Pentagon budget will be slashed by $78b

[David Guyatt]

I wonder?

Pentagon budget will be slashed by $78bn

Gates drops bombshell as he announces Pentagon budget will be slashed by $78b and Democrat labels war in Afghanistan as 'national embarrassment'
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 1:47 PM on 7th January 2011


Cuts will force tens of thousands of frontline troops home
Democrat claims war in Afghanistan has been 'epic failure'
Army will cut 27,000 soldiers and Marines will lose 15,000
The Pentagon is set to have its budget slashed by $78billion over the next five years, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has revealed.
Mr Gates dropped the bombshell to lawmakers yesterday, in a move that will force the Army and Marine Corps to bring tens of thousands of frontline troops home from active combat.
It comes after Democrat congresswoman heaped fresh embarrassment on Barack Obama and the Pentagon after launching an astonishing attack on the 'epic failure' of the war in Afghanistan.

Big decisions: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wanted to end a 'culture of endless spending'

Freeze: Mr Gates told reporters he hoped a 'culture of endless money' was over in U.S. defence
The announcement is just a year after Mr Gates pledged to cut $100billion from defence spending - the first freeze on military funds since the 9/11 attacks.
It is a painful reminder for the military establishment that even it is not exempt from the U.S. government's sweeping austerity measures.
He told a news conference that he hoped 'what had been a culture of endless money ... will become a culture of savings and restraint'.
He added: 'We must come to realise that not every defence program is necessary, not every defence dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable.'
He insisted the focus of the cuts was 'a reduction in the rate of growth as opposed to absolute cuts'.

Under threat? U.S. front line troops could be drastically cut back after the Pentagon had its budget slashed by $78billion over the next five years

Hardware: The U.S. military has been warned that defence projects were no longer safe from austerity measures
But he also stressed that even after the reductions in troop strength, the Army and Marine Corps will both be larger than they were when he assumed the role of Defense Secretary four years ago.
The Army will be bigger by about 40,000 soldiers, and the Marines will still have 7,000 to 12,000 more troops, he said.
Asked about reaction from members of Congress who have been briefed so far about the measures, Gates said the information imparted 'was a little overwhelming' and that 'there were a number of questions, but very little editorial comment.'
But House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon said the new cuts were more dramatic than defence companies had previously been bracing for.
He added: 'I'm not happy.'
Congress ultimately controls the Defense Department's budget, and lawmakers often block administration efforts to cancel pricey weapons programs since they provide high-paying jobs in their home districts.
For instance, the Pentagon has tried for five years to cancel an alternate engine for the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that is being developed by General Electric and Britain's Rolls-Royce, but lawmakers have refused to kill the programme.
The Pentagon will see a short-term boost in its budget next year to about $554billion, excluding the cost of fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that is still $12billion less than it initially intended.
After that, annual spending rises will dwindle until they flatten completely in 2015 and 2016, with no extra money beyond the rate of inflation.

Tough talking: Lynn Woolsey said majority of Americans no longer supported the war in Afghanistan and described it as a 'moral blight' on the country
As a result, Gates said, the Army will cut the number of soldiers on active duty by 27,000 and the Marines by 15,000 to 20,000.
That will not happen until 2015, which is when Afghan President Hamid Karzai has promised to that his country's armed forces will take the lead responsibility for security there.
There are currently about 202,000 Marines on active duty, while the Army has about 569,000.
Lynn Woolsey, who represents part of California, told the House of Representatives that the majority of Americans no longer believed it was worth fighting on in Afghanistan.
She said: 'This war that has taken the lives of 1,400 Americans in Afghanistan and cost taxpayers $366billion.
'This war represents an epic failure, a national embarrassment and a moral blight on our nation.
'Sixty per cent of the people who believed in the war now think it is not worth fighting.'
Mrs Woolsey then accused the Republicans, who took over majority control in Congress after the mid-term elections in November, of failing to address dwindling support for the war.

[Magda Hassan]

Obviously needed to reimburse that bankers. It is bonus time after all.

[David Guyatt]

Ah bankers. Love them or hate them, they always make their buck don't they.

Meanwhile, back on the opium ranch - the old Sixties number is being played on Grunt radios everywhere: "Come on, let the good crops roll".

US sends in the marines to Afghanistan

THE US is to send a "mini-surge" of 1400 additional marines to Afghanistan to help preserve gains made against the Taliban .

The extra troops will keep up the momentum once the fighting season resumes in the northern spring.

However, with barely seven months to go before July 31 - the date by which President Barack Obama has promised to start bringing home some of the 97,000 US troops serving in Afghanistan - the reinforcements may be interpreted by some in Washington as a ruse to keep the numbers stable, while seeming to be honouring the withdrawal timetable.

General David Petraeus, the overall commander in Afghanistan, made the request for an extra marine battalion to consolidate the territorial gains around Kandahar in the south before making his recommendations about potential thinning out of troops elsewhere in the country. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates approved the request on Wednesday.


Dr Gates had warned earlier that any troop withdrawals by July would be relatively minor and dependent on security conditions. Having an extra 1400 marines in Afghanistan, with the expectation that this could rise to 3000 in due course, will largely assuage concerns within the Pentagon about premature troop withdrawals to meet a political timetable set by the White House.

When Mr Obama approved the surge of 30,000 US troops a year ago, he gave Dr Gates leeway to add another 10 per cent if the need arose. Colonel David Lapan, the Pentagon spokesman, said the additional 1400 marines would keep the total number within the overall limit set by Mr Obama.

The mini-surge is supposed to be temporary, but all military commanders in Afghanistan are under intense pressure to create security conditions over the next seven months that will allow Mr Obama to announce some troop withdrawals by the end of July. They will be reluctant to let go of the extra battalion. To underline the continuing challenge posed by the Taliban, NATO officials acknowledged yesterday that despite suffering a large number of casualties over the past 12 months, the insurgents were still at the same strength they were a year ago; an estimated 25,000 fighters.

The decision to send an extra battalion may alarm congress, particularly the Democrats, but commanders in Afghanistan have been saying that it is vital to hold on to the gains made against the Taliban. A White House strategy review last month warned that while progress had been made, it was "fragile and reversible".

General David Richards, Britain's Chief of Defence Staff, in Washington for talks at the Pentagon, said there were no plans to increase the size of the British force in Afghanistan, which stands at 10,000, including 500 special forces. He added: "If there's a good case for sending a few more, we will remain open-minded."

In a speech to the Atlantic Council, General Richards said the Taliban was under "unprecedented pressure" and had lost significant ground in the south.

US officials see the American-led campaign in the south as make or break for the war effort, pinning their hopes on undermining the Taliban in their heartland.

The White House strategy review issued last month said progress in Afghanistan was evident in gains by Afghan and coalition forces against Taliban bastions around Kandahar city and in Helmand province.

[Magda Hassan]

That's cost efficiency for you. Sending more soldiers to do more killing and dying for less money. More bang for your buck.