Obama administration asks for 10% military budget cut

[pawnman]

Unfortunately most of the people I've discussed this topic with are convinced that China is our friend and they have no ambitions of facing off with the US.

1st part, no, 2nd part yes. I think they're doing a fine job of taking over our spot as number 1 through economics, and I don't think they'll start a shooting war that will cripple foreign investment there for years to come.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I don't think they'll start a shooting war that will cripple foreign investment there for years to come.

There's an example of what I was talking about right there...

[ClearedHot]

There's an example of what I was talking about right there...

Concur...

“Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.”

– Deng Xiaoping

“. . . resolutely and effectively carry out the sacred duty of defending national sovereignty, unification, territorial integrity, and security . . .”

– President Hu Jintao

Edited March 4, 2009 by ClearedHot

[JS]

..... I don't think they'll start a shooting war that will cripple foreign investment there for years to come.

Sounds a lot like how the world looked in 1939.

Germany exported about 15-18% of its GDP before the NSDAP took over. Today German trade makes up about about 30% of it's GDP.

With regards to Japan/US trade leading up to WWII:

"the United States was Japan's largest trading partner with a share of 29 percent of all Japanese foreign trade.

As Japan's industry expanded, U.S. companies formed joint ventures there to manufacture goods under U.S. licenses. Western Electric (1899) and General Electric (1905, 1908) were pioneers, followed in 1917 by the rubber company Goodrich. Ford (1925) and General Motors (1927) set up factories in Japan. Other U.S. firms, such as Columbia (1927), United Steel and Signal (1928), RCA (1929), and Otis Elevator (1932), followed suit.

Japanese firms continued to form branches and subsidiaries in the United States to support Japan's trade with America. By the early 1930's, Yokohama Specie Bank alone financed more than 50 percent of Japan's purchases in the United States. Japanese ships transported 73 percent of its imports from and 63 percent of its imports to the United States."

Chinese/US trade in 2007 was a paltry $386B (about 12% of the Chinese economy of $3.2T, depending on the source) compared to the amount of trading that was being done with Germany & Japan before WWII.

I too used to think that the "global economy" and the fact that our economies are so inextricably linked together would prevent all future wars. But the reality is that you can't put anything past human beings - we would much rather destroy trillions in global wealth and slaughter hundreds of millions of lives (in 1945 numbers - God only knows what the next world war will look like) than continue trading with one another peacefully.

An old college professor who grew up in Europe before the war summed it up pretty well. He basically said that war and the world back then was viewed much the way we view nuclear war today - that it would be too destructive to be possible; the end of the world as we know it. Plus the global players - Germany, Japan, France, England, Russia, US - are too advanced, civilised, and trade too much with each other to ever engage in a global war.

In some ways, it seems that the world today looks a lot like he described it in 1939.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Why the hell would China export so many goods and buy up trillions in bonds from a country they want to destroy? ...

...not because they want to rule the world like some kind of cartoonish supervillian country.

You guys are going to have to do better than a chopped-up quote on that one.

I never said China wants to destroy the US. But defeat it in a regional conflict and send us home as the runner-ups, sure. I know they have ambitions of being the next super power and economic powerhouse, and handing the US it's arse in a regional conflict over Taiwan or some other spat will serve to blunt US military power while we're being served by them economically as well.

As for the last quote...I chopped yours up twice. Hope you enjoy.

[ClearedHot]

Why the hell would China export so many goods and buy up trillions in bonds from a country they want to destroy? That's like robbing a neighbor who generates half of your business, and also owes you a ton of money. Do you honestly think China is that completely stupid and incompetent? China is making a power grab because they want to be a superpower and economic powerhouse, not because they want to rule the world like some kind of cartoonish supervillian country.

You guys are going to have to do better than a chopped-up quote on that one.

Do you even read what is posted? Who said China wants to conquer or destroy the U.S.? Choke yourself.

The "chopped up quote" talks about their strategy....not a desire to rule the world.

Maybe they would by up trillions in bonds to secure a position of advantage...

The mistake of simple minds is to apply western values and ideology to every adversary we face. In the case of China it is not about world domination, it is to an extend about influence but more importantly the way they view their sovereignty. If you actually take the time to read the source of these "chopped up" quotes you might find a rational that makes sense from their perspective. The Taiwan question is not even a question in their mind and they are incredulous that it is a question in our mind. Try viewing Taiwan from their perspective in the following example...

As Americans how would we feel if a group tried to over throw our government through an armed rebellion? They waged a war across the western states but we prevailed and they retreated to California. Somehow they were able to leave California and make it to Hawaii where they consolidated their position. After the fight we did not have enough Schlitz left to take Hawaii back...it will take time for us to build a Navy strong enough to do so. Suddenly China pops up and says they support and will DEFEND the island of Hawaii against the folks on the U.S. mainland...

Would their be any question in ours minds about the status of Hawaii? Hawaii is a U.S. state....sovereign territory of the United States of America and we would do whatever we could, whenever we could to get it back.

That is how the Chinese view Taiwan.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Sounds a lot like how the world looked in 1939.

Personally, I feel the world is more like the early- to mid-1930s. The US (and much of the world) was in a global economic depression. The victors of WW I were declining militarily and slipping behind. Germany and Japan were both written off as not having any reason or capability of being a world power. Both those countries rapidly developed governments that turned increasingly hostile and radical towards the world, and the rest of the world allowed it to happen because no one thought they amounted to anything worth worrying about.

The early 1930s is a good time frame to study, because just like then, people today are saying "there's no REAL threats out there...I mean, Iran, North Korea, China...none of those countries have the means and/or motive to start a major war". Substitute Iran, N. Korea, China or Russia with Japan and Germany and the political, economic and military climates are about the same. All four of the current nations I mentioned are rapidly trying to expand and modernize their militaries and/or becoming increasingly bellicose. All of the allied nations are rapidly ramping down defense spending and focusing on internal domestic needs, and electing governments that are increasingly dovish towards the four nations I mentioned. It's 1936 all over again.

[brickhistory]

"Ah, Mr. USA, the People's Republic of China has decided that we want full possession and political domination of that little island you call Taiwan.

"Umm, without meaning to cause offense, we fully expect you to stand by and do nothing while we play through.

"Oh, and those specks called the Spratleys? Yeah, we're taking those too...

"Really?! You object? Well, that's nice, but if that's how you feel, we'll need to call in our loans. Yeah, all of them. Now, please."

That is a very realistic scenario and besides the military realignment in the region, no other "ally" in the world would stick with us. You'd see dust from the stampede to buddy up to the new boss man.

We'd be (are becoming) the Britain of the 21st century.

To the British baseop'ers, that's not meant as a slam. Technology just speeds up the political merry-go-round.

Rome was king for what, 1,000 years?

Spain for 3-400?

Britain for 200?

The US for 50-75?

China is probably due...

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Rome was king for what, 1,000 years?

Spain for 3-400?

Britain for 200?

The US for 50-75?

China is probably due...

Today's history lesson......

I agree with you brick.

[JS]

Personally, I feel the world is more like the early- to mid-1930s. ....... It's 1936 all over again.

Agreed. That is what I meant to say.

Along those lines, there is also the issue of civil unrest due to the global recession, soon-to-be depression, if the Obama administration keeps up the good work. Similar economic circumstances of course contributed to the Beer Hall Putsch, The Bolshevik Revolution, and the Great Leap Forward; these events ultimately cost hundreds of millions of lives.

The Economist had a good spread a few weeks ago about the growing "bourgeoisie" of the world. Long story short, nearly 20% of the worlds population rose out of poverty and into the middle class in the past decade. That is like 1.3B people!!! Obviously, most of that progression took place in third world or developing nations like India, China, etc. Once those billions taste middle class lifestyles, they are not going to be too happy going back if that is what this economic climate calls for (which it already is). The Chinese may be able to wait it out a year or two and spend some of that cash they hoarded, but if this really does turn into a decade-long depression, we have a lot more to be fearful of than losing our access to cheap Chinese rubber dog shit and inexpensive flat-panel TV's.

[slacker]

No way does China seek international dominance....Oh, wait. Nevermind.

China to Increase Defense Spending by 15%

[brickhistory]

From the article:

The 14.9 per cent rise to 480.7 billion yuan (£50 billion), up 62.5 billion yuan from 2008, was announced in advance of the annual meeting of the rubber-stamp parliament, the National People's Congress.

It is slightly smaller than the increase in recent years, suggesting that the government is focusing its spending on boosting the wider economy.

But after rises of 17.8 per cent in 2007 and 17.6 per cent in 2008, it still amounts to a rise of more than half since 2006.

Remain calm, all is well.

183-ish (Ok, less due to depot, testing, replacements, etc) Raptors can handle hordes o' Commies, right?

Besides, we've got the oldest -C model Eagles (did anyway) at Kadena to ride to the rescue as well.

What could go wrong?

[slacker]

Also from the article-

In addition, the United States claims that real spending is significantly higher, as many costs, including major arms purchases, are kept off the officially announced budget.

So China has probably increased spending in the last 3 years greater than 50%, but they only want Taiwan.

[TreeA10]

In the whole planning process of who might to what to who, a lot of people focus on intentions versus capabilities. Someone mentioned the 1930's and we thought Japan's intention's did not include at attack on the U.S but they certainly had the capability. We paid a big price for that bit of myopia. However, in China's case, their intentions are to reclaim Taiwan. Capabilities? They're working on it.

[papajuice77]

In the whole planning process of who might to what to who, a lot of people focus on intentions versus capabilities. Someone mentioned the 1930's and we thought Japan's intention's did not include at attack on the U.S but they certainly had the capability. We paid a big price for that bit of myopia. However, in China's case, their intentions are to reclaim Taiwan. Capabilities? They're working on it.

Don't be so sure they don't have the capabilities or motivation for that matter. https://www.tamus.edu/systemwide/05/09/research/china.html

"Governments have also used extra males in the development of unexplored territories and encouraged them to migrate to other countries. To more extreme ends, some governments facing similar dilemmas have ignored in-group violence and even encouraged divisions among excess males, leading to increased violence and self-destruction, he explains.

Even more disturbing, China might be tempted to send its excess manpower to invade another country, possibly Taiwan, Poston says, noting that Portugal sent its extra males off to wars in North Africa. China, he says, is already co-opting young and poor unmarried males into the People's Liberation Army and into the paramilitary People's Armed Police. In the next few decades there will be many millions more such males available for these kinds of activities, he adds."

The Chinese don't need that carrier they are building, or all those J-10s. They'll be able to build a bridge of people to Taiwan. Overpopulation could be impetus enough for China to become quite the conflagration - throw in the global economic collapse (which, mind you is reported as being even worse overseas than it has been here) and you have a region ripe for war of one kind of another.

Before WWII started, millions of people across the globe thought that worldwide conflict would be impossible - we were too closely tied economically and weapons of war had become far too powerful to actually use. Ironically, this was the same attitude that permeated societies before WWI, the Russo-Japanese war, the Austria-Prussian War of the 1870s and even our own Revolution. I am not saying that battle with China or any struggling nation is inevitable, but given the challenges that our and other nations face, and the naturally emotional and irrational behavior of large groups of troubled people, it is certainly overwhelmingly arrogant of us to dismiss the idea as preposterous. Now more than ever, we should be extremely wary of our ability to defend ourselves and our assets.

Remember, that no matter how "interdependent" the talking craniums on TV say the global community is, when push comes to shove, the big dog has to eat. In time, the only question may be, who is the biggest dog on the block? And I sure as hell hope he's on my side.

[Guest Simone'sDaddy]

From the article:

Remain calm, all is well.

183-ish (Ok, less due to depot, testing, replacements, etc) Raptors can handle hordes o' Commies, right?

Besides, we've got the oldest -C model Eagles (did anyway) at Kadena to ride to the rescue as well.

What could go wrong?

So you think we should bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP?

[brickhistory]

So you think we should bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP?

I'm trying to follow your logic in tieing my posts to that question and failing. My point was that more, not less, F-22s, F-35s, new tankers, etc, etc, etc, are our best guarentee of not having to take on China toe to toe.

Well, that and paying off our debt to them.

But to answer your question, no, I don't think so.

The SOFA agreement signed by President Bush is about right given the current situation. Obviously, that could change for better or worse. However, our job is pretty much over. It is time to hand the keys back to Iraq.

As an aside, I fully expect another strong man to arise after we're gone. That's just how that culture is, in the main.

Regarding Afghanistan, I simply don't know. Massive troop invasions in the past - Brits x 2, Russians - didn't work. I don't know that we can do much better. Not a slam to the dudes doing the humping on the ground and in the air, just an observation on the overall picture. But, I've never been there and have never experienced it first hand.

Is it time to go home? What is a win there? How do we get to that point?

Edited March 7, 2009 by brickhistory

[Guest Hueypilot812]

As an aside, I fully expect another strong man to arise after we're gone. That's just how that culture is, in the main.

I agree. The culture here is one that idolizes a singular strong personality, much like that in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states in Asia. They may keep some semblance of a democracy, but a paternalistic government that revolves around a strong leader is something these folks value. They may complain bitterly about corruption, but to be honest, it's just part of the culture. Those complaining would be doing it too if they were in power.

[HeloDude]

It is time to hand the keys back to Iraq.

Have you ever directly worked with the Iraqi military or is this just your own personal viewpoint? I work directly with the Iraqi Air Force almost everyday and have a different opinion on the matter.

If you read the recent articles (past few months) on af.mil about the Iraqi Air Force you'll hear (on both sides--Iraq and the U.S.) that the Iraqi Air Force is far behind their Iraqi Army counterparts and are not ready to take over the job in defending their borders via airpower.

Still think we should turn them over the keys?

[brickhistory]

Have you ever directly worked with the Iraqi military or is this just your own personal viewpoint?

Are the two mutually exclusive?

But to answer each part - nope and yep.

Still think we should turn them over the keys?

Per the signed agreement of all out by 2011, yes. As that's the Iraqis wish as well, perhaps it is time to let them have the keys and the issues associated with them - insurance, payments, leaving it parked outside at night, etc.

I'm very curious as to how this turned from China's military budget vs ours and how a cut in the latter can compete with the former in the future.

As a related aside, part of Obama's reduction in the deficit plan is to count the money not being spent in Iraq in the future as savings. UFB.

BTW, thanks for what you do.

[HeloDude]

Per the signed agreement of all out by 2011, yes. As that's the Iraqis wish as well, perhaps it is time to let them have the keys and the issues associated with them - insurance, payments, leaving it parked outside at night, etc.

I'm very curious as to how this turned from China's military budget vs ours and how a cut in the latter can compete with the former in the future.

As a related aside, part of Obama's reduction in the deficit plan is to count the money not being spent in Iraq in the future as savings. UFB.

Perhaps it is time to allow the South Koreans to provide for their own defense as well? Or is the only argument with South Korea is that we use their strategic location at a base for future operations, vs for protecting the sovereignty of the state of South Korea? I'm sure we could base an attack again North Korea and other nations nearby from Japan.

My reason for mentioning South Korea is that we have direct interests in seeing Iraq succeed as a democratic state. We also have interests in that area outside of Iraq. If we leave before they are completely ready I think we will have other issues in that region to deal with in the near future.

Ahh China--I love how this argument is always brought up on this forum, especially when it comes to the discussion of the GWOT and how it pertains to Iraq and Afghanistan. Dealing with China is not the same as dealing with countries in the Middle East--this from a diplomatic point of view as well as a military one. Does anyone actually believe that the U.S. would have to deal unilaterally with China without the help of the U.N., NATO, etc?

My opinion is that the U.S. has to deal with both situations--but more so with the current fight. Right now it can be argued that more soldiers are dying due to the lack of UAV's vs the lack of F-22's. Of course the U.S. has to use forward thinking, however, I think it's a mistake for the new (or future) administration to discount the current situation in the Middle East. It all comes down to the question: Does the U.S. have strategic interests in seeing Iraq succeed as a democracy?

All just an opinion from someone who hasn't been to all those fancy PME's yet.

BTW, thanks for what you do.

Thank you very much. I'm no better or different than all the other guys on here and all those others who wear a uniform (past and present). I'd actually argue over a beer that I don't do that much compared to many others who are actually doing the no-kidding fighting.

[brickhistory]

Perhaps it is time to allow the South Koreans to provide for their own defense as well? Or is the only argument with South Korea is that we use their strategic location at a base for future operations, vs for protecting the sovereignty of the state of South Korea? I'm sure we could base an attack again North Korea and other nations nearby from Japan.

If the ROK negotiated a new SOFA that wanted the US out, then, yes, we'd leave. They haven't felt that need yet, although there have been a gazillion protests - mainly the all-knowing university students arguing that it is time - to that point. Iraq wanted, and got, a SOFA that said "U.S. out in 2011." Their country, their rules.

As as far as basing in Japan, it's what we did from about July 1950. Tac air flying from carriers and Atsugi, Japan. B-29s from Okinawa. Ground troops from the Army of Occupation (read about Task Force Smith, poor bastards), etc, etc.

That's assuming, of course, Japan let's us. During the first party, Japan didn't have a say in its own future. We were the rulers. It was something like 1954 before the treaty giving Japan sovereignty back to itself was signed.

My reason for mentioning South Korea is that we have direct interests in seeing Iraq succeed as a democratic state. We also have interests in that area outside of Iraq. If we leave before they are completely ready I think we will have other issues in that region to deal with in the near future.

Agreed that we have a strategic interest in seeing Iraq succeed as a nation at least not inimical to the US. As a democratic state, it's a nice philosophy that is utterly alien to the region and mindset as a whole.

Ahh China--I love how this argument is always brought up on this forum, especially when it comes to the discussion of the GWOT and how it pertains to Iraq and Afghanistan. Dealing with China is not the same as dealing with countries in the Middle East--this from a diplomatic point of view as well as a military one. Does anyone actually believe that the U.S. would have to deal unilaterally with China without the help of the U.N., NATO, etc?

Absolutely I can see us going toe to toe with China without NATO and, especially, the UN. First there's the little matter of a seat on the Security Council. China will, obviously, veto any move against itself and the rest of the world will use that lack of UN decision as an excuse to do nothing. Been done before, why is it a stretch to think it'll happen again? Particularly as China holds a lot of those other nations' debt?

My opinion is that the U.S. has to deal with both situations--but more so with the current fight. Right now it can be argued that more soldiers are dying due to the lack of UAV's vs the lack of F-22's. Of course the U.S. has to use forward thinking, however, I think it's a mistake for the new (or future) administration to discount the current situation in the Middle East. It all comes down to the question: Does the U.S. have strategic interests in seeing Iraq succeed as a democracy?

Agree, we do have to deal with both. But mortgaging the future for the present has never been a good strategy. You argue more UAVs now vs F-22s later. I vote for both. But that would cost some beloved social entitlements.

As to "strategic interests in seeing Iraq succeed as a democracy," no, we don't. We have interests in seeing the oil continue and it be a counterbalance to Iran. Democracy would be nice, but after some 1,000 years, it hasn't taken root yet.

All just an opinion from someone who hasn't been to all those fancy PME's yet.

Not sure where this came in, perhaps a bit of self-deprecation, but unless you count SOS as "fancy PME," neither did I. The square-filling correspondence, yes, but simply taking the tests, never reading the garbage. Attending such a school or not doesn't add or detract from one's opinion.

Thank you very much. I'm no better or different than all the other guys on here and all those others who wear a uniform (past and present). I'd actually argue over a beer that I don't do that much compared to many others who are actually doing the no-kidding fighting.

As I'm in the past category, I'll have that beer with you.

Bottom line: don't try to put me in an anti-war category. The original idea was flawed - pre-emptive war goes against our traditions and history. Once there, we should have gone in strong (more troops) and not disbanded some of the army and infrastructure.

Now that it seems to be getting better (or beyond where we can effectively do anything about it), it's time to call it a win and come home. I'd be fine with bases/forces left behind to train/provide some backbone. To the Arabs, that's unacceptable. Ok, fine, here are the keys...

For Afghanistan, I don't know. Do you?

[Guest Brewdog]

"The original idea was flawed - pre-emptive war goes against our traditions and history. "

Sort of. Except for (possibly) The Spanish American War, The Bay of Pigs, (most likely) Vietnam, Grenada, Panama... Due to the flagrant and repeated violations of UN resoloutions, it could be said the second invasion was just about as justifiable as the first.

[brickhistory]

"The original idea was flawed - pre-emptive war goes against our traditions and history. "

Sort of. Except for (possibly) The Spanish American War, The Bay of Pigs, (most likely) Vietnam, Grenada, Panama... Due to the flagrant and repeated violations of UN resoloutions, it could be said the second invasion was just about as justifiable as the first.

And we're off.....

Spanish-American War: result (probably wrongly) of the USS Maine explosion. That act was considered an act of war. Hence, the declaration of war following it.

Bay of Pigs: ?Que? As poorly as it was planned/executed, it was Cuban rebels on the beach, not more than a handful of Americans. Don't remember any war. If JFK had manned up and supported the invasion with the USN sitting off shore, then it might have succeeded. I'd also argue that his pussy-ness on the Bay of Pigs led JFK to try to stand tall in the saddle for Vietnam.

Vietnam: Little measue called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that Congress voted to allow the President to respond to military actions in Vietnam as he saw fit after the North's attack(s?) on USN destroyers. No pre-emption there. If you want to say that a Declaration of War should have been issued, I'm agreeing.

Grenada: We were asked to protect the citizens of the island by the deposed Governor-General. Not to mention our own medical students there which were under threat by the bad guys. Again, asked in.

Panama: the repeated attacks on US citizens and installations by Pineapple Face were provocation enough not to mention the warrant for arrest of Noriega. Again, acts by the enemy first, then our response.

In any event, I'd hardly call Grenada or Panama "wars." Military actions? Sure. Wars? Not by what I was taught.

As to the "second invasion as justifiable as the first," you are unclear. What was/when was the first by us? But in any event, the legal justification for OIF were the lack of compliance with UN resolutions regarding destroying and verifying that destruction. Saddam rolled the dice that he could stonewall the world. He lost.

But seeing as how we pissed away the USAF for 12 years for ONW and OSW keeping him in a box (sts), I don't think the calling "fight's on" by President Bush was a good one. Once it was, however, it should be win it quickly and in a big way. Secretary Rumsfeld botched that.

Now that it appears to be won by some incredible work by our guys on the ground, there does seem a way for us to go. The Iraqi government in place now has signed an agreement with the US for us to leave by 2011. Ok, let's abide by that.

Edited March 8, 2009 by brickhistory

[Guest Brewdog]

My point was that pre-emption is not totally absent in our history or at least as much as some would like to believe. I'm sure you know that the source of the Maine explosion is disputed to this day. Even if it wasn't, America was pushing hard for that war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is also controversial. Sure Noreiga acted against US interests but I would say, like Saddam, when he stopped playing on our team; it was decided he needed to go. (BTW the first invasion I referenced in my post was when we crossed into Iraq and pursued Iraqi forces to 150 miles from Bagdhad.) Surely you cannot say that Saddam never attacked US interests, even during ONW/OSW. OIF wasn't a declared war either, but yes the scale is much different than Panama. Let's not even get into all the proxy wars during the mid to late Cold War era. I'm not trying to de-rail any further but I personally have no problem with America aggressively protecting its interests abroad, as it has done throughout its history.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Brewdog