq/Afghanistan special appropriations - not in the budget; just print more money, no probllem. You have to account for inflation and the fact that even more cuts will occur once Afghanistan ends. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/23 "2012-01-07T03:34:08Z")
You always have cuts after the end of a conflict, mainly because you all of a sudden have a large amount of equipment and forces you don’t need anymore. Do you really need the battalions of Arabic speakers now that the US is out of Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/24 "2012-01-07T09:01:59Z")
Maybe they’ve just learned no matter how much military and how much money you thhrow at it, you can’t win against IEDs and insurgents. Or maybe nothing’s changed and the US can still fight two wars, it’s just that one will now always be within the US itself. Or maybe the political class just got tired of paying so much in order to lose every time. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/25 "2012-01-07T15:44:48Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Maybe they’ve just learned no matter how much military and how much money you thhrow at it, you can’t win against IEDs and insurgents. At least not without resorting to a Stalinesque level of near-genocide, which we’re culturally and politically unwilling to do. Not that that’s a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/26 "2012-01-07T21:11:23Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > So you opposed getting rid of Qadaffi? So you oppose intervening in Afghanistan in self-defence? I do indeed. The intervention in Afghanistan, which is now in its 11th year, has bee na full-scale disaster, second in American history only to the Vietnam and Iraq Wars in the damage it has caused to our reputation. As for “getting rid of Qadaffi”, the jury is still out on that one. Who knows what Libya will look like ten years from now as a result. It’s entirely possible that when we look back on it, the results will be as disasterous as the results of our invasions of Iraq and Pakistan. Those two examples are only a small part of the story, of course. In the big picture, America’s military-industrial complex has generally opposed democracy and freedom in hte Middle East and many other places. I believe that I’ve previously given you [this link](http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/did_america_help_stifle_the_arab_spring/singleton/) to demonstrate that said complex is still doing so. So when asking whether we want a large, powerful military-industrial complex, we need to examine everything that the military-industrial complex does. If we find that the balance of what it does is negative, then it follows logically that we’d want to reduce its size and power with the goal of curtailing its future negative effects. > [@](#): > > Despite the fact that America’s military records has been one of overwhelming success? I don’t believe it has been. In my definition, “success” means supports human freedom, well-being, and dignity. In that regards, during the past couple generations (let’s say from 1960 to the present) America’s military record has been one of overwhelming failure. There have been some small successes, but far more failures. > [@](#): > > Because national defence is one of the primary functions of government. **Tristan** has already answered this. Most current U. S. military missions have nothing to do with defending the country, but rather with attacking other countries. your only response to **Tristan’s** argument was a smily face. Perhaps you should actually address the argument. Furthermore, national defense in the modern world is often best accomplished with no military or a small military rather than with a large military. Just consider countries like Costa Rica and Switzerland. They have neither been invaded nor attacked by terrorists in living memory. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/27 "2012-01-08T00:10:38Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > One unsettling thing though is that while they’re proposing cutting back the strength of the US armed forces, they’re not proposing cutting back their reach- the sum of US strategic committments isn’t being reduced anywhere. In particular the carrier fleet isn’t going to be cut back by a single group (9% of overall size). IOW, we’re now trying to be a quasi-empire on a budget, which never works. The diplomatic way to say, “you European fuckers are on your own” is “in accordance with current strategic realities we plan to reallocate our resources to the Pacific Rim”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/28 "2012-01-08T02:21:58Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > At least not without resorting to a Stalinesque level of near-genocide, which we’re culturally and politically unwilling to do. Not that that’s a bad thing. Oh, **do** let me go back and have a bit of genocide! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/29 "2012-01-08T17:11:19Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > You always have cuts after the end of a conflict, mainly because you all of a sudden have a large amount of equipment and forces you don’t need anymore. Do you really need the battalions of Arabic speakers now that the US is out of Iraq? We had a huge shortage of Arabic speaking military and intelligence personnel before 9/11. I suspect we’ll still be short of the number the intelligence and defense establishments think they need for peacetime purposes even now - especially since we’ll presumably no longer be offering eleventy billion dollars to hire new ones. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/30 "2012-01-08T17:29:44Z")
Also note, with regard to Libya: The primary reason we’ve gotten such good results there (or at least, that we so far appear to have, but I’ll take that at face value) is not that we were able to do so _much_, but that we were able to do so _little_. Obama was able to restrain us enough to let the Libyans themselves accomplish most of what needed to be done. If we’d reacted like Bush or other Republicans would have (or, I’ll be honest, like most Democrats would have, too), we’d have only made things worse by our presence. If military cuts make it easier for future leaders to make the same decision Obama did, that’ll actually increase our rate of getting good outcomes, not decrease it. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/31 "2012-01-09T20:43:55Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > Defense cuts? My understanding is the military budget will still increase year over year. This is the genius of the Defense department. Any situation where they don’t get a huge increase is called a “Defense cut.” Any suggestion that they get by on the same amount as last year is a radical cut that limits our ability to defend America. If Obama can actually cause the bloat to get smaller, which I doubt, then he has my vote any time he wants it. Heck, even the name “defense” department is doublespeak, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/32 "2012-01-10T08:30:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Furthermore, national defense in the modern world is often best accomplished with no military or a small military rather than with a large military. Just consider countries like Costa Rica and Switzerland. They have neither been invaded nor attacked by terrorists in living memory. Switzerland _has_ a large military - every able adult male citizen in Switzerland, trained and armed by the State. It has a tiny professional force, but I wouldn’t say it has a small military. I’m with you on Costa Rica, though. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/33 "2012-01-10T08:54:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We had a huge shortage of Arabic speaking military and intelligence personnel before 9/11. I suspect we’ll still be short of the number the intelligence and defense establishments think they need for peacetime purposes even now - especially since we’ll presumably no longer be offering eleventy billion dollars to hire new ones. Well, the point is that assets, units and formations which were conflict specific will be no longer needed or at best; severely reduced. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/34 "2012-01-11T00:25:57Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Well, the point is that assets, units and formations which were conflict specific will be no longer needed or at best; severely reduced. This raises a very good point: we get into situations (like Somalia), where we have no Americans who speak the local language. So we wind up depending upon paid interpreters, who may well be feeding us false information. In the case of Afghanistan (where scores of US soldiers have been wounded and killed by people who were thought to be allies), this is especially acute: how do we know who to trust? Another good reason to avoid “nation bilding” in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/35 "2012-01-11T10:22:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Also note, with regard to Libya: The primary reason we’ve gotten such good results there (or at least, that we so far appear to have, but I’ll take that at face value) is not that we were able to do so _much_, but that we were able to do so _little_. Obama was able to restrain us enough to let the Libyans themselves accomplish most of what needed to be done. They were armed, trained and directed on the ground and strategically by Eurpoean (primarily British) Special Forces, and they had not a small degree of help from 26,000 air missions. Generally, this is not a tactic unfamilair to the USA, from Chile in the late 50s to Nicaragua in the 80s and various non-democractic points in between and since. Hell, that was what the US trying to do with the bogus ‘South Vietnamses Army’. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605/36 "2012-01-11T11:43:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Also note, with regard to Libya: The primary reason we’ve gotten such good results there (or at least, that we so far appear to have, but I’ll take that at face value) is not that we were able to do so _much_, but that we were able to do so _little_. Obama was able to restrain us enough to let the Libyans themselves accomplish most of what needed to be done. If we’d reacted like Bush or other Republicans would have (or, I’ll be honest, like most Democrats would have, too), we’d have only made things worse by our presence. If military cuts make it easier for future leaders to make the same decision Obama did, that’ll actually increase our rate of getting good outcomes, not decrease it. As noted by **PrettyVacant** Libya is fairly SOP for the US and indeed other powers. You can do this with a minimum of troops on the ground and air assets. It is indeed not that different from what happened in Afghanistan in 2001. However these work when their is a situation which allows for it, you cannot use Libya as a template for all future missions, it would never have worked in Iraq in 2003 (though I believe Mr "Donald “revolution in military affairs” Rumsfeld pushed very hard for it). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-defence-budget-effects/608605.md?page=1)