NEO – US Defense Cuts – Myth and Reality

Have the black budgets been cut? How woud we know?

Have the black budgets been cut? How woud we know?

The US Defense Cuts – Myth and reality

… by  Salman Rafi Sheikh,  … with  New Eastern Outlook,  Moscow

 

Somebody has to pay for all of ths. Guess who?

Somebody has to pay for all of ths. Guess who?

[ Editor’s note: It’s always a treat to read an analysis of US future defense policy from someone far away who knows more than most Americans.

It’s not that we are stupid, it’s just that we don’t read the reports that we spend our tax dollars on. We are too busy, too distracted, too un-networked…but that is getting better.

The other reason for our lack of interest is that we aren’t the targets, other than our pocketbooks. The folks overseas, if they have something that we want, or I should say our elites want, the furriners know they are potentially in the cross hairs.

While we can’t expect to become experts we do have to arm ourselves enough to know when they are blowing smoke up our shorts to justify impoverishing us on phantom threats. The two trillion of our national debt spent on the last two wars should be enough to get our attention that these boys mean business in that regard.

The one hour "clean nuke" delivery system

The one hour “clean nuke” delivery system

False flag attacks have become so sophisticated they are something like the prop and wardroom archives of the old Hollywood studies, where there is almost always something available to fill your needs.

And when you add in the high tech stuff they have, the potential for abuse just runs off the scale.

And I don’t just mean by state actors because multinationals now have extensive capabilities to do things that most countries can’t.

Despite all the fancy international cooperation orgs, there is still a significant aspect of the Wild, Wild, West in action…and one that some seem to want to keep around for when patsies are needed… Jim W. Dean ]

________________________________

–  First published  May 5, 2014  –

 

On site training

On site training

The mainstream media networks have been really vocal in an attempt to conceal the underlying aims and reasons of the introduction of new cuts in the US defence budget and reduction in the size of its army.

While the Hagel plan has been portrayed as a drastic scaling back of the US military—with headlines focusing on the cutback in total Army personnel to a level last seen before World War II—the real content of the budget is a shift in the military strategy of American imperialism.

Current fiscal realities of the US and political realities of the incumbent government which pledged to end the longest streak of land wars in the US history.

An important factor which is not being highlighted much is that these defence cuts and reduction in military’s size are actually a corollary result of the new war strategy of the US.

These two developments are actually a result of the US decision to rely more on high-tech mechanical warfare in the future, which will be much more devastating than the ones in which human beings are main combatants.

Not only would introduction of and increased reliance on fighting machines, such as drones and fighting robots, reduce human casualties but also reduce public pressure on the US government considerably, which comes as a result of human casualties —hence, more freedom for the US to play havoc around the world.

To begin with, the very notion of cuts in defence budget is ambiguous and illusive. Under this plan, the US defence budget would continue to grow in actual terms. Even with the proposed $500 billion reduction, the US, in actuality, would continue to spend more on defence each year in the next decade than it did during the height of the Cold War.

Americ'a gold? - It's gone, or being held as collateral, which is the same thing

Americ’a gold? – It’s gone, or being held as collateral, which is the same thing

Notwithstanding this ambiguity, the defence cuts are not of overriding significance, since these are related to the end of long wars, first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

With the end of wars in sight now, which have consumed more than $6 trillion, the equivalent of $75,000 for every American household; it is but natural to expect that the defence budget would come down.

However, it would not have any significant impact on the growth of US economy as is being portrayed. According to a report of the US’ own premier institution, Harvard University, these two wars have not only left the US heavily indebted, but would also continue to have a profound impact on the federal government’s fiscal and budgetary crises over a protracted period.

It is pertinent to recall that the Bush administration had claimed at the very outset that the Iraq war would finance itself out of Iraqi oil revenues, but Washington DC, instead, has ended up borrowing some $2 trillion to finance the two wars, the bulk of which came from foreign lenders. Needless to say, the cost of the two wars today now accounts for roughly 22% of the total amount added to the US national debt between 2001 and 2013.

As such, the announced cut in the defence budget is just an end of huge war-spending only, rather than an actual decrease in the pre-war defence spending. Since 9/11 the US defense budget grew by leaps and bounds. Over the next decade, after the defence cuts have been operationalized, the budget would naturally grow less, but will still go up, and it will still be quite larger than it was at the end of the Bush administration in 2007-2008.

Everything but a hemi engine and racing stripes

Everything but a hemi engine and racing stripes – The price? You will find that out later.

In other words, the US withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan followed by “small” budget signifies a reorientation of its post-withdrawal military strategy to achieve other objectives in Asia — hence, the so-called “Asia Pivot.” Cuts in defence budget, as such, do not mean that the US would forego its self-assumed global policeman role.

Second, it is quite significant to note that the cuts are not to be made from the actual defence budget in the strict sense of the word. There will be significant cuts in subsidies for military commissaries at the US bases, which will fall from $1.4 billion to $500 million. Similarly, housing subsidies for the US army personnel will also be capped, meaning that military personnel will begin to pay a greater share of the cost, as rents and utility charges rise.

Other aspects of the proposed changes include reduction in the size of military and redesigning the fighting force. Accordingly, army strength is to go down from 570,000 to 490,000. The Marine Corps is to face cuts of almost 23,000 from its current strength of 202,000 men.

The process of reduction is set to begin in 2015. These would-be developments, like the notion of cuts in defence budget, are also ambiguous because there is no reason to accept that the US would focus less on its national security by reducing the size of military; in reality, it is just revamping its military to meet geopolitical requirements in a post-Afghanistan future.

US Special Forces

US Special Forces

As a result, at a time when the army is going to decrease, the Special Operations Forces’ size is to grow from roughly 66,000 today to 69,700 over five years.

As with the size of the defence budget, the size of the army is actually going back to the pre-war size, with an additional emphasis on an increased deployment of highly agile and technologically advanced Special Forces.

Also, the proposed reduction in the size of America’s military does not mean that the basic mission of the US maintaining global hegemony would be less enthusiastically pursued.

The idea of having such a force ready-to-move on short notice force is, however, not entirely new. It has been the same concept in force before the protracted land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started, because of which the US army’s strength grew by 65,000. Now, it is this very “surplus” army that the US is going to replace.

The US military will be “reshaped” between now and 2020 with an emphasis on countering terrorism, maintaining a nuclear deterrent, protecting the US homeland and deterring and defeating aggression by any potential adversary anywhere in the world, with an increase in the number of and reliance on Special Forces instead of regular forces.

That’s what the US’ official document, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, in a nutshell, says. Protection of both national and global interests are both explicitly and implicitly an intrinsic part of this “new” strategy.

The prime focus of this shift is however not Europe. According to the above-mentioned document, the US military presence in Europe would be reduced, but not at the expense of discontinuing its long-term alliance with NATO. However, given the kind of developments taking place in the non-European world, especially in Asia and the Pacific region, the focus of the US global strategy is to be shifted to a renewed commitment to the security of the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

Not only would the US keep fighting forces in the Middle East, but would also pro-actively engage in maintaining regional “stability.” As to the notion of the “Asia Pivot”, the Pentagon clearly sets sights on China as a potential competitor and a formidable adversary to be reckoned with.

However, the US is also weary of costs involved in maintaining a permanent military presence in the region because of geographical distance. It is for this reason that the US, according to the new strategy, intends to fight future wars not with conventional land forces but with air, sea and digital operations, which are more agile and suitable than land armies.

The White House officials have already started to take into account new military warfare technologies. For example, the U2 spy plane is to be replaced with the remotely-piloted Global Hawk to facilitate global monitoring, reconnaissance and surveillance, and selected targeting. In addition to it, the US has also planned to have 1,500 to 1,800 sea- and air-based first-strike cruise missiles by 2015, and 2,500 to 3,000 by 2020.

Global Hawk

Global Hawk

The US also aims to combine PGS [Prompt Global Strike] with its space and anti-missile technologies in order to form an integrated defence system which can, when operational, render other countries’ strategic weapons, including nuclear arms, almost useless because it would enable the US to deliver a precision non-nuclear weapon anywhere in the world just within one hour.

This can practically put other countries, not having such technology at their disposal, in a serious strategic dilemma: they either lose the capability to launch a strategic nuclear counterattack or even maintain minimum credible deterrence.

Apart from it, these developments also mean that the US would no longer be pursuing a strategy based on waging long duration land wars in future. Highlighting the US’ changed methodology in terms of exercising military muscle in the world, Secretary Hagel said in a briefing to Pentagon that the rise of a “new center of power” throughout the globe means “a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable and, in some instances, more threatening to the United States.”

One component of Prompt Global Strike

One component of Prompt Global Strike

However, he also stressed that this “does not mean that the US sees any more ground wars in its future”, particularly as it wraps up America’s longest war in Afghanistan.

But, it does mean, especially given the above mentioned developments, that the US would wage wars which are fought not on ground but in the air, on the seas and also contested in cyberspace.

The US decision to bolster the application of Special Forces and new technologies reflects, in simple words, what the target countries are most likely to face – enhanced US efforts to internally destabilize the target country, application of CIA/Military contractors like Blackwater, and employment of special military troops wherever and whenever needed.

It is quite evident that the US is redesigning its military to fight different kinds of wars in future which would involve attacks by sea, air and cyberspace, with less emphasis on significant ground combat especially on the Asian mainland, the only form of battle in which China for example, with its enormous manpower, might have an advantage over the US.

Contrary to the myth projected through the media, the underlying aim of the cuts and redesigning of the military is not to fight no more wars; but to strategically outmaneuver adversaries, both strategically and tactically, who are also engaged in increased military modernization.

The aim is to preserve the US global hegemony and not to allow any state or non-state actor whatsoever to challenge it. Its logic is to design a more capable defence apparatus to fight more lethal wars. It has less to do with economic austerities but certainly more with global power politics.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Editing: Jim W. Dean and Erica P. Wissinger

640x260_NEO_Moscow5

_______________________________

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on May 14, 2014, With 2932 Reads Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

8 Responses to "NEO – US Defense Cuts – Myth and Reality"

  1. beveragebob  May 15, 2014 at 10:24 pm

    What we have here is a coordinated multi-level system that has been operating free style with no constraints for decades. The CIA is the errant world power that answers to no one. JFK was going to shut it down because he knew the damage it was doing to the US and the rest of the free world. They are the ones that are “spraying” us like bugs here in our own country for the soft kill they want for the NWO. Budgets have no place or matter, the amount of petrol to do this around the world is staggering! The young pilots they train are mind controlled thinking that they are saving the planet from global warming. I believe that the rotten inner core is disintegrating. Most of us know what is “REALLY” going on behind the scenes. The Corporate DC 1871 Government has absolutely no legitimacy with “the people” More and more of us are seeing this on a daily basis. As the wise and omnipotent JFK said ” ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” Praise the Lord and pass the ammo! Stay safe my friends!

  2. Cold Wind  May 15, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    The rest of the word is catching up with the US in terms of scientific and technological knowhow. China appears to be ready to eclipse the US even in the most difficult sciences and is becoming technically really proficient. Given the dismal state if US education, especially the number technical science graduates, I think we might have a worry here. The chances of a really significant scientific/technical breakthrough- a real game changer- coming from someplace other than the US is growing exponentially. The military is only as good as the people it draws from. I have heard the pickings are slim and getting worse. Our people are poorly educated. That should worry the military more than force reductions.

    • Eduard  May 15, 2014 at 7:18 pm

      I remember a political cartoon by the renowned Pat Oliphant, who portrayed a military leader pointing to a headless muscular-bodied recruit saying- “THIS is the recruit we want!”

      Having to police the world is in itself something most Americans don’t want. Yet, that is obviously our foreign affairs. Our military has adopted the corporate model. I think this is a big mistake. When the military outsources technology to other countries for use in communication and military equipment, I think that is an incredibly foolish idea. The corporate model of reducing “labor costs” is a concept that has also been identified to the soldier. It is also foolish to think that special forces are going to be an effective strategy in the long term. Special forces rely on superior communication and warfare technology to slip behind enemy lines to complete their mission. Basically, it is a hit and run operation. The element of surprise is the critical factor for success. Special force operations only work temporarily. The advantage in technology is also temporary.

      When we are talking about actual war, a standing army is required. The United States seems to believe this is no longer needed and a Star Trek soldier-less military is the answer.

      I have only one response for describing the idiocy of this plan Electromotive Pulse (EMP) bombs. EMPs are naturally occurring and also man made.

      Either way, it wipes out Treky insanity.

  3. franktalk  May 15, 2014 at 11:13 am

    The willingness of the ‘head teleprompter’ to enhance the destruction of freemen via the neocons is undeniable. . . . Since the assassination of President McKinley and the Act of 1871( you can look up the revuelta) and the hidden history of subversion. Americans and the worlds’ people have a choice. Immigration, since 1900’s has been the tool to dilute the knowledge of the mindset of an American and our Independence as free men and women. The immigrants are not our enemies. They are our best allies, but we have to be smart enough to include them and educate them about what America has become in the ‘now’.

  4. guitargirl  May 15, 2014 at 8:42 am

    Obviously if somehow the USA government can be prevented from being the
    biggest terrorist ass in the world, Mr. Dean we don’t need all of this!

    By the way, any more news about the missing Pentagon trillions that have been located?

    Regina

  5. John Kirby  May 14, 2014 at 10:48 pm

    Successive America governments have betrayed the constitution for the benefit of zionism from WW1 onward. I don’t blame these powerful Jews for trying, but I blame presidents and Congress for complying. Money talks.

    The recent Harvard study puts the financial cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at $6 trillion. The human cost has been higher. Our children will be paying for this all their lives.

    • ani  May 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm

      “Our children will be paying for this all their lives.”

      THAT is the tragedy WE are working so hard to avert.

      The reason I have disclosed so much of my personal history synchronises with all at VT (and other ‘alternative websites) are trying to do-

      WE the LIVING (and truly educated) have devoted ALL our energies LEARNING from our collective past, to ensure those hideous events WOULD NEVER BE REPEATED.

      And here we are.

      Unbelievable.

      It is,
      quite simply

      Thanatos versus Eros
      Death versus Life.

  6. Grampah  May 14, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    The U.S. as the “world’s policeman” is an insult to good cops.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network