Obama is a military hawk?

(CNN)

U.S. defense spending, in inflation adjusted terms, is higher than at any time since the end of World War II. Over the past decade, the U.S. share of global military spending has risen from one third to one half. The United States now spends six times as much as China, the country with the next biggest budget.

Defense is the third largest area of the federal budget, consuming 23% of the total and 55% of the discretionary portion. The Bush administration added $1 trillion to the base budget it inherited and spent more than $1 trillion on the direct costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And those direct costs don't take into account the additional trillions that are and will have to be spent providing medical care and benefits to disabled veterans and for replacing equipment.

On top of all that, the Obama administration has increased the base budget. It projects spending $6.5 trillion between 2011 and 2020. So the deficit commission's proposed $1 trillion "cut" is actually a reduction in a big spending increase.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/05/news/economy/lawrence_korb_defense_spending/index.htm

I just knew McCain would wimp out on military expenditures. :sarcasm:

Following in that great tradition of LBJ. Eternal war for eternal profits.

and im determined to seal our fate in the graveyard of empires.

all U.S. presidents are military hawks.

Has this not been evident to everyone?

They have a choice.

One of them just has to have the balls to tell the people we can't do this anymore.... we can't afford it. That has the advantage of being the truth.

Actually, I agree with you, but I fear the worst.

shows that Obama reduced it:



"It projects spending $6.5 trillion between 2011 and 2020. So the deficit commission's proposed $1 trillion "cut" is actually a reduction in a big spending increase."


Interesting that Korb is pushing something from the deficit commission. That would be additional reductions to the above.

could you please explain how the line that keeps going up, right until 2010, is a reduction?
And the quote you pulled out says "a big spending increase", attributed to Obama.
Please explain what you mean?

What happens at 2010?

As of August 2010: Withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Iraq and reduction of the number of bases from 357 to 94

Sorry - there's no other conclusion one can make that explains his actions since he took office.

He's a talented and likable corporate lawyer, not a progressive. He was selected and primed for the job because he's an effective manager, not because he's particularly principled. Many of us once revered him for what we hoped he would change, now we merely respect his competence but question his true motives. Obama is an institutional conservative in the better sense of the term.

raise the Pentagon spending and bulk up the presence in Afghanistan?

and the other pure adulterated fantasy and it's why Americans are uninformed or confused.

Yup.

I just heard on the radio news that the House Repuglicans are backing away from their pledge to cut $100 billion from the federal budget this year ... because that would mean 'draconian' cuts in education funding, for instance.

But a hundred billion dollars could be cut from the bloated military budget and it would hardly even be missed in the big scheme of things.

We should hold the Repuglicans to their pledge -- and hold Obama to his deficit reduction rhetoric -- and demand a $100 billion cut to the Pentagon budget!

I know this is wishful thinking ... Obama, himself, will probably ask for an increase in baseline military spending since he apparently is so enamored with the notion of proving to Repuglicans that he is as zealously pro-military and pro-business as they are in order to get them to vote for him in 2012.

Oh, well ...

Sorry that's shallow. Was there a cost to drawing down the Iraq War? Obama took over with both wars going on. I would say judgment is absolutely unfair without breaking it down and seeing the reasons for it.

As of August 2010, withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Iraq and reduction of the number of bases from 357 to 94

Total cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- many gazillions of dollars

Total spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that was non-discretionary --- zero dollars

You're welcome.

It's shallow to conclude that someone who adds to the military base budget is pro military spending? In the remainder of the article, Korb goes on to suggest many different programs which are not necessary in today's world. Even with his trillion cut, it still gets us back to where we were pretty much during Bush. The most outlandish number here is we spend HALF of the world's budget on military. I would like to think that someone who is really conservative, competent and sensible (forget progressive, cause I don't believe that one anymore) would look at THAT number and our debt and then conclude it needs to come down significantly. Even if you are a hawk. It's just common sense.

At least for our born-again hawks here on DU.

or a thread on DU that exhibits this.

THANKS!

We still kinda do, even if we're a little tired of the ones we're fighting at the moment.

Are we surprised he lacks the courage to end these wars? Even We The People haven't made up our minds about that.

had 63% (and its been over 50% for a while now) of Americans opposed to the war in Afghanistan.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/03/cnn-poll-u-s-opposition-to-afghanistan-war-remains-high/?iref=allsearch

But he donned the mantle of eager warrior years ago, and changing his stance now would be widely derided as weak flip-flopping.

He's going to need more of an excuse than a few polls to risk that.

we couldn't have him derided for saving lives.

"Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit!"

The war was bullshit, but it was satisfying bullshit to much of America, confirming our opionin of ourselves as masters of the globe, able to lick any upstart nations with funny names. We're not gonna give up that sugar rush for just any little poll, and the TV might not be ready to let us think about that yet.

No one's been able to come up with a sufficiently satisfying (and equally bullshit) excuse for us to leave, and without one, the situation would smell too much like Saigon '75.

and begin to learn it only makes us weaker

Not only does believing it make us weaker, it prevents us from seeing the essential weakness that led us to subscribe to it. This cycle only makes the real problems worse, and keeps us spending on everything that doesn't address it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness.
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf070607a.htm

he even named his kid's dog after himself.

I thought that was kind of disgusting.

Long before it emerged that everything he did would be disgusting.