Military Spending is more important than Entitlement Spending

[patrick1]

Now we're basically stuck in a number of countries that I don't see a way out of. I'd sure like to see it be short-term, but when is it really going to change? Who is really going to change it?

I see a way out of Iraq. The war is practically won. The country is now safer then Brazil and the Olympics are going there.

Afghanistan used to be pretty safe, too. Japan are Germany are very safe. There certainly are logical ways out, but there are no real ways out. Politics forbid that. There are lot of things that should and easily could be done by the US that aren't and won't be for reasons with no basis in sensibility or reality.

Fez, we've been flying out the door of Iraq. It takes a while and  massive effort to move all the gear out safely and securely.  We aren't just talking about putting dudes on a plane.
Further, the wind down of ground troops in Afghanistan has already begun.

"U.S. Forces Iraq has redeployed 1.6 million pieces of equipment, Buchanan said, with 800,000 left to go. Just last week, he said, 13,900 trucks in 399 convoys moved equipment, fuel and food in and out of Iraq. The military had 505 bases in Iraq in 2008, and now is down to 23, he said.  U.S. Forces Iraq has roughly 43,500 troops in the country -- down about 100,000 from January 2009"
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65633


"U.S. forces — currently numbering just over 40,000 servicemembers — are withdrawing from Iraq at an average of 500 soldiers per day, as the State Department mobilizes a massive personnel and logistics operation to assume control of the Iraq mission from the military. Previous talks between the United States and Iraq hinted at an ongoing training presence of 3,000 to 5,000 troops, though the number of trainers is likely to be lower now that military immunity is off the table."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-seeks-to-redraw-iraq-training-plan/2011/10/08/gIQAvlwMWL_story.html

[fezzyfestoon]

Wow, that's drastically more than I thought we were doing. Thanks for telling me, I didn't expect that at all. It's very encouraging.

[patrick1]

It is really out of necessity.  Supplying so many soldiers in the field overseas is an expensive and can be a very dangerous proposition.  Basing soldiers in the US is cheaper because of supply chain factors. Iraq is stable-ish so there is really little need for large #'s of soldiers.  We also can always park a carrier group in the Gulf to keep Iran honest.

In Afghanistan I would think we will certainly keep some airbases and protection elements so that we can keep pressure on terrorist elements across the border in Pakistan.

[Wonkish1]

I want to see everything cut. Defense comes first for cuts though.

Well they are coming first. When no agreement comes out of the super committee automatic cuts are triggered which are shouldered almost completely by defense. And they are a very sizable chunk, more than anything the left has agreed to on any of their spending priorities combined.

But you can expect the ones that don't just ignore that all together to forget it the next day anyway. When more spending cuts need to occur not long after the automatic ones take effect we'll be back to "the military should get almost all of the cuts". Further, demonstrating that the left NEVER is willing to compromise.

[Wonkish1]

It is really out of necessity.  Supplying so many soldiers in the field overseas is an expensive and can be a very dangerous proposition.  Basing soldiers in the US is cheaper because of supply chain factors. Iraq is stable-ish so there is really little need for large #'s of soldiers.  We also can always park a carrier group in the Gulf to keep Iran honest.

In Afghanistan I would think we will certainly keep some airbases and protection elements so that we can keep pressure on terrorist elements across the border in Pakistan.

Long term permanent bases in other countries like in Japan and Germany really don't cost much more than domestic bases do. Furthermore, they offer benefits like allowing us to scramble jets in an emergency a lot faster and easier, refueling planes can be left there, and the big one-large military hospitals can be there cutting down on the time in the air for seriously wounded soldiers needing specialist treatment. If they decide to leave 10,000 soldiers in Iraq in a permanent installation it wouldn't really be any more costly than leaving soldiers in a permanent installation anywhere else.

Although it appears that the US government as of now is sticking to the idea that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Apples and oranges. Military spending is a short-term problem, entitlement spending (well, really healthcare spending, social security is pretty easy to fix and not really in very deep trouble anyway) is a long-term problem.

Is it though? It's been decades of military excess. Basically since Eisenhower warned of it, we've gobbled up money in the name of the military like it was going out of style. Only it hasn't, it's become more popular. Now we're basically stuck in a number of countries that I don't see a way out of. I'd sure like to see it be short-term, but when is it really going to change? Who is really going to change it?

Fezzy,

Just what percentage of the federal budget that you believe is spent on national defense?