You're watching...
U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, (Ret.), explains why spending cuts and reform would strengthen the Defense Department and national security.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is warning that the United States could be attacked at the super committee.
Doesn't get its act together and give the Defense Department immune from budget cuts.
But didn't Joint Chiefs of Staff admiral Mike Mullen once admit that the biggest threat to our national security is -- ballooning debt.
The secretary Panetta running Panetta running up here -- campaign or his worries legitimate.
Here to discuss retired army colonel Douglas Macgregor -- McGregor always a pleasure welcome back to freedom watch.
-- judge colonel is really dollar for dollar correlation.
Between the amount of military spending.
And the amount of military strength.
No unfortunately that's not being true for a very long time.
Look I think we need to understand that mister Panetta is presiding over the Department of Defense which has a lot in common with the Federal Reserve -- can't audit either of them.
Nobody can tell you with precision were all the money goes and we do know that lots of the money goes to friends of the management.
Don't know the answer is we absolutely do not translate that money into military power.
We've supported the Olympics we've got all sorts of portions of the defense budget that have nothing to do with military power.
Why is it that members of congress and the American public have this false view.
That we have to support management's favorite manufacturers.
Because god forbid we should cut money into the military -- might let the bad guys attack us.
Well first of all there's no existential military threat to the United States today.
There's no it out there who frankly disinterested in attacking us directly that is as a nation state.
And the terrorist threat has always been much exaggerated and it can be handled.
Quite frankly by securing our borders and tightening up on immigration.
Legal and an illegal and I think some of that is happening just not enough.
But the truth is that.
We don't have a a serious threat out there and unfortunately defense spending to a large extent is treated by members of the house of the senate.
As a way to re distribute income.
So you re distribute income to your constituents.
That income goes through many of the large defense they're corporations and some of the small ones.
To preserve employment.
To cultivate prosperity in places where it might not otherwise exist but much of that spending frankly is not needed.
Colonel McGregor a year career a united states army -- West Point your Ph.D.
and a political science and political -- answer me this please.
Why do we need to be in Iraq in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Libya and Yemen in Uganda.
And why do we need 900.
Permanent military installations around the world on which the sun never set.
It's.
Well the answer is we don't.
But since 1991.
For the last twenty years we've had a a very tight.
Consensus inside the beltway.
On the left and the right -- cup ball of -- -- sodium intervention has convinced.
That the world will only be safe when we rule most of it.
And so they have supported what amounts to military hegemony by the United States everywhere.
It's driving us bankrupt were broke we can't afford it we don't need it.
And quite frankly we would profit from getting out of most of these places for two reasons first of all the threats would actually recede.
Because our very presence in many places is on what it.
And secondly.
Many of the nations that we've been protecting Japan and Korea.
Southeast Asia -- all the way to Norway Central Europe Southern Europe.
Would have to invest the money to protect themselves and by the way they can afford it -- we don't need to pay it.
For the -- -- McGregor thanks for joining us.
Thank you judge a tell -- -- congress can't agree.
