Truman Project report worth reading

As a lifelong opponent of the military/industrial/petroleum economy, I'm pretty sure that I know that I disagree with the Truman National Security Project a lot of the time.
I nevertheless found their recent report well worth reading, even though I clearly qualify as a "guillotiner" (a cutter) in their eyes--see the report for a more expanded explanation.
Here's an example of a paragraph where I applaud them for being clear about the wastefulness of the Joint Strike Fighter, while confessing that, yes, I would slash its funding...
"Take, for example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. At a price tag of
$242 billion, it is the most expensive aircraft program in the history of
the Department of Defense (DoD) and thus a prime candidate for cutting
back and saving money. Those who look longingly at the past and see
the era of conventional warfare as a time of innocence will fight to fully
fund the F-35, while those wielding the guillotine and the partisans of
unconventional war will try to slash its funding or cut it altogether."
So when do we Robespierres get to "wield the guillotine" on these big weapons projects?
http://www.trumanproject.org/files/backgrounders/Strategic_Balance.pdf

National Journal military spending debate

Here is a link to a fascinating set of suggestions from a series of military spending experts, trying to set out what Secretary Gates should do under the new Obama Administration.
The National Journal's Corine Hegland summarizes the suggestions in a series of 7 points at the beginning, then the analysts make their cases after that.
I had a particular bias towards part (b), "eliminate non-useful weapons systems," which on the non-political level seems like a no-brainer in a time of restricted revenues.
Here is Ms. Hegland's summary: "b) Eliminate non-useful weapons systems including the amphibious warfare vehicle, the Army's Future Combat Systems; the F-22, F-35, C-13OJ, Stryker, DDG-1000 destroyer, and the V-22. (nominations by Joseph Collins, Larry Korb, Rachel Kleinfield, Andy Krepinevich, and Winslow Wheeler; Wheeler describes the systems as 'low-hanging fruit with their hyper-cost, almost complete irrelevance to warfare as we know it today, and high probability they are technical failures.') 'Gates now has both the opportunity and challenge to align the defense program with his vision,' writes Krepinevich, noting that the services are struggling to accept 'persistent irregular conflict.'”
Two straightforward statements jumped out at me, since part of my goal is to free up large amounts of money for social needs for the American people.
Rachel Kleinfeld, the Executive Director of the Truman National Security Project, was blunt: "The F-35 program is exhibit A for cuts--as 'the most costly single aircraft program in DoD history' in the words of the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, it offers little that is essential for the wars we are likely to fight in the future."
In his usual refreshing style, Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information agrees with Kleinfeld that "...the Air Force's newest fighter, the F-35, can be regarded as only a technical fiasco – even more so than the preposterously over-priced and -hyped F-22. Nor is the $120 million per copy F-35 'affordable.'”
The entire set of posts can be found here:
http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/01/will-obama-unleash-gates.php#1219590

Sturm und Drang on the F35

Interesting HuffPost by Frankie Sturm, who works at the Truman National Security Project.
A key point by Sturm is this: "...a break from the past could do our future some good. Our military isn't suffering from a lack of defense spending. It's suffering from a lack of smart spending."
He offers up the F35 Joint Strike Fighter as a prime example, noting that the JSF is "...the most expensive aircraft program in DoD history, yet it has neither the flight range to accomplish likely missions nor is it necessary for fighting irregular wars, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Sturm is more conciliatory than I would be, calling for a "scaling back" of the F35, where I would call for dropping the whole deal. But even the scaling back, Sturm notes, could "free up billions of dollars" for the new Administration...Yes, it could.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frankie-sturm/strategic-spending-in-200_b_158484.html

Kudos for "America's Defense Meltdown" book

An interesting Washington Monthly piece, where writers & thinkers suggest books that the new President should read. One of them, suggested by James Fallows, is "America's Defense Meltdown", a collection of essays by experts on the military budget who believe that the current situation is out of whack. There are links in the Fallows article to both order the book, or to read it free through the Center for Defense Information web site.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.obama.html

Obama to Close Guantanamo

So here's an idea: President Obama is going to close Guantanamo prison this year, as a way to show the world that things have changed in the U.S. That could save a few bucks.
So why not give the land back to the Cubans, as a good will gesture so we can get over a half century of political posturing? Or maybe we should team up with the Cubans, who know how to train young people to be doctors & nurses in the developing world, and use the base facilities as a training facility for new Peace Corps type volunteers, people who want to go to Africa to treat & prevent diseases, dig wells, build energy efficient housing?
After all, what do people remember today about John F. Kennedy's policy accomplishments? The Peace Corps.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQOzRNnZMLweaYkGryXPvQFlG6mgD95SART00

Hart says fewer nukes

GaryHart makes the case for the Obama Administration to cut down our nuclear arsenals, which would make negotiating with the rest of the world easier, give us back some moral authority, save money, and increase our security.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/an-early-victory-for-obam_b_160595.html

Military Spending as Oreo Cookies Video

The recent blog post by Chris Bowers on openleft.com led to several valuable contributions from commenters, including this "golden oldie" mentioned by "yoda", who provided us to the link to Ben Cohen & TrueMajority's famous oreo cookies video.
This well-done video spells out in detail (or at least in oreo cookies) the huge dimensions of our military spending (and it's actually a little out-of-date, and thus understated), compared to our domestic spending needs, and also compared to the military spending of other nations.
Watch it--it's brief, and it's brilliant...
http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

OpenLeft commenter dsulz helped out with a link to the Charlie Rose interview, suggesting that we go to about the 20:30 mark for similar comments about big military spending cuts...

http://www.charlierose.com/vie...
by: dsulz

openleft.com commenter "The Big Hurt" chipped in with the key part of the Emanuel "Meet the Press" clip, the part focused on cutting $300 B out of the military budget...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28719406#28719406
go to about the 1:58 point

CoS Emanuel calls for $300B in Military Cuts!!

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel suggested on Meet the Press last week that $300 billion in cost overruns are available for cutting out of the military budget. (There is also a link embedded in this OpenLeft piece that connects to his similar comment on Charlie Rose.)
This strikes me as huge--to have Rahm talking about military cuts right out of the box, especially without being provoked by the interviewer, and as blogger Chris Bowers points out, to be so specific about the figure of $300 B.
And this is separate from the money that could be saved when the occupation of Iraq is ended, which the new President has promised repeatedly to accomplish.
We know that there's money for social needs being wasted over at the Pentagon. I'm very glad to see that the White House seems to know it, too.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11031

Harry Belafonte & Becoming Firefighters

Paul Rosenberg at openleft.com ran a nice recap of Harry Belafonte's remarks at the Peace Ball, which I had the good fortune to attend on Inauguration Night. Well worth reading...
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=32B74E22EE6702E0F6A6900DF510B50D?diaryId=11110

"Yes, We Can End the War & Fix the Economy!"

John Nichols of the Nation recently named Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) the "Most Valuable Political Group" of 2008. PDA will be living up to that billing during inauguration week, distributing a couple hundred thousand flyers demanding "Health Care, Not Warfare!" to those attending events in D.C., but also in cities across the country. The leaflet they will be handing out, quoting Dr. King and making the case for single-payer national health care, is here:
http://pdamerica.org/misc/PDA_IG_FINAL.pdf

The basic concept is simple--that we spend too much on our military, and not enough on the social needs of the American people. The PDA push fits in well as part of the strategy endorsed by the national meeting of United for Peace & Justice (UFPJ) last month, to press for a 20% cut in the military budget by 2010. UFPJ is our most broad-based peace & justice coalition, and has led the fight against the Iraq War from before it started. The UFPJ effort is called "Yes, We Can! Beyond War, a New Economy Is Possible!". The goal is to tie the need to end the occupation of Iraq and cut the military budget to the crying need for good green jobs, health care for everyone, new infrastructure spending on levees and bridges, and greater provision of needed social services like food stamps and unemployment insurance.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=4003

One of the great organizations that I have worked with for years is the National Priorities Project (NPP), which meticulously breaks down the costs of war & the costs of a war economy, and contrasts those costs with what needed social goods we could buy with the same amount of money, social goods such as health care, new schools, child care, food, housing, etc. NPP also does a great job with its charts and comparisons, making these costs accessible to everyone.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/

One of their latest excellent efforts is a research report by Anita Dancs, an Assistant Professor at Western New England College, in conjunction with Mary Orisich & Suzanne Smith of NPP, to set out "The Military Cost of Securing Energy." They estimate that "...the United States is spending between $97 and $215 billion dollars annually on military action to defend access to oil and natural gas reserves around the globe."
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Energy_Security/Energy_Priorities

AFSC's "New Roadmap for Peace"

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) laid out 5 principles for reforming our foreign policy:
(1) Our nation should invest in peace.
(2) Strengthen the civilian agencies that work on peace and development issues.
(3) Give diplomacy a chance.
(4) Be a part of global peacebuilding efforts.
(5) Create justice through good development and trade policies.
http://www.roadmapforpeace.org/
AFSC's "New Roadmap for U.S. Engagement with the World" was prepared for the Obama transition team to review, examining these 5 principles in more depth:
http://www.roadmapforpeace.org/download.html

Reform expert Winslow Wheeler has released an extensive critique of the U.S. military budget, entitled "America's Defense Meltdown", which the Center for Defense Information is graciously allowing people to read online:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4404&from_page=../index.cfm

Wheeler is a brave analyst, never afraid to call it as he sees it...

Militarism--One of Dr. King's Nightmares!

Here's a link to an essay I wrote for the Huffington Post, pointing out that although there is always a lot of talk about Dr. King's "dream," there is usually a lot less discussion of the need for a "true revolution of values," particularly concerning the big nightmares that Martin Luther King, Jr., warned us about: racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-cobble/one-of-dr-kings-nightmare_b_157237.html

If we need some money to pay for health care, a green jobs economy, and a recovery program, might I suggest the military budget as a place to search?

Check out IPS's Unified Security Budget

If you want an excellent analysis of our military budget, and suggestions for ways we could both make ourselves more secure while saving large amounts of money, you should check out the Institute for Policy Studies (disclosure note: I am an Associate Fellow at IPS) study, "A Unified Security Budget for the United States, FY 2009".
Here is the link: http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/#676
The report was put together by a task force of experts, led by Miriam Pemberton of the Foreign Policy in Focus Project at IPS, together with Lawrence Korb of the Center for Defense Information and the Center for American Progress. I know Miriam well, and she is one of the most astute analysts of our military budget.

As we approach what would have been Martin Luther King, Jr's. 80th birthday, we would do well to reflect on some of his comments about war and excessive militarism. On April 4, 1967, Dr. King delivered his "Beyond Vietnam" speech ( http://www.mlkonline.net/vietnam.html ), at which time he announced his opposition to the Vietnam War.
And he also made important points about the need to change our values, and move away from militarism--does our current military budget reflect our values?

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values...
When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies...True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.
A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war."

new budget cutter--start with DOD

The Obama Administration just announced the appointment of a new budget-cutting czar (my term, not theirs), Nancy Killefer, to eliminate waste and inefficiency in the Federal budget.
The key phrase (from an AP story), for our purposes: "As he named Killefer, Obama promised to scour the federal budget to eliminate what doesn't work and improve what does to 'put government on the side of taxpayers.' He said: 'We can no longer afford to sustain the old ways when we know there are new and more efficient ways to getting the job done.'"

I'd like to suggest she start with freezing all new military weapons programs, to give her time to figure out which ones to stop entirely (the JSF? SDI? the occupation of Iraq?).

How about Military "Pay-Go" Cuts?

In a recent Washington Post article focused on the upcoming stimulus package, one potential stumbling block was identified as "Blue Dog" concerns about the deficit, and the need for pay-as-you-go cuts to balance new expenditures. Here's the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010300721_2.html?sid=ST2009010302071&s_pos
And here's a relevant quote: "That could sour some deficit hawks on the idea. 'It's going to be very problematic to me unless they can tell me how it's going to be paid for,' said Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leading centrist Democrat."
Well, I've got some suggestions: how about some cuts in the military budget, which has grown totally out of control during the Bush/Cheney Era?
Maybe we could end the occupation of Iraq? Close several hundred overseas bases? Block the unnecessary new weapons systems that have been left on the table--say, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter & the F/A-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-Class submarine, offensive space weapons, SDI, the DDG-1000, and Future Combat Systems?
After all, that's where the (future) money is...