I was watching CSPAN yesterday afternoon where (I believe it was) the Senate Armed Services Committee were discussing military spending. The proposed cap from Congress is around $450B; the SASC has said that figure undercuts what our military needs by half. They also stressed they don't want a blank check, but rather that military spending including spending for our intelligence agencies should be paired with "the threats to our national security" and that spending should be linked to that. In short, the threats of today aren't the same threats from 20-30 years ago. So, if we're to close a base or airfield overseas it had better be because it really is no longer needed because the new threat isn't say in Europe or Russia, but rather it's in the Middle-East.
The way I see it, our military may still attempt to establish bases in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia, as well as maintain a close "partnership" with Eygpt. Frankly, I think we'd be foolish to give up our military presence in Iraq or Afghanistan as long as Iran and Pakistan remain threats (or at the very least "problematic".)
There's something else we should all continue to consider: DARPA is our military think tank. I would imagine tons of tax money is purposely funneled to this agency as so it should be. After all, that's were our steulth concepts originated from. Moreover, we started shifting from needing a "large military footprint" as far as our ground forces are concerned years ago. The shift in military strength (if folks haven't caught on to this by now they haven't been paying attention) is "smart-technology", i.e., laser guided missile defense, satelite communications/imagry (GPS), thinner but tougher body armor, steulth technology, etc., etc....the list goes on and on. The idea being smaller body count, fast moving, lethology, and again steulth. Why do you think China has been calling foul lately claiming that America spends too much money on our military?
I agree that we waste alot of money in defense; however, I wouldn't be too quick to stripe military spending too bare boned. Our military has changed alot since Vietnam and it will go through many more changes in the wake of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a given we will loose troop stength. Our servicemen and women are tired of being at war for nearly a decade and being forward deployed 3, 4, 5 times. I even heard a member of the SASC mention that one of them knew of a soilder who had been on his 9th deployment. Our troops are dedicated, but they're tired. Smaller, faster, more lethol and steulthier is the direction our military is going. Making such a drastic shift will cost money especially since the days of the draft are very likely far behind us maybe never to return unless another world war ensues.
Now, back to the debt ceiling...
I'm convinced a deal will get done today. It will be larger spending cuts than either party has proposed with no tax increases (revenue raisers) and no entitlement reforms. However, such a deal will be contingent on:
1) pushing the next debt limit increase out to 2013
2) allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthing to expire in 2013 coupled with closing tax loopholes
3) reforming Social Security and Medicare in the near future (likely after 2013 as well)
4) getting the jobs bill and the bill on patents out of the House and putting people back to work.
5) (maybe) a balanced budget amendment OR returning to the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985 but this time enacting real caps on entitlements
If I've listened to the "code speak" over the weekend correctly, I think the current proposal will include around $3T in spending cuts which will be split into 2-parts, and as I said above, no new taxes. That should be enough to alteast get us through this impass. What happens after that is a whole different story.
Sidenote: I provided an incomplete statement in the
thread (my post #36). What I meant to say was:
You won't get the reforms you belief are necessary in entitlements within the next four days. Not gonna happen. Either we take the best parts of both bills and combine them into one, or both parties will force the President to choose between facing a Constitutional inquiry which the nation will only see as a total capitulation by Congress' failure to do their duty and uphold their consititutional oath to protect the "full faith and credit of the United States" OR he will veto a short-term extension and the country will go into default.