our defense budget hit a postwar high of 14.2% of GDP in 1953 during the Korean War. At the height of Vietnam in 1968, it was 9.5%, and it was 6.8% in 1986 at the height of the Reagan buildup. In 2000, military funding reached the lowest point on 3.0%. Today, 10 years into the Global War on Terror, we are spending 4.7% of GDP on defense.
First, I'd like to see where the American Thinker got its numbers since that's significantly different than the numbers I saw. Not saying its wrong, I'd just generally like to see where information is sourced from magazines that have definitive leans (be it conservative or liberal). I'd say the same thing from something posted on the Huffington Post.
Second, even if we assume their numbers are correct (and I do appreciate you providing some, don't get me wrong), it still doesn't show that apstd's comment was factually correct as 4.7 is hardly half of 1986's totals, which were higher than 1990's totals, which would be the start of his "Two decades" comment. What it was in 1953 is irrelevant to his comment about over the past "two decades".
you are mistaking "money" for "combat power".
No, I'm equating money given to our armed forces as the measure for "our armed forces". Again, he did not state "Our armed forces combat power". He stated our armed forces...Period. If I say the Washington Redskins have good talent, that'd be entirely different and with a different answer then if I said The washington Redskins starting secondary has good talent. Stating "our armed forces" has been cut is different then saying the "combat power of our armed forces" or "the active duty members of our armed forces" have been cut. One is a broadscale comment, the other is identifying a specific. It was not until his second post on the matter that he attempted to go itn othe specific.
remember that DOD provides healthcare to millions of people; and it has eaten those increased costs as they have skyrocketed.
This is true, however you'd this this would be somewhat offset by the reduced number of troops with more focus on contractors and equipment/technology during that same time span.
also, during that time period, congress mandated continuous pay raises for military personnel in order to bring their paychecks closer to their civilian equivalents. that was a welcome change, but that money did have to come out of the DOD budget. in addition, the wars came with their own dramatically increased costs that did not represent any kind of actual military buildup.
The cost of the wars themselves however could also be reason for some of the levels early in the decade as opposed to now. Additionally, congress didn't magically mandate that out of the goodness of their heart, that decision was pushed by pro-military lobby groups. Much like conservatives have issues with upping and upping the minimum wage costing jobs, you can't demand that the military get paid more, then complain that we're not just throwing tons more money at them to keep people from losing jobs.
But, once again, this all goes back to the fact that his original comment talked about cutting the armed forces in general, not any specific aspect of it.
to put it in the terms that he was discussing (actual ability to project force): in 1990, the Army had 18 Divisions. Now it has 10. The Navy had 600 ships. Now they have 280, making our current fleet the smallest it has been since WWI; and most of those are older, many have cracks running up and down the lengths of their hulls. The number of tactical Air Wings that the Air Force can muster has fallen from 37 to 20 (and that with fewer planes per wing), and (again) many of the planes are older. The new top air craft coming to replace them (the F-22) has been cut. The useful life of the equipment from the Reagan Buildup is ending, and we have apparently decided not to purchase replacements.
All of which is definitely a problem. However, as a conservative...and based on conservative principles...the notion that the solution to that problem is throw more money at it is preposterous. The military is as much a beuracracy and a part of government as anything else. There are political actions, not strategic actions, that are definitely taking place with it. There is definite, waste, redundency, and misuse going on. There are undoubtably sacred cows and ineffecient things that are antiquated and unneeded. And it would appear based on everything you're saying there are some serious issues regarding what should be important and what is being focused upon.
In
any other part of government, or even private business, a conservative would rail against the notion of just throw money at it and fix it. Rail against the notion that there isn't possible ways to significantly cut while not hindering but actually improving a bad situation. Would balk at the notion that something in government couldn't likely sustain a 1/3rd cut over a 10 year period. Find me one other part of government where most conservatives based on conservative principles would say that. And yet somehow...its impossible for the military to do that? Its a sacred cow to some who have taken a short span of conservative ideological times and applied that as a broad and over arching conservative principle that for some reason overrules all others while ignoring the context, reasons, and theory behind why it happened when it happened.