Berkley Bedell Blog

Perilous Times, Drastic Measures

The changes suggested in our writing about military spending may be drastic but they are logical, and perilous times demand they be made.  Ten steps will assure their success:

 

1.   We must stop trying to dominate the world militarily.

 

2.   We must accept that the world’s problems are best solved by acting in concert with other nations.

 

3.   We must acknowledge the drain on our economy of current military spending.

 

4.   We must recognize the benefit to ourselves and the people of the world if military expenses are redirected to social needs.

 

5.   We must overcome inertia, carefully analyze military needs as they relate to defense of our country, recognize the real threats, and realistically prepare for the future.

 

6.   We must deal with the causes of profligate waste and eliminate them.

 

7.   We must whenever possible replace force and the threat of force with diplomacy.

 

8.   We must be sure that in the event military action is absolutely necessary our mission is clearly defined, force commensurate with the mission is provided, and we have a plan for the mission’s end.

 

9.   We must learn more about the people of the world and their intentions toward us.

 

10. We must elect public officials who accept these steps and hold them accountable for their fulfillment—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.

 

 

Step Six: Homeland Security

The Department of Homeland Security has the following goals:

• Awareness—Identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information to our homeland security partners and the American public.
• Prevention—Detect, deter and mitigate threats to our homeland.
• Protection—Safeguard our people and their freedoms, critical infrastructure, property and the economy of our Nation from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
• Response—Lead, manage and coordinate the national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
• Recovery—Lead national, state, local and private sector efforts to restore services and rebuild communities after acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
• Service—Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, travel and immigration.
• Organizational Excellence—Value our most important resource, our people. Create a culture that promotes a common identity, innovation, mutual respect, accountability and teamwork to achieve efficiencies, effectiveness, and operational synergies.

These are lofty and legitimate goals.  In spite of the department’s failures, particularly in New Orleans in 2005, their accomplishment is essential if American citizens are to be protected in today’s world.

 

Money is not the only answer but a 50 percent increase in the department’s 2009 budget request from $50 billion to $75 billion would represent only 3.7 percent of the bloated 2008 military budget. 

 

The department now has 200,000 employees. Adequate augmentation of the number of Coast Guard sailors, air marshals, port inspectors and border patrol persons, as well as ships and other equipment could be accomplished with the increase and the result would be real defense of our country—Jim Frost.

 

Step Five: Intelligence Gathering

The United States now has 17 intelligence gathering agencies.  These should immediately be combined (with the exception of the FBI, which would remain in the Department of Justice, its role limited to domestic crime).  One can argue that so many snoops are operating at the expense of vital information going forward appropriatly—to say nothing of the dollar cost and the fact that if our leaders have an agenda condraticted by an intelligence report from one agency, they can simply look for another that agrees with it.

 

A combined intelligence agency would be expected to determine who our future enemies are and what means they have to threaten us.  It would also be expected to be sure we have a secure Internet.

 

Much about the intelligence agencies is classified but it is a certainity today that the  total of the budgets for the 16 agencies exceeds $50 billion.  Savings would be realized by combining them but even the present total is money well spent if the result of the work can be substantially improved—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.

 

Step Four: Reserve Force

The first level of reservists should be a person-to-person backup for each and every member of the active force—from new recruit to commanding general.  After one year of full-time training, these service persons would maintain their proficiency by participating in a one-day session each week and four weeks of active duty each year as part of fully-equipped units that would mirror the regular Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force.  In an emergency, they would be available for callup as individuals to fill specific slots or in units if necessary.  They would have to be well-trained, adequately compensated and fully cognizant of their role as an available force subject to activation.  Annual cost would not exceed $50 billion; overall U.S. defense budget would therefore be $325 billion.

 

The second level would be the states’ National Guard and Air Guard units, maintained more-or-less at their present levels of 460,500 soldiers and airmen.  Members would have all necessary basic and advanced training and would continue to participate in monthly weekend drills and two-week summer camps.  They would also be used as they are now to assist with civil emergencies such as natural disasters.  The states would continue to pay all costs unless the units are activated—Jim Frost.

Step Three: Active Duty Forces

 

If current U.S. armed forces are too large yet ill-prepared to face the real threats of today’s world, and if this can be changed, what should replace them?  And how can it be accomplished?

 

U.S. Marines—as of Feb. 5, 2007, there were 179,695 U.S. Marines.  If we drop our imperialistic pretensions, stop maintaining outdated policies and the means to execute them, recognize that we are not going to fight Russia or anyone else in a conventional war, discontiune a foreign policy that sanctions invading sovereign countries, and cease trying to dominate the world through a worldwide network of military installations this is more than enough conventional fighting force to defend us.

 

U.S. Navy—our present Navy has 332,000 personnel, 280 ships and 3,700 aircraft; this is ridiculous.  Like so much of our military, it is several times overkill and under no believable scenario will it ever be utilized in  the conflicts of the future.  Huge naval battles are no more concievable than another land war in Europe.  And because of staellite reconnissance and anti-ship missiles surface ships today are sitting ducks.

Navy units are necessary to suppport the Marines.  We need a  number of what are called expeditionary strike groups.  Each consists of an amphibious assault ship (looks like a small aircraft carrier), a dock landing ship, an amphibious transport dock, a Marine expeditionary unit, airplanes, three kinds of heliocopters—heavy-lift, medium-lift and combat—and often cruisers, destroyers and attack submarines.  We do not, however, need the current 12; six groups would still leave us with more of this type of moveable and self-sustaining force than all our potential enemies combined. 

As progress is made on nuclear bomb elimination, the Navy of the future would begin to completely phase out ballistic submarines; of those remaining, some would be mothballed and some, now called attack submarines, would be shifted to a mission that is strictly defense.

 

As further support for the Marines, several aircraft carrier strike groups would be retained.  They consist of a super carrier, air wing, three destroyers, one or two guided missile cruisers, two or three guided missile destroyers, two attack submarines and a supply ship.  These floating bases, each with 10,000 people, now exist primarily to demonstrate our power anywhere in the world, an existence that is necessary only to sustain imperialism, it has nothing to do with protection of Americans.  Again, reducing the present 12 to six—two at sea, two in port ready for sea, two training and refitting—would be sufficient.

 

Navy Special Warfare (NSW) units include sea, air and land forces—SEALs—as well as special warfare combatant-craft crewmen, who maintain and operate an inventory of high-performance boats and ships used for special operations missions and to support the SEALs.  NSW has 5,400 active duty personnel including 2,450 SEALs and 600 combatant-craft crewmen plus support persons and would be retained as an asset in future small unit and anti-guerilla conflicts. 

 

All other Navy operations would be subject to an eight-year program called Shutdown, Trim, Eliminate and Mothball (STEM).  All operations should be examined with the objects of shutting down unneeded foreign and domestic ports and bases; trimming manpower; eliminating unnecessary weapons systems and other equipment; and mothballing ships and planes.  Normal separation and retirement would take care of most of the manpower reduction with positions in the reserves offered as an alternative.

 

Even if only the modest goal of a 50 percent cut for the Navy is achieved, its budget would be reduced from the 2009 level of $150 billion to $75 billion.

  

U.S. Army—a standing Army the size of which we now have is justified by neither national defense nor cost; it mostly serves to further our imperialistic pretensions.  A plan to eliminate the Army as it now exists should be undertaken through STEM.  The first step would be to analyze all operational aspects in order to begin a phased shutting down of unneeded foreign and domestic bases, forts, camps and centers; trimming manpower; eliminating unnecessary weapons systems and other equipment; and mothballing what might be needed in the future.  Soldiers would be given retirement packages, retrained for civilian occupations and offered positions in the reserves.

 

The Army now has seven Special Forces units each responsible for eight missions: unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance, direct action, counter-terrorism, counter proliferation, psychological operations and information operations.  The units consists of three battalions and up to 3,600 soldiers; total strength is 25,000 well-trained individuals.

 

Although generally stationed in the U.S., each Special Forces unit is responsible for one of the seven geograhic areas into which the world has been divided for purposes of their missions.  For example, the 5^th Special Forces Group, headquartered at Fort Campbell, Ky., has responsibility for the Middle East, Persian Gulf, central Asia and northeast Africa.  These units would continue to have primary responsibility for dealing with terrorists and other non-conventional threats, including developing the systems to counter novel weaponry.

 

U.S. Air Force—the entire Air Force would be subject to STEM.  For this branch in particular the key point would be defense of the United States.  Our redundant nuclear capability, thousands of U.S. based planes, and the need for bombing missions to support invasions must be critically scrutinized.  Most offensive weapons should be eliminated.  A defensive force of 1,200 fighter planes and 43,500 personnel could be permanently retained in addition to what the Air Force needs temporarily to accomlpish its role in nuclear deterrence as discussed earlier.

 

The 10 existing special Air Force units should also be retained.  Their mission would continue to be providing forward presence and engagement, information operations, precision employment and strike, and special operations forces mobility.  Total manpower is approximately 12,000.

 

The bottom line—at the end of the eight-year STEM plan, a mobile, equipped and ready active force of just under 450,000 persons at an annual cost of $275 billion would be in place as the our first line of defense and to deal with any crisis.  

 

Here’s a summary of personnel required and the cost in millions of dollars:

 

Defense Need	Personnel	Cost
Nuclear deterrence	10,000	$ 20,000
Enforce nuclear non-possession	500	31,500
U.S. Marines	180,000	81,000
Navy conventional force	166,000	80,000
Navy Special Warfare	5,400	2,430
Army Special Forces	25,000	11,250
Air Force conventional force	50,000	43,500
Air Force special force	12,000	5,400
TOTALS	448,900	$275,080

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compare these totals to what is current: 1,377,474 active duty service persons at a projected 2009 cost of $515.4 billion, not including special war appropriations—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step Two: Nuclear Ban Enforcement

In 1968, 138 countries agreed to nuclear non-proliferation.  If a United Nations mandate is in place, it would require a commitment of only 500 troops by each of these countries to create a truly multinational U.N. force of nearly 70,000 troops to be made responsible for enforcing non-posssession.  Logistics would be challenging but not impossible if the urgency of their mission was apparent and well defined.  If trained as both soldiers and inspectors and backed by the regular forces of powers such as the United States, Russia, China and Great Britain, no country could stand in the way of their mission.

 

Cost of the force would be $31.5 billion, based on the current expense of $450,000 for each fully-equipped service person in Iraq.  Even if the United States paid all costs the total is well below what we spend now on our nuclear arsenal.

 

When the day dawns on a nuclear-free world, this force would either be disbanded or what had been learned from the cooperative effort could be applied to other international issues such as enforcement of the cluster bomb ban enacted by more than 100 nations (not including China, Russia or the United States) in December of 2008—Jim Frost.

 

Step One: Nuclear Deterrence

Until nuclear weapons are eliminated from earth, the threat of attack, howevere remote, must be considered.  The two possible scenarios are massive attack from a nuclear power or limited attack by a terrorist or rogue government.

 

Prevention of a massive attack will continue to be based on the policy of mutually assured destruction; its threat is a decreasing possibility.  Indeed, since the dawn of the nuclear age in 1945, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 is the one time we came close to unlimited war.  Of course, it only takes one time but for the good of mankind our emphasis must be on elimination of nuclear weapons as opposed to continuing to rely on fear of them as the means to avoid earth’s annihilationn.  However, until elimination is accomplished, the threat must be accepted.

 

But let’s be real.  Given that the U.S. no longer has a superpower adversary, do we really need to spend $40 billion annually on a nuclear force?  Do we really need 500 Minuteman missiles, 336 submarine-deployed Trident missiles and a fleet of bombers (already planned to be replaced in 2018 by a new fleet)?  Because SALT II failed, some of this weasponry is fitted with mutiple warheards so even after recent cutbacks our total active firepower is still 1,430 megatons.  Hiroshima’s Little Boy was .013 megaton.  

 

For political and diplomatic as well as financial and humanatarian purposes, an immdiate pledge by the United States to eliminate 50 percent of this arsenal and drop plans for new bombers would not reduce our ability to defend ourselves one bit.  It would show the world we are serious about eliminating the possibility of nuclear holocaust and save us billions in the process.  And even with half the ballistic missiles, we would have 55,000 times what we used at Hiroshima plus vastly superior systems for delivery.

 

When the ability to acquire these weapons is gone, and when the materials and information necessary for their production are controlled, the chance that they will be used by terrorists or rogue states will also be virtually gone.  Enforcement of the United Nations mandated ban, upgraded intelligence and astute diplomacy would emiminate it completely—Berkley Bedell.

Defense: What Must Be Done

Here is a summary of  what must be done.  Over the next few weeks we will deal with how to accomplish each point.

 

· We must eliminate the expenses of unneeded systems and we must be sure we have the best possible of what we do need. 

 

· Today our military must be prepared to deter a nuclear attack; when possession and proliferation are outlawed we must take the lead with enforcement. 

 

· We need a mobile, well trained and well equipped active armed force to deal with violent transnational ideological groups such as al-Qaida as well as guerillas, insurgents or rogue states. 

 

· We should have a ready reserve force, also well-trained and equipped, to supplement regular forces if necessary.  

 

· We need plans and counter measures to offset our enemies’ possession of Stinger-type missiles and IEDs. 

 

· We need to know who potential enemies are and their intentions. 

 

· We must secure our use of the Internet. 

 

· We must ensure that our citizens can live in their homes and travel without fear of attack.

 

These are our needs.  Our military spending should be capped when they are met—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.

Wrapping Up the Threats

Air travel, seaport and border threats are also real and should be added to the list.  The answer to these threats might be military but just as important is their not-at-all-subtle connection to military spending—we have squandered so many of our resources in unnecessary wars that not enough money is available to properly deal with them. 

 

For example, CNN reported in March of 2008 that air marshals were missing from almost all flights.  One pilot was quoted in the article, “I would guess (they are on) less than one percent of all my flights.”  CNN followed up with an April story that said their training is a disgrace and that managers assigned some of the available marshals to short, no-risk flights to inflate reports on the number of protected flights.

 

Circumstances will cause additional problems in the future, including global warming, the increasing number of people living in huge cities, the widening gap between the haves and the have nots of the world, trade imbalances, and dwindling water and food supplies.   

The way affected people, groups of people and nations react to them might create threats to America.  But most can and should be addressed through non-military solutions plus the resources of wealthy countries—planning, because we have anticipated the problems, and aid, made possible by what should be be a tremendous savings in military costs. 

Next, the solutiuon—Berkley Bedell.

A Couple More Real Threats and One That's Not

In addition to military weapons and equipment increasingly being placed out of sight and protected under ground, new tactical threats identified by the Defense Intelligence Agency and other reports include acquisition and use by our potential enemies of advanced weapons like shoulder-fired, surface-to-air Stinger missiles.  Also non-conventional weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), car bombs and roadside bombs.  Along with kidnappings and suicide attacks these are real threats and require military action if used against us.

 

The category of new DIA threats also includes the Internet.  As a means of government and military communication it is vulnerable to enemy hacker geeks who can easily be as savvy and bright as the good-guy geeks who design and operate our systems.  The Internet also aids activities such as the trade in counterfeit drugs or weapons.  And access to the Internet also gives anyone with a message the ability to provide what the DIA report calls real-time and unfiltered information to a worldwide audience. 

 

While interference with our communication and aiding illegal activities are threats, disseminating information, even if adversarial to our positions on issues, is not.  Among the things that have traditionally made our democracy strong is its survival amidst a boisterous and contrary marketplace of ideas—Berkley Bedell.

Non-State Actors

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, non-state actors, driven by ideological and political goals, present a threat to the United States because they are not responsive to traditional diplomatic tools. When acting on behalf of sponsor states, they are able to conduct terrorist and other actions that their sponsors can deny.  Some have acquired advanced weapons and sophisticated technology, and operate in ungoverned territory or sponsor states.  They look like civilians and when not acting as terrorists or insurgents can blend back into the general population.  If their power exceeds that of our allies in a region they will cause disruptions that might endanger our interests.

 

The DIA calls al-Qaida “the most significant threat to U.S. interests worldwide... committed to using violence to displace Western influence across the Islamic world.”  While developing the best possible force for dealing with al-Qaida and its ilk, we should ask ourselves what about our influence provokes such passionate violence. 

 

But given that non-state actors continue to practice violent measures, that we can properly identify them, and that we are sure their objectives are clearly contrary to our national interest, their threat is real and will have to be dealt with for the foreseeable future—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.

Ongoing Combat--Case Study: Iraq

The next Defense Intelligence Agency category, threats from non-states, includes ongoing combat operations.  The most significant, Iraq, stands as the preeminent example of what can be wrong with our use of military power. 

 

As presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry rightly said, it is the wrong war.  Sen. Russ Feingold added in a Dec. 31, 2006, speech prepared for delivery on the Senate floor, “...strengthening our national security...starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq and refocusing our attention on the global terrorist threats that face us...”

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom started out as a war between nations: the United States and a couple of allies, and Iraq.  The original, if barely defensible, mission was to eliminate WMD but it got us into a civil war the suppression of which our delusional leaders claimed would make the world a safer place.  The threats were not those posed by the Iraqi combatants—they would not be killing us if we were not there—the real threats are to our Constitutional principles, our obligations as citizens of the world, our humanitarian and religious beliefs, our future as a moral force, and our economy. 

 

In Iraq, there is no answer to how one million dead civilians, 4,250 dead and 31,000 wounded American troops, and at least $2 trillion in expense will make us more secure—and there never really was.

 

In Iraq we did not take into account three principals that that should be applied to all future combat operations.  We did not identify and clearly define our mission; we did not provide a force commensurate with the mission; and we had no plan for the mission’s end—Jim Frost.

Threats?

None of the second category on the DIA list, threats from nations, requires that we maintain or use a large military.  We are not going to fight Russia, whatever its aspirations, any more than we did in Europe at the end of World War II or directly anywhere in the world during the Cold War. 

 

Vietnam and Iraq show how miserably we can fail when we decide to repress forces that challenge our military dominance on their own turf and terms.  Fighting these wars was not in defense of our country nor would winning them have made us safer.  Losing in Vietnam did not make our country more vulnerable; the fight was simply about getting rid of, not dominating, us.  Victory or even defeat in Iraq (and of course, Afghanistan) has not been adequately defined but whatever happens, the impact on our safety will be negligible.

 

Military experts might list ascending and aspiring regional powers as threats, as General Maples did, but his assessment overlooks three important points.  First, it is not the will of the American people and should not be a policy of our government to stifle the legitimate and peaceful aspirations of other countries.  Have past leaders so completely misunderstood us that they believed an acceptable path to a bright American future includes holding down the rest of the world? 

 

Second, it is an amazing stretch to find that a country’s ascension and its aspiration by themselves are a threat.  Shrewd diplomacy and careful intelligence analysis ought to tell us when threats start to develop making it possible to act without necessarily involving military force. 

 

Third, short of even more force coupled with an edict to the countries of the world that we will not tolerate anything we see as even a possible threat, there is nothing the U.S. can do to stifle or eliminate ascending and aspiring regional powers.  This is also true of evolving alliances.

 

When he gets to Latin America, the general says, “While the United States presently faces no major military threats or challenges across Latin America, a number of concerns endure.” 

 

He then goes on to list Venezuela (President Chavez’ efforts to confront U.S. regional influence), Colombia (armed forces desertions and drug traffickers), Bolivia (possible destabilization of the Morales government) and Cuba (support for Raul Castro from the military and Communist Party).  Maples’ own words and those of his thousands of colleagues ruin his argument.  The DIA found no real threats in Latin America and even those listed are diplomatic, not military, matters—Berkley Bedell.

Nuclear: A Real Threat

Nuclear proliferation is a real threat.  The possibility that terrorists or rogue states will acquire these horrible weapons adds to the threat.  As stated in earlier posts, they are truly weapons of mass destruction and must be eliminated.  But it cannot be accomplished unilaterally by the United States; elimination must be a United Nations action. 

 

Involvement of the U.S. military would be strictly as part of the enforcement arm acting on behalf of a U.N. mandate to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  It will be diplomatically and politically difficult to achieve but it is far superior to the U.S. trying to conquer and occupy anyone who already has or might someday acquire nuclear capability.

 

With regard to nuclear proliferation as well as the other DIA threats, it is critically important that we specifically identify those that are real so that we can prepare without the distraction of dealing with those that are not.  For example, before the term “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) is applied to chemical and biological dangers, it is worthwhile to consider what retired Air Force Col. Chet Richards has to say.  Col. Richards presents a strong and persuasive argument in a recent book that other than nuclear devices, there are no WMD.

 

Chemical weapons can be the cause of horrible deaths but only on a relatively small scale.  World War I was the conflict where they were most used.  The estimate of deaths from them is one-half percent of the more than 10 million soldiers killed.  Biological weapons can be produced only in extremely sophisticated laboratories and are almost impossible to use on an enemy with measurable effect without the user also being harmed.

 

They should not be ignored but unlike nuclear, these weapons cannot end human life on earth.  A good start at getting the threats right would be to continue to ramp up the discussion on how to deal with nuclear proliferation and tone down the rhetoric about chemical and biological weapons—Jim Frost.

The Threats

There are of course many analyses of the national security threats we face—real and imagined.  One of the most voluminous is the Feb 27, 2008, statement by Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services.  It is useful in spite of two facts that undermine its credibility.  First, it was part of an effort to support the Bush administration’s budget requests; second, and even more troublesome, it was done in the unstated context of what seems to be the military’s effort to have more and more influence in non-defense areas.

 

The general, speaking on behalf of what he called “thousands of collectors, analysts and support personnel...deployed worldwide,” presented the DIA assessment of the global strategic environment, trends in Iraq and Afghanistan, the global terrorist threat and other areas of special interest worldwide.  Most of his main points may be grouped into four categories.

 

Weapons of Mass Destruction:

 

1.   The proliferation of nuclear weapons

2.   Terrorists’ efforts to obtain chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capabilities

 

Threats from Nations:

 

1.   Russia’s attempts to re-establish military power commensurate with its current economic and political strength

2.   Nations that challenge the dominant military influence of the United States

3.   Ascending and aspiring regional powers

4.   Evolving alliances

5.   Latin America concerns

 

Threats from Non-States:

 

1.   Ongoing combat operations

2.   Non-state actors

3.   Non-state actors challenging the dominant military influence of the United States

4.   Ideological conflicts that challenge order in areas of interest to the U.S.

 

New Threats:

 

1.   Underground facilities for military assets

2.   Advanced and improvised weapons

3.   Insurgent use of tactics such as kidnappings and suicide attacks

4.   Computer network threats   

5.   Access to the Internet and its ability to give real-time and unfiltered information to a worldwide audience

 

Some of these threats certainly are real.  Others are exaggerated or just plain misunderstood, and the alleviation of others has little to do with our national security and defense.  We will take a look at each in the next several posts—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.

 

Imperialism

The cost of inertia cannot be calculated and often is not even apparent until the next crisis.  It has, however, added to an international network of bases, troops, equipment and weapons generally made unnecessary by a world that has changed since they were first put in place.  In fact, instead of taking a hard look at unnecessary foreign facilities, as the “Base Realignment and Closure Report 2005” has done at home, we are expanding overseas.

 

This expansion is due in large part to the most insidious of the three contributors to the huge military budget—erroneous imperialistic policies.  Chalmers Johnson, author of a must-read book on the subject, sees as its consequences a continual state of war and eventual financial ruin.  He fears that we will lose our country, saying, “...it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever.”

 

The best historic examples of imperial domination of the world are the Roman Republic and the British Empire.  Rome disintegrated into a military dictatorship and fell when the military could not keep control of its increasingly restless and far-flung subjects.  Britain, although repressive to its colonies, maintained itself as a democracy but at the cost of its empire, which fell as a consequence of World War II.

 

As with both these earlier empires, the influence and domination of the United States today is not really due to consent; it is accomplished by force or the threat of force.  We use two principal justifications to give credibility to our actions.  First we say we must prevent or suppress acts of aggression.  If that isn’t enough, we say we are spreading democracy and our way of life.

 

George W. Bush documented the first justification in his final budget message:

 

The 2009 Budget supports our troops fighting terrorism abroad,

strengthens our military for the future, enhances international

diplomacy, and protects our homeland from attack.

 

Tellingly the phrases and the order in which they are listed reflect his administration’s priorities.  First is fighting abroad, second is an even stronger military, third is diplomacy and finally, fourth is defense of our homeland.

 

He articulated his belief in the second justification during a debate before the 2004 presidential election:

 

I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I

believe. And that's been a part of my foreign policy.  In

Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the

Almighty.

 

The more than one million Afghan and Iraqi bystanders killed so far, most of whom worshipped a slightly different God, might not have entirely agreed. 

 

Huge expenditures are increasinly a manifestation of our imperialistic and militaristic policies.  Although somewhat lame arguments may be put forth to justify the policies, there can be no argument that their cost is not staggering.

 

· The basic Department of Defense budget has grown from $433 billion to $515 billion in just two years.

 

· Construction costs, mostly base building, have more than doubled in the same period from $9 billion to over $21 billion.

 

· Total spending for Iraq and Afghanistan was $1 trillion at the end of 2008.

 

· The Pentagon is calling for an additional 92,000 soldiers and Marines at a cost of $117 billion by 2013.

 

· Although four fewer than originally planned, the Navy will seek funding for the purchase of seven ships in fiscal 2009.  The service will have a $149 billion budget that year of which $14 billion will go to the ship purchase.

 

· Annual expenses for classified military programs and other defense systems not subject to any pubic review, known as “black budgets,” are estimated to total $32 billion annually.

 

· The Pentagon’s Foreign Military Financing program “gives money to countries to buy American weapons and then supplies training in how to use them.”  In 2003 the request for these funds was $4 billion.

 

· Camp Bonsteel in Kosovo, the largest base constructed since Vietnam, cost $36.6 million plus another $180 million each year to operate.

 

· Two 2002 projects in Germany illustrate the expenses involved with trying to keep our troops morale up overseas.  Committed for the enjoyment of just one Area Suppport Group were $16 million for a fitness center in Bamberg and $9 million for a bowling and entertainment center in Baumholder.

 

· Our adventure in Iraq, first said to be necessary to supresss terrorism, then to help spread democracy, costs $10 billion each month with the total already $1 trillion. By the time it is over it could reach $2 trillion for the military mission and fixing all that is now broken.  This is more than the Korean ($691 billion) and Vietnam ($650 billion) wars combined.

 

Waste, inertia and bad policies have resulted in huge, mostly unnecessary costs. The U.S. military is too big, unwieldy and expensive; we have not prepared for the right fight; and the world is too fractious and diverse to dominate.  The real threats to our country must be clearly identified, what is unnecessary to meet them must be eliminated, and what is necessary to deal with them must be strengthened—Berkley Bedell.

 

It's Huge

On June 30, 2007, our military personnel were deployed as follows:

 

    United States and its territories—1,082,627

    In and around Iraq and Afghanistan—226,900

    Europe—89,183

    East Asia and the Pacific—74,799

    Africa and the Near East—5,812

    Western Hemisphere (other than the U.S. and territories)—2,058

 

The one million-plus personnel in the U.S. and territories include 436,000 in the Army, 232,000 in the Navy, 180,000 in the Marines, and 279,000 in the Air Force.  They are stationed at 440 main installations in the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii and Guam with 95,000 sailors afloat on Navy vessels in our waters alone.  The full-fledged bases and forts are supplemented by aviation centers, construction centers, firing centers, medical centers, research centers, supply centers, support centers, systems centers, test centers, training centers, weapons centers, academies, arsenals, ammunition plants, depots, hospitals, laboratories, offices, schools and so on.  One estimate in 2004 put the total number at 6,000.

 

The cog in the U.S. military machine filled by each installation can be large or small, general or specific, open or arcane but there is always an official justification for it.  Reviews of the 440 main installations may be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org but looking at just two offers a glimpse into the vastness of the array and highlights one of the problems caused by inertia.

 

Officially named the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, the large base near Augusta, Georgia, is known as “The Home of the Signal Corps.”  It covers 56,000 acres, has 30,000 military and civilian employees, and is said to be the largest communications-electronics facility in the world.

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, home of the Army’s signal school before it was moved to Georgia in the 70s, now is sometimes referred to as “The Soul of the Signal Corps."  Today much of the Army's research and development of high-tech systems is done there by 10,600 mostly civilian personnel on 1,126 acres.

Having already had its “home” designation for the Signal Corps reduced to “soul,” a 2005 proposal by the Defense Department advised that Fort Monmouth be closed completely.  Its functions were to be consolidated to the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and other locations. This became a recommendation to Congress only after the department certified:

 

  (It) will be accomplished without disruption of support to the

  Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) or other critical contingency

  operations, that safeguards exist to ensure that necessary

  redundant capabilities are put in place to mitigate potential

  degradation of such support, and to ensure maximum retention

  of critical workforce.

 

In other words, the location could change but not much else will.

 

Additionally, the original $1 billion payback estimate over six years has disappeared because the projected cost of the move has already doubled from $780 million to $1.5 billion.  Politicians in both states are unhappy because in New Jersey there would be a $3.3 billion hit to the economy and in Maryland $16 billion in infrastructure improvements are required.  Because of the issues, the Army is reexamining its plans and the House Armed Services Committee might have to reopen hearings on this one, small attempt at military thrift.

 

Along with United States-based forces there are 399,000 service persons overseas at 800 locations in 130 countries.

 

In 2007, we had 58,894 military personnel in Germany, 10,216 in Italy and 33,068 in Japan—a total of more than 100,000 in countries defeated more than 60 years ago.  Troops have been there ever since although our national defense has long ceased to be a real part of their mission.  Most go to work every day, keeping up bases, training and maintaining equipment for the unlikely event of a traditional land, sea and air war.

 

There are 100 air bases outside the U.S.  There are 32 in Germany, Italy and Japan, and there are 14 in South Korea, a country smaller than Kentucky; half are U.S. Army airfields supporting 27,114 soldiers.  The troops are in the country in spite of the fact Korea has 5,187,000 of its own (687,000 active and 4,500,000 reserve).  Along with our direct costs, we help the country’s military out with an annual $1.8 billion supplement.

 

We have eight air bases, one naval base and more than 10,000 personnel in the United Kingdom.  Britain was a great ally in World War I, World War II and the Cold War and continues to spend $42.8 billion of its own on defense.  Inexplicably the United States kicks in another $6.5 billion giving us among other things the right to use Royal Air Force bases in spite of there being no strategic reason to do so.  After all, Germany was vanquished in 1918 and 1945 and the threat of the Soviet Union ended in the early 90s.

 

At one time it might have been necessary to have large troop contingents in these countries but in spite of all the global changes since World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War, they are still there.  A pattern exists—like the wrong rifles being issued to individuals, a lot of the current expense of our military is related to past events. 

 

No less a defense expert than Senator John McCain of Arizona ironically confirmed this when asked how long he expected American forces would have to be in Iraq.  “It’s like asking ‘How long are we going to stay in Japan?’ Well we’ve been there since World War II.”  Apparently with unquestioning belief in the length and cost of a mission in Japan that lost any real relevance years ago, the senator used it to justify a presence in Iraq that he said could last for 100 years.

 

Further irony regarding McCain’s point of view is that at the time he made his statement the Japanese government was so eager to be rid of us that it had already agreed to pay $6.1 billion to help defray the cost of ending the 62-year-old occupation of Okinawa.  But rather than being sent home or at least facing major reductions, the ground force from Japan, along with ballistic missiles, submarines, helicopters, jet fighters and bombers, is moving to the nearby U.S. territory of Guam at a further cost of more than $13 billion.

 

A portion of our foggy military mission in Japan relocates to Guam.  According to one report it includes “a highly visible reminder to China that the United States is nearby and watching.”  Watching what?  The boatloads of televisions, furniture, flannel shirts, appliances, cookware and Christmas tree lights that represent the $296 billion in Chinese exports headed to the U.S.  Watching how?  We already have spy satellites that from 100 miles away can see whether or not a car has a license plate—Berkley Bedell.

Inertia and Its Cost

Like cronyism, the cost of inertia, another major contributor to the size of the military budget, is not as obvious as outright waste but its impact is tremendously significant.

 

Military machines can be sluggish beasts, often guided as much by previous experiences as by future contingencies.  There is a common feeling shared by personnel joining the armed services near the beginning of a conflict that training and equipment is at least one war behind.  In Vietnam soldiers were first equipped with heavy, unwieldy M-14 rifles, essentially based on the M-1 from World War II.  The M-14 is almost uncontrollable when fired automatically and has a wood stock that becomes swollen in a wet atmosphere.  It was replaced on the run by the M-16.

 

The same soldiers originally wore post Korean-era fatigues with bright, easy to spot insignia and leather boots that rotted in the jungles.  Army basic training in 1964 included no special preparation for living or fighting in the extraordinary conditions of the Indochina Peninsula.

 

The U.S. led invasion of Iraq, something George W. Bush had been talking about since 2001, began on March 18, 2003, but the Army’s program of training recruits for the fighting they would encounter was not revamped until another two years later.

 

Soldiers getting ready to be sent overseas a few months after completing nine weeks of basic training were finally being prepared for the dangers of traveling in convoys and fighting in cities as well as being taught how to fire at pop-up targets while riding in trucks, shoot a rifle while wearing full body armor, and fire at moving targets from standing and kneeling positions.  Mock villages, complete with contracted Iraqi-Americans to act as insurgents and rubber dog carcasses simulating hiding places for bombs, had just been constructed at Fort Polk, La.

 

The rationale for our military policies in Vietnam and Iraq aside, it is apparent in both actions that better anticipation and a more timely casting away of outmoded equipment and tactics would have spared lives.  When speaking of the new programs designed for Iraq, one basic training colonel admitted, “We asked ourselves, ‘Are we fully preparing (the troops) for that environment?’  In many cases, the answer was no.”

 

The answer “no” is not due to lack of ability or resources—in Iraq and other conflicts we have had both and have devoted them to our objectives.  It is due to a reactionary approach that gets in the way of recognizing and adapting to changed situations.  This approach is one of the main reasons we have so many troops today—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.

Cronies All

Furtherance of militaristic policies and resistance to oversight are at least partially due to the crossover of high ranking persons between civilian, military and bureaucratic jobs—cronyism.  The list includes former Secretary of State George P. Schultz, a past president and director of the Betchel Corporation that received contracts for rebuilding Iraq after the 2003 invasion.  Former Secretary of Defense, the late Casper Weinberger, was a vice president, director and general counsel for Betchel.

 

Along with seven other retired generals, former Army chief of staff General Carl Vuono founded Defense Department contractor MPRI in 1987.  One of his partners boasted, “We have got more generals here per square foot than in the Pentagon.”

 

Former Air Force chief of staff, General Ron Fogelman had a consulting firm with defense industry clients including Boeing, FMC, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and RSL Electronics.  Air Force General John Handy, head of U.S. Transportation Command, retired and became a director of American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier and American Auto Logistics.

  

Richard Perle, chair of the Bush administration’s Defense Policy Board, is currently managing partner of Trireme, L.P., a company in which he has tried to get Saudi Arabian businessmen to invest millions of dollars.  The Center for Public Integrity has reported that at least nine former members of the 30-person civilian Defense Policy Board were executives, lobbyists or board members of companies doing business with the Pentagon that profited from the advice to invade Iraq.

 

Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy Secretary of Defense and a chief advocate of the 2003 invasion.  He went on to become president of the World Bank Group in 2005 but was forced out of that office after two years.  In 2008, he was working on issues of international economic development at the American Enterprise Institute and then found his way back into the Bush administration as chair of an advisory panel on arms control and disarmament at the State Department.

 

But the most flagrant and disturbing example of crossover cronyism was the relationship between former vice president Dick Cheney and Halliburton.  When Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1991 he gave the Halliburton Company contracts to rebuild facilities in Kuwait and Iraq; he was chairman and chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000; he left for the vice presidency in 2000 with a $34 million severance package of stock options and deferred salary that as of 2004 was still being paid.  In the 2000s, Halliburton and its subsidiary, KBR, Inc., were given contracts to build holding cells, construct and run military bases, plan for oil well firefighting, do Hurricane Katrina cleanup work and build internment camps, among others.  Some contracts were either awarded without bids or were open ended. 

The savings if all persons and transactions regarding the defense of our country existed in the clear light of day are incalculable—Jim Frost.

 

 

 

 

 

Politics and Miltary Spending

Politics often gets in the way of the obligation of Congress to oversee and if necessary restrain spending.  Even recommendations of military leaders are undercut by earmarks and pork barrel projects brought on by the eagerness of some elected officials to do favors and fund pet projects.

 

Here are some examples.

 

Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., secured funding for 20 F-22A jet fighters, which will go on through 2009 at a total cost of $1.2 billion.  The planes were designed for use against the Soviet Air Force.

 

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, has funded many projects including $11.5 million for a large aperture telescope developed to prevent space objects from colliding with Earth.

 

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens got together and secured $9.5 million for something called the Extended Cold Weather Clothing System.

 

Before he became majority leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., bragged that he had secured millions of dollars for his state’s defense projects including $1.95 million for electronic systems heat dissipation and $1.3 million for the study of smart munitions effect on lightweight structures. 

 

The House recently added $5 million to the defense budget request to fund the purchase of breath alcohol testers to counter what was called the leading cause of accidents, injury and death in the services. 

 

Citizens Against Government Waste provides an entertaining analysis that includes these and other federal programs with its cynical but comprehensive tally of the annual cost of Congressional pork.  The organization’s 2008 compilation identified 11,610 such projects at a cost of $17.2 billion.

 

Oversight is the duty of Congress and the framers of our government felt that the debate and give and take between legislative and executive branches would provide the necessary checks and balances and produce the best possible decisions about defense appropriations and other public policy.  But according to one report, Congressional oversight of the Bush administration on foreign policy virtually collapsed because the former president and his staff asserted an overly broad definition of executive privilege or simply ignored requests for information—Berkley Bedell.

 

Waste!

All this is challenging to comprehend but is clearly unacceptable:

The “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” reported that between 1980 and 1992 contractors Grumman, Lockheed, Northrop and Rockwell admitted to or were all convicted of criminal acts related to their work for the Pentagon.

From 1986 to 1990, Pentagon official John Marlowe cooperated in a large sting operation after being caught molesting little girls.  The Wall Street Journal reported that as a result “more than 90 companies and individuals were convicted of felonies...including eight of the military’s largest suppliers...”

From 1987 to 2005, there were 2,655 cases of fraud involving the Department of Defense that required action by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.

The Project on Government Oversight found that from 1989 to 1994, Boeing, Grumman, Hughes, Raytheon, RCA, McDonnell Douglas, General Motors, Teledyne and General Electric pleaded guilty, were convicted or settled in fraud cases involving everything from price-fixing to false testing.

Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, when speaking about $48 billion in new Pentagon spending called for by George W. Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said, “With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building...”

Even Donald Rumsfeld in 2002 said, “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in (defense) transactions.”  Speaking for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Jim Minnery added, “We know it’s gone.  But we don’t know what they spent it on.”

In 2003, it was determined by the Pentagon’s own inspector general that $1 trillion could simply not be accounted for.  Tragically, at the same time, chemical and biological protection suits were being sold online for pennies on the dollar as soldiers were preparing to invade Iraq without them.

In 2005, a report by the Government Accountability Office listed 25 government programs it judged to be financially risky; eight were programs or functions of the Department of Defense and two—inventory management and weapons system acquisition—had been on the list since 1990.  In the GAO assessment, 56 planes, 32 tanks and 36 missiles that the Army just plain lost joined the infamous $640 toilet seat as glaring examples of waste.

In 2007, a $13,400 per month no-work contract was arranged by the Air Force for Charles D. Riechers as he awaited confirmation for a civilian position with the same service branch.  Riechers was quoted as saying, “I really didn’t do anything for (Commonwealth Research Institute).  I got a paycheck from them.”  The company did millions of dollars of work with the Pentagon while Riechers was a principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisitions.

Also in 2007, defense contractor Brent Wilkes and his employee Mitchell Wade were convicted of giving former (now imprisoned) Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., $1.7 million in cash and gifts in exchange for $240 million in government work.

Fraud-related waste at the Pentagon in 1996 was said to be $172 billion per year.  That’s $233 billion in today’s dollars and if just this figure was applied to the 2008 budget of $669.5 billion it would instantly have been reduced by 35 percent to $436.5 billion—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost

U.S. Versus the World

A recent estimate by the organization GlobalSecurity.org indicates $1,100 billion in worldwide military expenditures for 2004.  That same year United States spending was $623 billion.  The U.S. spends more than the entire rest of the world combined!

 

China, the next biggest spender, spent $65 billion or just over 10 percent of the U.S. total; Russia was at $50 billion.  At the time they were labeled the axis of evil, combined spending by North Korea, Iran and Iraq was a mere $10.6 billion.  And if some purported list of our potential enemies also includes Pakistan, Syria and Cuba they add less than $6 billion.

 

The U.S. figure was 27 percent of our $2.293 trillion total national budget—$2,127 for every man, woman and child in the country.  Japan, with a population that was 127,787,000, spent $41.75 billion or $326 per person for its military, while India with 1,065,000,000 people got by on $19 billion or $18 per person.

 

On Oct. 31, 2007, there were 1,377,474 United States active duty military personnel.  The $110 billion spent on them covered basic pay, allowances and incentives.  There were 1,087,477 reserve troops or 44 percent of total manpower.  When on active duty reservists are paid through the Defense Department budget.  There also were 696,000 civilians employed (2005) in national defense related positions with an annual payroll of  $31.7 billion.

 

Waste, inertia and erroneous military policies, often blatantly imperialistic, have resulted in billions of squandered dollars.  When these three are changed the savings will be more than enough to begin the process whereby America leads the world in tackling its real problems.  The first is the most obvious contributor to our huge military budget.  Waste is caused by criminal activity, incompetence, politically motivated actions, failures in oversight and cronyism.  On Sunday, we will take a closer look at waste in military spending—Jim Frost. 

Military Spending: The Problem

Defense of our country is not the principal basis for the hundreds of billions spent on the United States military.  Waste, inertia and erroneous policies have resulted in unnecessary systems, manpower and equipment, and created an active force that is more than three times what it needs to be and a budget that is two and one-half times what it should be.  The spending does not adequately defend us, threatens peaceful international relations, and drains money from critical social needs.

Two essential functions of government are protecting citizens and providing national security.  By definition these functions are defensive; they do not include aggression and domination. 

However, needing a reason for aggression and recognizing that citizens usually do not support it, ambitious, mistaken or misguided leaders sometimes justify their actions in the name of defense.  This list includes Adolph Hitler’s invasion of Poland to start World War II, which he asserted countered the threat of the alliance between Poland and France; John F. Kennedy’s escalation of the Vietnam conflict, which he asserted countered threats to our containment policy; George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which he asserted countered the threat of weapons of mass destruction; and the ongoing mess in Afghanistan. 

(At http://www.alternet.org/world/142521, on the AlterNet Web site, there is an excellent analysis of the Afghanistan quagmire.)

The atomic bomb at the end of World War II put an end to the necessity for large standing armies.  The United States and Soviet Union emerged as Cold War superpowers but a land-based conflict between infantrymen of the two rivals was not likely.  Airplanes and missiles became the preeminent weapons and the mutually assured destruction policy followed.  Although horrifying, this policy was in fact defensive because the objective by each country was to contain, not subdue, its enemy.

A huge American force continues to exist, however, and its presence at home and use abroad has become less a matter of defense and more a statement of U.S. power.  This power is then used to further our own world objectives: specific objectives such as countering the perceived domino effect of communism in Korea and Vietnam or general objectives used to justify almost anything such as “advancing the struggle between good and evil.”

Much more follows—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.