News

Jan 6, 2012

Obama slashes military spending, focuses on Asia

Crikey media wrap: Barack Obama has announced hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to US military spending over the next ten years and a renewed focus towards Asia and the Pacific region in a rare appearance in the Pentagon briefing room.

Luke Buckmaster — Writer, Critic and The Daily Review Journalist

Luke Buckmaster

Writer, Critic and The Daily Review Journalist

Barack Obama announced hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to US military spending over the next ten years and a renewed focus towards Asia and the Pacific region on Thursday, the result of a “defence strategic review” which aims to scale back the propensity for American engagement in large-scale nation building missions (read: invasions) in the face of the county’s disastrous debt problems.

15 comments

Leave a comment

15 thoughts on “Obama slashes military spending, focuses on Asia

  1. kevrenor

    About time for the cuts.

    Just keep those troops out of Australia.

  2. RamaStar

    In my opinion, this is a good thing. The US military is too bloated and has too much of a cold war mentality still.
    For example, there is a very sizable US force in Germany still. I believe this is now fairly redundant and can be scaled back.

  3. Lord Barry Bonkton

    Well after Iraq and Afghanistan disasters , they are leaner by over 5,000 troops , plus the returned troops blowing their brains out all over the USA. Just listen to the GOP’s whinging about cuts ? Just stop invading countries for oil and gas and minerals and just pay for them, it would have been cheaper or build smaller cars.

  4. Oscar Jones

    Perhaps when Obama wins his second term he may actually fulfill some of his promises.
    He did promise massive investment in renewable energy-an industry that would create tens of thousands of jobs rather than the arms industry which is bankrupting the USA.
    Will the candidate for Wall Street rise to the challenge?.

  5. GeeWizz

    [“Well after Iraq and Afghanistan disasters”]

    Not a complete disaster, they both now have Democracy and the violence in Iraq has reduced significantly.

    [“Just stop invading countries for oil and gas and minerals and just pay for them”]

    Ahhh where to start on this piece of stupidity.

    Well first they are paying for it… market rate just like every other country. They didn’t go in to “Stealz ye Oilz” they went in to secure oil supply… in other words the Yanks ability to buy oil in the future. The Yanks use 25% of the worlds oil(might be less now with China and India) and if you remember the early 1970’s oil embargo it badly damaged their economy, petrol stations were closed because they had no petrol to sell.

    The Yanks plan has always been about guarantee of supply. Mind you Afghanistan has nothing to do with oil as they don’t have any and is a much worthy cause but I’m guessing the lefties want us to pull out and hand the whole kit and kaboodle over to the Taliban?

  6. Lord Barry Bonkton

    SB/ TTH/Geewiz Afghanistan ” DON’T HAVE OIL ” Ahhh , where do I start on this piece of Stupidity ???????????????? I think it was the NEO-CONs (Righties ) that put their Madman in Iraq and supplied him with WMD and in Afghanistan , payed and supplied the Taliban with weapons/money for drugs.
    Gee too much wizz S.B.

  7. Suzanne Blake

    Looks like more dollars for US when The Fleet arrives for R&R

  8. jeebus

    @Geewhiz, Iraq and Afganistan are disastrous wars, whose botched planning, execution and utter mismanagement have not done anything to bring peace to the region and have almost single handedly bankrupted America.

    Bush and co’s hopeless idealism sold the Iraq invasion as an operation costing “$60 billion” at most, when 10% of that amount alone disappeared into fat air after being airdropped into the country as crisp bills direct from the US taxpayer. America is now over a trillion dollars down the hole, and Iraq is beset by suicide bombings in metropolitan areas, and a government collapsing along sectarian lines.

    Now compare those shemozzles to Libya, an operation Obama coordinated with competent allies under the banner of NATO, with UN support. Result = One toppled dictator. Cost to America so far = $1 billion.

    If there’s one lesson that neo-conservatives have failed to learn despite the overwhelming evidence, it’s the foolishness of engaging in unilateral military action without bringing in the European powers. Sure, it’s doable, but the results speak for themselves.

    America needs the democratic legitimacy provided by umbrella organisations like NATO and the EU in order to mitigate both financial costs and asymmetrical retaliation.

    Obama slashing military spending is a prudent step in his direction to have American allies play a larger role in policing the world and sharing the costs of Pax Americana.

  9. GocomSys

    Agree with the “reasonable” sentiments expressed earlier. It is indeed time to reduce US military spend and start reassessing priorities.
    Ignoring the usual dim witted TTH (SB,GWh) comments who are predictably finding inspiration by copying the US republican script or on the domestic front are invariably sticking close to the Noalition agenda. Recommend: Nothing to say? Stay away!

  10. GocomSys

    Interesting developments in 2012 with truly independent sites coming on stream.

    http://theglobalmail.org/
    http://theconversation.edu.au/

    Hopefully these sites aren’t attractive for the scatterbrains of TTH (SB,GWh).

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...