But you might not know that by scanning the Wall Street Journal’s new budget analysis. According to one graphic, the Journal suggests that military spending will decline over the next few years:

While it may be true that military spending will decline as a percentage of GDP, framing the military budget in these terms hides the fact that defense spending will increase in the coming years. Why? As the aforementioned CAP report explains, “Because these ‘cuts’ come from projected increases in defense spending.” As such, “the baseline defense budget will fall by just 1 percent, or $5 billion, next year and resume its growth thereafter.” Here is what a chart of projected military spending actually looks like:

Korb, Rothman and Hoffman offer a number of “next steps” the Pentagon can take to trim more fat, including reducing F-35 procurement, cancelling the V-22 Osprey, shrinking the size of the nuclear arsenal and reducing the size of the carrier fleet from nine to eleven.

Liz Trotta

Now, Trotta is facing some backlash. Kayla Williams, a former sergeant and Arabic linguist in the 101st Airborne Division who also served in Iraq, told ThinkProgress that the “level of ignorance” in Trotta’s comments is “astounding”:

Trotta’s implication that women “in close contact” with men should “expect” to be sexually assaulted is breathtakingly offensive, as is her baffling reference to women “who are now being raped too much.” Frankly, I don’t even know how to respond to someone who holds such a low opinion of those who risk their lives in defense of our country every day.

And Anu Bhagwati, Executive Director of the Service Women’s Action Network and herself a former Marine captain, also issued this statement, noting that Trotta’s disturbing comments are based on a series of myths about men and women serving together in the military:

It has become a desperate but popular myth among commentators recently that women’s presence in the military necessarily means they will get raped. First, the mere presence of women in the workplace does not turn men into rapists. Second, the majority of victims of military rape over time have been men. In fact, half of the Military Sexual Trauma patients being treated at Veterans Affairs hospitals today are men.

Bhagwati adds that the issue isn’t men and women serving together, it’s the “broken” U.S. military justice system which currently offers “few deterrents to rapists or the commanders who protect them. Serial predators can largely expect to enjoy full military careers without ever being punished for the violent crimes they commit.”

Media Matters reports that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) called Trotta’s comments “shameful” and “abhorrent.” “Contrary to Trotta’s comments, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is not in the job description of a US Service Member,” Speier said.

Fox News contributor Liz Trotta

But Fox News contributor Liz Trotta’s commentary on the matter took the issue to a whole other level. She’s not really concerned about the “controversy” surrounding the Pentagon’s announcement. For Trotta, the issue is having “women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time.” She cited a recent Pentagon report that violent sex crimes in the military have increased over the last 6 years and said women should “expect” it, decrying more levels of bureaucracy to support women who have been “raped too much“:

TROTTA: But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it’s strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators. … So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

To his credit, Fox host Eric Shawn tried to talk Trotta down a bit. “You certainly want the people fighting the war to be protected from anything that could be illegal,” he said. But Trotta wouldn’t have it. “Nice try Eric,” she said, “This whole question of women in the military has not been aired properly, and it’s the great sleeping giant.” Watch the clip via Media Matters:

Just to clarify, Trotta complained about government supporting women who have been “raped too much,” a statement seeming to imply that there is an acceptable amount of rape one can or should endure in order to prevent more layers of bureaucracy from swooping in to help out.

But today, Santorum attempted to clarify his seemingly sexist statement in an interview with ABC News:

RICK SANTORUM: I was talking about men’s emotional issues, not women. That’s something I’ve talked about repeatedly. [...] Men in our culture are focused on if a woman is in trouble, obviously, to react to try to help to protect and care for that person. That is something that is built in culturally. So my concern is that being in combat in that situation, instead of being focused on the mission, they might be more concerned about protecting a woman in a vulnerable position.

Watch it:

Having put to rest the allegation that he was suggesting women were emotionally unfit to serve in combat — and instead having argued that men are emotionally unfit to serve alongside women — Santorum went on to emphasize that he has no problem putting women’s lives in danger.

Blogger Jennifer Rubin describes her interview with Santorum:

He says, “It’s not a matter of putting women in dangerous roles.” He tell[s] me, for example, that women are fully capable of “flying small planes.”

So it seems that for Santorum, it’s okay for women to fly the puddle jumpers but save the heavy bombers for the men. While Rubin goes on to commend Santorum for his fearlessness in “refusing to censor his views” and possibly “provoking the ire of women,” his views on women in the military may pose a challenge for his campaign which finds itself in the media spotlight after primary victories in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.

In the past 24 hours, Santorum: accused Obama of helping Iran acquire nuclear weapons; suggested that male soldiers are incapable of controlling their emotions around female comrades in combat; and said women are better suited to “flying small planes.”

The news isn’t sitting well with GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Last night, CNN’s John King asked Santorum about the news and the former Pennsylvania senator said he’s worried that “emotions” might get in the way of the mission:

SANTORUM: I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country. And they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. And they’re a great addition to the — and have been for a long time, to the armed services of our country.

But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat. I think that can be a very compromising situation where — where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably — you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But it’s — but it’s — I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. And I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.

Watch it:

The Pentagon announcement only formalizes military practices that were already taking place, and thus far “emotions,” as Santorum says, haven’t been an issue.

And Santorum also happens to think the same way about gays serving in the military, saying — despite evidence to the contrary — that it “would cause problems for people living in those close quarters.” And he’s been wrong about that prediction too.

“We are trying to seek the same exact benefits that other spouses of disabled veterans are receiving,” Harris told host Ashleigh Banfield. “These benefits include burial benefits in any veterans cemetery. They also include survivor’s benefits for the widowed or widower’s spouse”:

BANFIELD: So should the worst case scenario prevail and you have to prepare for the reality end of life. Your wife gets nothing?

HARRIS: That is correct.

BANFIELD: And she can’t be buried alongside of you in an official cemetery?

HARRIS: That is correct… So even though I am a veteran, I served for 12 years and I was honorably discharged and am receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration, they consider me a single spouse. So if something should happen to me, my wife will not be taken care of as a spouse of a similarly situated spouse of a veteran who has died.

Watch it:

According to the complaint, as a single veteran rated 80 percent disabled, Tracey receives $1,488 less in disability compensation every year — almost a full month’s worth of support — because the government does not recognize her marriage. In the event of Tracey’s death, her wife Maggie will not be entitled to a minimum survivor’s benefits of $1,195.

Their plan calls for delaying the implementation of the mandatory spending cuts one year (in to 2014) in order to figure out how to offset the reductions. The Republicans don’t plan on raising taxes however. Instead, they want to cut federal jobs and freeze federal workers’ pay, Reuters reports:

The new proposal by McCain, Kyl and four other Senate Republicans would spare the military and selected domestic programs of cuts set to go into effect in January 2013. The $127 billion in budget savings would be achieved, instead, by scaling back the federal workforce and freezing its pay.

The move is designed to buy time for lawmakers to decide on more orderly reductions than the across-the-board cuts put in place after a special congressional committee failed to develop a deficit reduction plan last year, a Republican aide said.

“Let’s not let a domestic issue such as tax increases interfere…with our nation’s security,” McCain said at the bill’s unveiling on Capitol Hill today. In fact, the military can more than afford the extra $500 billion in cuts. Not only has the U.S. defense budget doubled in the last 10 years, the U.S. spends more than the next 14 countries combined. Indeed, as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said, “it’s difficult, but it is not super hard” to make the reductions.

Democrats, however, balked at the plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called the bill “unfair.” Referring to the fact that McCain and many of his GOP colleagues had indeed voted for the plan that ended up resulting in the sequester cuts, Reid added, “I believe that an agreement is an agreement. I believe that a handshake is a handshake. Here we have more than a handshake – we have a law that is in place in our country. They should keep their word. That’s what the American people expect them to do, and that’s what I expect them to do.”

ROHRABACHER: Here we have a president of the United States who is just profusely saying how wonderful he thinks of the military and we know, all of us who are sitting in the audience, he’s trying to gut the military!

Maher, co-panelists Kennedy from Reason TV, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir and even the audience joined in to collectively chastise the California Republican for his blatantly false claim. “That’s absolutely not true,” Kennedy said, later adding, “I love the military. I like my SEALs groomed and ready to go but you have to tell the truth.”

“Can I give you the facts?” Maher asked Rohrabacher. “So far every budget Obama has had has increased military spending,” he said. “This year they’re asking a reduction from $531 billion to $525 billion, 1.6 percent. You mean our freedom is in trouble because of that 1.6 percent?” Maher later added, “How paranoid do you have to be to say that this guy is gutting our military?” Watch the clip:

Of course, Maher, Kennedy, Bashir (and the audience) are right, Obama is not gutting the military, not even close. And while the Obama administration has outlined a plan to reduce military spending by nearly $500 billion over the next 10 years, that figure is taken from levels of projected spending. As the New York Times noted this week, “over the next four years, the Pentagon budget would rise each year, reaching $567 billion by 2017.” The Times adds that “adjusted for inflation, the increases are small enough that they will amount to a slight cut of 1.6 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget over the next five years.”

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Do you agree with [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates when he said that the defense budget no matter how large it may be is not the cause of the fiscal woes?

PANETTA: I agree with that. It is by no means the cause of the huge deficits we are incurring today.

At a press conference today announcing the Pentagon’s new budget, it seems Panetta finally came around to the reality that military spending and defense budgets impact the deficit. The new budget “does something about reducing the deficit and achieving savings,” he said:

PANETTA: So the reason you’re seeing the tough decisions that are being presented to you in the implementation of the strategy is because we had to achieve savings that would meet the requirement that Congress gave us. And that is tough. It’s real and it’s something that obviously will cause some pain, but at the same time we recognize that defense has to play a role in dealing with the national deficit.

Watch clips from the press conference:

Today’s Panetta is right. While the Pentagon’s budget alone is not the only deficit driver, military spending makes up 50 percent of the discretionary portion of the federal budget. And defense spending has accounted for 65 percent of the discretionary spending increase since 2001. Total defense spending in real dollars is now higher than at any time since World War II, and DOD’s baseline budget nearly doubled in the last 10 years.

While Panetta’s new budget does reduce military spending over the next 10 years by nearly $500 billion, the defense budget, as the defense secretary acknowledged today, will still grow. The reductions he laid out today are cuts in projected increases in DOD spending.

According to CNA, which studied attrition data from the Defense Manpower Data Center, only 4 percent of non-citizens have been discharged within three months of entering active service, compared to 8.2 percent of ctizen enlistees. After three years, 16 percent of non-citizens have left before completing initial service oblications, while 28 percent of citizens have. And the gap increases at four years, with 32 percent of citizens having been discharged yet only 18 percent of non-citizens. And CNA analysts found that the results do not change when adjusted for age, demographic, or are broken out by branch of service:

“These findings are consistent with the anecdotal evidence we gathered in our interviews of recruiters and non-citizen recruits,” wrote researchers Molly F. McIntosh and Seema Sayala.

“The interviews revealed that, relative to citizen recruits, non-citizen recruits generally have a stronger attachment to serving the United States, which they now consider to be ‘their country,’ and (they) have a better work ethic.”

Because the lower attrition rate would help the military save on recruiting and training costs, the CNA report recommends that the military branches create strategies to recruit more non-citizens, especially as the economy improves and recruiting becomes more difficult. And with falling fertility rates in the U.S., “the only source of net growth in the U.S. recruiting-age population is projected to be immigration,” according to CNA’s report.

Immigrants can enlist if they have legal permanent resident status, the education equialent to a high school diploma, and can speak acceptable English. And in July 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order to make any non-citizen recruit eligible for U.S. citizenship after one day of honorable service during a time of war. Without citizenship, members cannot gain security clearance, limiting the enlisted slots they can fill.

CNA’s statistics underscore what a key role immigrants have in the U.S. military. And while the report did not cover potential effects of the DREAM Act, it highlights how helpful the DREAM Act — which provides a path to lawful residence for undocumented immigrants who serve in the military — would have been for military recruiting by opening up a larger pool of qualified potential applicants. Rather than trying to discourage immigration or barring paths to citizenship for people who want to serve their adopted country, lawmakers and military officials should take this as an opportunitiy to only increase recruitment of immigrants and let them become U.S. citizens.

“Give me a break,” the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol complained earlier today about the Obama administration’s condemnation of the incident. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said the soldiers should be punished, but said people should “shut up” about it:

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

Yes, according to West, only if you literally fight for freedom of speech will you be allowed to exercise that right.

And as for Kristol. He accused the Obama administration and even the Republican candidates for president of not sufficiently saying enough good things about U.S. troops. Of course, it is the ever-so-eager-to-support-sending-troops-to-needless-wars Bill Kristol who is the arbiter of who does and does not love the troops.

With the U.S. expected to begin talks soon with the Afghan Taliban insurgency, all parties were quick to distance themselves from the act. The Marines said in a statement that the actions “are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps.” In a separate statement, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said a criminal probe was being launched and added:

This disrespectful act is inexplicable and not in keeping with the high moral standards we expect of coalition forces.

ISAF strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear to have been conducted by a small group of U.S. individuals, who apparently are no longer serving in Afghanistan.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said of the incident, “I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.” Panetta has ordered an investigation to the matter.

Afghans offered across-the-board condemnation as well. “It was inhuman and despicable, an unforgivable act which we condemn in the strongest terms,” said a Taliban spokesman. Karzai called the act “completely inhumane” and asked that those found responsible by an investigation get the “most severe punishment” possible.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who served in the U.S. military, said:

Here’s a handful of obviously undisciplined young people of the hundred and some thousand Marines that we have. And it makes me so sad. There should be an investigation and these young people should be punished, but it does great damage. It makes me so sad.

Not everyone, however, was saddened by the events. Anti-Muslim activist Pam Geller wrote in favor of the incident. “I love these Marines,” she said, adding, “Perhaps this is the infidel interpretation of the Islamic ritual of washing and preparing the body for burial.” A former Republican National Committee researcher tweeted wondering, “this is a story?” He added: “I could care less. Liberal media at work.” Michael Goldfarb, a neoconseravtive Republican operative (a former McCain campaign spokesman), lobbyist and, as of recently, chairman of a new conservative online media venture, retweeted the comments from the RNC researcher.

The next day, talking with right-wing radio host Mark Levin, West went a bit further, saying that military commanders should consider whether or not they follow the president’s orders:

LEVIN: Seems to me if I’m one of the highest ranking generals or admiral in the Navy, and this was being done to my force structure – that is, to my men and women in uniform, I might think about stepping out. You know what I mean? Moving on to another career.

WEST: I absolutely understand what you’re saying. And you know I’ve had a lot of people ask me about that because the responsibility of our senior generals has to be to the men and women in uniform. They have to be very careful about blindly following a commander in chief that really does not have the best intent for our military. And I think that when you understand that President Obama said he was going to fundamentally transform the United States of America, you’re seeing him destroy our economy, and now you’re seeing him destroy our military capability.

Levin stepped in and tried to save West. “What we’re saying so you’re liberal haters don’t screw this up,” Levin said, “we’re saying is they should consider stepping down.” “Well yeah,” West responded, “What you’re saying and what I’m saying is that your silence is consent.” Check out the clip here:

Of course, military leaders are constitutionally bound to follow the president’s orders, unless they are illegal. Otherwise, failure to do so without resignation “shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Romney has, as on so many issues, flip-flopped on whether or not a president should defer to his generals in making decisions about war and peace. Initially, he said Obama should defer to military leaders, then walked his position back and said he would listen to the generals’ “input” and make his “own decision.” During Saturday’s debate, Romney didn’t quite return to his initial position, but he did punctuate his statement on a plan for Afghanistan by declaring that he would be “listening to the commanders on the ground.”

Asked to respond, Huntsman, who’s spoken out for a more speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan, lept at the opportunity:

MODERATOR: Governor Huntsman, you have a disagreement?

HUNTSMAN: Yes. I would have to tell Mitt that the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief. Of course you get input and — and advice from a lot of different corners of Washington, including the commanders on the ground.

But we also deferred to the commanders on the ground in about 1967, during the Vietnam War, and we didn’t get very good advice then.

Watch a video of the exchange:

The U.S.’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey, and other top generals agree with Huntsman. “I find some of those articles about divergence or control of the generals to be kind of offensive to me,” Dempsey recently said. “(A)t the end of the day, our system is built on the fact that it will be our civilian leaders who make that decision and I don’t find that in any way to challenge my manhood, nor my position. In fact, if it were the opposite, I think we should all be concerned.”

Huntsman concluded his comments on Saturday by declaring that “civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan.” He said he doesn’t want to spend more money or lose more troops in that scenario and the U.S. should “move on.”

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think that the president — I assume, maybe I’m wrong, but were military leaders not part of the new plan or strategy going forward? Are you hearing from people at the Pentagon, former colleagues they were ignored in the discussion on which direction to take the military?

WEST: I can tell you that is probably the case. I have heard some rumination to that effect. And also when the president stands up and says this is the guidance I gave. The guidance he gave was not oriented towards how we have a strategy to contend with threats across the world. It was more so based on a budget analysis.

Watch it:

This claim is not true. During the announcement yesterday, Obama thanked “the service secretaries and chiefs, the combatant commanders and so many defense leaders — military and civilian, active, Guard and Reserve — for their contributions” to the new strategic guidance. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that DOD’s “senior military and civilian leadership” provided recommendations. And Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, said the same:

DEMPSEY: This strategy also benefited from an exceptional amount of attention by our senior military and civilian leadership. On multiple occasions, we held all-day and multi-day discussions with service chiefs and combatant commanders. The service chiefs, who are charged with developing the force for the strategy, were heard early and often. The combatant commanders, charged with executing the strategy, all weighed in time and time again. And we were all afforded extraordinary access to both the president and the secretary of defense.

And not only did military leaders contribute to the new strategy, but as Dempsey noted, there’s “real buy-in” from the top brass.