http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/a-leaner-pentagon.html?hp
I congratulate President Obama and his National Security team for cutting defence spending with other areas (why should defence be excepted after all) and I also praise the strategic reorientation to the Asia-Pacific region. I’d be interested to see the actual cuts and hope they go into effect…
The defense budget has needed to be cut for a long ass time. But congressmen with contractors building stuff for the military in their states usually raise hell when their local project is on the chopping block, not to mention the typical cries of weakness, patriotism, blah blah blah. I don’t care what they cut. Cut anything, it has to be better than no cuts
It’s going to cause short term economic/unemployment problems, both with an increased number of discharges, and canceled military contracts. Boeing’s already said they’re going to close an aircraft plant in Wichita that employs 2300 people by the end of 2013. It’s also going to make it harder for the US to project force abroad. You’re probably not going to see another situation like we’ve had the past decade where we were able to fight two wars at a time.
But, on the other hand, cutting military spending is going to be necessary if we want to help get the deficit under control.
I raely agree with Obama, but he is right on this one. We cannot continue the way we were going. And he is right that wars of the future will not be fought on the ground-they will be cyber wars and localized conflicts. Massive armies (like in WWII) are a thing of the past.
One unsettling thing though is that while they’re proposing cutting back the strength of the US armed forces, they’re not proposing cutting back their reach- the sum of US strategic committments isn’t being reduced anywhere. In particular the carrier fleet isn’t going to be cut back by a single group (9% of overall size). IOW, we’re now trying to be a quasi-empire on a budget, which never works.
Ralph124c … I have to disagree with you. Its ‘full-spectrum of operational contingencies’ meaning there can and will likely be conventional (ground) force on force, direction action, forced-entry type situations. We will continue train for the fight on the ground.
A military, no matter what, will always have a need for ‘boots on the ground’ … we went through this right after Serbia as I recall. There’s no more need for conventional ground forces. Yes there still is a need, it’s just evolved.
But I do agree cyber warfare is the next ‘big’ thing.
I’m pretty disappointed by this. America’s military-industrial complex is one of the worst things in the world. It provokes wars, props up dictatorships and corrupt regimes all over the world, gobbles up money, and distracts our nation from more important problems. I would like to see some serious cuts. First of all, while the NY Times waves around the number “500 billion”, it’s really a cut of about fifty billion dollars per year, a very small part of the military budget overall. It won’t seriously curtail America’s ability to start wars, support evil dictatorships, suppress democracy, and meddle in all kinds of places where our military does not belong. These may be the biggest cuts that are politically feasible in an election year, but I’d certainly want to see bigger.
I certainly hope we so. I’m just afraid that it won’t be a big enough change.
I certainly hope that we can all agree that military spending should be based on national security needs, not on trying to pump up employment. If we need to pump up employment by federal government spending, why not spend it on useful things such as bridges and alternative energy projects, rather than maintaining a force of people whose job is to kill people and destroy things?
States need to be able to kill people and destroy things on any time scale that is meaningful.
…But at what cost?
(This is including examining any and all alternatives to killing people and destroying things, too.)
How about killing things and destroying people?
In the hundreds of billions of dollars per annum.
[QUOTE]
So you opposed getting rid of Qadaffi? So you oppose intervening in Afghanistan in self-defence? :rolleyes:
Despite the fact that America’s military records has been one of overwhelming success?
Because national defence is one of the primary functions of government.
Announced at presidential news conference at the Pentagon (which, apparently, has never been done before):
Well, I don’t see any downside, except perhaps an end to military-as-jobs-program. Does anybody see any downside?
No, the IRS does that.
Merged threads.
Being able to lose two occupations at the same time isn’t much of a bragging point.
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Going into Afghanistan was widely supported in the US, to destroy the Taliban and capture/kill Osama Bin Laden. We had no legit reason to go into Iraq. There are those that say we shouldn’t be involved in half the military operations we are in NOW.
And therein lies the problem. Right there.
Item 1: The US Military is second to none at warfighting right now. We can defeat any conventional force on the field. That has been shown to be true for a while now.
Item 2: Once that happens, politics clouds the issue. The US Military has failed, badly, at nationbuilding. Several times now. We’re not good at it, and yet it keeps ending up being the mission.
We no longer are content to work within the framework of the UN (for good reason, but that’s another thread) or with political/economic pressure. We have reduced our toolbox to just a hammer.
And when all you have is a hammer, all your problems are treated like nails.
The solution to the problem of Iraq and it’s violations of UN decree’s regarding trade, sanctions, and the willfull starvation of it’s people should have been handled like Libya. Instead it was handled like Somalia, with much the same results.
No arguement there. But the invasion of Iraq, the Somalia force in 91, and even, as much as I hate to say it, US led NATO involvement in Kosova and the former Yugoslavia had nothing to do with defending the US. Also note, Americans such as yourself spell it “defense”, and spelling it with a c makes you look pretentious. 
There never was and still isn’t a definition of success or victory regarding our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Let’s forget about Vietnam for the time being.)
The only military operation we are involved in right now is Afghanistan.
I agree with that.
Again in agreement. But this wasn’t what ITR Champion was saying
[/QUOTE]