Britain's Budget Cuts - Will the Bell Toll for Us?

[unhappycamper]

Britain's Budget Cuts - Will the Bell Toll for Us?
by Robert Naiman
Published on Thursday, October 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

This week, the British government announced plans to cut its military personnel by 10 percent, scrap 40 percent of the army's artillery and tanks, and withdraw all of its troops from Germany within 10 years, the New York Times reports. The plan will involve a cut of about 8 percent in real terms in Britain's annual defense budget, significantly less than the 10 to 20 percent cuts that were under discussion. The Times attributes the reduced military cuts, in part, to US government pressure.

~snip~

Now, I'm perfectly well aware that you would have trouble finding 10 Americans in Peoria who really give a rat's behind what happens in Afghanistan, so long as we are apparently on a path to ending the war.

But those folks in Peoria should consider this: how much of your Social Security check are you willing to hand over to the Pentagon to try to limit Pakistani influence in a settlement that ends the war in Afghanistan? Because that is what's at stake: every month that the war continues will likely result in another $10 billion cut in domestic spending.

And as the good folks in Peoria consider that question, they should consider this fact: today, after all the blood and treasure the United States spent in Iraq, the Iraqi Prime Minister goes to Iran in order to get the Iranian government's blessing on his efforts to form a government. And yet, despite this fact, which should have the neocons whipping themselves like Arthur Dimmesdale, the great mass of Americans go about their business, seemingly content to accept the fact of Iranian influence in Iraq.

So again, I ask: how much of your Social Security check are you willing to give up to prolong the war, in a probably futile effort to limit Pakistani influence in post-war Afghanistan?

[zipplewrath]

1. It's coming, the question is form

When Newt and company came to power, they made noises about reigning in the MIC. Any serious deficit hawk knows there is too much money going there. Even serious economists talk in guarded terms about the "costs" of "policing the world". The real question always is, in a department as economically diverse as the DoD, where will the cuts REALLY come from?

We have too many bases, world wide and in the US. But try cutting them. The ones you could most easily cut, politically, are the hardest to cut militarily, and visa versa.

Large infrastructure cuts like reducing carrier battle groups. Gates has already broached this subject, but you are talking about ALOT of long term jobs, middle class manufacturing jobs to boot, in alot of congressional districts.

Future weapon systems. In some ways these are the easiest, politically, to cut because they don't actually exist, and they don't represent alot of jobs. They are also where all the "future business" is in the MIC. And they are hard to actually "kill". They switch into "study" programs, or "research" efforts, instead of "development" programs.

Fundamental equipment. This is going to be a very hard area over the next decade. We've worn out much of our hardware in Iraq and Afghanistan. Humvees, Black Hawks, and Cobras are wearing out fast. And the F-18 and F-16 have huge numbers of hours on them. They all need replacing, or refurbishment. And that doesn't include the bullets, boots, belts, and other basic equipment that we've been burning through at an accelerated clip.

Medical/VA care: This is perennially underfunded anyway, and we've created practically an entire generation of people that will need very long term care.

It's a very big department, and there are tremendous amounts of cash floating around that many economies have grown dependent upon. It isn't clear where the cuts will come from. And they'll never come as long as we're fighting 2 wars.

[stray cat]

2. Yes -US debt will not magically disappear even if people protest as in France