US military budget: How would you change it?

[David Floyd]

Cockney,

"Extremists" or not, you don't want to see hard core Muslims in charge of Egypt. Trust me, you just don't.

[SlowwHand]

I'd increase funding to the Air Force as the primary military branch and utilize drones to a greater degree.

[Tupac Shakur]

Interesting chart...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/us-defense-spending-the-mismatch-between-plans-and-resources

I think Dan Drezner is right on in this post, where I saw the chart above. The United States could reduce defense spending by over $200 billion (in 2005 dollars) and still be at a level close to the defense spending average during the Cold War. This should be more than sufficient given the more benign threat environment facing the United States today, and might spur necessary readjustments in American global strategy and defense procurement processes.

[giblets]

Why is there a "Carter era of neglect" instead of a "Nixon-Ford-Carter era of neglect"?

[Tupac Shakur]

Because the image is taken from a (stupid) Heritage Foundation report.

[Jon Miller]

Good point Drake.

We can definitely cut down to Clinton levels if not lower.

JM

[Tupac Shakur]

Clinton levels seem a little too low; there are rising threats today that didn't exist in the 90s. Around $400 billion in 2005 dollars should be sufficient, however.

[Zevico]

we will see about libya, it seems that among the rebels there is a lack of leadership and direction, so there is a void to be filled, it's too early to say who will though. i think in eygpt the muslim brotherhood will play a significant role in its future, but i think that many people are simply wrong in their characterisation of them as extremists. if you look at their actual record in parliament, they behaved like a real opposition, trying to hold the ruling NDP to account, and their actions in the demonstrations were positive. they did things like guarding copts as they prayed and their message has been a moderate one. most of the analysis i've read (other than that from the american right or israelis) sees them as a fairly moderate organisation. i certainly believe that a new eygptian government will be less friendly towards israel. i don't see this as a tragedy, although i think it explains a lot of commentators trying to paint them as extremists.

All the time you say they behaved like a real opposition as if that means they should be praised. They opposed Mubarak. Lots of Egyptians opposed Mubarak. Not all of them were Brotherhood members. Opposing Mubarak doesn't make you a democrat, it just means you opposed Mubarak.
You seem convinced that the "american right" or "israelis" are the only people concerned about them. This is nonsense.
You seem convinced that they are "moderate." For a group whose "spiritual leader" declared war against the United States, the term "moderate" seems inapposite. If moderation means war against the United States what is radicalism?
The Brotherhood ran a hit squad. They killed the Egyptian Prime Minister, back when Egypt was actually sorta-kinda-close to democracy. Their founding members were openly racist and they continue to make racist statements. They advocate a large degree of state control over the economy (socialism with an "Islamist" touch). All you can say is "so what?" What's wrong with a hit squad? Bygones, it was decades ago. Socialism? What's wrong with an ideology that imposes control over the economy? Sure it's been tried countless times before and proven to fail and can lead to dicatorship, but hey why not? What planet do you live on? You think they protected the Copts? You think Copts wake up every day and praise the Muslim Brotherhood?
This notion that they supported the "facebook kids" and were at the forefront of the protests, by the way, is untrue. The Brotherhood were late on the protests by weeks, because they initially threw their lot in with the army officers and the regime: a regime they continue to support because it is convenient for them to do so. A regime that is still in power, notwithstanding the ignorance of the Egyptian public on that very matter.
Here is "moderation":

The following excerpts are from an interview with the general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Badi', which aired on Dream 2 TV on April 14, 2010.
...
Badi: "The Muslim Brotherhood still considers the Zionists to be its main and only enemy. The Jews who occupy Palestine have their eyes set on Egypt."

link: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2459.htm

Here is "democracy" and "secularism":

In his September 23, 2010 Friday sermon, Badi' said: "The noble Koran is the constitution that sets out the laws of Islam. It is the fountainhead of all virtue and wisdom in the hearts of the believers, and it is the best [way] for the believers to become closer to Allah... The Holy Koran includes all the tenets of faith, laws of worship, principles of public good [and] legal concepts [pertaining to] this world, including duties and prohibitions, and they are for the benefit of all humanity, without distinctions of religion, [skin] color, gender, [social] status or language..."

Badi' added that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Bana had considered it the duty of the Muslims to establish the Koran as the basis for the laws of this world and to implement these laws. Al-Bana, Badi' said, believed that "the Muslim Brotherhood... [must] urge the public to obey the edicts [of the Koran] and to join them in achieving this goal, which is the loftiest goal a Muslim [has] in his life, so that the Koran may rightly become our constitution and the constitution of the entire Muslim ummah..."

Badi' added that the Koran must continue to be a way of life for every Muslim and his family, and that, at the state level, countries whose official religion is Islam must establish the Koran as "the basis for the constitution and the first source of legislation, the scales of justice in the courtrooms and one of the bases of the [school] curricula at all levels [of education]... All clauses of the [state] constitution which Islam and its precepts do not permit must be removed..."

Or:

here are basic religious offices in the country whose [function] is to protect religion. An Islamic state must protect non-Muslim [citizens] in all things concerning faith, ritual, etc.; at the same time, it must preserve Islam and all matters related to it, ensuring that no ritual, propaganda, or pilgrimage contradicting Islamic activities are carried out. These religious offices include that of the president or prime minister, depending on the political regime [in the country]. Accordingly, we believe that the duty of the president or prime minister - depending on the political regime - runs against the beliefs of non-Muslims. Consequently, a non-Muslim is exempt from this position, based on the Islamic shari'a, which does not obligate a non-Muslim to perform functions that contradict his faith..

link: http://m.memri.org/14499/show/0b5b63...b6422bedb5dfbe

Here is "equal rights for women":

On our part, we believe that the burdens of presidency must not be placed on a woman's shoulders – any more than supervising and leading the army – since they contradict her nature and the rest of her social and humanitarian roles

Yes indeed-- a bright, democratic future for Egypt. MB all the way!

[C0ckney]

zevico, lets have some paragraphs next time please.

All the time you say they behaved like a real opposition as if that means they should be praised. They opposed Mubarak. Lots of Egyptians opposed Mubarak. Not all of them were Brotherhood members. Opposing Mubarak doesn't make you a democrat, it just means you opposed Mubarak.

that's obviously not what i meant. it's simply a strawman. the muslim brotherhood in eygpt tried to hold the government to account in parliament, forcing real debates, asking awkward questions, much like an opposition would do in the west.

You seem convinced that the "american right" or "israelis" are the only people concerned about them. This is nonsense.
You seem convinced that they are "moderate." For a group whose "spiritual leader" declared war against the United States, the term "moderate" seems inapposite. If moderation means war against the United States what is radicalism?
The Brotherhood ran a hit squad. They killed the Egyptian Prime Minister, back when Egypt was actually sorta-kinda-close to democracy. Their founding members were openly racist and they continue to make racist statements. All you can say is "so what?" What's wrong with a hit squad? Bygones, it was decades ago.

yes it was decades ago. i'm glad that you mentioned it to save me pointing it out. some members of the conservative party in the UK were sympathetic to the nazis in the 1930s. so according to your logic, this means that today, conservative politicians in the UK are really nazis are heart, working to further their ideals, no?

most people consider the muslim brotherhood in eygpt to be a moderate force. as i said previously, those who are trying to paint them as extremists have a very transparent agenda.

They advocate a large degree of state control over the economy (socialism with an "Islamist" touch)

Socialism? What's wrong with an ideology that imposes control over the economy? Sure it's been tried countless times before and proven to fail and can lead to dicatorship, but hey why not? What planet do you live on?

oh noes socialism!

You think they protected the Copts? You think Copts wake up every day and praise the Muslim Brotherhood?

muslim brotherhood members guarded copts as they prayed during the protests. this is a documented fact. i note yet another strawman.

This notion that they supported the "facebook kids" and were at the forefront of the protests, by the way, is untrue. The Brotherhood were late on the protests by weeks, because they initially threw their lot in with the army officers and the regime: a regime they continue to support because it is convenient for them to do so. A regime that is still in power, notwithstanding the ignorance of the Egyptian public on that very matter.

so they supported mubarack, who they opposed, according to you. make up your mind please. the situation with the army is more complicated, as you ought to know. many of the protestors wanted the army to step in to remove the government, they called for this repeatedly. the army is widely respected in eygpt and presumably people didn't want anarchy to follow the end of the mubarack regime.

where have i ever claimed they were at the forefront of the protests...oh that's right, i didn't. this is getting tiresome.

[C0ckney]

as you seem to be struggling to respond to what i actually write and instead prefer to create strawmen at every opportunity. i'm going to summarise my argument.

1) the fall of the mubarack regime was a good thing.
2) a) the new government will be democratically elected. which is also a good thing.
b) however to expect eygpt to become like sweden overnight, or its political forces to become like western parties, after decades of dictatorship, is naive at best and disingenuous and idiotic at worst.
3) the muslim brotherhood are a moderate organisation. their actions in the recent past have clearly demonstrated this.
4) the muslim brotherhood are likely to be a part of the next government of eygpt because they command significant popular support.
5) a new democratic government in eygpt will have a number of positive consequences:
a) it will provide a government which actually represents the people and is therefore more responsive to the and their needs.
b) it will start to pave the way for a truly democratic society to emerge, although naturally this will take a long time.
c) it will be less friendly towards israel's blockade of gaza, and hopefully this will see improvements in the lives of ordinary palestinians.

[Zevico]

yes it was decades ago. i'm glad that you mentioned it to save me pointing it out. some members of the conservative party in the UK were sympathetic to the nazis in the 1930s. so according to your logic, this means that today, conservative politicians in the UK are really nazis are heart, working to further their ideals, no?

Not if they still think it was right to do it.
You tell me where they condemn their founding member, Hassan Al Banna, as a terrorist. Tell me where they condemn Qutb's Milestones as a terrorist manual (a manual they continue to publish today). You tell me.

You should also know very well that openly expressed racism is a hallmark of dictatorial movements, who rely on it to avoid accountability. Case in point: shark attacks in Egypt are blamed on Israel. That's a ludictrous example, but basically illustrative of the broader point--Egyptians are convinced that near everything bad in Egypt is caused by Israel or its machinations. Enemies of the revolution are necessarily Israeli agents; friends of the revolution are necessarily against it. Even Mubarak was depicted as an Israeli agent.

Egypt post-revolution is facing a debt default, economic collapse, and even the possibility of mass starvation. Simply put, it has no money to pay for food. Its business elite, tied with the Mubarak regime, have fled. Who do you think the army will blame for this? (A) A terrible bureacratic-socialist economy, run half by a corrupt military and half by what remains of the elite that has mostly fled the country after their patron, Mubarak, fell; (B) Israel.

Which is the more convenient choice? Plainly, (B).

This is the basic strategic calculus for the Egyptian army: how far do we, the army, need to go in attacking Israel in order to placate the masses and retain control of Egypt?

Faced with the possibility of a coup in such an environment and backlash against it, the army may even choose war with Israel to avoid the possibility of losing power outright.

Indeed, it is already placating anti-Israel sentiment by letting Islamist terrorists attack the Egypt-Israel gas pipeline. These attacks occur almost on a monthly basis, shutting down the pipeline, dealing a blow to the Egyptian economy, all while the masses cheer and the rule of law is wiped out in one fell blow. And the army looks on, doing nothing, fully aware that arresting those responsible could lead to mass protests and their ultimate downfall. These terrorists drive by towns and wave flags, fully confident that no one will arrest them for what is, after all, an attack against Egyptian state property. Last time it happened they went a little far and attacked a police station to boot. Only then did confrontation result.

oh noes socialism!

Seriously? The same ideology that brought the people of the Soviet Union to their knees doesn't worry you at all?

so they supported mubarack, who they opposed, according to you. make up your mind please. the situation with the army is more complicated, as you ought to know. many of the protestors wanted the army to step in to remove the government, they called for this repeatedly. the army is widely respected in eygpt and presumably people didn't want anarchy to follow the end of the mubarack regime.

They supported Mubarak, who was the face of the army regime, because it was in their interest to do so: their basic goal being a revolution from the ground up, a grassroots MB revolt. The revolution was not a MB revolt per se; hence they did not support it initially, thinking the army could stay in charge. Then they changed their minds and thought to oust Mubarak. The army remains in charge; the MB does not call for its ouster.

Even so, the army is still in charge, in so far as anyone is in charge in Egypt now. During the revolution it was basically looking for an "out": a means of making sure ordinary Egyptians remain ignorant of the fact that the army ha been running the country behind the scenes since the 50's by holding onto the levers of economic and military power. They found the "out", and his name was Mubarak. As long as the army holds the levers of the economy and the armed forces it still maintains whatever semblance of power and order remains in Egypt. And it does so, in truth, in its own name and in the interests of its officers, not in the interests of this "democracy." Whether it succeeds in achieving its aim in the long term remains to be seen.

The army is "widely respected" in Egypt because few Egyptians realise that it has run the country by way of a military dictatorship for the last five decades, since Nasser's coup. It is not for nothing that the "Free Officers" movement, which Nasser led, instituted this very coup. This "widely respected" army was quite happy, by the way, to attack the MB which you so proudly support, and support the imprisonment of thousands of its members in labour camps. It was quite happy to repress its members even in the quite recent past.

The "widely respected" army has recently imprisoned an Egyptian for criticising it on a blog.

The "widely respected" army arrested an Israeli tourist, travelling in his own name, and with a facebook page in his own name featuring a photo of him in army garb, as a spy. Yes indeed-a spy travelling in his own name, with a photo of himself as an IDF soldier on facebook. The charge? Seeking to "divide" the people during the protests by depicting the army as an enemy of the people.

This is the "widely respected" army at work.

[Zevico]

muslim brotherhood members guarded copts as they prayed during the protests. this is a documented fact. i note yet another strawman.

Oh yes. I'm sure the Copts were happy for the "protection."

[C0ckney]

Egypt post-revolution is facing a debt default, economic collapse, and even the possibility of mass starvation. Simply put, it has no money to pay for food. Its business elite, tied with the Mubarak regime, have fled.

i think you'll find that severe economic problems, high unemployment, low wages, rising food and energy prices, were one of the catalysts for the revolution. unsurprisingly, these problems have not vanished into thin air with the fall of the murbarack regime. equally unsurprisingly, many of those connected with the dictator have fled now that the dictator has fallen.

This is the basic strategic calculus for the Egyptian army: how far do we, the army, need to go in attacking Israel in order to placate the masses and retain control of Egypt?

Faced with the possibility of a coup in such an environment and backlash against it, the army may even choose war with Israel to avoid the possibility of losing power outright.

this is either paranoia or a laughable ignorance of the situation in egypt.

the army appears to want to hand over control to a civilian government, perhaps because they are afraid of the public reaction to a permanent military government, or perhaps more likely, because they know that egypt faces serious problems and don't want to carry the can for a failure to solve them. primarily they want to preserve their status as a respected institution in egyptian society. in fact what is happening at the moment is that some people, who we in the west might call liberals, are calling for the army to remain in power for longer, to give them time to form parties and build a political base to fight the elections. personally, i think that elections should be held sooner rather than later. clearly however, it's not a case of the army clinging on to power, but rather being asked (begged might be a better word) to stay on until other political forces can organise themselves.

the second half of your post is just guff, a mixture of 'no **** sherlock' obviousness, irrelevancies, and falsehoods. it's especially laughable to suggest that egyptians aren't aware that their last three leaders have come from the military.

[C0ckney]

.

[Sava]

First. Tax the rich... 70% marginal rates minimum. Don't like it? Move to Dubai with your oil sheikh pals.

Then, every other civilized country expels their plutocrats, including all title bearing families... holdovers from the medieval/divine right era.

Next, we discover satellite photos of WMD sites in Dubai. We carpet bomb Dubai until the entire country is once again... sand.

Whatever budgetary changes need to occur to bring this to fruition, I support.