3 ms·

Actually most it was winding down after the cold war; it was Terror which really brought it back. (the IC was shrinking fast; the mainstream military had been

by rdl 13y ago

Actually most it was winding down after the cold war; it was Terror which really brought it back. (the IC was shrinking fast; the mainstream military had been cut in half but the rest had a long lead time to reduce beyond that.) (EDIT: I meant "it re-inflated back to peak size; it's not like it's remained at that size since the Cold War" -- which is almost worse, since it means it was a semi-conscious choice vs. just inertia.)

Zigurd 13y ago
At no point was it "cut in half." Here's a graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/11/Military-spending-sequester.jpg http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/11/M... It's barely below the peak spending, including Star Wars and all that, of the height of the Cold War. Cutting it in half would be a good start, along with Homeland Security. More was spent on the recent wars than the whole Cold War. That's your grandchildrens' debt slavery right there. People should be very very angry about that.
- privong 13y ago
  Do you have an article link for the graph? It would be good to see the caption and also to know what type of dollars they're plotting (inflation-adjusted, etc.).
- rdl 13y ago
  The number of personnel in the Army was cut approximately in half (ok, more like 35%) after CW and Gulf War 1; the spending (and headcount) lagged new enlistment to a combination of inflation and Congressional protection (and the process of separating people being slow). BRAC, etc. was quite real. Capabilities were approximately cut in half under Clinton, too http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html is a decent graph of headcount. Reductions in force lag 4-8 years, though. We did have a massive ramp-up post-9/11 -- not arguing that. I'm arguing that in the 1990s the military was on a downward trajectory, which was good, and it was cut substantially and in-line with previous cuts. Personnel count is a more inflation-insensitive way to measure defense spending, IMO. Part of that is due to increased contractor use, but that really didn't kick off until ~2001. The US military in the 1990s was objectively declining in size, capabilities, and mission, as it usually did after a war, until they developed the "perpetual war on a tactic" innovation. The IC was the area which was cut a lot, though. CIA under Clinton was basically dumping ground for incompetent liberal artists starting their careers, with political motivations -- sort of like a third-string law school -- which was fine since there was ~no mission. The Cold War era people were essentially either of retirement age, or shifted to the commercial world. NSA wasn't growing much, either. NRO, I believe, was in sustainment mode. The problem is they ramped up the IC post-9/11 and did it with those people, and then bringing in trigger-puller types, including lots of "crusaders" (super-religious, relatively uninformed, un-nuanced understanding of any of the issues) people. It's kind of amazing we didn't end up actually invading Iran or whatever.

by rdl 13y ago

Zigurd 13y ago

At no point was it "cut in half." Here's a graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/11/Military-spending-sequester.jpg http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/11/M... It's barely below the peak spending, including Star Wars and all that, of the height of the Cold War. Cutting it in half would be a good start, along with Homeland Security. More was spent on the recent wars than the whole Cold War. That's your grandchildrens' debt slavery right there. People should be very very angry about that.

privong 13y ago
Do you have an article link for the graph? It would be good to see the caption and also to know what type of dollars they're plotting (inflation-adjusted, etc.).
rdl 13y ago
The number of personnel in the Army was cut approximately in half (ok, more like 35%) after CW and Gulf War 1; the spending (and headcount) lagged new enlistment to a combination of inflation and Congressional protection (and the process of separating people being slow). BRAC, etc. was quite real. Capabilities were approximately cut in half under Clinton, too http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html is a decent graph of headcount. Reductions in force lag 4-8 years, though. We did have a massive ramp-up post-9/11 -- not arguing that. I'm arguing that in the 1990s the military was on a downward trajectory, which was good, and it was cut substantially and in-line with previous cuts. Personnel count is a more inflation-insensitive way to measure defense spending, IMO. Part of that is due to increased contractor use, but that really didn't kick off until ~2001. The US military in the 1990s was objectively declining in size, capabilities, and mission, as it usually did after a war, until they developed the "perpetual war on a tactic" innovation. The IC was the area which was cut a lot, though. CIA under Clinton was basically dumping ground for incompetent liberal artists starting their careers, with political motivations -- sort of like a third-string law school -- which was fine since there was ~no mission. The Cold War era people were essentially either of retirement age, or shifted to the commercial world. NSA wasn't growing much, either. NRO, I believe, was in sustainment mode. The problem is they ramped up the IC post-9/11 and did it with those people, and then bringing in trigger-puller types, including lots of "crusaders" (super-religious, relatively uninformed, un-nuanced understanding of any of the issues) people. It's kind of amazing we didn't end up actually invading Iran or whatever.