Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposes the most radical cuts of our nation’s defense budget since the pacification era of Jimmy Carter. Read about the Obama defense budget here, the so-called “Gates budget” outlined on April 6th, 2009. See the video and read the transcript here.
Gates Defense Budget: Obama Military Budget Capitulation
History is useless to learn if we cannot know the lessons from it, which is one of the challenges with educating a young president. Barack Obama was too young to even vote for Jimmy Carter, and has no personal recollections of politics in that era. Otherwise he would have known that the world became a more dangerous place as a result of Carter’s capitulation national defense budget, a fact which caused painful and costly reloading of our military just a few years later.
Obama too, like the lovable Carter a generation earlier, is succumbing to a curiously powerful liberal urge which is to assume that all of the world’s actions are a direct consequence of those taken by America. Thus we have Obama unilaterally declaring a world without nuclear weapons yesterday, and a capitulation defense budget today. Make love, not war; flowers not bombs. Can’t we all just get along?
The Gates budget cuts devastate our national defense at a time when, arguably, the world is becoming a more dangerous place under Obama’s American leadership. Over the weekend, a threatening missile is sent flying over our Japan ally, and on Monday Obama’s defense budget skewers the armed forces.
The expectation is that our brave men and women should finish two wars and the inevitable next one to come under Obama, with a broken supply chain, low morale, broken weapons and fewer troops and ammunition. There will be no more F-22 fighter jets under Commander-in-Chief Obama, far fewer ships built, and virtually no new technological developments. Read the full text and transcript of Gates remarks in many places including here.
Until the capitulation is undone by the next president, they will speak about “American era” weaponry as we laugh about “Soviet era” weaponry today. Americans will relearn history’s hard lesson that a military budget keeps the peace, but we will have to fix it after Obama leaves office. Meanwhile we will sack the country with ineffective government social welfare programs in lieu of spending on government’s primary role in any society.
See a video of the Gates budget presentation below.
Obama Defense Budget (Video)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Only a liberal cuts defense spending in the middle of a war. Barry in charge is so inept that watching or hearing him, makes my stomach hurt.
The price we will pay for this, is far greater then any dollar amount we save.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
A $534B budget is hardly “cutting defense spending”.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
But defense spending today is double–that’s double–what it was in 2001. And many of the Pentagon’s new weapons projects are over budget to the tune of about $300 billion total. The War in Iraq is over, essentially, there is no new Cold War, there’s been no new terrorist attacks, so what are we supposed to do? Looks to me like a cut in defense spending is a good idea. And to compare it to Carter is ludicrous, because that was in the middle of the Cold War. Also, the USA has a history of disarming during times of peace, because we are a peaceful people. We don’t want war. We don’t prepare for war unless we have to, right? Preparing for war is the same thing as going to war. So yeah, let’s cut back. Also, from what I understand, it is not just a cut back, but a revamping as well. Some defense projects will actually see an increase in their budgets. Obama wants to fight the right people, apparently.
So long as we don’t have WWIII with China, we should be OK with this. And remember, Gates was Bush’s man, originally. So if he is going with this and knows it is not good for the country, then either 1) he is a traitor, or 2) Bush screwed up big time giving him such a job in the first place. This means a lot, and you ignore it. If McCain were president and doing this you’d clap your hands. You just hate Obama, that’s all. Even when Obama does what the republicans would have done anyway, you still hate him.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
[...] Right Pundits notes that its pointless to study history if we can’t learn the lessons it has to teach us. [...]
April 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
the f22 is a fifth generation combat jet fighter
the indians, soviets, and chinese all have and/or are building fifth generation jet fighters FOR PLANNED EXPORT to countries like iran.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
why do dems think that wasting 1.5 TRILLION dollars on building hybrid golcarts and propping up losers like arron and arch is stimulating the economy …
but spending money on boeing to build a high technology plane using american workers does NOT stimulate the economy?
if we buy the f-22 hybrid can we still get it?
April 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
@lisab
You’re missing the point; the proposed budget isn’t a reduction but a reallocation of funds. Buying F22’s does stimulate the economy, but is probably not the best way to do so. Besides, regarding the military budget in terms of whom it doles out jobs to is bad for the military and bad for national defense.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Shifting defense spending over to more to existing and realistic threats is appropriate. The Cold War is now decades over yet still very profitable for many defense contractors. The periodic news videos shown over the last eight years of B-2 Stealth bombers dropping bombs on terrorist caves graphically illustrates a huge mismatch of high tech weaponry and low tech war. I agree with Aaron’s comments above. I have seen data attributed to the U.K based International Institute of Strategic Studies which listed the top 43 countries based on annual military expenditures. The U.S. was #1 (not surprisingly) and it outspent the combined total of countries #2-#43. How much overkill potential do we truly require?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“there’s been no new terrorist attacks, so what are we supposed to do? Looks to me like a cut in defense spending is a good idea. ”
Duh gee, what are we supposed to do ?
You’re not supposed to stop doing what works !
Get it ????????
The rest of your post was so incredibly stupid I cant even respond without breaking my neck from shaking my head back and forth.
Maybe someone with a little more composure than me will be able to go thru it with you and not lose his mind.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
no you are missing the point
other countries hostile to the united states already have fifth generation jet fighter planes and want to export them to other countries
these planes are better than the f-15’s and f-16’s we have
sooooo … instead of pissing away the money on loser social welfare programs that simply waste the money … it would be far better to protect our country and buy the f22
April 6th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“How much overkill potential do we truly require?”
i will type slowly so you might understand …
the f-15 and f-16 were designed from the late 1960’s to the mid 1970’s.
do you think russia and china can TODAY design a plane better than we could in the 1970’s? especially when they have our designs to start from?
April 6th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The F22 exists and will continue to remain in our arsenal. No one is talking about scrapping them; it’s just a matter of capping the number to a reasonable amount. The premise that Iran could afford to buy enough 5th generation planes (which currently don’t even exist) from Russian to match us in air supremacy is absurd.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Apparently “Red Dawn” is still taken too seriously !? What wasn’t mentioned in the article is Gates’ intention to accelerate F-35 joint strike fighter implementation. For those who obviously you haven’t done the homework: the F-16 and F-15 were designed in their day as air superiority fighters and later redeveloped into strike aircraft. The F-22 in the stated numbers as The dedicated air superiority fighter should be quite able to control the airspace over our future conflicts. Safe bet that the tooling and capability will be retained to produce more F-22s if and when warranted. As the F-35 is needed in both the current and for future conflicts the shifting of available budget toward F-35 over F-22 is warranted.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
and what you did not mention is that the f35 sucks … it is no where near as good as the f22
and fyi the number the airforce wanted was close to 1,000 but you stupid dem rumpswab toadies have guaranteed we will be at a disadvantage against russia and china.
will someone PLEASE give obama a lewinsky so we can impeach him already
arch will do it … he loves obama
April 7th, 2009 at 7:40 am
How many F-22s do you need to patrol Afghanistan?
Really, people.
If we go to war with China, which we won’t, the economic issues we face (i.e. NO access to manufacturing of goods) will be a much bigger problem than air superiority.
Russia’s air force is a mess, and despite Putin’s positing there’s too much internal conflict in the Kremlin to actually maintain an extended conflict with a major power.
Even so, the existing fleet of air superiority fighters is more than adequate, considering that:
a) The “old” jets can be retrofit with the modern radar, software, and missile systems that actually do the killing anyway. They essentially only lack the stealth capability.
b) Our satellite and AWACS coverage is unparalleled, will remain so, and gives us strategic advantages no jet can overcome.
c) The next step forward in air superiority is going to be unmanned fighter drones, as the weakest link in aircraft technology is the pilot. An airframe can withstand 13+ Gs, a pilot can only withstand 9 G for a few seconds before blackout. This is a problem when you’re trying to dodge missiles.
The era of “Top Gun” is over. The F-22 is a marvel of technology and will do a fantastic job of establishing air power, but its actual uses in today’s potential campaigns is very limited considering its cost.
With regard to ships et al:
The brilliance of the terrorist strategy is that it uses small, cheap tools to inflict damage on large, expensive targets. Then it melts away into the background before the big guns can even set their sights.
Why so many hawks continue to push for more large, expensive targets that are impotent to respond to the present threats is the height of strategic idioicty.
If we want to seriously confront the threats we face, we need to invest in our infantry and special ops. Even more so we need to invest in communications and social networks.
We’re not facing Big Red anymore. We’re facing an opium-and-oil Mafia on a Crusade. We need different tools, and I think the Gates budget (finally) reflects that.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
The F-22 to the F-35 is what the F-15 was to the F-16 - a better fighter on paper, but a “hanger queen” that rarely gets used in actual combat and needs too much maintanance. In the same way that the F-16 really carries the load for the Air Force, Gates has decided to buy more of the same type (F-35s) which are slightly lower tech, but buy you a LOT more planes for the money. We don’t have a shortage of pilots, we have a shortage of airframes. When you consider that the next generation of fighters will likely be unmanned superfighters/drones that can take 9gs continuously, why invest in a “super” manned fighter fleet that will probably never fight a a war?
The F-35 is a great (not outstanding) airplane in all variants…now if we would only buy/re-activate some more A-10s and SPECTRES in bulk we would be well equipped for the wars we are LIKELY to face. Gates is to be commended - he is giving the fighting men what THEY want, rather than what congressmen and defense contractors want. It could only happen under a liberal President and a truley conservative (not Neo-Con) Defense Secretary. This may be the most positive thing to happen for the US Armed Forces (NOT “the Defense establishment”!!!) in decades…too bad for the trough-feeding contractors, and their Clancy-dribbling supporters. Real wars aren’t fought on paper…
April 7th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“It could only happen under a liberal President and a truley conservative (not Neo-Con) Defense Secretary. This may be the most positive thing to happen for the US Armed Forces (NOT “the Defense establishment”!!!) in decades…too bad for the trough-feeding contractors, and their Clancy-dribbling supporters. Real wars aren’t fought on paper…”
I love the way this guy goes thru the whole shpeel of how this type of defense spending could only happen with a liberal president and how wars are not fought on paper and bla bla bla when the fact of the matter is that the last 4 wars were fought by conservatives on anything but paper.
Really, would you actually like to look at the specs on how Clinton,Carter and most liberal/dem presidents have cut spending and recruiting to the point where our military was nothing but a skeleton ?
Dont forget, we went into Iraq on the skinney with what we had because Clinton managed to leave us with bare essentials. This is where the Bush admin. got critisized for not going in balls out, when doin that with what we had was impossible with the forces we had when he came in.
“too bad for the trough-feeding contractors, and their Clancy-dribbling supporters.”
Yea, lets spend that money where absolutly no jobs at all will be created while we weaken our forces at the worst time ever since 911.
The 2nd world war and all the industry and manufacturing that went with it is actually the main component that pulled us out of that depression.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
obama is just a disgrace … that is all
he does not care if american service men get killed
he will gladly get rid of the f22 … anything that makes the usa weaker
April 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
lisab there is nothing better than the newer versions of the f16 or f15 or f 18 except the f22 which is leagues above. But I am happy to see you recognize the absolute air superiority of the f22, so rather than stop at 187 I hope we build out the original fleet of 320. Expensive yes, but it will be a world class superiority fighter for the next 35 years. A small number could totally bedevil the north korean and iranian airforces, compared to the need for larger numbers of our traditional planes. We retired the stealth fighter already, so the f22 provides both stealh and total fighter superiority characteristics. I think we need to realize we are in a very dangerous long term struggle with islamic extremists, and criminal regiemes coming into nuclear weopons. The f22 leap frogs us over anything the soviets or chinese can do in the coming time also.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
ok … is this a trick?
who are you, and what did you do with clifford?
April 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
OH, Hoss, its you. Back from virginia city so soon with the staples for the ponderosa? hardtack, flour, lard, salt, beans, smoked jerkey, 24 mule team borax, and all the essentials. ben cartright was italian but did they ever eat spaghetti and meatballs? I think he ended up on a old 80’s version of Battlestar Gallactica or some such. Can hop sing cook that? like lasagna? dunno.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
there is clavin!!!
April 7th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I’ll bet it took you longer to think up that crap than it takes you to think up your usual crap.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
lisab- Cool your jets, already (pun intended). The F-22 is already outdated, waaaay over budget, and simply not necessary at this time. AND, we are going forward with the next generation jet already. And remember, I cannot say this clearly enough, THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE BUDGET CUT. That’s right, folks, the budget is 4% higher than last year’s. President Obama is attempting to put enough resources in Afghanistan to actually end the war, something Bush and his folks didn’t really want to do. The more time we spent at war, the more money Cheney, Rummy and their pals earned. Look it up haters, Cheney and Rumsfeld were never made to divest themselves of holdings that allowed them to make millions of dollars from war-related activities.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Look it up haters, Cheney and Rumsfeld were never made to divest themselves of holdings that allowed them to make millions of dollars from war-related activities.”
Look it up ?
hey, you made the charge, its incumbent upon you to prove it