Chuck Hagel in 2011: The Pentagon budget is BLOATED, it must be pared down

Mostly Republican righties...

... this guy has doubts about "bloated" military spending!!!!!!

Not just neocons -- there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans who love swimming in the trillion dollar a year ocean of gravy that floats the wasteful, fat, corrupt U.S. military.

can you imagine telling us to forget the comments. I doubt it.

Hagel has apologized.

there are no words he could say which would have him taken seriously as a nominee.

He's getting plenty of smears saying he's an anti-semite. If anything that issue is bigger than the gay comments he made 15 years ago and has apologized for.

but had he said of Jews what he said of gays he wouldn't be up for this office.

But society has changed, and I think you and I will both agree for the better. Hopefully Hagel changed with it.

Guantanamo Bay indefinite detention must be shut down.

readiness.

What would be impacted, though, is the bottom line of "investing Congresscritters," their relatives who work in/for the Defense industry, and of course, all of those guys who make money, hand over fist, as cogs in the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex grinder.

Panetta's situation was different--he was trying to deal w/end strength issues and he didn't know which way Congress, to say nothing of the world, was going to jump. Now we know that the trend is clearly towards much fewer personnel and 'lily pads' rather than permanent bases. Panetta, when he was in Congress and on the HASC, was not a fan of unbridled Pentagon spending. He was a pragmatist, though and he wasn't about to economize when there were too many unknowns on the table. Hagel will be in a much better position as he comes into the job, though he won't be very loved when the pink slips start getting handed out, and that's started already (and is going to get much, much worse--watch morale plummet...).

come in, slash a bunch of programs and budgets, piss a whole bunch of people off, and then leave within 2 years without being able to further guide or influence the direction he started in. He wasn't there to be transformative--that will be the next SecDef's job, and I honestly don't know why anyone would want it, unless he really doesn't mind having his guts hated.

Hagel might be different.

Buildup and then drawdown in Iraq, buildup in Afghanistan--and he had to lay the groundwork for big social changes (DADT repeal)--they are still trying to work out the implementation of that. Cuts were less of a priority. Now, of course, they are a big and expected priority.

defense knowledge, I'm betting he has ideas a plenty, and maybe all that will be found in his turnover book for his successor. In my rare interactions with him eons ago I found him to be one of the smartest and sharpest human beings on the planet. I think one of his big assets at Defense was a minimal learning curve--he had sufficient background to just step into the job and have the bubble from Day One.

There will be a lot of hurt feelings ahead--I'm thinking it will be somewhat like the post Korea or post Vietnam environment ("Go Navy, Go Hungry," for example--that was an actual bumper sticker that many sailors sported on their cars--if they could afford cars). A lot of good people who worked very hard over the past decade are going to be suddenly told that their "indispensable" services are just no longer required, or that their waistline isn't trim enough, or their fitness isn't good enough, for a smaller, lighter, more appearance-based force. It needs to happen now, though, so the worst is over before the 2016 elections. There will be bitterness.

on his nomination from the right. The Neo Cons hate Hagel which only increases my support for the nomination.

What a monster.

i have no problem with any cuts.

One is going to happen... But, there are two ways we can really cut the defense budget without affecting jobs at home. If we start slashing programs immediately, it will have an effect on the economy as those military programs support a lot of jobs.

1) Get out of Afghanistan, which is scheduled to happen. Once we’re out, our costs over there will drop to a fraction of what they are now. (I’m assuming that we’ll still need to troops to protect the embassy there, as well as some special ops units to ensure Al Qaeda and others don’t gain more of a foothold in the area.) We've spent over $100 billion/year over the last three years alone. Cutting that back to what we spent last year in Iraq ($5.4 billion) will be a huge savings.

2) Start closing bases overseas. While I’m sure closing every base is not an option, or even desirable, shutting down half of them will put a serious dent in the defense budget. To top it off, if we relocate those troops to domestic bases, they will be spending their money in the local economy, instead of on foreign soil.

Just doing those two things will mean spending well over $100 billion less per year on defense on Afghanistan, and then tens of billions more from the overseas base closings.