Cuts in War, Defense Spending: Silver Lining in the U.S. Economic Crisis

The silver lining to the slumping U.S. economy is that neither the Obama administration nor the Democratic-led Congress has the stomach for massive new war funding or even to continue Bush-style grandiose Defense Department spending.

Of course, Obama talked on the campaign trail of a 16-month timeframe, give or take a couple months, to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq, and nothing has changed his mind. Yesterday, President Obama reiterated to NBC's Matt Lauer:

"... the Iraqis just had a very significant election with no significant violence that we are in a position to start putting more responsibility on the Iraqis and that's good news not only for the troops on the ground but for the families who are carrying an enormous burden."

In fact, on November 4, 2008, the day Obama was elected to office, government stats showed that more than 157,000 U.S. soldiers were in Iraq. Just 75 days later, on January 29, 2009, only 142,000 U.S. soldiers remained fighting the Iraq War... the lowest total in over three years.

Besides, despite 4,236 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and more than 31,000 grievously injured, the U.S. is not safer than before George Bush and Dick Cheney elected to attack, invade and occupy Iraq. (See Iraq War Results & Statistics at January 29, 2009 for more about spending and casualties.)

Ending Lavish Bush-Style Defense Spending
But thank God, President Obama's boundaries for defense spending apparently won't stop at the Iraq War.

Word leaked late last week that Obama has demanded that, in the 2010 federal budget, the Pentagon must cut its budget by 11%, which is about $55 billion.

Today, the Office of Management and Budget announced that Obama has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its 2010 defense budget

Of course, national defense spending ballooned lavishly under the leadership of George Bush and particularly Donald Rumsfeld, from $291 billion budgeted for 2001 to an astonishing $622 billion for 2007.

And those totals didn't include pricetags for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the Bush administration camouflaged behind under-scrutinized emergency supplemental spending requests.

Under Obama, the ever-accelerating Defense department spending spree is over. Per Reuters, Sen. Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, unveiled 2010 budget details:

"Outlining his committee's priorities for 2009, Levin said the United States would have to cut or stretch out previously planned arms buying because of a budget crunch arising from efforts to shore up the rapidly declining U.S. economy...

"Missile defense spending was the only area that he said he would 'love to' see cut. Other programs vulnerable to cuts include shipbuilding programs, Lockheed Martin Corp's F-22 fighter and Boeing's Future Combat Systems... "

Tamping Down Expectations in Afghanistan
Although candidate Obama committed to withdraw from Iraq, he talked wisely tough about taking the fight to Afghanistan, declaring:

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there... "

For the full text of his remarks, see Barack Obama's Visionary Peace Plan for Iraq.

But two days ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who also served under Bush, tamped down expectations for Afghanistan, saying:

"... if we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose. Nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience or money... "

And White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs commented about Afghanistan during a press briefing last week, "There’s not simply a military solution to that problem."

President Obama met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week, as well as with national security advisers and military commanders. By all accounts, the President asked for ideas on all options in Afghanistan, with eye toward diplomatic solutions... and to cutting costs while containing, not widening, the Afghan conflict.

Diplomacy, Not Guns
For several years now, most Americans have recognized that there is no military solution to ending the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group prefaced its report by urging the obvious, "The United States... should launch the comprehensive New Diplomatic Offensive to deal with the problems of Iraq and of the region." (See The Iraq Study Group: The 79 Recommendations.)

If it takes the cover of the Bush-induced economic crisis for President Obama to steer the U.S. toward diplomatic solutions in the Middle East... and away from Bush/Cheney war mongering... so be it. God bless the silver lining!

After all, as the bumper sticker pinned to my office bulletin board reads, "War Is Not the Answer."

Truthfully, war was never the answer.

Related Reading

• Houston Chronicle, Jan 31, 2009: Obama seems unlikely to widen war in Afghanistan
• New York Times, Feb 1, 2009: Pointing to a New Era, U.S. Pulls Back as Iraqis Vote