Associated Press
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey has had his disagreements with GOP lawmakers.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) recently caused some trouble when he accused America's military leadership of deliberately misleading Congress about Pentagon spending levels. It wasn't obvious at the time, but the flap was evidence of a larger fissure between Republicans and the brass.
In this case, the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs want nearly $500 billion in spending cuts over the next decade. Ryan responded that they say they want the cuts, but he and Republicans think they're lying, and prefer to give the Pentagon more money than it's asked for.
Soon after, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) backed Ryan up, saying Republicans "hear about" divisions at Defense about the budget. Though the Joint Chiefs say publicly they're unanimous in their support of the plan, McConnell said Republicans are "aware of" the "dissent within the Pentagon."
Kevin Baron has a new piece, effectively arguing that it's time for the GOP to put up or shut up.
If the senior-most Republican in the Senate knows of dissenters in the senior ranks, it's time to produce them. Put them on the witness stand and roll tape. Under the protection of giving their "best military advice," heretofore silent dissenters should tell the public why they oppose what the administration has put forth. This is national security, after all, and the nation is at war. [...]
For a year, Republican members and conservative hawks off Capitol Hill have been saying that the military needs a bigger budget than Obama is willing to provide. While the Joint Chiefs signed off on a new strategic guidance for smaller and more-agile armed forces, conservatives have stayed their course, arguing that the Defense Department needs more troops and weapons. That's not what the members of Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that they wanted. It's not what a host of other senior U.S. combat commanders and program officers have testified under oath that the U.S. requires.
Baron added that we're looking at a "GOP-versus-the-Generals" theme that "only threatens to grow."
I'd just add that the disagreements between Republicans and U.S. military leaders have been growing steadily in recent years. The notion of Republicans siding with the military is supposed to be one of those assumed truths that the political world is simply supposed to accept as a given. But over the few years, on most of the major policy disputes related to national security and defense, it's been Democrats (on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue), not Republicans, who've sided with U.S. military leaders.
When it came to political fights over the New START treaty, torture policies, closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, negotiations with the Taliban, and even repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Republicans not only disagreed with the brass, they acted as if military leaders' judgment was untrustworthy and better left ignored. We're seeing this same dynamic play out again on the budget.
To be sure, there's nothing inherently wrong with the GOP's posture. If Republicans choose to reject military leaders' advice, that's their prerogative. There's certainly no rule that Congress has to do whatever the Pentagon says, and the legislative branch has civilian oversight authority over the Defense Department. That is how it should be. I'm not arguing that Republicans are necessarily wrong because the GOP disagrees with the generals and admirals.
The point, rather, is that old partisan assumptions just don't apply anymore. It's the right, more often than not, that has no use for the judgment of the U.S. military. What's more, if the situations were reversed, and it was Democrats who were blowing off the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs, I suspect we'd hear quite a bit about it.
Leave a Comment:
oh, yeah!
So what if you're a top-ranking decorated military general, clearly Paul Ryan and the Republicans know much more than you do about military matters!
This is an over-arching theme with Republicans lately: Arrogance. They say the Ryan plan is a good economic strategy when virtually no economist (you know, people who make their living by knowing about economics) would call it anything other than an abysmal, irresponsible abomination. But clearly Republicans know better.
They say they know what's best for middle-and-lower-class women by using Ann Romney as a measuring stick despite her being a kept woman married to a multi-millionaire with household staff.
And now they say they know more about the military than top-ranking military generals.
They sure do seem to have an over-inflated opinion of themselves, don't they?
I grew up during Reagan, so to hear the Republicans talk like this about the military makes me head spin. Didn't they always side with the top brass?
The world has gone topsy-turvy!
The world's still right-side up, the GOP are just locked in one of those big gyroscopes they use to test astronauts.
The Republicans are so screwed it's unreal! They keep up their stupid antics while the population sees right through them. When they in Congress who have never served a day in the Armed Forces, or for that matter those that have seem to think that they know more than our Military Generals...something is very wrong! They will do whatever it takes to undermine this administration...you know, Make Obama a 1 term President. It doesn't matter to the Right that the actions they take hurt our country, just get the Black Guy out of office...People if that happens we are in deep, deep @!$%#! Time to move to Canada if that happens....
Republicans always side with the "Military Industrial Complex" That isn't the same as siding with the military. The Pentagon can lobby but unlike defense contractors, they can't bribe you with free stuff.
It is an insult to our military that Paul Ryan thinks he knows what is better for our military and accusing our Generals of LYING!! He is an idiot that knows nothing about defense, women, taxes, or the economy! Please vote him out of office ASAP!
Mary, one of the key requirements if you want to be part of your party's leadership in the House is that you must be from a "safe" district. Running for re-election in a contested district sucks up time and attention that Party leadership can't afford.
No, we're stuck with Ryan until the Republicans in the House kick him out.
Or, I suppose, if we're very, very, VERY lucky, until he accepts the #2 spot with Mitt Romney.
"To be sure, there's nothing inherently wrong with the GOP's posture."
Actually there is, just follow the money. The GOP's support for "Defense" is more about support for "Defense Contractors", not the actually military! As if the "Contractors" haven't siphoned off enough money due to Afghanistan & Iraq - the beast needs to be fed continuously. Were we not warned about the Military-Industrial-Complex - and yet WE paid that NO mind! Just look at the voting records of many in Congress - actual voting FOR the troops not so much; actual WELFARE to "Defense Contractors" - you get the idea!
Once again the smoke and mirrors needs to be pulled down and force Congress to "show US your hand".
You totally stole my thunder! Remember, one cannot buy shares of stock in the "military", but you sure can invest in the companies that make their toys.
-And, let us not forget, that by design, those companies make their toys in every congressional district. They not only can deliver dollars to your campaign, they can deliver VOTES.
You misunderstand. There is nothing wrong with questioning the millitary's engenuousness. It doesn't matter whether the GOP is doing it or the Dems. You can question the GOP's motivation for disbelieving the Joint Chiefs, but the fact that they are disbelieving them is not a bad thing on its own.
Absolutely. I echo DAY-3905329's comment - it's the "DEFENSE" contractors - war toy makers - that the Republicans care about - or at least their money. I work amongst a ton of them here in NoVa and they are 100% behind anyone who will make sure they stay in the easy money.
Halliburton made a fortune from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is only one of the biggest defense contractors. The media should look at the Republican campaign contributors to see who is giving money. Follow the money.
Follow the money. If the money does not go to the the military industrial complex - how might it be used. Might it be used to update the nation's infrastructure, schools, colleges, health care, social security. Who would lose - who would benefit from such a reallocation of funds?
In the words of that "well known Socialist-Marxist-Communist-Collectivist, Elitist, ,wrong-headed, sorry rapper of distorted facts, media sucking ignoramus, left-wing lunatic circus clown" [1] -
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
[1] Credit to the "Trolls Writ Large" who frequent MSNBC blogs - I could never come up with such piles of steaming maggot infested dung without your help. Many thanks - seriously I have assembled a file of the " best" quotes.
Adam_Selene
Lol Adam!
Yeah I'm still amazed by the socialist-marxist-communist-collectivist-elitist-leftist comment.
I came up w/ a term that I had been using sarcastically: socialcommiehippiegay. Kind've like the Thundercougarfalconbird from Futurama. Just a joke to explain how they lump these terms together that are wildly different as if they all mean the same thing and then apply these terms to situations that are, often, not even that controversial or divisive.
Mouzer - please may I use your material ? Perhaps we could agree on a symbol for "socialcommiehippiegay" and save a bunch of typing. How about: ":),=/=$><"
I actually do research on POI's - posters of interest and collect stupid quotes from the obnoxious ones - I have their names. Sadly, you are much too reasonable to provide me with any material.
Adam
Lol I enjoy that :),=/=$><
That basically covers every reaction a sane person has to hearing such nonsense from certain bloggers...only in emoticon form ;-)
I was Democrats who won 2 world wars.
NO! It was the United States that won two World Wars. Democrats AND Republicans. Divided we fall.
not I, it
There probably is a great deal of disagreement among military leadership on what they want to do. The military is, after all, not an automaton. But when the military leadership puts it's recommendation forward that recommendation is made after hearing out dissenting opinions and after different views have been weighed. The idea that a dissenting general or admiral somehow suddenly makes the defense budget come into question is just absurd. Had you asked the military leadership whether or not they agreed w/ going into Iraq on an individual level you probably would've heard a lot of disagreement. You probably would've heard even more disagreement after no WMD's were found and after the insurgency picked up. This doesn't mean anything. Dissent doesn't suddenly equate to meaning that you have justification for making a different policy.
But it seems to be a thing on the right that if you can point to or at least allege disagreement or dissent from a consensus opinion or agreed-upon position, then you've demolished the consensus or position.
The Pentagon has budget preferences? Bah, the voices tell me there's some debate in the Pentagon, so they have no budget preferences at all!
Nearly all climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that humans are the leading cause? Well, I have a dermatologist who says differently, so there!
The majority of economists say the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? The idea! Grover Norquist doesn't agree with that at all.
And on and on and on.
The GOP is interested in protecting the bottom line of the Corporations who supply the Military. America's defense Corporations see the military as a 'Cash Cow'
Pat - I know that you can translate this:
TANSTAAFL apparently does not apply to the military complex.
Adam_Selene "Luna will be free"
Adam,
I grok it
Republican "support" for the military has always revolved around their support of new spending programs for more pieces of gear that don't work, other than to line the profit margins of the military contractors who form one of the main "bases" of Republican support and future employment for retired Republican politicians as lobbyists for these companies. So if the Spentagon isn't spending, it's hurting their base, and thereby hurting their campaign contributions, and thereby hurting the Republicans.
If they were "pro-military" they wouldn't be constantly cutting any military appropriation that wasn't aimed at buying more stuff and might actually care about the reports of 25 veterans committing suicide for every soldier killed in Afghanistan nowadays.
Not to reiterate but...
Is there a way to get Mr. Ryan, who oh-so-confidently disagrees with the Chiefs to submit his proposal for a new military spending budget? Not just a lump sum, but broken down to its bits and pieces as to where the cash would go?
If there is a way, everybody get your long, sharp sticks ready so we can make that report look like swiss cheese.
Congress allocates the money and if they want a bigger military they can have it. The President is the commander-in-chief and the generals take orders from him. They should not be involved in determining the overall level of spending, though they can give advice and information about what is needed for a particular job. Congresspeople should certainly not be calling the generals liars about what is needed for a particular function, but they have the final say about what functions are to be financed.
But Congresspeople, especially those who haven't served a day in their lives, should not be trying to decide on extra functions or projects that the military themselves have no use or need for.
Wow, our military, a branch of federal government is self-regulating and decreasing expenditures, and GOP leaders can't figure out that they should just carry forward that surplus over into decreasing the nation's overall budget. Bravo for the brass, shame on the elephants!
This is a really good job. why is it liberal blogs can figure out what is wrong but President obama and his advisors can't?