Bush Seeks 7% Boost in Military Spending

[achtungbaby]

The $402-billion plan covers weapons and antiterrorism programs. A separate request is expected for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Esther Schrader, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants to boost military spending by 7%, to nearly $402 billion, in fiscal 2005, the Pentagon said Friday.

That would take the defense budget to levels exceeding those at the height of the Cold War. The increase would help pay for a raft of costly weapons and programs bolstered by Washington's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
But the proposed budget does not include the costs of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which for two years have largely been funded through massive supplemental spending bills.

The administration is expected to make a request later in the year — most likely after the November presidential election — for an additional $50 billion or more to pay for those military operations.

The $401.7-billion request is in line with what the Pentagon a year ago projected it would seek as part of a long-range plan to boost military spending to $484 billion annually by 2009. It does not include defense programs funded by the Energy Department, expected to cost about $20 billion in 2005.

Although public support for the war on terrorism has been key to securing annual spending increases, defense analysts said, ongoing programs such as fighter jets, warships and missile defense also have reaped the benefits.

"When you listen to the rhetoric coming from the Pentagon, one might get the impression that all the increases in spending since 9/11 have been closely related to waging the war on terrorism. But clearly this has not been the case," said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan defense think tank in Washington.

The Pentagon is not expected to release a complete breakdown of the spending request until Friday, but said it included more money for intelligence, homeland defense and readiness and training.

Defense officials said privately that the budget will include increased spending on unmanned spy planes and robotic technologies considered the vanguard of fighting terrorists and other emerging threats. It will keep funds flowing to two new multibillion-dollar jet fighter programs and is expected to further increase spending on missile defense testing and deployment — a program that grew by more than $9 billion in 2003.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in a statement Friday that the budget reflects both the need to retrain troops and to provide the pay, benefits and other quality-of-life measures necessary to recruit and retain volunteers for both active and reserve forces.

The long deployments faced by reserve and National Guard troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised fears of a major exodus when enlistments are up.

"This budget builds upon past work to provide for a ready force made up of the talents and skills needed in our new national security environment," Rumsfeld said.

With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, lawmakers are likely to look favorably on the Pentagon's request. And in the Democratic presidential campaign, only Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio has talked of cutting the defense budget if elected.

Stephen Daggett, a defense analyst for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said the requested 2005 budget increase is about half of what is needed to keep up with inflation.

"The big news is that it doesn't include the supplemental appropriations for Iraq or any projection of what those costs will be in fiscal 2005," Daggett said.

The proposed budget is likely to reflect more money for forces and resources to fight the sort of prolonged conflict that has emerged in Iraq since the end of major combat operations in May, and less for a force to fight big, quick battles, military analysts said.

The Pentagon is "looking at an army that is built for marathons instead of sprints, that is built for handling stability operations that take years instead of fighting blitzkriegs," said Andrew F. Krepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

That means shifting soldiers away from war-waging specialties like heavy armor and artillery and into peacekeeping specialties like military policing, intelligence and civil affairs jobs.

It also means moving troops into smaller, more mobile units oriented to fighting demanding missions in the near term, instead of building a military geared toward fighting a large-scale war in another decade.

And while the armed service chiefs have been under pressure to increase the size of the military — most recently from more than two dozen House Democrats backing a bill to add 40,000 soldiers, 28,700 airmen and 15,000 Marines to the active-duty ranks — they are expected to continue to resist.

Military officials worry that the money that would be necessary to pay ballooning personnel costs would be bled from badly needed modernization programs.

In addition, a report by the Congressional Budget Office Friday warned that war and reconstruction costs in Iraq could soar if oil production there remains weak and Iraq doesn't win relief from the international community of its debt.

"Lower oil exports or oil prices and higher levels of debt service could mean that Iraq would need billions in additional assistance in the years to come," said the budget office, which is Congress' nonpartisan fiscal analyst.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-defense24jan24,1,4306122.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[Martino]

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants to boost military spending by 7%, to nearly $402 billion, in fiscal 2005, the Pentagon said Friday.

This is pretty much the shape of things to come. The US's future foreign policy is being defined by the hardware it's already developing and building - such as the twelve new San Antonio-class amphibious assault ships (so-called "expeditionary warships"), battlefield nukes and yet more sophisticated remote technology.

I wonder - will you soon see the introduction of mandatory national service too ... ?

[achtungbaby]

I wonder - will you soon see the introduction of mandatory national service too ... ?No, because this type of military muscle flexing is done by elitists who want to maintain what they have. White Americans won't stand for a national draft.

[Blue dice]

No, because this type of military muscle flexing is done by elitists who want to maintain what they have. White Americans won't stand for a national draft.
You know it will be unfeasible for the U.S. to ever fight a major war (ie. north korea) without a national draft. Just the Iraq conflict is draining reserves and active duty personnel at an astonishing rate. I know a LOT of national guardsman/reserves are leaving once their contract is up. Currently the U.S. military is built around a reliance on constant revolving deployment sized reserves.

[achtungbaby]

You know it will be unfeasible for the U.S. to ever fight a major war (ie. north korea) without a national draft. Just the Iraq conflict is draining reserves and active duty personnel at an astonishing rate. I know a LOT of national guardsman/reserves are leaving once their contract is up. Currently the U.S. military is built around a reliance on constant revolving deployment sized reserves.Well re: your example on North Korea -- that's precisely why the U.S. chooses to ignore the WMD standard it imposed on Iraq with North Korea...because it's a fight that there's a reasonable chance they might not win; hence, they'll avoid the conflict.

We went into Afghanistan with a certain amount of apprehension because we wanted bin Laden no matter what. We went into Iraq because we knew we'd clean house.

[Martino]

National service isn't quite the same as a draft during time of war - notionally, it's compulsory service in the military during peacetime (America isn't officially at war at the moment), usually as a means of giving a basic levels of training to potential personell. You do your two years then you're out. Handy if you're expecting a decade of protracted localised conflicts, either as part of a war on terror (Syria and Iran?) or to secure America's interests overseas (Venezuala?).

[achtungbaby]

National service isn't quite the same as a draft during time of war - notionally, it's compulsory service in the military during peacetime (America isn't officially at war at the moment), usually as a means of giving a basic levels of training to potential personell. You do your two years then you're out. Handy if you're expecting a decade of protracted localised conflicts, either as part of a war on terror (Syria and Iran?) or to secure America's interests overseas (Venezuala?).Ohhh...my bad. I assumed you were referring to the draft, because I believe Clinton ressurected JFK's national service program some years back, only young people didn't have to serve in the military, they could do other community service activities.

I honestly haven't thought too much about dwindling U.S. resources too much. In retrospect, I know it was an issue in our past two conflicts, but I sorta cynically presumed that we'd never get into a fight we didn't think we could already win.

We have fancy guns :biggrin:

[Martino]

I honestly haven't thought too much about dwindling U.S. resources too much. In retrospect, I know it was an issue in our past two conflicts, but I sorta cynically presumed that we'd never get into a fight we didn't think we could already win.

We have fancy guns :biggrin:

The capabilities of the San Antonio-class ships, including the new USS New Orleans and the USS New York (why do I feel this is a Star Trek thread?!?) are very fancy indeed ....

[Emperor_Mike]

Like most people the biggest question on my mind is not what the United States military can do with these additional resources, but rather who is going to pay for it and how this is going to be accomplished. It doesn't take a genius to realise that all of this has to come from somewhere and although it may seem blatantly obvious how additional revenues can be raised, what is not so obvious are the long term economic impacts of pursuing foreign adventures that, at this juncture, do not seem to have an end in sight. Even the mightiest of nations will eventually run out of manpower and resources when confronted with the prospect of pursuing a (for all intents and purposes at this point) never-ending "war." I don't think Washington has given any thought to the long term ramifications. They're all operating in present time without any consideration for the future.

[Martino]

Like most people the biggest question on my mind is not what the United States military can do with these additional resources, but rather who is going to pay for it and how this is going to be accomplished. It doesn't take a genius to realise that all of this has to come from somewhere and although it may seem blatantly obvious how additional revenues can be raised, what is not so obvious are the long term economic impacts of pursuing foreign adventures that, at this juncture, do not seem to have an end in sight. Even the mightiest of nations will eventually run out of manpower and resources when confronted with the prospect of pursuing a (for all intents and purposes at this point) never-ending "war." I don't think Washington has given any thought to the long term ramifications. They're all operating in present time without any consideration for the future.

War is a useful tool of state. Ask the Romans.

[Emperor_Mike]

War is a useful tool of state. Ask the Romans.

Tools cost money and perpetual conflict brings not only misery but also drains a nation. The only parties that benefit from this arrangement are the defence corporations. Simply put, the Bush Administration is the most self serving the US has had in a long time. The only consolation present is that even the wealthiest will die and if you believe in the afterlife and judgement by God, people who thrive on the misery and misfortune of others will get their just desserts.

[pfc beansprout]

War is a useful tool of state. Ask the Romans.



....ahhh....bet hence, didn't the mighty roman empire eventually fall? :rolleyes:

[mr. x]

....ahhh....bet hence, didn't the mighty roman empire eventually fall? :rolleyes:

ah, but the romans didnt have the internet! this is not a one liner

[Martino]

Tools cost money and perpetual conflict brings not only misery but also drains a nation. The only parties that benefit from this arrangement are the defence corporations. Simply put, the Bush Administration is the most self serving the US has had in a long time. The only consolation present is that even the wealthiest will die and if you believe in the afterlife and judgement by God, people who thrive on the misery and misfortune of others will get their just desserts.

Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam The sinews of war, unlimited money*.

The US is the wealthiest democratic state on the planet, but the US government has long been controlled, or, if you prefer, influenced, by special lobbies and interest groups that exist outside of the political arena, that you can't vote in or out of power. At the moment that's the oil companies, the tobacco industry, the arms industry. Perpetual conflict might make the people miserable, but it stiffens the sinews of the nation as a whole. Fat contracts, vested interests, secret agendas. That's capitalism with a capital C.

*Cicero, prolific Roman letter writer**.

**I'm doing a part-time degree in the Humanities - currently studying Roman morality.

[Emperor_Mike]

Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam The sinews of war, unlimited money*.

The US is the wealthiest democratic state on the planet, but the US government has long been controlled, or, if you prefer, influenced, by special lobbies and interest groups that exist outside of the political arena, that you can't vote in or out of power. At the moment that's the oil companies, the tobacco industry, the arms industry. Perpetual conflict might make the people miserable, but it stiffens the sinews of the nation as a whole. Fat contracts, vested interests, secret agendas. That's capitalism with a capital C.

*Cicero, prolific Roman letter writer**.

**I'm doing a part-time degree in the Humanities - currently studying Roman morality.

Unlimited money does not equal unlimited manpower. You can't fight a war without soldiers and all the special interest groups in the world cannot influence public opinion in a democratic nation. I believe that Cicero's quote is applicable only when the state is anything but democratic.

[Martino]

Unlimited money does not equal unlimited manpower.

Um. That's a 2000 year old quote, but it still holds true. Rome would have faced the same problems as America today, more so in fact considering its smaller populations and higher mortality rates. But the world's superpower at that time was essentially a state of war, not a state at war. Endless campaigns into Asia, into Europe, into Africa. The Roman Empire still endured for centuries.

You can't fight a war without soldiers

Is it likely that tens of thousands of young Americans will not fight for their country at any one time, given the chance? If anything, you currently have an excess of nationalism right now.

and all the special interest groups in the world cannot influence public opinion in a democratic nation.

So the US government holds a public referendum every time it makes a major policy decision? When the US government recognised Israel as a political entity, it did so on the strength of pressure from the Jewish voting lobby. Prior to that, was the creation of an Israeli state ever put to the people? Was it even on the party manifesto at the preceding Presidential election? No.

A policy decision, with far reaching consequences, was taken 'outside' of the realm of democratic decision making. Public opinion was massaged, not gauged.

The special interest groups, the potential voters, backers, sponsors of the next administration always have a strong influence on the current administration. Unless you are saying Joe Public voted on America invading Grenada, or sending covert ops to Central and South America, or imposing crippling trade tariffs against Thailand, or spending billions of US tax dollars on proping up Israel? Public opinion? Most Americans haven't a clue what's going on in the wider world.

I believe that Cicero's quote is applicable only when the state is anything but democratic.

What has democracy got to do with it, really? As the United States of America currently stands, the state does what it wants then argues the rights and wrongs of the matter long afterwards. Your current President didn't even get into power on the votes of the people, he was elected by the judges.

At the end of the day, the US has a vast war machine, and is hurriedly building even more warships, developing new fighter planes, developing bunker-busting focal nuclear weapons ... in short, you are preparing for a very large conventional war.

[Emperor_Mike]

Um. That's a 2000 year old quote, but it still holds true. Rome would have faced the same problems as America today, more so in fact considering its smaller populations and higher mortality rates. But the world's superpower at that time was essentially a state of war, not a state at war. Endless campaigns into Asia, into Europe, into Africa. The Roman Empire still endured for centuries.

You cannot compare military logistics of the past with those employed now by a modern state. The amount of resources that need to be mobilised in order to pursue a war in the 21st (or even the 20th) century is massive compared to the campaigns of the Roman Empire. Coupled with the fact that Roman campaigns were more often than not directed against relatively disorganised populations and modern war deals with strategic and tactical considerations vastly more complex, it would be erroneous to compare the military ability of Rome with the United States and vice versa. Rome also employed large numbers of auxiliary troops to augment their legions and I would imagine that the nations of today would be hard pressed to follow such a course of action.


Is it likely that tens of thousands of young Americans will not fight for their country at any one time, given the chance? If anything, you currently have an excess of nationalism right now.

You over-estimate the enthusiasm of the American public for war. We're not dealing with the brand of early 20th century jingoism that greeted the guns of August. Even the fierce nationalist fervour that surfaced during the opening campaigns of the Great War eventually dwindled and largely evaporated as the people back home realised that they were essentially fighting a war of attrition. If the current status of affairs in Iraq continues as it is, I would imagine that the American public would get sick of the whole issue when the bodies begin to pile up. Nationalism and enthusiasm for armed conflict dies with each soldier that leaves this mortal coil.



So the US government holds a public referendum every time it makes a major policy decision? When the US government recognised Israel as a political entity, it did so on the strength of pressure from the Jewish voting lobby. Prior to that, was the creation of an Israeli state ever put to the people? Was it even on the party manifesto at the preceding Presidential election? No.

A policy decision, with far reaching consequences, was taken 'outside' of the realm of democratic decision making. Public opinion was massaged, not gauged.

The special interest groups, the potential voters, backers, sponsors of the next administration always have a strong influence on the current administration. Unless you are saying Joe Public voted on America invading Grenada, or sending covert ops to Central and South America, or imposing crippling trade tariffs against Thailand, or spending billions of US tax dollars on proping up Israel? Public opinion? Most Americans haven't a clue what's going on in the wider world.

Public opinion on matters such as conflict where the decisions made by the government directly and adversely affect the lives of the people will always be of sufficient interest to the public. You needn't look further than the Vietnam War and the demonstrations that were held in protest of the conflict. A mother may not care about the government slapping tariffs on Thailand, but I would think that matters concerning the deployment of her son to fight at some distant locale will seize her attention and arouse her determination to demand her child's return should things abroad go awry. You examine the trivial (in this discussion) matters of statecraft while ignoring the real underlying issues of public opinion, government action in a state of war, and the repercussions that entail.



What has democracy got to do with it, really? As the United States of America currently stands, the state does what it wants then argues the rights and wrongs of the matter long afterwards. Your current President didn't even get into power on the votes of the people, he was elected by the judges.

At the end of the day, the US has a vast war machine, and is hurriedly building even more warships, developing new fighter planes, developing bunker-busting focal nuclear weapons ... in short, you are preparing for a very large conventional war.

Democracy has everything to do with it. You do not require a degree to know that the less say people have regarding your actions, the more you can accomplish.

Incidentally, George W. Bush is not my President. I'm Canadian, but I digress.

I don't think that it would be prudent to draw the conclusion that the United States is preparing for mass, prolonged conventional war by way of its current plans to revitalise the armed forces. We simply haven't enough facts to based that supposition upon and it wouldn't be wise to use that in an argument at any rate. I don't feel that we are qualified enough to make any definitive statements on this matter.

[Proxy]

7% boost is too low, He should increase the budget by at least 10%. The Airforce needs the new squadron of F-22's to be commissioned and I need a raise. :biggrin:

[Martino]

You cannot compare military logistics of the past with those employed now by a modern state ...

Tsk! I feel like you're slighting the accomplishments of Roman civilisation. You can easily compare America and Rome one for one. Basically you are just saying that pre-industrialisation means unsophistication. Roman campaigns were highly complicated logistical nightmares - yet they were meticulously planned, financed and orchestrated without the aide of computers or instant communications, most campaigns being fought over the course of years; Roman armies had to sail or be marched hundreds of miles before even seeing their enemy, all the while having to be fed and sheltered - no trucks or helicopters providing easy supply lines, no refridgeration - and most importantly, little chance of reinforcements if needed. Rome coped very well with large scale problems. Nor were her enemies the pussycats you make them out to be ...

The comparison between the US and Rome, as you well know, is that both have/had it within their means to fight a succession of wars almost in rotation without an adverse effect on the state itself.

You over-estimate the enthusiasm of the American public for war. We're not dealing with the brand of early 20th century jingoism that greeted the guns of August.

Sorry, but when did anyone have an enthusiasm for war? But has there ever been an instance when government consulted the people first?

Even the fierce nationalist fervour that surfaced during the opening campaigns of the Great War eventually dwindled and largely evaporated as the people back home realised that they were essentially fighting a war of attrition.

The war didn't stop when the fervour died out, did it? It went on to the bitter end. The people had no influence the course of war, just as they had no influence over the circumstances of its start or finish.

If the current status of affairs in Iraq continues as it is, I would imagine that the American public would get sick of the whole issue when the bodies begin to pile up.

You mean like in Vietnam? Except people getting sick of Vietnam didn't stop America going to war again. Again, no consultation with the people.

Nationalism and enthusiasm for armed conflict dies with each soldier that leaves this mortal coil.

Depends whether the people, military and civilian, actually believe in the cause the soldier dies for, but there's always another war.

Public opinion on matters such as conflict where the decisions made by the government directly and adversely affect the lives of the people will always be of sufficient interest to the public. You needn't look further than the Vietnam War and the demonstrations that were held in protest of the conflict.

Again, I repeat: Vietnam didn't stop the US going to war again. And at what point was it decided that Vietnam was unwinnable? The protests were always there ... did the protests stop the war?

A mother may not care about the government slapping tariffs on Thailand, but I would think that matters concerning the deployment of her son to fight at some distant locale will seize her attention and arouse her determination to demand her child's return should things abroad go awry.

And what is this mother doing? And at what point would she decide things have gone awry? What would her idea of awry be?

You examine the trivial (in this discussion) matters of statecraft while ignoring the real underlying issues of public opinion, government action in a state of war, and the repercussions that entail.

There is nothing trivial about statecraft. If you don't realise that, you're not watching our rulers close enough.

1. Show me an instance where public opinion has averted a US instigated conflict please.
2.Tell me why memories of Vietnam didn't avert Iraq or what these new repercussions are going to be.
3.Tell me why there wont be another "Iraq" after this current Iraq, and why.