General Ray Odierno, the army chief of staff, has provided further details of what sequestration could mean for the army–and why it would be so devastating. Already the army is due to decline in size, because of existing budget cuts, from 570,000 active duty personnel today to 490,000 in a few years’ time. If sequestration occurs, Odierno says a total of 200,000 troops could be laid off—35% of the current force. That would result in the smallest army since the dark days of 1940 when, not coincidentally, German, Italian, and Japanese militarists were overrunning the globe.
Supporters of sequestration reply that it’s only fair the military absorb some cuts because of our fiscal crisis. But the military has already absorbed more than its share–unlike domestic programs. As Odierno reminded an audience at the Brookings Institution, in 2010 Secretary of Defense Bob Gates cancelled various procurement programs worth $300 billion, then in 2011 Congress enacted another $487 billion in cuts over 10 years. Thus the sequestration cuts, amounting to $500 billion, come on top of almost $800 billion in existing cuts. The drying up of funds for the war effort in Afghanistan will result in another major hit to the budget; that funding was used to pay for needed training and equipment refitting that will now have to be paid out of the regular defense budget.
Cumulatively, Odierno estimates, “if we implement the 2014 budget without sequestration, it’ll be a 45 percent reduction in the Army budget,” compared to the baseline of 2008. “If we implement sequestration, it’ll be over 50 percent.”
Little wonder than, that Odierno says “today, in my opinion, the greatest threat to our national security is the fiscal uncertainty resulting from the lack of predictability in the budget cycle.”
His words should not be dismissed as the pronouncements of a general bent on preserving his personal prerogatives. They are, instead, the words of a man who has devoted his life to the defense of his country and now sees our front line of defense in jeopardy of collapse. It is hard to exaggerate just how dire the situation is now, especially given that both Democrats and Republicans say there is virtually no chance of reaching a deal before sequestration hits on March 1.
The problem is that President Obama is demanding “revenue enhancements”—i.e., tax increases—along with further cuts to the defense budget as part of any deal to stop sequestration. Republicans, having already gone along on tax hikes once, aren’t budging this time around. Some privately even welcome sequestration; for instance John Makin of the American Enterprise Institute had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that made the pro-sequestration case without once mentioning its impact on defense.
This is the height of irresponsibility all around. Sequestration will have little impact on our fiscal situation (even eliminating the entire Department of Defense will not eliminate the budget deficit) but it will have devastating consequences for our military readiness in ways that will endanger our long-term security. In an ideal world lawmakers would reach a deal to cut entitlement spending instead since that is the real source of our budget woes. In today’s Washington, however, that won’t happen. If Republicans have no choice but to agree to tax hikes to stop sequestration, so be it: Almost any price is worth paying to prevent the evisceration of our most vital military capabilities.
You – and Odierno – lose me by claiming that a 10(ish%) cut in spending will result in a 35% reduction in manpower. It seems the military is just as capable of playing 'firemen and policemen first' as any city mayor.
While sequestration will be painful and pointless, there is an overriding theme that is not touched upon in the sequestration discussion. The military is an extension of the political and is not an institution in itself. That's why the Commander in Chief is not a military officer, but a political leader elected every four years from the voting citizenry. The military is not permitted to run itself, but is kept in check based on decisions of political leaders from congressman, senators and the president. n nWhat we are seeing with this ridiculous sequestration idea (soon to be implemented and thereby damaging to our nation) is our political leaders run amok and without regard for the health of the nation and their responsibilities to the country. It is a pathetic example of leaders without backbone and without courage to lead and guide our nation. n nStill, that's what the country voted for with our elections and that's what we have. It's not pretty but it is democracy. We get what we, collectively, voted for; now the nation is paying the price.
can not we cut the number of carriers schedule to be built from 3 to 1. how about dumping the most expensive plane in history F-35 and restructure our forces to incorporate the drones. stop buying tanks that are schedule to be deployed to the Nevada desert/. cut now cut deep. nshould not spend more than the next 17 nations
I would like to know why Obama seems to be the one that has not been given the blame that he deserves. Isn't Obama the one that dreamed up this nightmare? Also, Obama loaths the military so he is getting his wish.
After the cuts we still will have the most well funded military on earth. If shortages occur it is the result of wrong priorities and the continuing of missions and programs which no longer make sense in today's world. The government must be reduced in size, not merely for economic reasons but because the federal government is a threat to the liberty of the American people. Cuts in the military are unfortunate but unavoidable.
The total amount of spending cuts that are included in sequestration should be made. The Democrats need to come to the table with ideas for where to re-direct these cuts. If the Democrats want to expand the cuts within the context of a grand bargain that would include closing tax loopholes or other revenue enhancements, fine, but not as a replacement for the amount of spending cuts that are already agreed to. The Republicans paid a high price to get the spending cuts agreed to back in 2011 in exchange for raising the debt ceiling; they cannot afford to blink and back down on these cuts. n nIf our debt is going off the deep end, that isn't good for national security, either.
Why can't we cut troop stength in Germany, Japan and elsewhere where the mission is non-essential?
Cut DoD before we launch another war.
Did anyone ever consider that Odeirno is lying through his teeth? nRay baby shoud resign tomorrow if he can't cut 3-7% from his organization. Across the board, or any other way.
Refute this:r nr n1) We have more government than we can afford (hence 40% borrowing).r nr n2) The bill has to be paid “someday”.r nr n3) When “someday” hits, it will be painful to someone(s).r nr nAnyone who states or implies there is a pain-free path out of this mess is either stupid or lying or both.
The proposed DOD FY 2013 budget is $613.9 billion; the sequester, half of it which would come from military, would cut that by $42.5 billion, or 6.9%. On what planet, from which Odierno and Boot apparently hail from, would that mandate a cut of 41% of Army personnel?
"If Republicans have no choice but to agree to tax hikes to stop sequestration, so be it…" n nNo. n nThe Dems got their vindictive, economically pointless, tax hike. Now they can pay for it. What the country needs to "eviscerate" are the coddle-the-welfare-bums give-aways like Medicaid, food stamps, TANF, and, of course, Obamacare.
Please, please keep talking as you do. I'm a Democrat, and I love winning Presidential elections….
wrong again Max. like your books but you are wrong on this issue. we spend too much on defense now (greater than the next 17 nations) and do we really need 3 new air craft carriers and tanks that sit in the desert. wrong Max
we have 1 trillion in overseas profits sitting there because companies don't want to pay 35%. So lower it to 10% with proviso of it must be used for growth and expansion in the US not stock buybacks. It gives you 100 billion and no need for sequestration.we have 1 trillion in overseas profits sitting there because companies don't want to pay 35%. So lower it to 10% with proviso of it must be used for growth and expansion in the US not stock buybacks. It gives you 100 billion and no need for sequestration.
I think a bigger threat to the country than a small military is a bankrupt government. Out of every Federal government dollar spent, we are borrowing 40 cents. When governments get too far behind, they use hyper inflation to pay off in cheaper money. The result is usually chaos followed by a dictator. After WWI, the Weimar Republic inflated to pay their debts. It famously took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. The result was chaos followed by Hitler. We have a spending problem, not a tax rate problem. Politically, the Democrats are touting women and children first budget cuts in order to make tax rate increases look as enticing as possible. They are identifying where the cuts would cause the most pain and threatening everybody with cuts in those areas. While I am really enjoying Max Boot's new book "Invisible Armies," I think he and General Ordierno have fallen for the Democrats' hype on this one. Besides, with Hagel as Secretary of Defense more cuts in the DOD are inevitable. So the sequester at least gets us some domestic spending cuts.
sequestration is that ugly baby in the hospital nursery that neither parent will even acknowledge and everyone hopes will be dropped on its head on a hard concrete floor n nsooner or later somebody has to take responsibility for the little b-stard or it will just keep everyone up with its constant screaming
General Ordierno, SecDef Panetta and Speaker Boehner are all in agreement, these sequester cuts are very harmful to our national security. They will hollow out the military. However they are the chosen policy of our President. Our enemies may become stronger than America. If they perceive a weakness, they may attack.r nr nHowever, we may collapse economically before we are conquered. We have the longest duration of unemployment in modern history. Volatile work skills have been lost; half of our college graduates can not find work, and half of those who do are working at jobs that do not require a college degree. We have no viable energy policy. We are going the way Greece did.r nr nThose who voted for him, and his policies, now must carry this burden; elections have consequences.
Max, Why do you believe the General? In fact the $85B number for 2013 is wrong. The actual amount of the 2013 cuts under Sequestration is $44B, only half of which is allocated to DoD. Do you really believe DoD can't function with $22B in cuts for 2013. nI've been working in the defense industry since enlisting in 1971, and tell the General, if he can't figure it out, to call me!
It's like chemotherapy: You essentially bring the body close to death to kill the cancer that feeds on it, then nurse the body back to health. Cutting spending is chemo for the federal government. Sure, a smaller military means a weaker nation (body), but once the cancer is killed (progressivism) we can nurse the military back to health. n nSo-called "cuts" over a ten year stretch is pure fantasy. The year-to-year cuts are real, and only real until we really need the military, then congress will increase the budget. Let the Democrats own these cuts, let them own the tax increases, let them own all the misery. Chemo the cancer.