![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/hires_130301-D-NI589-063d-e1393277110391.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It’s true that the devil is in the details. It is especially true, though, with legislative budgets. I wrote earlier<\/a> about the Pentagon’s suggestions for $45 billion in cuts to its own budget and how much of it targets the bloated benefits plans for members of the military.<\/p>\n Yay for cutting the defense budget. But the details are not so encouraging (as one would expect).<\/p>\n For example, “the Pentagon apparently still intends to retain 11 aircraft carriers, possibly cutting into modernization of the Navy\u2019s surface combatant\u00a0ships,” explains<\/a> Cato’s Chris Preble. “As had been reported earlier, the venerable A-10 attack aircraft is going away, but the Pentagon remains committed to the troubled F-35.”<\/p>\n The proposal was reported<\/a> as one that would shrink the U.S. army to pre-WWII levels. Needless to say, that is disingenuous. Yes, troop levels will go “from\u00a0a post-9\/11 peak of 570,000” to “between 440,000 and 450,000,” but other parts of the budget are getting a boost.<\/p>\n Sara Sorcher and\u00a0Jordain Carney list “winners” and “losers<\/a>” – or, those parts of the budget getting more money or staying the same versus those getting cut. Here are the winners:<\/p>\n Special-operations forces:\u00a0<\/strong>The military\u2019s elite special-operations forces, which burgeoned after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and were at the forefront of the\u00a0U.S.\u00a0fight against al-Qaida, will increase from their current level of roughly 66,000 service members to 69,700. This is one key example of how the military, even in more austere times, is trying to protect, as Hagel put it, \u201ccapabilities uniquely suited to the most likely missions of the\u00a0future.\u201d<\/p>\n Military retirement funds:\u00a0<\/strong>While the Pentagon is offering some modest reforms to military benefits, overall, Pentagon officials have sworn off making changes to the military retirement system in next year\u2019s budget\u2014even though they want to curb its rapid growth that threatens to usurp other key priorities in a downsized defense\u00a0budget.<\/p>\n After the quick\u2014and bipartisan\u2014backlash in Congress to a provision in December\u2019s budget agreement that cut approximately $6 billion in military pensions, Pentagon officials made it clear they would wait to propose major changes until a commission makes its recommendations in\u00a0February.<\/p>\n Bases:\u00a0<\/strong>Hagel is calling for another round of base closures that could take place in 2017. The Pentagon desperately wants to get rid of its excess military bases and facilities. However, especially in an election year, the bases may escape unscathed\u2014and Hagel knows it. \u201cI am mindful that Congress has not agreed to our\u00a0BRAC\u00a0requests of the last two years,\u201d Hagel\u00a0said.<\/p>\n Navy cruiser fleet:<\/strong>\u00a0Half of the Navy\u2019s cruiser fleet is going to be \u201claid up\u201d\u2014put in the shipyard\u2014to be upgraded. This in some ways is a work-around, since the Navy has previously tried to decommission some cruisers, instead of providing expensive overhauls, but Congress refused. The Pentagon\u2019s proposal is a more creative way to save some money short-term, since the ships will not be operating\u2014but these 11 cruisers will \u201ceventually\u201d be returned \u201cto service with greater capability and a longer\u00a0lifespan.\u201d<\/p>\n Cybersecurity:\u00a0<\/strong>Cyber spending\u2014from cybersecurity to intelligence gathering and reconnaissance\u2014will get a boost. Hagel\u00a0said last week<\/a>\u00a0that the Pentagon is \u201cadjusting our asset base and our new\u00a0technology.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The “losers” include cutting the Army’s force size, possibly closing bases in Europe, some military compensation, and some Air Force \u00a0weapons systems. Read their full report here<\/a>.<\/p>\n The line coming from those resisting these relatively modest budget cuts is that it will weaken the United States and its position in the world. Actually, if the U.S.’s position in the world is what you’re worried about, then cutting defense should be priority number one. The U.S. spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on its military. And as Paul Kennedy wrote<\/a>, “If…too large a portion of the state’s resources is diverted from wealth creation and allocated instead to military purposes, then that is likely to lead to a weakening of national power over the longer term.”<\/p>\n The U.S. is getting to the point where it’s economy can’t go fast enough to keep up with the ever-expanding needs of the state.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It’s true that the devil is in the details. It is especially true, though, with legislative budgets. I wrote earlier about the Pentagon’s suggestions for $45 billion in cuts to its own budget and how much of it targets the bloated benefits plans for members of the military. Yay for cutting the defense budget. But […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-22934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22934"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22934\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22935,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22934\/revisions\/22935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22934"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=22934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}