Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kabar
Reducing our armed forces to 500,000 is sheer insanity. It sends a powerful message to our enemies and invites adventurism that makes the world less secure.

The message to our enemies has already been delivered, by the use of the "Leading From Behind" policy and the other actions and inactions we have chosen. And the world is less secure. And we can't afford a large military today; it's not the 1960's anymore and we are not the richest nation in the world. We are doing to ourselves what we did to the Soviet Union in the 1980's.

Any future military action we get into will have to be wisely chosen, with a described end AND an actual national interest for us. We have put ourselves in a situation where we can't answer the phone every time somebody calls 911.

Maybe 500,000 is not the right number, but I was referring to permanent active duty personnel. We have to align our military strength to what we can do, not what we used to be able to do.

170 posted on 12/30/2012 2:28:43 PM PST by Bernard (John Kerry as SOS will be the almost-perfect symbol of the Obama administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]


To: Bernard
Maybe 500,000 is not the right number, but I was referring to permanent active duty personnel.

It is not the right number. You suggested we reduce our active duty force by a1most 1 million to 500,000. You stated in your post #36, "cut the active-duty military to 500,000;"

We have to align our military strength to what we can do, not what we used to be able to do.

We have been doing that for some time now. Clinton made huge cuts to the military as part of the peace dividend reducing our forces by almost a third. Bush 43 built part of the capability back, but it was not anywhere near where it was under his father, Bush 41. We couldn't do an Operation Desert Storm today. We have changed our force structure from fighting two wars at one time to one and one-half to something even less than that today.

Great nations in decline don't immediately reduce their forces signficantly. It is phased in over time rationalizing each step but actually forced by funding shortages. The UK went thru the same thing with their no forces East of Suez and subsequent and continuing cuts in its forces. Western Europe has been doing the same thing with countries spending about 1% of GDP on defense. They had the luxury of the US providing the security umbrella. Today, NATO is really a hollow shell. The welfare state demands more and more money to keep it going. Defense is an easy target.

Next comes ever increasing taxes. The US has a ways to go in that regard. Our people have not experienced European level taxation with its VATs and other fees like paying a television and radio tax for every one of those you own (Germany). Once Obamacare gets going, you will see more pressure for a VAT and cap and trade. There will also be more means testing of government benefits. Still, it will not be enough to fund the welfare state. It will consume everything until it collapses.

172 posted on 12/30/2012 3:09:52 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson