By MICHÈLE A. FLOURNOY Whether or not Congress avoids sequestration by March 1, defense spending will likely be cut by at least 10% over the next decade. As 20% of the federal budget and 50% of discretionary spending, it will be part of any longer-term budget deal.
Unfortunately, the United States has an abysmal record of managing postwar drawdowns of defense spending. Almost all have resulted in a "hollow force"—too much force structure with too little investment in people, readiness and modernization.
Why? Because the easiest way to reduce Defense Department spending quickly is to enact across-the-board cuts in military end-strength, operations and maintenance, and procurement—solving the budget problem on the back of the force rather than on the department writ large.
In past drawdowns after World War II, Vietnam and the Cold War, American planners assumed a period of peace. But as the U.S. transitions in Afghanistan, no such calm appears on the horizon. From instability in the Middle East to al Qaeda's resurgence in northern Africa, North Korea's continued provocations and Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons, the global security environment remains dangerous and volatile.
In this context, the U.S. must take care to preserve the military capabilities it needs to protect America's interests now and in the future. The armed forces must retain the ability and agility to respond rapidly and effectively to a broad range of contingencies. Deep cuts to force structure, readiness and modernization should be the last resort, not the default course of action. "........
I'd like to see more contributions from NATO allies myself. Especially in the overseas military bases. Are there any NATO troops in South Korea or the Middle east bases?
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
LOL wrote: I'd like to see more contributions from NATO allies myself. Especially in the overseas military bases. Are there any NATO troops in South Korea or the Middle east bases?
I doubt it, if there are expect it is insignificant. I would like to see less overseas bases. What exactly are we protecting in Germany. The only things I can think of are German bar keepers.
In S. Korea? I believe they were set up as a trip wire until we could nuc them if they got feisty. . They have served their purpose.
In the middle east? We should frack our asses off and get the hell out of there.
Germans and Brits are serving in Afghanistan. I don't know how much more we can expect from them. It does look like Japan and South Korea worried about China are spending more on defense.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
In a speech in Brussels, outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that America's military alliance with Europe faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, owing to what he characterized as the United States' disproportionate funding of NATO operations, and of allies "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
"BERLIN, Jan 31 (Reuters) - The United States will keep a strong force in Germany despite withdrawing two combat brigades soon as it cuts military spending, but some European nations could do more to share the defence burden, the U.S. commander in Europe said on Tuesday. "
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
My major take away from the peice is that there are a lot of admin saving to be had with out changing or hollowing out the force.
As stated, I agree we have too many people in uniform in too many places around the world but I thought the thrust was too many people in the pentagon among other things. I think most in uniform except the toe sucking flag officers would agree.
Note: I do not mean that all flags suck toes just a lot of them.
His proposals wrt retired military could hit me hard but if we don't hang together we will all hang separately.
............."Why is sensible military budgeting so difficult? Because lawmakers, including small-government Republicans, protect defense business in their home states with the ferocity of Spartans. Even if the Pentagon offered up the cuts we’ve outlined here, Congress would almost certainly reject them. The senators and representatives don’t have the political courage to face voters and tell them that the republic simply does not need the weapon under construction in their hometown.
Consider the F-35. Primarily made by Lockheed Martin (LMT), the plane has 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs, according to Lockheed. “It’s got a lot of political protection,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Project on Government Oversight’s Center for Defense Information in Washington. “Very, very few members of Congress are willing to say this is an unaffordable dog and we need to get rid of it.”
So rather than making strategic spending reductions that might produce a leaner, more effective military, sequestration will result in fewer pilot training hours and under-prepared soldiers. The generals light their hair on fire, and lawmakers protect the pork. Ah, democracy".
