The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

VIDEO: Jon Kyl Defends Defense

Posted on | May 14, 2012 | 30 Comments

In case you’ve forgotten the debt-ceiling deal, if Congress can’t do something to reduce our escalating deficits — and Harry Reid’s Senate Democrats haven’t even produced a budget in three years, so we’re probably doomed — then “automatic sequestration” is supposed to happen, a potential catastrophe for the Pentagon:

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has been among the Senate’s strongest proponents of a robust national defense. In his role as Republican Whip, he is now leading the charge against efforts to shortchange our Defense budget, and warning of potential dire consequences for national security. . . .
Asked . . . what might happen if the impending automatic sequestration cuts slash $500 billion from the defense budget — in addition to the $487 billion dollars already slated to be cut over the next ten years — Kyl said it would amount to “shooting ourselves in the head,” a reference to a metaphor first offered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Here’s the video from Alison Meyer and Lachlan Markay at the Heritage Foundation’s new “Scribe” blog:

Category: Arizona, Budget, Military, Senate

Comments

30 Responses to “VIDEO: Jon Kyl Defends Defense”

  1. ThePaganTemple
    May 14th, 2012 @ 10:53 am

    I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth, as some good can come of this. Close down about eighty percent of those damn bases in Western Europe, and let the Muzzies and Euroweenies kill each other. We’d probably save a ton of money right there. All we have to do is resist the urge to go back over there at some later date and build them back up so they can do it all over again. I don’t want to hear any more plans for Western Europe that doesn’t involve turning Europe into a giant Medieval European version of Disneyland and everybody over there into period actors. 

  2. Rob Johnson
    May 14th, 2012 @ 10:57 am

    This was exactly what Obama and the Democrats wanted to happen when they made this “deal”‘ with the Rpepublicans.  They always want to gut defense.  What Boehner and crew did was give them a vehicle to do it without having to vote on the record to do it.  I knew this was going to happen when the Republicans caved the first time.  I don’t expect anything the few good men we have up there to do to make any difference.  Not before the election, at any rate.  If we can send the right people to Washington in the fall, maybe they will have the guts to clean this mess up.  Probably not, but they might.

  3. Mike G.
    May 14th, 2012 @ 11:19 am

    I was stationed in Germany in the late seventies. Hell, there’s an Air Force or Army base in every other town over there. Is that really necessary? Keep Rhein Main and Ramstein air bases and the Landsthul Army hospital open, as well as maybe the Kasernes around Hanau where our armored divisions are located.

    Close the rest of them down…we don’t need them. That’s billions saved right there.

  4. ThePaganTemple
    May 14th, 2012 @ 11:34 am

     Exactly. All we need is a corridor to the Middle East. One each in Iceland, Scotland, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Malta, and we’re good to go. Close the rest of the fuckers down.

  5. Rick
    May 14th, 2012 @ 11:43 am

    Count me as one of those who don’t believe this will result in any major catastrophe. Just as a man who is broke can’t keep buying all the latest guns for home protection, a nation that is broke can’t continue to spend what we’ve been spending on “national defense.”

  6. Adobe_Walls
    May 14th, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

    The sequester doesn’t contain any actual cuts either in defense or any form of domestic spending. Year over year spending for all programs subject to sequester will still increase! This is just another canard to scare the Stupid party into voting for tax increases.

  7. Bob Belvedere
    May 14th, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

    Dead solid perfect.

  8. ThePaganTemple
    May 14th, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

     Correction. We’re not spending a large portion of it on “national defense”, we’re spending it on European defense, Japanese defense, and South Korean defense.

  9. ThePaganTemple
    May 14th, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

    Oh, by the way, this “potential catastrophe for the Pentagon”? That’s when they realize the jig is up and they’re going to have to get rid of a bunch of civilian employees, aka government bureaucrats. You know, the people who are responsible for the two hundred dollar toilet seats and fifty dollar hammers. Strike that though, I’m mistaken. That was in the NINETEEN SEVENTIES! Who the hell knows what the price of those items are in today’s dollars. I don’t know, but I have a sneaking suspicion this cost might just be directly related to how many man hours are spent forwarding requisition order from one department to another before they’re finally approved, when it could have been accomplished in less than one fifth the time and man-hours.

    You people that defend this shit on the grounds of “patriotism” are making yourselves look like maroons. 

  10. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 14th, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

    There are cuts that can be done at all levels of government, including defense.  I do not want to see defense sacrificed so other civilian agencies can expand, but if there are comprehensive cuts at all government levels then defense can and should be included.  

  11. scarymatt
    May 14th, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

    All the talk of out year “cuts” drives me nuts. I think that possibly the first step will have to be getting rid of baseline budgeting so that we can call increases, increases.

  12. SDN
    May 14th, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

    “One each” = “point failure source”. Not considered a good thing in most military planning.

  13. SDN
    May 14th, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

     Pagan, we can start cutting defense only after cutting every other program not SPECIFICALLY authorized by the Constitution.

  14. Adobe_Walls
    May 14th, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

    An absolute must!

  15. Democrats Want to Gut Defense Spending | The Lonely Conservative
    May 14th, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

    […] just retreat behind fortress America.”Defense is the only spending Democrats don’t like.H/T The Other McCaingoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ google_ad_slot = […]

  16. Mike G.
    May 14th, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

     In one of our radars, we had this little component called an IF amplifier. It consisted of four or five old fashioned radio tubes, ( radioactive, mind you), plus some resistors, capacitors and diodes. It was about six inches long and cost over 20,000 bucks. And don’t drop the damn thing either or it’s ruined. If a tube went bad, the whole thing had to be replaced because of the parts being “tuned” to each other.

  17. TR
    May 14th, 2012 @ 4:31 pm

    Kyl may be a little too Hugh Hewitt (more moderate than right) but he would be an excellent VP choice given his general conservative outlook, ability to know who is who in DC and well, helps AZ as he already on his way out.  (he would not be SCOTUS even though he has his hopes up).

  18. ThePaganTemple
    May 14th, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

    Show me in the Constitution where we are authorized to defend Europe.

    Especially from themselves.

  19. Quartermaster
    May 14th, 2012 @ 8:04 pm

    Rhein Main has been closed. Much of the Military establishment is gone from Germany. The 1st Armored Division was the last Division level HQ that was still over there and it is no relocated to Ft. Bliss. The housing area I used to live at near Ludwigsburg, Pattonville, has been turned over to the Germans, as is the place I started High Skool at Pattonville.
    Berchtesgaden, and Chiemsee Rec centers are closed up and with forces approaching 50K troops left, I doubt Garmisch-Partenkirchen will be alive much longer. The K-town area is still going strong, although Sembach AFB is now just a cantonment as the airfield is closed and the air facility was being demolished.

    When the economic next down turn comes, we will be coming home as we won’t be able to support the troops outside CONUS anymore. The US’s days as empire are numbered.

  20. Mike G.
    May 14th, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

     The K-town area had a lot of US military presence. That’s where I was during my tour. I’m sure the radar site where I was above Bann is gone…wonder if they miss our weekly NCO calls at the local Gasthouse. Kinsbach Caverns, Volgoweh(sp) barracks, probably all turned over to the Germans.Hikes to the ruins of Hoenecken castle, the volksmarches…ah, great times.

    I’d have to think Ramstein AB with the 86th TFW is still open. Hahn’s on a hill…I’m sure they’re closed as well as Bittburg AB. I was Air Force so these are the bases I know.

    Wonder if Lakenheath in jolly ol’ England is still open or Aviano AB in Italy.

  21. SDN
    May 15th, 2012 @ 7:10 am

    That would be under the Treaty clause. Until we renounce the treaty, we have to take measures to fulfill it.

    One of the reasons America has been successful is that we arrange to have our wars among other people’s civilian populations, infrastructure, etc.

  22. ThePaganTemple
    May 15th, 2012 @ 8:32 am

    So are they holding up their end of the treaty? Maybe they are in some ways, but I don’t see how you can make that argument when they seem to do so many things that undermine their own national and continental security. I’m sure we wouldn’t have to go over everything with a fine toothed comb in order to find plenty of legitimate justification to scrap this treaty, or at least renegotiate it to where its far more heavily weighted in our favor.

    Was it really our intention, or in our long term best interest, to buttress their social spending bureaucracies by providing the lion’s share of their defense? Isn’t it high time this European fractured fairy tale came to a screeching halt?

    By the same token, just because we have a treaty with these people, does that mean we absolutely must maintain military bases over there? If so, why?

    Bear in mind we can travel from Point A to B unbelievably quicker than we could fifty years ago. It’s just not as necessary now as it was then, if it is at all, or if in fact it really ever was.

    Does anybody really honestly believe Vladimir Putin wants to engage in a military occupation of all of Europe? Maybe parts of the old Soviet bloc, but certainly not France, Germany, or any other part of the West. And we can take steps to protect the East. Western Europe is too busy ushering in savage Muslims who want to destroy them and us to have the time to worry about Putin. Why should we put up with that shit?

  23. ThePaganTemple
    May 15th, 2012 @ 8:33 am

     Yeah, John Kyl, rah rah. That would really excite the base so much they’re liable to fall into a coma.

  24. SDN
    May 15th, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

    Except that real equipment shipments go by ship at about the same pace as they did in WWII. Of course, we can preposition, but all that means is that someone has to guard  the goodies. I work with exactly that issue every day for the last 5 years.

  25. Thane_Eichenauer
    May 16th, 2012 @ 3:36 am

    “we need is a corridor to the Middle East”

    Why?

  26. Thane_Eichenauer
    May 16th, 2012 @ 3:41 am

    Jon Kyl is just another Republican US Senator.  No better than most.  The one federal elected official from Arizona who couldn’t bring himself to cosponsor an audit the Fed bill.  I never cared for John McCain but he managed to sign on to the effort and I give him credit for it.

  27. ThePaganTemple
    May 16th, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

     To protect our shipping routes in the Persian Gulf, and also so if we ever get a President with an actual sack of nuts, male or female, we can eliminate as many seventh century ragheads in a timely and businesslike manner.

  28. Thane_Eichenauer
    May 16th, 2012 @ 11:41 pm

    I have a hard time thinking of the Persian Gulf shipping routes as “ours”.  Why not let the people who ship the oil from Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East) pay for its protection and let the free market take care of getting oil to the US (and Japan and Taiwan and Argentina)?

  29. ThePaganTemple
    May 17th, 2012 @ 9:16 pm

     That would just add to the price of the oil, we can do it just like we’ve been doing it as far as I’m concerned. The military will be getting the same amount of appropriations anyway.

    Number two, the people who we buy the oil from don’t have the capacity to protect it adequately.

    Number three, the only way they could do it is by bribing the Islamic radicals who are the source of the problem, which means they would be getting even more money, and they could name their price under your scenario. No thanks, I’ll just keep it like it is. We have a constitutional right to protect our interests, including shipping lanes we rely on. Not just a duty, an obligation. It’s as much a national security issue as an economic one.

  30. Thane_Eichenauer
    May 18th, 2012 @ 7:47 am

    If the provider of a product can’t deliver it their customers won’t buy it. Which would put providers who can provide oil without a huge military subsidy with customers who should have been buying non-Middle Eastern oil for 10 years+. Even if US military spending didn’t decrease this would still be a good thing.