Panetta: For sake of troops, Congress must act on "fiscal cliff"

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks at the National Press Club in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012. Panetta says U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan believe the U.S. and its allies have "turned the tide" after 11 years of war. Panetta said the international military coalition has managed to reverse a five-year trend of growing violence. And he said Afghan forces are on track to take the lead for securing the entire country next year. / AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

As Democrats and Republicans in Washington hammer out the details for a possible deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today implored Congress to "make the right decisions and to avoid the fiscal disaster" that he said would otherwise wreak havoc on the Department of Defense come January.

Panetta, speaking at the National Press Club, warned that the Defense Department has already grappled with major spending cuts -- and that going over the cliff would have crippling consequences not just for the men and women of the armed services, but for the overarching U.S. defense strategy going forward.

After outlining a five-point strategy aimed at bringing America's defense program into the future despite "constrained resources," Panetta argued that the "greatest risk facing this new defense strategy" is "a political system that's depriving the department of the budget certainty we need in order to plan for the future."

• Pellentesque Will the 2% Social Security payroll tax cut expire?
• House plans vote on millionaire tax hike as "Plan B"

"For more than a year, this department has been operating under the shadow of sequestration, this mindless mechanism that was put in place in order to somehow force the Congress to do the right thing," he said. "Because of political gridlock, this department still faces the possibility of another round of across-the-board cuts totaling almost a half a trillion dollars that will inflict lasting damage on our national defense and hurt the very men and women who protect this country."

The sequestration cuts, which are designed to go into effect in 2013 barring congressional action, are the result of a bipartisan congressional committee's failure last year to reach a deal to reduce the deficit. The automatic cuts threaten to hit the Defense Department with about $500 billion in reductions.

"Congress needs to make the right decisions and to avoid the fiscal disaster that awaits us," Panetta said. "My hope is that they will do the right thing. Otherwise, we we will weaken this nation in the minds of our allies, our partners, and our potential adversaries, and undermine the work and the sacrifices that our troops are making every single day."

Panetta, who is expected to retire within the next year, touted recent gains in the Afghan war, and cited a new "turning point" for American interests there: For the first time in five years, he said, the Taliban has not regained any territory that they've lost. He was hopeful about the 2014 drawdown, and the prospects of a successful transition.

Even so, he stressed that America cannot afford to neglect its defense arm in the face of a tumultuous and changing global arena.

"The threats to our security and our global interests are not receding, as they appeared to do in past wars, coming out of World War II, coming out of Korea, coming out of Vietnam, coming out of the end of the Cold War, where the threats receded," Panetta said. "The fact is today we still confront these threats in the world, threats that are more complex, more dispersed, and in many ways, more dangerous."

[nearl451]

Oh the hand wringing and asinine fear mongering.

The "troops" have nothing to fear in these meager cuts. In fact, it just means essentially flat pending for a term. Gotta give up a couple of pet unusable weapons systems and rely on a few efficiencies....and there is no issue.

Military spending under Obama has not been reduced. Don't let the hawks convince you otherwise.

Cliff is GOOD for everybody and only the most modest of belt tightenings.

[CBSDebbie]

Sake of the troops? Cut the Defense budget! I have no problem not sending any more money to Afganistan, Israel, or Pakistan. I have no problem cutting defense contractors. I have no problem Generals like Patreaus getting a retirement paycut. IF Congress doesn't begin to support and care for the people that put them in office we will not have a need for any troops. Jump the cliff. Revenue will be raised on all and the bloated fat expensive Defense budget will be cut.

[murkymook]

I will not mourn the laughing executioner when his time is up and he unites with the devil. Panetta is evil incarnate.

[ReasonableVoicesAmongUs]

There is no threat here. Our military could be cut substantially and readiness improved. That would require a cleaning of the house at the Pentagon for starters. Get the right people in there and it could happen.

[john92021]

US wants the largest best army in the world after the system collapses. Debts and treasure will be meaningless in the near future. Power will be the only commodity.

[BWB2020]

Yo Panetta, if you really give a you-know-what about "the troops", bring them home.

Anything else is BS.

[PourpaixPourpaix]

What a bunch of trash! You could cut America's defense budget in half, and we would still outspend both Russia and China on defense by 160%. That's a long way from "crippling the military", unless of course you're from Nazi Germany.

[Concrned]

Have you ever been a soldier do you have any idea of what you are saying? He is absolutely correct a lot of hardworking hard fighting people that give more to this country than you have ever thought about will be losing there livelihood because these bickering over pampered politicians can't get their crap together. We put our lives on the line every day so that you can stay safe and work hard for little pay and the liberals out there would rather keep the dregs of society on there welfare and entitlement programs than taking care of the people that protect them. Ask the Romans how this worked out for them.

[dannysteele]

Regarding "Concerned" comments, I believe we would be better off as a country with less military spending. Hopefully, this would lead to less (hopefully no) overseas bases which would then require less soldiers. Also, this could lead to less extravagant hardware budgets as well.

Relative to the rest of the world, the US spends far too much money on the military and is too far spread out over the world.