home

Pentagon Cuts, Fewer Troops, More Drones and Secret Ops

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 05:19:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Leon Pannetta outlined the new Pentagon cuts today. Fewer troops, increased use of drones, and a bigger role for Secret Ops.

US special forces that were previously committed to Iraq will now be used around the globe, Mr Panetta said.

...Mr Panetta said there would be funding for a floating base that would serve special operations forces as well as drone units.

< Polish Parliament Members Don Guy Fawkes Masks | Another Republican Debate >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pentagon Cuts, Fewer Troops, More Drones and Secret Ops | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Absolutely the wrong direction. (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 05:51:33 PM EST
    For those who dislike or disdain the military, reducing personnel is not a good idea. The military is worn down. I won't say worn out, but worn down. There should be an increase in the numbers of uniformed personnel.

    With that, a decrease in the number of non-government contractors, and perhaps Department of the Army (and Navy, and Air Force) civilians.

    Furthermore, the sickening marriage between the military and the CIA needs to be diminished, not strengthened.

    Yep, again I speak from experience, yet again I become Cassandra. Military spending will increase, yet the spending will be contracted out to civilians, who have no stake in the game.

    I'm with you. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:01:49 PM EST
    Are we still funding a fantasy called Star Wars? Special ops are good but not sure about the fusion with the CIA is a good thing.

    I also think we could get rid of the Air Force. Go back to having be part of the army and have the Army Air Corps again. I don't see any reason to keep it as a separate entity anymore.

    Parent

    And from what I've heard (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    The Air Force Academy has a very weird and pervasive religious fundamentalism rattling it far too much.  The Colorado Springs factor, kind of the center of mega-church fundamentalism.  Haven't heard that really about the the other academies.

    Parent
    SF & CIA (none / 0) (#9)
    by BTAL on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 07:52:27 AM EST
    interaction goes back to Vietnam.  For their respective skills and missions each has its place.  SF can't do what the CIA does and we don't need the CIA with even more direct military capabilities doing all the other SF missions.  The CIA is not involved in all CIA missions nor the the other way around.  

    As for returning the USAF back to the USA, the mission and organization would be too unwieldy.  The USAF's breadth from the traditional air (fighter, bomber, & tanker) to its space (NORAD, missiles, satellites/intel & cyber-security) justifies its existence.  

    Parent

    The difference between SF and CIA: (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:08:22 AM EST
    CIA doesn't operate under DoD, and too often in the past, people from the military received a discharge of convenience to perform some CIA mission, then returned to the military.

    That system is bad, but better than CIA control of the military at any level.

    As far as the USAF issue, there has been discussion at some of the higher levels in the military for about 6-10 years concerning the role, if any, of an independent Air Force, following the end of the Cold War... Space has been a shared area between the Army and Air Force-- look at Marshall up in Huntsville, and the Army Space and Missile Command.

    Politically I don't see the end of the USAF, but in reality, the strategic mission disappeared in the early 1990s.

    Either Army or Navy or both, with some splits, could easily fold the AF missions into existing missions. I doubt to see it in my lifetime, but it would save billions in administration costs.

    Parent

    Am very familiar with (none / 0) (#11)
    by BTAL on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:33:08 AM EST
    Marshall and Huntsville since it is only 15 miles away.  As we both know, the Army Missile Command has always been focused on the traditional Army mission of ground based air defense (against both enemy aircraft - then missiles), but never the prime for strategic missiles, satellites (intel, comms & command/control).  "True" space capabilities have always been the purview of the USAF.

    There has been consolidation already with some pure Army support activities being "hacked" to the Army, specifically airlift at places like Pope whose sole mission was the delivery of bird poop,  Oooop I mean airborne forces.  ;-)

    Parent

    @BTAL... (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    grrrrrrr...

    Parent
    All in the spirit (none / 0) (#15)
    by BTAL on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 09:36:47 AM EST
    of inter-service ribbing Jeff.  

    Parent
    Taken as such... (none / 0) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    even though the old saying, "you can join the service or you can join the Air Force" leads to a question about inter 'service...'  

    Again, in jest.

    Parent

    I know it would probably help SOCOM (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:42:18 AM EST
    Who will be the people saddled with much of the current strategic mission.  My husband said that even coming up with "common" language had to be breached when he first arrived in Afghanistan.  The branches have repeated assets to tap, but often call the same asset something different and cling to the traditions of their branch sometimes blindly.

    He said in the end they ALL gave up on the Marines during such conversations about creating common language :)  If you want to change the "name" of something that is their asset they talk past you and over your head and pretend like you aren't there.

    Parent

    From everything I've been reading, it (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:46:17 AM EST
    seems like what we have here is a little fun with numbers - not all that unusual, I guess - bumping up the reduction percentage by using numbers that were part of a proposed budget that was never passed, but worse, we are moving away from an accountable/conventional military system to one that is increasingly unaccountable, through the use of drones, special/covert ops/black ops.

    I don't much care for the okey-doke of touting a big reduction in military spending, to make us feel like we are going to get something good out of the end of the wars, and I really don't like the move to a more secret, less transparent, less accountable military.

    There's just something about this that makes the hair stand up on my neck a little; I guess the truth is that I just don't trust these people, not one little bit.


    Parent

    down is up? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    Panetta: Military Spending Is Going Up

    The best bit of rhetoric in this week's State of the Union address was this:

    "Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home."

    On Thursday, Panetta put that in real dollar terms.  Setting aside any possible supplemental spending bills, and ignoring increased war participation by the CIA, the State Department, etc., and apart from the much larger "non-war" military spending that continues to inch upward, not downward, Panetta claimed that, if Congress would agree, we would spend $88 billion on wars next year, instead of $115 billion this year.  That $115 billion is fairly typical of the past decade, in which we have spent between $100 billion and $200 billion on wars each year (not counting veterans care, fuel price impacts, lost opportunities, debt interest, etc.)  I suspect it also does not include Libya.  So, we're saving $27 billion, maybe.  Take half of that for debt, and we've got $13.5 billion with which to do our nation-building right here at home.  Let's be generous and round it up to $100 billion. That's still in comparison with an overall war and "security" budget of well over $1 trillion annually. And $13.5 billion is less than a quarter of the $60 billion Panetta now claims he will save purely through "increased efficiency."  (Granted, that actually could be done in the Pentagon if it were not, you know, the Pentagon.)

    The talk of cuts serves more than a political purpose for Panetta and Obama.  It also serves to justify actual cuts to services for troops and veterans even while increasing spending on weapons and occupying new nations.  Also announced on Thursday, Obama is working on re-occupying the Philippines.
    [snip]
    The second question asked at Panetta's press conference (how did actual reporters get in there?) was why a tiny reduction following a massive increase in troops in Afghanistan was really sufficient.  Panetta was unable to explain.  Can you?
    Less and then less (none / 0) (#5)
    by koshembos on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:52:30 PM EST
    The huge standing army enticed president into endless adventures in the last 30 years. Of all people, Pannetta the prudent and careful politician lost his marbles, now we will have special ops pirate ships.

    Cut 2/3 of the military, but find jobs to those that will be separated. We need the saved money to rebuilt the country after the Bush/Obama attacks. One doesn't fight terrorists with armies and navies.

    It's about time we get our heads out of our rear ends.

    Here's an idea. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    Cut the military's budget for the weapons systems and the equipment that the Pentagon already knows won't work and that it doesn't want. Then curtail the hiring of mercenaries. Stipulate that contractors cannot be paid one penny more than we would pay  a member of the active duty  military to perform the same job.

    So, if Halliburton or KBR has the contract to run mess halls or transport goods they no longer have the big paydays. They get whatever we'd be paying a service member to cook or drive a truck or whatever. No more 9$100, 000 paydays for Blackwater or Xe or whatever their name is now.

    Let's see how much $$$ Dick Cheney makes from his Halliburton holdings when the gravy train ends.

    Parent

    I thank them all for their service (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    and want them all to get good veterans' benefits, from a competent and even advocatory VA.

    I don't see much about that.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:30:45 PM EST
    Oh you are so silly!

    Why would they talk about that?

    Parent

    Pentagon Cuts, Fewer Troops, More Drones and Secret Ops | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment