Cut “pork” before military spending.

In a recent article in the “Stars and Stripes” Defense Secretary Robert Gates is planning to reduce the strength of Soldiers and Marines by up to 70,000 by 2015 due to “this country’s dire fiscal situation…” He also plans cuts for “overpriced and controversial weapons systems.”

The cuts in forces seems to be based on the “hope” that “Afghan forces are expected to take over the lead in combat operations there…” by 2015. However up to 22,000 Army personnel could be dropped before then.

All of this while Soldiers and Marines are seeing back-to-back deployments to Afghanistan. Units of the 82^nd Airborne Division returning from Afghanistan just a few months ago will be returning within a year. We can speculate that they will be replacing another unit perhaps the 101^st Airborne Division.

Many soldiers in combat units have seen 3 to 5 tours in combat zones in the last 5 years. Suicides are the worst ever in the history of the Army, but not all are attributed to soldiers who have seen combat. Regardless the Army does not have a good handle on why the suicide rate has increased.

Certainly putting more stress on combat units during a time of war by decreasing the strength of our military personnel cannot be a smart move. It doesn’t matter how much it cost, our military strength needs to be high enough to allow at least 2 to 3 years between deployments! Cutting back is certainly not going to allow that to happen.

What kind of message does that send to an infantry soldier who intended to make the Military a career when he joined up? It says this – “Money is more important to my country than me volunteering to put my life on the line for my country.” That is just BS.

It seems to me that Defense budget cuts should be at the bottom of the list. When it comes to the manpower of our military Congress needs to cut out all of the pork and earmarks before cutting our military. But alas both Republicans and Democrats won’t really concede cutting back their pork barrel expenditures.

In a Newsweek article by Douglas Schoen he states:

The United States’ defense is overstretched as it attempts to fight two wars, terrorism, and dangerous nuclear development. We are facing a national crisis, as we must figure out how to maintain a strong defense while trying to reduce defense spending.

My problem with this statement is that “reducing defense spending” while “trying to figure out how to maintain a strong defense” is an oxymoron. There are plenty of places to reduce spending without sacrificing a “strong defense.”

In this article on Politico.com titled “GOP gets queasy over earmark ban,” the GOP is reportedly more concerned about their “pork” than the military, which isn’t mentioned.

According to one article the current budget that stalled in Congress contained more than 39,000 earmarks and an expected price tag of over $130 billion. Another website lists some of the more ludicrous earmarks:

• $1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
• $19 million to examine gas emissions from cows – otherwise known as flatulence.
• $6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho.
• $13 million for an industrial theme park in Pennsylvania.
• $33 million to pump sand onto the private beaches of Miami hotels.
• $350,000 to renovate the House Beauty Salon.
• $250,000 to study TV lighting in the Senate meeting rooms.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

The important parts of this section are to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, to declare war, to maintain a Navy, to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia…”

There is not one mention of “pork” or “earmarks” in the entire constitution. Cutting back on military manpower should not even be considered until we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq.