How Are We Supposed to Rule the World With One Less Warship in the Persian Gulf!?

John Glaser, February 21, 2013

Congressman Mike Coffman, Republican from Colorado, has made public a broad plan for where exactly to make the approximately $500 billion in cuts mandated by the sequestration deal. You know, the cuts that almost every notable official in the White House, Pentagon, and Congress claims are too drastic and would be devastating to US national security. Coffman, no dove, makes targeting areas of waste look easy:

1. $150 billion. Require annual reductions in defense spending by the Department of Defense through reducing programs and activities which do not contribute significantly to military capability, allowing leaders of Defense to use their expertise to combat wasteful earmarks and respond to changing environments.

2. $100 billion. Adopt “sea swap” policies for cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious ships by flying crews out to ships instead of changing crews at home ports.

3. $53 billion. Use local civilian contractors instead of military personnel to perform commercial-type activities at military bases.

4. $52.5 billion. Shift Army and Marine Corps troops to Reserves, preserving ground combat strength but returning active duty forces to pre-9/11 levels.

5. $52 billion. Reduce spending for the Pentagon’s “Other Procurement,” which covers non-major equipment replacement. Our overseas deployments are ramping down, and everyday equipment will last longer now than in wartime.

6. $36.7 billion. Cut the number of Department of Defense civilian bureaucrat positions through attrition.

7. $20 billion. Cut U.S. troops stationed in Europe.

8. $15 billion. Cut the number of consultants and contractors at headquarters.

9. $9 billion. Cap experimental fuel procurement.

10. $7.1 billion. Consolidate the management of retail stores on military bases.

11. $7 billion. Postpone procurement of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle.

12. $4.6 billion. Unify the military medical system.

13. $3 billion. Delay refurbishment of the Abrams tank.

14. $1.8 billion. Spend less on military bands.

15. $800 million. Reduce the top-heavy number of Pentagon generals and admirals.

“All that would make for $512.5 billion saved over 10 years,” Coffman writes.

Most of the defense budget buys exorbitantly priced weapons systems that are obsolete in the type of 21st century warfare that Washington expects to wage. They want ‘em just to keep defense corporations filthy rich and to continue to be able to “project power” around the world.

Still, we have President Obama saying just yesterday that “the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf.”

Aw, poor aircraft carrier! How are we supposed to rule the world with one less aircraft carrier intimidating Iran in the Persian Gulf!?

As Gopal Ratnam reports at Bloomberg News, “the defense budget contains hundreds of billions of dollars for new generations of aircraft carriers and stealth fighters, tanks that even the Army says it doesn’t need and combat vehicles too heavy to maneuver in desert sands or cross most bridges in Asia, Africa or the Middle East.” 

And yet our overlords in Washington say nothing can be cut.




16 Responses to “How Are We Supposed to Rule the World With One Less Warship in the Persian Gulf!?”

  1. Military bands cost the American taxpayer $1.8 billion? What madness! And that's nothing compared to all the other of the generals' and admirals' expensive toys on the list. Far cry from the Constitutional militia the Founders envisioned for this country. Of course that was before it changed from a loose confederation of individual states with a weak federal government into the psychotic, warmongering global Empire we have today.

  2. C'mon, we wouldn't want to jeopardize Obama's chances of being an advisor to Lockheed/Martin after he's done in the Oval Office! So many two million dollar speeches to make, so many kickbacks to consider, it's a tough world for ex-prezes.

  3. Cool cut the military! Who needs tanks and aircraft that match or even out-preform all other nation's?! Oh wait… what if other nations attack us instead of little terrorist groups. Maybe we'll need our tanks and planes then won't we? Or we can all live happily opressed even more than we are now while in the control of some other country like China or even North Korea!

    WAKE UP PEOPLE. THE WORLD ISN'T THE PEACEFUL UTOPIA YOU THINK IT IS.

    We saw this before both World War I, World War Two II, the Korean War, the list goes on! What has happened almost every time America goes to war with a major power? We cut our military's budget and reduce its size. Then we're always struggling to get enough forces into the fight and have to start a draft to keep up with demand.

    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, READ A LITTLE HISTORY AND MAYBE YOU'LL REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON.

  4. i suppose we could cut the air force a bit, considering
    we haven’t fought a country with air power since taking on
    the luftwaffe. at least cut the f-35 boondoggle.

    and does the navy really, really need 8 carrier task forces?
    why not take the oldest, most obsolete fleet, and sell it
    to the chinese?

  5. [...] How Can We Rule the World With 1 Less Warship in the Persian Gulf? [...]

  6. Spend some more time here instead of watching Faux News, Shill O'Reilly, Sean Insanity, et al and perhaps you'll learn something. I don't think anyone here is suggesting eliminating the armed forces completely. Although a strict interpretation of the US Constitution says a standing army should only exist in time of war, and only the militia in peacetime. And no, I'm not talking about these phony wars for international banksters and zionists the USA has been duped into fighting for them over the past 150 years, including the inaccurately-named "Civil" War and both World Wars, I mean actual threats and physical invasion of our territory. The War of 1812 was about the last time that happened, I believe.

    If this country maintained a small but effective defense force (we would still have nuclear weapons) something along the lines of what Switzerland has and with every military-age male citizen required to have in his possession a military rifle and ammunition, it would be perfectly capable of defending the nation's borders from attack and invasion and ONLY that, not a monstrous Imperial war machine attacking, occupying and bullying the rest of the world like it does at present.

  7. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, READ A LITTLE HISTORY AND MAYBE YOU'LL REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON.

  8. you hit the nail on its head with the title to this article !

  9. You're right Mr. Woods. The world is not a peaceful utopia because the US, England and Israel make damn sure it remains the exact opposite. Just name one war within the past 200 years that this trio has not started out-right or instigated by subversive means.

  10. Why americans need killer float to kill us why? There is no war and america is for away. Leave us alone you have killed enough.

  11. there a big diffrence between intelligent people that can construct there own informed thoughts and mindless blind patriotic sheeple drones such as yourself that support amerikkka as the evil empire it is trying subject the entire earth. Without sheeple like u amerikkka wouldn't be able to murder the thousands or millions it does annually to steal their natural resources. GOOD JOB keep it up armageddon is only a few feet away with your support we will be there soon.

  12. Why does America need to dominate the world? Why not withdraw from everywhere and if somone attack then use the things we have to defend not alway creat war and trouble in the world

  13. The God of War is even fed up with them. And an angry Mars bodes no Earthly good.

  14. Paranoia is not the answer.. You paranoid…, if other nations attack USA..! us been attacking nations around the world for last 60 years.., perhaps the question is when us is going to stop its war agendas thinking about the fact that us might get hit sooner or later if such policy continued.

  15. [...] welcome the looming automatic cuts to defense budgets, not least of which is the fact that they are anything but “draconian,” despite what Pentagon spokesmen [...]

  16. [...] are dishonest on another level: the sequester is not harmful to national security or to our military “readiness.” The “cuts” are puny. And they are not even cuts – they are gradual [...]