old salt wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:48 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:00 am
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:37 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:50 pm I linked to the numbers, adjusted to 1996 dollars. Including inflation, obviously.
...& according to your link, there were fewer of those constant dollars available 76-79 than in the years before & after. Fact.
During a time of rising military pay & energy prices.
0.5% less than the year prior, about 1-1.5%% less than the 4 years avg. and no, those are inflation adjusted dollars. Lots of money.
I guess in your world, as the military was shrinking fast from its Vietnam era expenditures, they should have actually spent more money...
I just think you might consider that there was plenty of money, and focus more on how it was being prioritized. I think that likely remains the biggest challenge in defense budget management. Not insufficient $.
You do not realize immediate savings when downsizing. BRAC proves that. Already in the acquisition pipeline -- worn out WW II vintage ships were being replaced by new, more capable ships, same with 50's vintage aircraft that proved so vulnerable to SAMs. The Cold War didn't stop when we left Viernam. Priorities ? If you want to stop the draft, you have to pay volunteers more. If you want to keep operating, you have to pay for fuel, even when prices are spiking.
Despite your excuse making for Carter, he campaigned promising defense cuts & followed through, as reflected by defense spending during his term of office, which your chart shows -- his term was the low point in Cold War defense spending. That was reflected in reduced military readiness which spawned the term hollowed out military. Based on my personal experience -- it was real.
Blame Nixon, Ford, the Generals & the MIC if it helps you rationalize, but Carter was not powerless.
ohhh, I quite agree that Carter could have campaigned and executed on an entirely different direction, actually increasing spending rather than continuing the cuts under Nixon and Ford. But that's not remotely what the country wanted or expected...as it was, the cuts were minor in comparison to the overall budget.
And I totally believe you that the impact showed up in the areas that you describe as opposed to say, some more nuclear subs and warheads. Huge budget.
I just think that it's all too easy to take a partisan, anti-Democrat view of this when the reality is that the cuts were underway under a GOP Admin and it was very much what the country was voting for to continue.
And I think it's particularly crude thinking to blame the sitting President during any attempt to save American lives for the reality of the military to either be unlucky or ill equipped for the mission. On the latter, it's definitely correct that they
could have been equipped properly had that need been prioritized over others...but they didn't expect or plan for that specific sort of mission, didn't prioritize for it, and undoubtedly were "unlucky" too.