Tag Archives: Robert Gates

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

National Security: Cutting The Defense Budget?


One potential area for bipartisan action in the new Congress may be cutting the massively bloated Pentagon budget, which has risen to $540 billion annually and more than $700 billion if you include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. Total defense spending in real terms is  higher than at any point since World War II. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday announced a series of efficiency proposals to reduce waste in defense spending and to cut the projected Pentagon budget by $78 billion over the next five years. While these proposals represent a good start in constraining the runaway spending that accrued during the Bush administration, the cuts will result only in a decline in the rate of growth in the Pentagon’s budget, not in absolute dollars. In other words, Gates was allowed to shift money around, and was not forced to actually cut the budget. As a result under this proposal,  the Pentagon’s budget will be bigger in five years than it is now. This is not real fiscal restraint. To adequately address the problem of out-of-control defense spending and a growing deficit, not only are more defense cuts needed, but the U.S. must also re-balance its foreign policy and defense priorities. This means taking a hard look at the utility of continuing combat operations in Afghanistan, eliminating white elephant weapons programs, and looking for ways to make the Pentagon bureaucracy more efficient. Reducing Pentagon spending is possible, since it is advocated not just by progressives, but by  Tea Party conservatives and now the House Republican leadership.

WHITE ELEPHANTS:  Yesterday, Gates insisted that “we must come to realize that  not every defense program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable.” He said the Pentagon would cut the over-budget Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an amphibious assault vehicle designed to storm beaches and a program the Center for American Progress has  advocated cutting for years. Gates also put the Marine Corps variant of the F-35 on “probation,” due to cost overruns and poor performance. Yet there are many other unnecessary and costly weapons programs in the Pentagon. The Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey is a program with a  confused tactical purpose and has been plagued with technical problems. The U.S. nuclear arsenal remains ridiculously large and costs $50 billion a year to maintain. As ret. Gen. Colin Powell noted, these weapons are militarily “useless.” There is also no need to spend $85 billion on modernizing our nuclear arsenal when a panel of nuclear scientists said the stockpile was in fine shape. The Pentagon also continues to spend nearly $10 billion per year on missile defense, much of that directed to the ground-based missile defense system, which just  failed another significant test. A recent report from Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley of the Center for American Progress outlined additional ways to significantly and responsibly reduce Pentagon spending, noting that “we can afford to make cuts,” the “global security environment has changed,” and “technological advances” can lead to greater efficiency.

THINK STRATEGICALLY:  A critical question when approaching the defense budget is whether we are  pursuing the right missions and whether we have the right composition of forces to address challenges of the 21st Century. In this vein, Gates yesterday recommended moving to a smaller ground force and advocated future reductions to overall troop levels for the Army and Marines. However, the U.S. must also think about the types of missions it is currently pursuing. War is incredibly expensive and the U.S. is currently spending  more than $100 billion per year on combat operations in Afghanistan. During the Bush years, when the housing bubble fueled a mirage of endless prosperity, perhaps the financial costs of such operations failed to raise significant concern. But economic times have changed and it is increasingly hard to justify this expenditure when a U.S. military commander compares the Afghan war to a “‘Tom and Jerry’ cartoon which never ends. … The only difference is the cartoon does not claim lives, but here we lose men every day.” Last year was the deadliest year yet for U.S. forces in Afghanistan and new polling shows that the American people overwhelmingly favor withdrawal. Furthermore, U.S. force deployments abroad are increasingly anachronistic and continue more out of habit than strategic need. The large force deployments in Europe remain unnecessary particularly at a time when Europe is increasingly slashing the size of its defense forces. Reducing our footprint abroad could save billions.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT:  Importantly, calls for reductions in the defense budget are no longer just coming from one side of the partisan divide. More and more Republicans, spurred by the Tea Party’s demand for spending cuts, have said they favor cuts to the military. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said in interview last night, “I believe there’s room, to find savings in the Department of Defense ” — a statement that was also echoed by  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). In the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK) noted that “Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible . We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows.” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) said that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” Sen. Bob Corker (TN) said defense cuts have to be “on the table” because there’s “a lot of waste there .” Perhaps the most outspoken advocate for defense cuts in the Senate is Tea Party “darling” Sen. Rand Paul (KY), who has said that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” This has prompted budget expert Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center to conclude that “I think the floor under defense spending has now gone soft.”

~ Recent Post

Big news on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”


Organizing for America

It’s time.

The Pentagon study released yesterday confirms what we’ve long known: The military is ready to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The report found that 70 percent of troops do not believe the change would have a negative impact on morale, and troop readiness would not be affected.

This important news means that we are closer than ever to ending this discriminatory policy that punishes patriotic men and women who want nothing more than to serve our country — and harms our own security by preventing qualified and much-needed Americans from serving.

Last time, we were just two votes shy of passing repeal in the Senate. And now the lawmakers who have been dragging their feet have no excuses left.

Neither do we. On this issue, our voices may not get more powerful than they are today — after the military has weighed in, when the media is paying close attention, just before the Senate starts its debate.

Let’s ensure the Senate passes repeal — and sends it to President Obama’s desk — before the end of the year.

Please add your name to the President’s call to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” now.

The release of the Pentagon’s report is just one more sign that the days are numbered for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

But the Republican opposition in the Senate — led by Senator John McCain — is already digging in its heels.

People like Sen. McCain said they would defer to military leadership — and then refused to budge when people like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell all came forward to support repeal.

These senators said they were worried about how repeal would weaken our military or hurt troop morale — and that we should wait for the results of the Pentagon study.

Well, the results are in: Our military believes the time has come to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

We know that some of these senators are going to do everything they can to shift their standards once again. But we don’t need them all to agree with us — we just need two more votes to end this policy once and for all.

With the hearings set to begin tomorrow, it’s important we make our voices heard now.

Join President Obama — and add your name to the call for repeal:

http://my.barackobama.com/RepealDADT

Thanks — now let’s make history,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

MILITARY: Asked And Answered


Yesterday, after an exhaustive and at times controversial ten-month review of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen announced that the purported risk of repealing the discriminatory policy is quite low. The 274-page report was released one day early after Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) pressured Gates to give the Senate as much time as possible to review the results and lift the ban during the lame duck session. (The House passed the measure in May.) On MSNBC this morning, Lieberman said, “I believe we have more than 60 Senators, including a good solid handful of Republicans, who are prepared to vote to take up the Armed Services bill, which already has within it the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Gates himself endorsed the review and called on Congress to pass repeal before another court decision found the ban unconstitutional and compelled the armed forces to stop enforcing the policy. “Now that we have completed this review,  I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year,” he said. “It is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray, with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat — by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance.” Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham — the co-chairs of the Working Group that conducted the review — also reiterated that the study represented “the largest,  most comprehensive review of a personnel policy matter which which the Department of Defense has ever undertaken.” The study is far more comprehensive, for example, than efforts taken to prepare the force for the integration of African Americans and women.

LITTLE RISK FROM REPEAL:   The Working Group’s extensive survey of 400,000 servicemembers and 150,000 military spouses found that  70 percent of servicemembers said they would be able to “work together to get the job done” with a gay servicemember in their immediate units.  Sixty-nine percent admitted to working in a unit with a co-worker that they believed to be gay and, of those who did, 92 percent said that their unit’s “ability to work together” with a gay person was “very good,” “good” or “neither good nor poor” (89 percent for those in Army combat arms units; 84 percent for those in Marine combat arms units.) What’s more, 74 percent of spouses of military servicemembers said repeal of DADT would not have a negative “impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve.” The highest rate of resistance to lifting the ban came from the Marine Corps, where servicemembers said they were least likely to encounter gay troops. Whereas approximately 30 percent of servicemembers across all branches expressed “negative views or concerns” about lifting the ban, between 40 and 60 percent of Marines in various combat arms specialties offered a negative opinion. As Johnson explained, that resistance “is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes.” The Marine Corps respondents also indicated ” a lower percentage who had actual experience of serving in a unit alongside someone who was gay or lesbian,” Ham added. “We did find, for example, in Marine Corps and Army combat arms units who had — in combat environments when those were — when they were asked about their experience with gay servicemembers in their unit reported actually quite favorably on the unit’s performance. So I think — again, I think it’s a largely —  there is a differential in actual experience.” U.S. allies with experience in repealing similar bans, notably Canada and the United Kingdom, also saw indicators of opposition in pre-repeal surveys. Once the bans were dropped, however, repeal proved to be a non-event.

IMPLEMENTING REPEAL:   During the press conference yesterday, the military leadership stressed the importance of lifting the ban in a deliberate yet timely manner. The study itself offers  several recommendations. For instance, the Working Group assumes that implementation of repeal will depend upon “strong leadership, a clear message, and proactive education.” The report recommends equipping commanders in the field with the education and training tools to educate the force on  what is expected of them in a post repeal environment. The group also rules out the need for special regulations governing the conduct of gay servicemembers or the establishment of separate facilities and argues that the Department “should issue guidance that all standards of conduct apply uniformly, without regard to sexual orientation.” On the delicate issue of providing benefits to the same-sex partners of servicemembers, the report notes that while the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents same-sex partners from accessing many benefits, there are some benefits that are available to anyone of a Service member’s choosing. “Department of Defense and the Services  should inform servicemember about these types of benefits, if the policy is repealed,” Johnson noted during the press conference, arguing that another set of benefits, which are not statutorily prohibited, but do not extend to same-sex partners under current regulation, “should be revised and redefined to include same-sex partners.” The Working Group does not, however, recommend that the DoD “revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the definition of ‘dependent,’ ‘family members,’ or other similar terms in those regulations, for purposes of extending benefits eligibility.” As legal analyst Andrew Cohen points out, for gay or lesbian service members who choose to come out after the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, “this means  no financial breaks on housing allowances or health care benefits that are available to married couples.” The Working Group also recommends that “service members who have been previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be permitted to apply for reentry into the military.”

SENATE MUST ACT:   On Thursday and Friday the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold two days of hearings with Gates, Mullen, the co-chairmen of the Working Group, and the four Service Chiefs. In a preview of the hearings, Gates was asked about Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ)  recent argument that the study would not provide the military or Congress with sufficient information about the effects of military readiness and unit cohesion. Gates said McCain “is mistaken” before adding, “This report does provide a sound basis for making decisions on this law.” “It’s hard for me to imagine that you can come up with a more comprehensive approach,” he said. President Obama, who discussed the results of the study with Service Chiefs on Monday, also issued a statement endorsing the report’s findings and calling on the Senate to “act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally.” Still, with a busy calendar full of economic concerns and urgency surrounding the new START treaty, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has yet to announce his floor plan for the National Defense Authorization Act – the bill which includes the DADT repeal amendment. Earlier this week, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), long considered a swing vote on the issue, said that he considered homosexuality a “sin” and would be voting against the measure. Newly-sworn in Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) – who voted against repeal in the House but supported the underlining National Defense Authorization Act – also  hinted that he would not support taking up the bill in the lame duck Congress. At least eight undecided senators promised to consider the results of the Pentagon’s Review before deciding how to vote on the measure.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

JUSTICE: Repeal DADT This Year

1 Comment

Last week, the Washington Post reported that a Pentagon study group concluded that “the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts.” The report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1, found that more than 70 percent of active-duty and reserve troop respondents said the effect of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) would be “positive, mixed, or nonexistent.” More than that, the survey’s authors concluded that once troops are allowed live and serve with openly gay soldiers, objections to ending DADT would drop. The Pentagon‘s findings closely mirror American civil ian attitudes to ending the policy as well. Many recent public opinion polls have found that large majorities of Americans support ending DADT. Moreover, the findings suggest that, as the Center for American Progress has documented in several studies on DADT, the U.S. is likely to see the same smooth transition to open service experienced by its allies in the U.K. and Canada. Yet, the federal government appears loathe to act. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the courts would eventually strike down DADT but that he would like to see Congress take action in the lame duck session. And with Republicans — many of whom support DADT — set to take control of the House and more joining the Senate in January, repealing DADT this year is the best chance for ending the discriminatory policy.
COURTS OR CONGRESS: The legal battle over ending DADT is in full swing. Last month, a federal judge barred the Pentagon from enforcing the policy — saying it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and freedom of speech under the First Amendment — but the Obama administration appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, keeping the ban in effect. The Republican gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) then appealed to the Supreme Court but the high court refused to stop enforcement while the lower court hears a challenge to the ban. While the ban lingers in the courts, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY ) are trying to build momentum to repeal DADT in the lame-duck session of Congress. “The Senate should act immediately to debate and pass a defense authorization bill and repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ during the lame duck session,” the senators wrote last week, adding, “If Congress does not act to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in an orderly manner that leaves control with our nation’s military leaders, a federal judge may do so unilaterally in a way that is disruptive to our troops and ongoing military efforts. It is important that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ be dealt with this year, and it appears that the only way that can happen is if it is on the defense bill.” Like Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has said that changes to DADT should be done in Co ngress rather than in the courts. If Congress passes the current DADT repeal language in the National Defense Authorization Act, the repeal would require certification from President Obama, Gates and Mullen and then Congress would have 60 days to review the certification before the Pentagon implementation. For his part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not firmly committed to moving on the legislation, saying, “If we could get some agreement from the Republicans that we could move the bill without a lot of extraneous amendments, I think that is something we can work out. Time agreements on a few amendments, that would be my goal.”

MCCAIN’S SHAME: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is considered the leading Republican voice on military issues in the Senate and he has repeatedly changed the standards by which he would support repealing DADT. First he said he would defer to military commanders, but when Gates and Mullen came out in favor of ending the ban, McCain decided that the opinions of the service chiefs were more significant and came up with a new line — letting the Pentagon finish its study. Now that the findings of the study have been leaked, McCain is still in full denial mode. Asked yesterday on NBC’s Meet The Press about the Washington Post’s report on the Pentagon’s conclusion about ending DADT, McCain stuck to his talking point that the study was flawed because, he said, it “was directed at how to implement the repeal, not whether the repeal should take place or not.” “I wanted a study to determine the effects of the repeal on battle effectiveness and morale. What this study is, is designed to do is, is to find out how the repeal could be implemented. Th ose are two very different aspects of this issue,” McCain said. Yet, the Pentagon study does precisely what McCain wants it to do: finding that ending DADT would be inconsequential to a large majority of active duty and reserve troops. “McCain seems to be saying he wants a do-over because he doesn’t like the findings and recommendations in the Pentagon report going to Secretary Gates,” the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay rights legal group which works to end DADT, said in a statement responding to McCain yesterday. “In other words, McCain is telling the Pentagon: Keep working until you produce the outcome I’m looking for.”

EXECUTIVE POWER?: The White House issued a statement last week saying that it wants a DADT repeal measure to stay in the Defense Authorization Bill, but fell short of offering a veto threat if it gets taken out and did not propose executive action, such as using the President’s stop-loss authority to suspend discharges. And the Obama adm inistration doesn’t even list ending DADT as a priority in the upcoming lame-duck session. The Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy noted that last week, the President announced that he would invite Congressional leaders to the White House to discuss “what we need to get done during the lame duck session” and only identified extending the Bush tax cuts for middle class Americans, “a whole range of other economic issues,” and foreign policy concerns like ratifying the START treaty, as priorities, yet DADT was notably absent. While White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said repealing the ban in the lame duck session is “worth a shot,” the White House isn’t doing much leaning on potential Republican votes to repeal DADT. LCR executive director R. Clarke Cooper said he h as met with four persuadable GOP offices recently and has discovered that the White House has not lobbied any of them on ending DADT. “[T]hese are all senators who would be willing to have a dialogue, and they have not heard from the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, which is an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” said Cooper. “So again, if President Obama is serious about this as a legislative priority, there are Republican offices that need a phone call.” As CAP’s Laura Conley and Alex Rothman write today, “It’s time for Congress to act in the interest of the American people by ensuring that the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act is passed with the current ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal language and sent to the president without delay.”

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

JUSTICE: Uncertainty Around DADT


Last week, the Justice Department asked Judge Virginia Phillips to stay her broad injunction barring the military from enforcing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy until it has an opportunity to appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the appeal notice that accompanied the stay request, the government argued that ending enforcement of the policy “before the appeal in this case has run its course will place gay and lesbian servicemembers in a position of grave uncertainty.” “If the Court’s decision were later reversed, the military would be faced with the question of whether to discharge any servicemembers who have revealed their sexual orientation in reliance on this Court’s decision and injunction,” the government wrote. “Such an injunction therefore should not be entered before appellate review has been completed.” Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has also issued new orders via email late Thursday afternoon “informing all five branches of the military that they must comply with an injunction ordered by a federal judge” until the judge grants the government’s request. The Pentagon warned gay and lesbian servicemembers against changing their behavior in the interim. “We note for servicemembers that altering their personal conduct in this legally uncertain environment may have adverse consequences for themselves or others should the court’s decision be reversed,” Under Secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness Clifford Stanley wrote on Thursday.

FRUSTRATION OVER APPEAL: DOJ‘s appeal of the decision comes after intense lobbying from House and Senate Democrats — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — to allow the recent ruling to stand. As DADT scholar Nathaniel Frank explained, “The court case, I think, is one of the more likely now, for the President to say, this actually is unconstitutional and although there is a tradition of defending standing law, it’s not obligated to defend a policy that it believes is unconstitutional.” President Obama has previously implied that DADT is constitutional and Republicans and two Democrats successfully filibustered repeal in the Senate (the measure passed the House in May). But Obama has consistently argued that he would continue to try to repeal DADT through the legislative process to accommodate the work of the Pentagon’s ongoing review. “I don’t think it’s too much to ask, to say ‘Let’s do this in an orderly way’ — to ensure, by the way, that gays and lesbians who are serving honorably in our armed forces aren’t subject to harassment and bullying and a whole bunch of other stuff once we implement the policy,” Obama told Rolling Stone magazine in late September. The appeal comes a day after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that ending the ban is “an action that needs to be taken by the Congress and that it is an action that requires careful preparation, and a lot of training.” “It has enormous consequences for our troops,” Gates said, ignoring research by the Center for American Progress’ Larry Korb, Sean Duggan, and Laura Conley which has found that repeal is actually a simple process and has been completed without incident by many other countries, including some of our closest allies.

MILITARY RESISTANT TO CHANGE: Gates, along with other military leaders, has resisted and delayed changing the policy before the Pentagon releases its review of the ban during the first week of December. Following Gates’ remarks, The Palm Center established a website to track his prediction that the court’s decision to suspend the policy would have “enormous consequences,” including all reported instances of harm to unit cohesion, discipline and privacy that have arisen during this period of open gay service. “Now that the ban has been suspended, we are searching vigilantly for such consequences, and we will use the new web site as a hub for reporting what we find,” Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin said. Last week, the group also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all documentation of reported negative consequences of the suspension of DADT. Meanwhile, the Pentagon task force that has been studying the consequences of ending the policy, is “well along” in formulating its recommendations, and officials don’t expect ruling or the moratorium to affect its work. According to some military officials, “[t]he task force found deep resistance to the idea of repealing the law in some elements of the armed services, especially within the combat units, an officer familiar with the findings said. But the surveys also have found segments of the military who were not overly worried about allowing gays and lesbians to serve.”

ENDING THE BAN THROUGH CONGRESS: During an MTV/BET/CMT sponsored town hall on Thursday, Obama told young voters that the policy should be repealed by Congress, not through an executive order or the courts. Distinguishing himself from President Harry Truman — who desegregated the armed forces via executive order in 1948 — Obama explained that “the difference between my position right now and Harry Truman’s was that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which with a stroke of a pen I can simply end a policy.” Obama stressed that he’s been able to convince Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen to support repeal and promised that the policy would end “on my watch.” “But I do have an obligation to make sure that I’m following some of the rules,” Obama said. “I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there, I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.” On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs promised that Obama would work to end the policy during the lame duck session of Congress, telling the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld that the President would be “actively involved in that.” Obama should also suspend discharges using his stop loss authority, thus ending the discharges of qualified men and women during wartime.