This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul: "Hagel's 'Defense Cuts' Are Smoke & Mirrors"
Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,
Last week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel proposed an additional 40,000 reduction in active duty US Army personnel, down to 450,000 soldiers. As US troops are being withdrawn from the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it might make sense to reduce not only the active duty military but the entire military budget. However, from the interventionists’ reaction to Hagel’s announcement you might think President Obama announced he was shutting down the Pentagon!
Rep. Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, claimed that this slight reduction in personnel would hurt our military readiness. He blamed the exploding spending on welfare entitlements for the proposed military cuts, stating, "It's all being sacrificed ... on the altar of entitlements. This president cannot take on mandatory spending, so all we've done in the Congress -- and this president -- is basically cut discretionary spending."
McCaul is partly right. Welfare spending is bankrupting the country. But military spending is also welfare: it is welfare for the well-connected military-industrial complex, which enriches itself manufacturing useless boondoggles like the F-35 fighter. We should never confuse legitimate defense spending – which I support – with military spending, which promotes interventionism overseas and actually undermines our national security.
Neoconservative Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain were also quick to criticize Hagel’s announcement. They said the cuts were dead on arrival in the US Senate. "We are going to kill it, not let it happen,” said Graham. McCain added, "We live in an ever-increasingly dangerous world and this budget is out of touch with reality.”
What McCain and Graham won’t admit is that much of the reason we are in an increasingly-dangerous world is that the neocons keep inviting blowback with the interventions they are constantly pushing. If we minded our own business we would live in a far less dangerous world.
Nevertheless, although the neocons make a big deal about this small cut in military personnel, in reality these are not military cuts at all. These are token proposed cuts in troop levels which Congress won’t allow the administration to do anyway. What Hagel proposes is not cuts, but instead a shift in spending away from personnel and toward new high-tech weapons which are favored by and profitable to the military-industrial complex.
The F-35, for example, will continue in production according to Hagel’s plan, despite the numerous cost over-runs and design flaws. This is likely because the F-35 is built in 46 US states and nine foreign countries! That makes it particularly popular in Congress, regardless of its flaws and expense.
We do need real cuts in military spending, not just moving spending around from troops to new weapons systems. But what we really need is for the president to downsize US foreign policy. Maintaining a military presence in 140 countries while continuing to stir up trouble can lead to problems when the military is downsized. So, it's our intervention that needs downsizing.
A proper foreign policy would mean a strong national defense, but a huge reduction in interventions and commitments overseas. Why are we stirring up trouble in Ukraine? In Syria? In Africa? Why are we defending South Korea and Japan when they are wealthy enough to defend themselves? A proper sized foreign policy would defend the United States instead of provoking the rest of the world.
»
- 9236 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Ron Ron Ron. Please i like you. But spend your remaining days walking the earth for yourself, not a already decided plundering nation.
i gotta say i hope he doesnt take your advice. what he is doing now by educating people will prove far more important than anything he ever did while he was in office. He is reaching a growing audience of young people that are begining to wake up and see what is being done to them, and are starting to get pissed off rather than pissed on.
Let us hope and pray you're right.
Really clever things Mr. Paul says
"What Hagel proposes is not cuts, but instead a shift in spending away from personnel and toward new high-tech weapons"
Close but Not quite the full story. The US is using foriegn milita to fight its proxy wars. The US public is against putting American troops in harms way. So they hire foreigners to do the fighting. Rome did the same, only to later learn that the foriegners had their own interests,and used the resources provided by Rome to undermine Rome. It will be the same with the US.
Rome conscripted soldiers to lead those foreigners. The US is using SF soldiers to do the same thing.
I would say that Ron Paul has swerved into an obvious truth, and the government is just increasing the size of the theft.
Ultimately, we will have lots of overpriced toys, and no one to operate them.
I guess they can be used by DHS and FEMA to enforce Obama's martial law.
the obvious truth is that all of these people are the same, two wings of the same bird, and none of them will ever decrease the size of our empire willingly. they are all neocons and war hawks at heart. Its like watching john kerry testify about the folly of the vietnam war when it was his ass getting shot at, then a couple decades later, advocating yet another war in syria under similar circumstances now that its not him personally doing the fighting.
I LOVE RON PAUL AND WHAT HE STANDS FOR, BUT (AND NO OFFENSE TO HIM) A BUNCH OF AGING TEA PARTIERS IN THEIR SAGGY COTTON WHITIES WRITING ARTICLES AND WAVING FLAGS ISN'T GONNA INTIMIDATE ANYONE, LET ALONE THE POWERS THAT BE. THE THEFT WILL CONTINUE...
THE 60'S, THAT IS WHAT CREATED CHANGE, NOT IN ALL CASES THE PROPER CHANGE, BUT CHANGE NONE THE LESS...
THAT IS WHAT WE NEED RIGHT NOW....
If you say it more quietly, people might listen more carefully.
You want a younger Ron Paul?
i really hope you arent talking about rand..
The 60's psy-op was manufactured to show the soviets how free we were. Jazz, Pollack, Rock and Roll, all were individually financed by a CIA operative. They wanted to demonstrate and vibrant and free society, and a strong middle class, by the way; which they don't give ONE SHIT about anymore because it isn't useful in their completely insane world unification social darwinism techno holapocalypse.
Proof the 60's were awash in drugs.
There are multiple web sites with the same info about Laurel Canyon and the children of the elites and MIC.
http://www.mygen.com/Laurel_Canyon-David_McGowan_report.htm
Oddly when Adm Morrison started complianing about the USS Liberty - his son ended up dead in Paris but no one saw the body. He died in the zio part of Paris.
Before that the son was facing a felony charge in Miami Beach for supposedly exposing himself.
There was also a MIC and intel base at the top of Laurel Canyon.
Less than 1% of the population fought in the First American Revolution. They were mostly old land owners as well.
Another fool like rand eats shit.
What sort of soldier stood in the Continental Army? Historians have pieced together a composite portrait, using, among other evidence, muster rolls, and veterans' pension applications posted in the 1820s and 1830s.
Like many soldiers in America's conflicts, the common Continental was, on average, quite young. One historian found that in nine New Jersey towns nearly 75 percent of boys who were fifteen and sixteen at the onset of hostilities served in the army or the militia. Martin was fifteen when he enlisted, artilleryman Jeremiah Levering entered the service at twelve or thirteen, and hundreds more under the legal age of sixteen served in all services. Thousands more were under twenty.
I am an AMERICAN, and I aint through yet motherfucker. Come and get it
Is it a coincidence that my iPad Dictionary app's word-of-the-day for today is 'hoodwink'?
That just drips with convenience.
Replace teachers with computers. Replace soldiers with automated weapon systems. Can we also replace bureucrats and managers? Seems like fair is fair.
Replace traders with algos. Replace brains with Google glasses. Replace fish with cesium/strontium. Replace shrimp with Corexit9900A. Replace the Wanapum Dam with one that does not have a 65 foot crack in it (up steam of Hanford). Replace our politicians with humans.
Re: 65 foot crack in it
Pre-cracked dam? Reminds of the only concrete joke I know: (pause)
There's two kinds of concrete, cracked concrete... and concrete that's gonna crack.
(Thank you, thank you, great crowd....)
I know Wanapum very well. I sometimes fish Lower Crab Creek.
Your girls have crabs?
We had our chance and we blew it. The kings and queens will continue to reign. Just like medieval Europe. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush. And for a quick laugh, Obama. Oh my God.
Re: We had our chance and we blew it.
We blew-it at the end of WW2 when Big-Mic was never disbanded.
Oh well, guess the fascists (or neo-liberal/conservatives or whatever the modern name is) won.
That central-state planning sure does make really cool war toys tho.
Uhh, fuck you? I didn't blow a damn thing. I wasn't even alive in 1945.
F-35 = The Flying Homer
Don't worry mate we're on the hook for these lemmons to.It seems whenever the American military wants to get rid of surplus shit or flog the latest crap there good old conservative buddies in Oz will always oblige no problem no tendering process or illegal wars to fight hey yeah we'll cop it up the arse.
Ron Paul is nothing but one of them Liebrals who hates America, and the troops.
Pray God that is sarcasm...
Re: Pray God that is sarcasm...
Is it? He could go on any NPR program and talk about cutting the military and he'd fit right in.
O Reilly was beating the Big-MIC drum last night. Sayin' that the goddamn socialists want to defeat Merica by cutting the military budget and weakin' this great-n-glorious country, which is now so weak - because of Obama's military cuts - we can't stand-up to the Godless Commy Ruskies. What do you think O Reilly would say about Ron Paul.
(Nothing but a goddamn hippy who hates Merica, and the troops. That's what he say).
But cutting the military for what reason?
Cutting the military because we do not have to police the world is what Paul wants
Cutting the military while contiuning to police the world, making us vulnderable at home is what the liberals want.
There's a big difference.
It is really a blessing Ron Paul didn't win in 2012. As everyone on ZH knows, we are far past the 'point of no return' and he would have been blamed for our inevitable collapse.
Relevant, non-Kardashian news aggregated at www.TopTheNews.com #TellYourFriends
I have to agree with you there cutie.
'course, he did nothing during his tenure in Congress to reverse or slow down the collapse - so you can't give him absolution.
Very unfair comment. He did the best he could. He was one voice among a confederacy of dunces.
List what he accomplished in Congress that promoted the values he articulates. I'm not bashing him, and don't disagree that he did the best he could. Just stating facts. What's unfair about the truth?
[Edit: Peyton Manning did the best he could in the SB, and a lot of people think he's the best ever. Not much difference, really.]
Given that congress works by majority vote, how does any one member 'accomplish' anything?
By persuading members to vote your ideas. That's how you get to majority, Einstein. And that is precisely what Paul never did - he never persuaded the people who cast those votes of his ideas. That is just a fact, it's not an indictment of his ideas. For some reason you guys cannot seem to separate that I'm not attacking his ideas, just his effectiveness in mobilizing them within Congress. Show me the flaw of my argument, if you would.
-Upton Sinclair
Get it now?
No. Explain it. Please. Please explain the flaw in my assertion that Ron Paul did not effectively persuade his fellow Congressmen and women to vote/legislate in alignment with his ideas while he was in office. (Because if he did, you'd be parading around those victories and maybe the country would be in a different place.)
A plain English response would be helpful, rather than angling on cliches. I'll wait patiently while you cook something up.
Hey, maybe you haven't noticed but Dr. Paul did one thing that none of those goons would have never done, he asked the people what they actually wanted. He also brought up issues the other political hacks wouldn't touch because they were only out to get elected, and then you want to come here and hold him responsible for NOTHING CHANGING WHILE YOU SIT ON YOUR FUCKING ASS BITCHING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
The dude is already accomplished, he was in the military served got out and was a doctor and owned his own practice for years. He raised several children and they did not turn out that bad.
If you don't think Ron did enough, then prove it by doing more with your pathetic life. In my book Ron could retire and still be one of my role-models.
I'm not arguing that the guy has integrity. No need to make accusations about the worth of what I've accomplished - particularly since you have no idea what that is. Nice avoidance of the actual question, though.
Here is a plain English response. He failed to persuade his fellow Congressmen but he did educate and inspire a lot of people. Your assertion is not logically flawed but some see it as mean spirited though it was apparently not intended that way.
It wasn't mean spirited whatsoever. It's just a statement of fact. But the militant follower of Ron Paul do not seem to be able to discern the difference.
If I say Peyton Manning threw 2 interceptions, one run back for a touchdown, and the Broncos got shellacked by the Seahawks - am I slandering Manning or simply stating the truth? The issue my attackers in this thread have is actually NOT with my comments, but their own extension that somehow I'm claiming Ron Paul is not a good guy (the equivalent of reading that I said "Manning stinks" in the above).
There is no doubt that RP has some weaknesses. Executive leadership is one. Your point has validity. BUT IF HE TRIED AND DID HIS BEST HE IS NOT COMPLICIT
Agreed. I never said otherwise. I was only responding to RTM's original comment, which basically said "thank goodness the (pending) collapse didn't happen on Paul's watch." I just pointed out thatthe man was in Congress while the seeds of the collapse were growing. No statement about being complicit from me.
" so you cannot give him absolution"
1. It is criticism .
2. If he is not absolved of the crime he is by definition the opposite. Complicit.
Get it,? Words sctually have defined meanings. This is not Alice in Wonderland where you get to make up the meanings.
Face it dude. You fucked up. It is in black and white.
So returning to the question - what did Dr. Paul DO that advanced his cause? You can knock yerself out mincing words, but don't try to argue that Ron Paul actually accomplished something legislatively in Congress, or that he slowed anything down. Because he did not. I'm still waiting for the counter to that point.
But thanks for playing. You may think I f^d up, but I merely spoke truth that hasn't been refuted in this thread. Especially by you, Jethro.
FACT: we would not have gotten the limited FED audit that we got where we discovered that the FED doled out over $17 Trillion during the GFC if Congressman Paul had not been pushing for a full audit of the FED for years. He did not get his full audit, but what we got was better than nothing.
FACT: he educated millions to the possiblity that there is another way and that the NEOCON view is dead assed wrong.
FACT: he garnered more support from enlisted military than any other candidate EVER! Proving that there are some people in our military who believe in a restrained foreign policy.
FACT: he did all of this inspite of whithering fire from all of Washington DC, and abuse at the hands of assholes like Rudolph Guilliani.
Did he lose. Yes.
Did he fight. Yes.
Are the youth of America more educated because of his presence. HELL YES. He is a rock star among the millenial generation. (there is hope for America -- it is just 20 years out).
Why do you criticize this great man?
Have you done more to advance the causes that he stands for?
Where did I criticize him? (Waiting...)
Libertarians are so militantly in the tank for Ron Paul that they cannot deal with reality.
BTW, you made my point with each of your FACTs. All good things, but no accomplishments that derailed or slowed the direction of things. I'm not saying he could have, but get over yourself.
Dipshit, you said he did nothing while you are here talking about him, because he did enough to get everyone's attention. Are you seriously that damn daft?
Nothing changes over-night, but to garner change into a more positive direction amongst the populace is far more preferable to simply creating a rule in some book somewhere that in reality doesn't change society for the better.
You are part of the problem here junior.
Explain. What problem am I a part of, o wise one? I have not tipped my hand to anything, yet I am part of the problem simply because I point out that Ron Paul was ineffectual as a Congressman in advancing his ideas through Congress (hint: it's the last two words that matter to the point I'm making).
So what problem am I contributing to? What am I in the way of? I'm curious to see your powers of clairvoyance revealed. Because you have NO IDEA what I stand for or whether it even diverges from Ron Paul's beliefs. If you think you do, you have fooled yourself.
You said you cannot give him absolution. Sounds like criticism to me. You imply that he is complicit in the crime, which he certainly IS NOT. He tried. Period, end of story. Look at his voting record.
As for traction, well that is a different matter. Your point that he could not stop the freight train is correct.
I disagree with your conclusion that his actions did not help slow the trend. He gave birth to the Tea Party (I was at the first one) which was subsequently corrupted. He raised more money in one day than any other candidate in history.
Being in the tank for correct thought. I am guilty.
Examine what about him it is that you do not like. That is probably your own weakness too.
He was in Congress while the seeds of the collapse were growing. Is that a criticism or a fact...OR, perhaps you cannot discern the difference, Mr. Wallace?
Here is a list of bills he sponsored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul
Interesting reading.
kinda thought the same thing about romney too. to many in this country, he was viewed as being pro free market and anti govt intervention, which of course isnt true. I figured it was a good thing obama won again, becuase we are long past the event horizon on this one, and if there was someone who was veiwed by the masses as being against govt intervention, this would be all that was needed to corral the sheep with the idea that govt is the solution rather than the cause of all this. Now days, i do believe this will be held together for a few more years, which i didnt think would be the case a couple years ago. I think obama will be allowed to finish his second term without anything really big happening.
I just hope the SHTF before Obama moves on to million dollar speeches and lobbying cash.
$10 says someone will off the bastard once he's of no more use to them.
hmmmmm, perhaps we get him an invite to a wedding in Yemen........ see how the other half lives ya know
I am sorry my countrymen couldn't get past their fear and greed and elect this great man.
This subject will be a titled chapter in my book 20 years from now: "Hey Millennials: That Social Security Money Actually Went to Fund <Insert Dark Military Budget Here>"
Why give a free pass to Germany? How many trillions did we spent on a defending the Krauts? We also put American lives on the line for the Germans. Why?
What do Americans get in return for this: other than smug Germans with their superiority complex, indebted Europe to the German bankers and German manufacturers peddling their stuff all over the globe with US Armed forces protection for FREE. Do Germans rule America?
I thought it was dual-citizens Zionist types?
How much do we spend protecting Germans vs how much do we spend protecting Israel?
Re: What do Americans get in return for this
The people leaching off of Big-MIC for the last 60+ years got quite a bit.
The purpose of the government is to spend loot on cronies. The only crony-capitalist scam better than Big-MIC is Big-FIN.
Big-Pharm is way up there as well.
"Brother, can you spare a fighter jet?!"
we solicit illegal aliens and foreign Muslims to join our military
We ordered 50 billion worth of Ospreys a year or two ago.
Can I buy one of those surplus armored vehicles?
You'll be first in line after the rural police departments of the USSA equip their unnecessary SWAT teams with them.
If there's ever a pole shift with our electronic/gps dependent equipment our military becomes mere mortals over night.
I'm thinking about the old Roman Empire, with its far-flung outposts, and lots of uneeded legions.
How many overseas bases do we really need ? DeGaulle got all our "silver certificates" from overseas troops and cashed them in for gold, didn't he ? Why do we need bases in Japan, and Germany, and Korea ? All are pretty tough and ruthless characters. Let's let them bleed. Or, are our troops "hostages" ?
Re: F35 - useless toys for the AF "fighter jocks", who want to kill the A10, which is great for combat support. I don't get it.
How about all the bases state side with a bunch of people not doing shit?
Ron Paul is spot on!
Ron Paul with a bandana and a sharp stick is all the defense the US needs!
"it's our intervention that needs downsizing"
That is the best formulation for a realistic political and popular platform I have seen in a long time.
Look, the U.S. does not have a defense budget, it is ALL offense... even offensive... but hey, the military industrial complex loves the fiat the taxpayers give em! Putin calls the U.S. war mongering imperialists - accurate. Then old Horse Face Kerry criticises Putin for invading Crimea after the U.S. has obliterated the entire Middle East?!? I can't believe Putin has tolerated this crap this long - he's shown a great deal of restraint from where I'm sitting. If the missles start flying and mushrooms appear everywhere you can blame the U.S., not Russia... the U.S. drew first blood and continues to draw blood over and over and over.
Re: it is ALL offense
That's because of Merican football.
One of the greatest Mericans who ever walked the planet said: The best defense is a good offense.
He also said: Kick their ass and take their gas.
Why aren't American wearing togas??
Since WHEN did joining the Army and murdering people become a friggin "job"?
Ron Paul for Surpreme Dictator for Life!! Now!
So... same as it's always been then...
Can't they just toss another $800 billion in T-bills to the foreign chooks each year?
Ron, love ya mate, but what do you propose? re-build more F-15E, F-16 and FA-18E/F/Gs?
They have to go head-to-head with a fleet of Russian T-50s and the 6th-gen jet Russia has just announced it's busy working on, and a fleet of Chinese 5th-gen jets, that can probably match the F22, in a real-world combat environment, and effectively attrite or negate them.
If the F-35 is not produced I can guarantee you that within ten years the US's current allies will necessarily go and buy Russian or Chinese jets instead, and all that this implies, for US influence from there.
So we can all whine about the F-35 or we can build it, then block upgrade it as planned, and suck it up on cost.
Cancelling it will indeed dramatically reduce US and allied air power and the ability to dominate an air battle - absolutely it would do that.
Cancelling it is not such a wise move, when there is no other western options out there to replace the teen-series fighters and the F-22A is only designed and optimized to fill one specific role, max-range BVR manoeuvr-combat, at high altitude. It is entirely the wrong jet for battle interdiction and rear area high-value target strike.
I know this comment will attract a stack of red arrows, Ron, but I don't care about muppet opinions on this, as this really is the air-power quandary the west is facing.
You were a candidate once, so what would you have done in office, given the circumstance as given above?
Would you have appealed to populist sentiments or, would you have procured the F35A, B and C and also nailed LockMart's balls to the wall for overcharging, late-delivery, and gremlins that you require fixed at LM's cost? If you could issue an executive order about that, what would it include? ;-)
Maybe fight the FED is the better starting-point to remedy the core problem in DC and the neo-con evil-empire.