Get PJ Media on your Apple

Obama’s ‘Strategic Guidance’ Calls for More Defense Gutting

McKeon: "With no assessment of strategic impact, the president has proposed yet another arbitrary cut of $120 billion from the military."

Bridget Johnson


April 10, 2013 - 8:26 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

“Two months ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before my committee that our military could not absorb any additional cuts and continue to carry out the missions the country has assigned to them,” McKeon said. ”In the ensuing weeks the situation in Syria became more volatile, we are in a stand-off with North Korea, and we appear to be opening a North African front in the War on Terror.”

“In other words, we are already adding to what we have asked our military to do while the president cuts their resources. Now, with no assessment of strategic impact, the president has proposed yet another arbitrary cut of $120 billion from the military.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, said Obama’s budget “would add $8.2 trillion in new debt and will ultimately cause the country to spend more on interest payments than on national defense.”

“When it comes to his budget request for defense, the president failed to address the unprecedented resource challenges facing our military and failed to even acknowledge the mandatory cuts associated with sequestration,” Inhofe said. “It’s time this president finally confronts the true cause of our growing and unsustainable debt, which is his unsustainable growth in mandatory spending and unbridled domestic spending.”

“If we want America to remain the greatest nation on earth with a wealth of opportunities for future generations, we need to cut spending, balance the budget, and ensure a strong national defense.”

McKeon noted that both Congress and the White House have historically “proven to be poor judges of where and how we will have to fight to preserve our liberty.”

“What we can say with certainty is that the fight will come,” the chairman added. “By levying more cuts on the military, the president has decided that a future generation of Americans won’t have what they need on that day.”

When asked about one of those future potential fights today, Hagel showed a clear preference for wanting to stay on the topic of Obama’s budget numbers. Japanese officials warned local media today that North Korea was making preparatory moves for a ballistic missile test at any time.

“This country, the United States of America, our allies, United Nations, has been very clear that North Korea has been, with its bellicose rhetoric, with its actions, have been skating very close to a dangerous line. Their actions and their words have not helped defuse a combustible situation,” Hagel echoed the administration refrain.

“The proximity of the North Koreans to achieving a miniaturization of a nuclear device on a ballistic missile is really a matter of — is a classified matter,” added Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. “But they have conducted two nuclear tests. They have conducted several successful ballistic missile launches. And in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case, and that’s why we’re postured as we are today.”

When pressed on whether Americans should be considered about a looming war, the new Defense secretary got a bit flippant.

“[Kim Jong-un] doesn’t check with me on his decisions or how he’s feeling each day, the leader. I don’t know if he does with the chairman,” Hagel said. “The reality is that he is unpredictable. That country is unpredictable.”

“As far as knowing what the Kim Jong-un is about, you know, we’re having a press conference today about the Defense Department absorbing hundreds of billions of dollars in reductions for the good of the American people so that the United States of America can get back on a more solid economic foundation,” Dempsey said. “And what is Kim Jong-un doing? He’s starving his people with a military first policy. It’s pretty hard for us to figure that out.”

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (19)
All Comments   (19)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated

You may be missing a major point here: We are looking at major military spending cuts even though Obama's proposed budget is HUGE. If we are cutting many billions from defense spending, then why do we have (from Obama) a $3.77 trillion dollar federal budget?

The country is weakened by an increased budget that is way more than can possibly be balanced by revenues, and yet we also intend to weaken the military? And believe me, I know how the feds handle budget cuts: because they spend lots of money badly, they will also spend less money badly. Therefore, while some posters here may have some "clever" ideas on how to have great defense for less, the proposed big cuts WILL WEAKEN our military -- that is guaranteed.

So: an economy-sapping budget with big defense cuts. Not a recipe for improved national security and well-being.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The following Defense Spending, and Federal Revenue, numbers, are from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), end-of-fiscal year, monthly reports other sources, which reflect considerably higher Defense Spending numbers, may include some portion of Military Spending

Defense Spending .vs Total Federal Revenues (TREV) = % of Revenues trillions.....
YEAR.DEFENSE/TREV = % of Revenues
FY1998 0.256 / 1.721 = 14.9%
FY1999 0.261 / 1.827 = 14.3%
FY2000 0.281 / 2.025 = 13.9%
FY2001 0.291 / 1.990 = 14.6%
FY2002 0.332 / 1.853 = 17.9%
FY2003 0.389 / 1.783 = 21.8%
FY2004 0.437 / 1.880 = 23.2%
FY2005 0.474 / 2.154 = 22.0%
FY2006 0.499 / 2.407 = 20.7%
FY2007 0.529 / 2.568 = 20.6%
FY2008 0.595 / 2.524 = 23.6%
FY2009 0.637 / 2.105 = 30.3%
FY2010 0.677 / 2.162 = 31.3%
FY2011 0.678 / 2.302 = 29.5%
FY2012 0.651 / 2.449 = 26.6%

The U.S. spends more on Defense Spending than the next 14 countries COMBINED
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
World's top 15 military spenders
Figures sourced from the SIPRI Yearbook 2012.
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
— World Total 1,630 2.6 100 1562.3
1. United States ....711.
2. China...............228
3. Russia...............93.7
4. United Kingdom..57.5
5. France...............50.1
6. Japan................44.7
7. Saudi Arabia.......58.8
8. India.................117.
9. Germany ...........40.4
10. Brazil..............33.8
11. Italy................28.5
12. South Korea.....42.1
13. Australia..........16.6
14. Canada...........19.9
15. Turkey...........25.2
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
President Eisenhower warned us about THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
still 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, along with over 100,000 high-paid, good old boy, no-bid, military contractors ... the Pentagon is the Poster-Boy for fraud waste and abuse in government
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So, we want our military to be seen as strong and vigorous, but we are not going to train our troops nor maintain our equipment?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's evident the libertarian mindset is taking hold in the comment section, but that is understandable when we have weak governance; this allows all kinds of foolishness to present itself. Certainly, there are cuts that can be made, but to a person, the readers here are missing the point... general officer corps is being decimated under Obama (not to mention appointments are putting useful idiots in key positions), Hagel is a mindless dunce and the purpose of these current shortfalls in spending is to render our military useless or better, nearly "defenseless." I suspect there are many posting here who have no real sense of what a volunteer force means, what its junior members experience or how small in number our forces really are, considering actual warfighting capability vs. support. It's time Americans start paying attention to truth (look at history) rather than their fictionalized views of what they wish to believe to appear intelligent.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"the general officer corps..."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Of course there are plenty of places we can cut Military spending, they are an all volunteer forces after all. Since when do you pay volunteers? Just think how much we could save if we just didn't pay the volunteers! That would leave us plenty of money to pay all the civilian contractors their union wages. We wouldn't want to cut back on those, we might get the unions mad at us. And of course the contractors can't help it if they happened to underbid on the equipment they are supplying and have to charge millions of dollars in cost overruns, they have to pay all those extra union workers and upper management personnel they had to hire to get the stuff built.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We need to defund the DOD and decrease the size of the military. The military is run by our totally corrupt ruling class which can not be trusted with a strong military force.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually, there is a lot to cut in the DoD. Way too many generals and admirals; in fact more per capita than during the Cold War. Still too much waste and overspending. Does a F-22 really cost over $150 million? In my case, I work as a contractor for the DoD and there are 3 levels of management above me at just the base level; there are at least 2 more levels above that at AFMC and Washington. Huge amounts of overstaffing, overregulation, and rules all combine to make everything cost more than it should.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Maybe we should you know, stop being the world's policeman? We can't afford it.

Why are we still in Afghanistan? Our "allies" are just as bad as the Taliban. Our "allies" in Pakistan hid Bin Laden from us, and are still holding that doctor that helped us find him.

Why are we in South Korea? We're hated there. S. Korea is a rich country now, let them defend themselves.

And while we are at it, let's quite throwing money down the drain with the F35, which is complete junk.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Having been stationed in South Korea twice, I can tell you we are not hated there. The people you see on TV with signs are a distinct minority and only get on TV because of liberal bias.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We should have S. America, the Philippines, Europe and Indonesia ante up the difference. They're the ones who benefit from not having China and Russia and each other up their behinds. Put a price tag on the evil imperialist Pax Americana and watch how suddenly other countries can't live without it. Or we could just sell them and pocket the change. When the Middle East runs out of oil won't be no Americans rescuing Kuwait from Iraq or S. Arabia from Iran. Have fun boys. Liberals got themselves a suicide cult and the first victims will of course be those most vulnerable. And of course a new giant flood of refugees will be pouring into America in 50 years.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Isn't it great? More cut to the military who did not vote for Obama. More money to Homeland Security for Big Sis to stock up on bag pipes.

Our military is already in a shambles, may as well gut it so we will be incapable to fight any more wars, and cower under our desks when North Korea lob us a dud nuke.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There you go, you get it elkhoong.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All