So I'm all for the cuts in defense, but...

[Tiggeroshii]

if the dod wants to keep troops deployed, what effects will it have on them?(ie body armor, ammunition, etc) And I guess I'm still working on figuring out how all those cuts come about (ie veterans benefits, etc). Anybody want to help me out?

[steve2470]

1. I'll be surprised if DOD gets cut at all

Call me a cynic. If we have to cut the budget though, it MUST be cut.

[MADem]

2. I don't know for a fact, but if I were guessing, which I am right now,

I'd say they'll stick with already settled drawdown numbers, pulling back overused Guard/Reserve, and put them back in mothballs rather than in another training to deploy cycle. That saves a fortune right there. If they decrease their footprint in specified areas--best if done in a vertical fashion, they can also unload all the civilian contracts/contractors that go along with those facilities. Cash on the barrel, saved with a red line.

[DCBob]

3. close more bases. shrink the force. stop building new weapons.

there are tons of things to cut.

[Cool Logic]

4. The American People need to ask themselves a serious question:

Who should decide the question of whether the US initiates a state of war against another sovereign nation that has not attacked us?

1. Should the the random whims of the UN to decide which issues justify the sacrifice of our sons, daughters and assets?

2. Or should we abide by the Constitution which delegates this decision to the American People's representatives?

If the choice is (1), we should increase the defense budget to allow for trillions more $$$ to be borrowed and squandered.

If the choice is (2), we can cut the defense budget and save $$$, and more importantly, the lives of our sons and daughters.

[Capitalocracy]

6. The UN declares war for us now?

I'm behind the times

[Cool Logic]

7. Actually, no one *declares* war any more...so you are behind the times.

The legal process of declaring war has long been disregarded.

Our civilian "generals" have subjected our military to the random whims of the the UN, which has them engaged in three undeclared wars in the Middle East.

[Capitalocracy]

8. No, I was aware of that

the fact that we don't actually declare our wars

but the fact that the UN forced us to invade Iraq, especially considering the fact that even Kofi Annan said it was illegal, is news to me. I was working under the assumption that we were going against the wishes of the UN.

[Cool Logic]

9. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 was the basis for...

Joint Resolution 114, which Rs & Ds passed in the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and in the House by a vote of 296 to 133.

[Capitalocracy]

10. Damn them!

When will we throw off the chains of our blue-helmeted oppressors? Forcing us to invade Iraq!

[Cool Logic]

15. Clearly, I have offended members of the Blue Helmet Brigade...

Modified for Blue Helmet Brigade

1. Should the the random whims of the President decide which issues justify the sacrifice of our sons, daughters and assets?

2. Or should we abide by the Constitution which delegates the power to declare war, to the American People's representatives?

[Selatius]

14. UN resolution 1441 was never explicit in how to enforce its measures.

The US had just come out of the worst mass casualty event on US soil since Pearl Harbor, and quite a lot of people just wanted to roll the tanks. In those days, GWB said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." He used the same tried tactic that any thug dictator uses to force his people to go to war. He says the country is under severe threat and that we must act, and he denounces the opposition and the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

While Bush and Tony Blair insist that 1441 gave them the authority to start a war with Iraq, many legal experts question their position, and many members of the Council itself would say that the business of going about to enforce resolutions lies with the Council itself, not individual member states. Legally speaking, Bush would've been safer if he had brought a second resolution up for a vote: On going to war to enforce 1441. That never happened.

[Cool Logic]

17. I tend to agree, but whether or not it was legal under 1441, is not my concern.

I am far more concerned about whether or not it was legal under the U S Constitution.

I believe the power to declare war was vested in the Congress to ensure a rational contemplation of the grievances, as well as the projected cost of lives and resources of the People.

Regrettably, the legitimate process of declaring war has been disregarded and as a result, we have engaged in a number of wars against nations that did not attack us. In each of these conflicts, the ensuing sequence of events were not anticipated and resulted in our troops being stuck in no-win situations. Ultimately, Americans blame the thousands of lives wasted and trillions of $$$ borrowed and squandered on the President. However, the President is not authorized to initiate wars, his job is to command the troops, after Congress has made that decision.

The Congress has hidden behind the War Powers Resolution for nearly 40 years. It allows them to put one foot in the water and if things get too hot, they can elude the blame and leave the President standing alone. The American system of checks and balances was designed to prohibit the very thing that the War Powers Act allows.

I believe it about time for the People to require their Representatives to do the job we pay them to do.

[Selatius]

18. They don't declare war anymore because it puts the leadership in liability if something bad happened

When war is declared, international treaties regarding the treatment of civilians in war zones as well as treatment of the enemy as POWs would apply. The onus would lay on the leadership, and if standards were not up to par with internationally agreed upon standards, then the leadership would be liable regardless if they had known about the lax standards or not. For instance, when news broke that private contractors and US servicemen were torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, it was easy enough for the leadership to throw under the bus a few front-line servicemen, but had a true declaration of war passed Congress, then people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and even George W. Bush himself would be faced with the possibility of being prosecuted for, at least, being criminally negligent with the handling of POW facilities or, at most, encouraging or abetting torture of POWs and would have been tried for war crimes. Politicians on both sides realize this, so both are loathe to declare war unless they are forced to do it.

[Capitalocracy]

5. the cat food commission was suggesting cuts in soldier pay and benefits

including health and psychiatric care

so... let's hope they won't be using the same template

there's a lot of room to fuck this thing up. it could easily be just as bad a deal on the defense side as on the medicare side.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. "hope they won't be using the same template" - that is the template.

This whole kabuki dance has been about implementation of the catfood commission. Of course it will be human resources that takes the DOD cut. If there is one.

If any bases get closed they will be domestic.

[Capitalocracy]

13. I agree... I hope they don't but I realize there is essentially no hope.

Honestly, I don't know what the cuts are. I don't know if they've hammered that out yet and I just haven't heard or not. The final deal will have to either spell out the cuts or name who gets to make them if the committee's recommendations don't get passed, so I assume in the next day or two that will be cleared up. I don't exactly have time to go wading through the bill myself at the moment.

Cutting soldier pay and benefits would be truly shameful, just continuing to start wars but failing in our obligation to take care of our soldiers when they come home... just shameful. vile.

[Obamanaut]

12. Close some of the 700+ military sites in the more than 30 countries they

are in would help a bit.

Some of the sites are small, others huge. Some have personnel on accompanied tours - their families are with them.

Bring them home and disperse them among the bases in the US. That will provide an immediate influx of money in the local economies, and won't cost anything extra. Closing the sites those folks left will save money currently being spent on the lease payments to the host country, as well as the salaries of any local civilians employed there.

It's not hard to do, it just won't be done.

[bemildred]

16. That would be up to the Congress, I would think, depending on what gets cut. nt

[tuckessee]

19. Don't worry about the War Machine.

It'll keep chugging along just fine.