The Spending Problem, Defense Budget and Anonymous Commenting

Noted commenter Anonymous posted a lengthy diatribe asserting that military spending is the primary source of our budget woes. If that were only the truth. From my previous post on the complexities of this subject:

Here is a chart from 2010.

Further analysis of the President's Budget submission for 2012 contains the following projections, total mandatory Social Security spending for fiscal year 2012 is $764 billion where as total defense spending is $696 billion, which includes some spending by the FBI and DOE not part of the Defense Department budget. However, since the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the tune of $118 billion, are considered outside of the defense budget, one might argue that total defense spending is the single largest item in the budget. However, the sum total of entitlements and mandatory spending is still the largest issue with the budget.

However, this does highlight the significant impact of the cost of military operations on the overall federal budget. Even though I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have to concede that they are expensive. This is just one more reason why the founders reserved the power to commit the nation to war to the Congress, which is also the branch charged with passing the budget. Open ended commitments need to be considered in light of fiscal realities. The President has announced a draw down in Afghanistan, that is probably needed. However, I am concerned that in the long run we will just end up with another surge, because we didn't fully defeat the Taliban. In the long run, committing resources to a complete victory followed by swift withdrawal is the way to keep the cost of war low. Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to be drawn into nation building with its attendant cost.

Anonymous also calls for some harsh penalties for members of the military who have ". . . carried out war without a Congressional Delcaration [sic] on trial war crimes give them the death penalty and fire all the troops who carried out war crimes and give them the death penalty too." However, it is the Commander-in-Chief who has committed U.S. Forces. The constitution gives the Congress the power to remedy this situation. Why isn't the commenter calling for the President to be hanged? Because there is a constitutional process to deal with all of this. The Congress has the power to impeach the President for failing to follow the constitution. Due process is at the heart of our Republic. Calling for the willy-nilly hanging of members of the military is certainly contrary to law and would be a revolting sight to the vast majority of Americans. As to war crimes? That is an offensive statement. Today's military is the most professional and ethical in the history of the world. When the law is violated, members of the military are prosecuted. I know from personal experience that military mission planning is performed with lawyers involved to ensure the reduction of damage to civilian populations. Impugning the military because one doesn't agree with the policies of the commander in chief is a coward's game; place blame where it belongs.

My policy of allowing anonymous commenting on this blog is sorely tested by the defamatory postings of anonymous commenters. Their anger and vitriol is indicative of a sense of powerlessness that is truly a personal, not a political problem.

Whether you like or not.

The President Gets It Right UPDATE

Light blogging while I am away on business travel. From my perspective as a retired officer in the Navy, I believe that the President was right to relieve General McChrystal of his duties. There are many reasons already provided in other articles, but I offer one that was used many times during the relief of commanding officers when no one specific thing was egregiously wrong but too many things weren't right in the command; the superior officer had lost faith and confidence in the ability of the officer to command. Given the command climate that prevailed under McChrystal, the President could not really have faith that his policies on the conduct of the war were being implemented as intended. I give the President high marks for the manner in which he handled the issue, this statement gets it exactly right:

"The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," the president said. "It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

Make no mistake, General McChrystal is a great American, whose efforts have made the United States Army a much more capable organization at fighting insurgencies, but that does not relieve him of responsibilities as Commanding General.

We can now return to our normal bashing of Obamacare and other examples of failed economic policies of justicialism. But I just want to say that I am proud to be an American for this reason as much as any other; the immediate reaction to this whole incident shows how ingrained is our belief in civilian control of the military, that even McChrystal knew he had made a mistake and immediately apologized and indeed, offered to resign.

UPDATE

Link provided to excellent, as always, in-depth analyses of the situation from Information Dissemination. Their blog is a must read for analysis of military, primarily naval issues. Gahlran does not give as much credit to Obama as I did, but concurs about the need for the firing itself. The money paragraph:

I find it very disturbing how little depth our nation has in the bullpen when the President has to demote our most decorated military leader of this generation - General Petraeus - in order to find someone willing and able to execute the existing administration policy for Afghanistan and simultaneously save political face for the Commander in Chief in the midst of a civil - military relations crisis. How effective is the policy itself when the President must borrow the prestige and respect of the nations finest General in order to reclaim civilian control? Color me concerned.

Exactly, the President's Afghanistan policy is not getting the job done. Secretary Gates may be the architect, but it is still the President's. Hopefully, an unexpected benefit of this brouhaha will be a reevaluation of the path ahead.