Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Downsizing the US Army
The Army has announced that in the next few years it is eliminating 12 brigades containing about 80,000 soldiers (out of a total of 570,000). It makes sense-- with the end of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or at least our involvement in them), we simply don't need so many soldiers.
Further cuts might occur, as the federal cuts under the sequester continue to be employed. I'm ok with that, too. In general, I think our military is too large and too expensive-- as are many other parts of our federal government. No one has yet convinced me that the Iraq war benefited this nation, much less benefited us in any proportion to the taxpayer dollars spent for it.
Is it a mistake to cut the military?
Further cuts might occur, as the federal cuts under the sequester continue to be employed. I'm ok with that, too. In general, I think our military is too large and too expensive-- as are many other parts of our federal government. No one has yet convinced me that the Iraq war benefited this nation, much less benefited us in any proportion to the taxpayer dollars spent for it.
Is it a mistake to cut the military?
Comments:
<< Home
We agree on downsizing. As I have said before, some people in the know estimate that we could trim defense expenditures by 40 percent without reducing our real capacity for self defense. Of course, that would necessitate really smart, non-political cuts, which, of course, are impossible. What we will more likely get with downsizing is at best a very political 10 percent haircut in many of the wrong places.
However, we should think carefully about what we are advocating when we beat the drum for major defense budget cuts.
1. Defense spending is the very best, most effective government stimulus (second best is roads and bridges). Defense cuts equal jobs lost. We should keep in mind that all of those billions are going into local economies. For all you Keynesians out there, realize that turning of the spigot here goes against your economic philosophy.
2. American military power is the key to World Peace since WWII. For the last 70 years the USA has guaranteed the free flow of oil and commerce for the West (and East). As we bulked up, the Great Powers demilitarized. All of this meant seven decades of relative peace; that is, no regional wars pitting a great power against another great power over scarce or threatened resources--and, obviously, no all-out total war a la the two world wars of the c. 20. If the USA stands down, the great powers will need to stand up. Over time, we could very well see a much less stable international situation.
3. There are lots of perks to being the world's lone super power. Too numerous to mention--but I can imagine that we will not completely appreciate the convenience of the water until the well runs dry.
4. Then there is the basic George Washington common sense of it all. The first duty of any nation state is to provide for the common defense. Or JFK: "We dare not tempt our enemies with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." We have a tendency to go overboard in one direction or another. For the last sixty years we have been too fat. Once we really start downsizing, we are likely to get too thin in some key places.
But, as I say, I am willing to endure all these downsides to downsizing; primarily, because we have very little choice. For a while now I have been convinced that our current path is unsustainable.
However, we should think carefully about what we are advocating when we beat the drum for major defense budget cuts.
1. Defense spending is the very best, most effective government stimulus (second best is roads and bridges). Defense cuts equal jobs lost. We should keep in mind that all of those billions are going into local economies. For all you Keynesians out there, realize that turning of the spigot here goes against your economic philosophy.
2. American military power is the key to World Peace since WWII. For the last 70 years the USA has guaranteed the free flow of oil and commerce for the West (and East). As we bulked up, the Great Powers demilitarized. All of this meant seven decades of relative peace; that is, no regional wars pitting a great power against another great power over scarce or threatened resources--and, obviously, no all-out total war a la the two world wars of the c. 20. If the USA stands down, the great powers will need to stand up. Over time, we could very well see a much less stable international situation.
3. There are lots of perks to being the world's lone super power. Too numerous to mention--but I can imagine that we will not completely appreciate the convenience of the water until the well runs dry.
4. Then there is the basic George Washington common sense of it all. The first duty of any nation state is to provide for the common defense. Or JFK: "We dare not tempt our enemies with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." We have a tendency to go overboard in one direction or another. For the last sixty years we have been too fat. Once we really start downsizing, we are likely to get too thin in some key places.
But, as I say, I am willing to endure all these downsides to downsizing; primarily, because we have very little choice. For a while now I have been convinced that our current path is unsustainable.
I agree with most of that-- but I think the most effective stimulus money is spent on Head Start, which employs people where unemployment is worst, while doing important work that addresses real problems here.
We all love Head Start.
But I wonder if that is not really apples and oranges and mostly clouds this particular issue. We had lots of big-hearted, high-minded, well-intentioned ideas in the 2009 monster stimulus (but no defense and very little road and bridge building). I hear a lot of economists who think we could have gotten a much bigger bang for our buck out of that biggest stimulus in our history with something more straightforward.
But I wonder if that is not really apples and oranges and mostly clouds this particular issue. We had lots of big-hearted, high-minded, well-intentioned ideas in the 2009 monster stimulus (but no defense and very little road and bridge building). I hear a lot of economists who think we could have gotten a much bigger bang for our buck out of that biggest stimulus in our history with something more straightforward.
No, I do not think it is a mistake to cut the millitary. The current cost of the millitary is not sustainable and other important projects are not getting done. We need a balance approach to spending.
# posted by 
: 8:13 AM
: 8:13 AM
AWF - you say "...I am willing to endure all these downsides to downsizing; primarily, because we have very little choice."
I have to say that it has been easy, thus far, to deal with the sequester because things that have been impacted have a minimal direct impact on me. I would love to see some bridge building and road projects but even those projects employ fewer people today than once required as the techniques have improved over the years.
You are right the current path is unsustainable. But we do our society a great disserve when we cut funds for children who we hope to grow up and be productive, educated adults amongst us.
As you said bringing Head Start into the discussion clouds the issue. Mark - why did you cloud your own issue?
As for the topic of military spending....
I am all for military downsizing, but it has a direct impact on the unemployment rate. Hopefully the decrease in the size of our military will take place in the form of attrition - soldiers not re-upping when their time is up. It should not transfer to a decrease in their earned medical (VA) and GI combat benefits.
Despite downsizing we must continue to upgrade our military equipment (within reason) so we are technologically prepared to act with a smaller force.
I have to say that it has been easy, thus far, to deal with the sequester because things that have been impacted have a minimal direct impact on me. I would love to see some bridge building and road projects but even those projects employ fewer people today than once required as the techniques have improved over the years.
You are right the current path is unsustainable. But we do our society a great disserve when we cut funds for children who we hope to grow up and be productive, educated adults amongst us.
As you said bringing Head Start into the discussion clouds the issue. Mark - why did you cloud your own issue?
As for the topic of military spending....
I am all for military downsizing, but it has a direct impact on the unemployment rate. Hopefully the decrease in the size of our military will take place in the form of attrition - soldiers not re-upping when their time is up. It should not transfer to a decrease in their earned medical (VA) and GI combat benefits.
Despite downsizing we must continue to upgrade our military equipment (within reason) so we are technologically prepared to act with a smaller force.
No it’s not a mistake to cut the military, but not by throwing 80,000 soldiers and their families into the fray of this economy at a moral cost that doesn’t even come close its monetary value. Cut the military contractors that inflate all costs beyond obscenity.
Farmer-- I agree with those critics of the stimulus (I was one of them!). When I say Head Start, I mean just that, not a bunch of other start. The problem with the sequester is it gets cut along with the dumb stuff.
Mark--I fear that an era of smart cuts is quite unlikely. I think we will get cuts b/c cuts we must have. The really "dumb" sequester cuts are probably the wave of the future. And, ironically, sadly, at the point at which Congress surrenders itself to the idea of cuts--and begins the process of "smart" cuts, I predict the smart cuts will prove as dumb and random and arbitrary as the dumb cuts. Just the nature of political budgeting by elected officials.
As Tom Friedman likes to say, over the last fifty years our leaders have had it pretty easy: we ask for stuff and they give it to us. The next fifty years will be quite painful as they go about the unpleasant task of taking away our stuff. I only hope we can get through the painful road ahead intact.
As Tom Friedman likes to say, over the last fifty years our leaders have had it pretty easy: we ask for stuff and they give it to us. The next fifty years will be quite painful as they go about the unpleasant task of taking away our stuff. I only hope we can get through the painful road ahead intact.
In other news, roughly 20K of those soldiers may be able to find jobs as boarder enforcement agents. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/immigration-bill-senate-19499720
Speaking as an old Southern California guy, defense industries create communities that produce large-scale, long-term, generally high-skilled manufacturing jobs, plenty of work for engineers and designers, and usually lots of R&D to boot.
Infrastructure generally is shorter term and often lots of money for big contractors and often a big drop off for a lot of medium-to-low-skilled construction workers. No bad--actually, second best (with the added bonus that we really need roads and bridges and dams and such), but not nearly the kind of "multiplier" that defense generally racks up.
Infrastructure generally is shorter term and often lots of money for big contractors and often a big drop off for a lot of medium-to-low-skilled construction workers. No bad--actually, second best (with the added bonus that we really need roads and bridges and dams and such), but not nearly the kind of "multiplier" that defense generally racks up.
Unfortunately, defense spending is the most costly expenditure the federal government makes. We get the least stimulus bang for the buck.It does serious damage to any country's economy. We used the arms race as a weapon in the cold war. The terrorists use it against us. The reason is that there is no product to be resold, no asset created and no additional taxes generated going forward. It is wasteful and destructive but a reasonable amount is a necessity.
Military spending is a cruel promise to many communities. The large contracts are arbitrary and the benefits are often short lived. I worked for North American Aviation in Southern California. When a contract ended a town would dry up. The people packed up and moved to where the jobs went, if they could.
The costs of the arms that we produce don't end until we destroy them. Military arms are a rotten investment.
Military power is not the key to a good economy nor world peace. It never has been and never will be. Eventually, military might will be tested. Peaceful communications and commerce are more helpful to bring peace and a better investment.
I agree where defense spending does pay off is in R&D. We should weigh our spending to favor constructive enterprises rather than destructive enterprises, whenever possible.
The stimulus was puny and halted too soon. Wasteful and counter productive defense monies should be shifted to purposeful projects and education. We would be a richer and safer country.
Most military people know that, at a point, the more you spend on defense the less secure you become. They teach that in their war colleges. They just don't say that in public.
Military spending is a cruel promise to many communities. The large contracts are arbitrary and the benefits are often short lived. I worked for North American Aviation in Southern California. When a contract ended a town would dry up. The people packed up and moved to where the jobs went, if they could.
The costs of the arms that we produce don't end until we destroy them. Military arms are a rotten investment.
Military power is not the key to a good economy nor world peace. It never has been and never will be. Eventually, military might will be tested. Peaceful communications and commerce are more helpful to bring peace and a better investment.
I agree where defense spending does pay off is in R&D. We should weigh our spending to favor constructive enterprises rather than destructive enterprises, whenever possible.
The stimulus was puny and halted too soon. Wasteful and counter productive defense monies should be shifted to purposeful projects and education. We would be a richer and safer country.
Most military people know that, at a point, the more you spend on defense the less secure you become. They teach that in their war colleges. They just don't say that in public.
So would it make more sense to pursue a science-industrial complex instead? A NASA mars shot. An "all-of-the-above" green initative. The creation of an electric car charging network, and the science to make that work better. Better battaries. But more than want is on the table, generation skipping stuff too.
It seems that would have a similar effect as the defense industry, economically, combined with a signifcantly better end goal. Rather than creating products that usually get parked somewhere, never to be called on, the creation of life altering scientific endevors would have a multaplyer effect, creating economic benefits both during research and in the end product.
It seems that would have a similar effect as the defense industry, economically, combined with a signifcantly better end goal. Rather than creating products that usually get parked somewhere, never to be called on, the creation of life altering scientific endevors would have a multaplyer effect, creating economic benefits both during research and in the end product.
Hi David,
I hear you. But I have some discomfiture with your proposal because I think it very easily transmogrifies into a planned economy--if no is minding the store, and, generally, nobody is. And, the historical record is not kind to planned economies.
Mr. Osler makes a lot of sense when he describes government spending as much less beneficial than private capital formation and free enterprise. I think we only differ in the degree to which defense spending is either a lesser or greater evil within that government spending sinkhole.
Over the course of our history, we have spent big government money on two things: defense and infrastructure ("internal improvements at federal expense"). Over the last century, we have spent big government money on payroll and entitlements (and continued to spend lots of money on defense and infrastructure). With a few exceptions (nuclear power to name one), we have not been especially successful at pushing forward technological breakthroughs through government subsidy and incentive.
On the other hand, putting money into defense (which we are always going to need and for which everyone agrees is a proper function of government) and/or infrastructure, often yields some decent returns (in the sense that anything we get back on top of the basic necessity of basic preparation is gravy).
Anyhow, David, I hear you and I like your idea in principle. But (just thinking out loud) color me a bit more skeptical of what we can accomplish with the kinds of initiatives you suggest.
I hear you. But I have some discomfiture with your proposal because I think it very easily transmogrifies into a planned economy--if no is minding the store, and, generally, nobody is. And, the historical record is not kind to planned economies.
Mr. Osler makes a lot of sense when he describes government spending as much less beneficial than private capital formation and free enterprise. I think we only differ in the degree to which defense spending is either a lesser or greater evil within that government spending sinkhole.
Over the course of our history, we have spent big government money on two things: defense and infrastructure ("internal improvements at federal expense"). Over the last century, we have spent big government money on payroll and entitlements (and continued to spend lots of money on defense and infrastructure). With a few exceptions (nuclear power to name one), we have not been especially successful at pushing forward technological breakthroughs through government subsidy and incentive.
On the other hand, putting money into defense (which we are always going to need and for which everyone agrees is a proper function of government) and/or infrastructure, often yields some decent returns (in the sense that anything we get back on top of the basic necessity of basic preparation is gravy).
Anyhow, David, I hear you and I like your idea in principle. But (just thinking out loud) color me a bit more skeptical of what we can accomplish with the kinds of initiatives you suggest.
Our space program developed welds, adhesives, computer systems, etc. We depend more and more on government research in disease control and most of our flu vaccines are created by the army who has the computer power and innovation.
Alternative energy initiatives will not get to market without the same government support that the fossil fuel industry received.
Private managers have a duty to focus on their profit. Good government management should focus on the common good. We need to learn to appreciate the need for both. Anti government ideology is a destructive force at a moment when we need good government the most.
I think using new hybrid structures that combine the smarts and efficiencies of the private sector with the motivation associated with public owned programs. Shifting government responsibilities and opportunities to private corporations has proven to fail in the long term as the public interest, in many cases, is to make the need for the program disappear, not grow it. We have rented private sector managers and their teams in times of war and perhaps we need to do the same now. This could be beneficial in all levels of government
Alternative energy initiatives will not get to market without the same government support that the fossil fuel industry received.
Private managers have a duty to focus on their profit. Good government management should focus on the common good. We need to learn to appreciate the need for both. Anti government ideology is a destructive force at a moment when we need good government the most.
I think using new hybrid structures that combine the smarts and efficiencies of the private sector with the motivation associated with public owned programs. Shifting government responsibilities and opportunities to private corporations has proven to fail in the long term as the public interest, in many cases, is to make the need for the program disappear, not grow it. We have rented private sector managers and their teams in times of war and perhaps we need to do the same now. This could be beneficial in all levels of government
And just to regroup and make my position clear: I agree that downsizing in defense needs to happen. I support Mark Osler.
My side point, simply, inevitably, there will be consequences that we do not foresee and some that folks on the Left just flat underestimate.
But, important point, I am not advocating downsizing defense to free up money for other government spending. I advocate downsizing across the board, not beating our swords into plowshares.
My side point, simply, inevitably, there will be consequences that we do not foresee and some that folks on the Left just flat underestimate.
But, important point, I am not advocating downsizing defense to free up money for other government spending. I advocate downsizing across the board, not beating our swords into plowshares.
I would not necessarily have to look like the planned defense industrial complex, the one that builds things the Pentagon doesn't want. It could be designed to reward innovation of whatever type.
Whatever economic benefits come from employing scientists and high-end manufacturers for doing military research and building military infrastructure--those same benefits would surely follow other types for R&D and infrastructure building. It is essentially the exact same exercise from an economic perspective.
Whatever economic benefits come from employing scientists and high-end manufacturers for doing military research and building military infrastructure--those same benefits would surely follow other types for R&D and infrastructure building. It is essentially the exact same exercise from an economic perspective.
I will not support further military appropriations until we stop sending poor Smurfs to fight rich men's battles.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 3:38 PM
: 3:38 PM << Home
