This of course brings up a larger discussion that I think we as Americans need to have anyway: has the time come for us to reduce our foreign presence in a major way? To return to a concept of national defense more in line with our traditional republican (small 'r') notions of the proper role of the military? Has our foreign presence since WWII - so much now criticized as an imperial one - now outgrown both our own strategic needs and our ability to pay for it? Conversely would we be drawing down at precisely the time when new emerging threats like China, Iran, etc., are ramping up? Will there ever be a time to drawn down? I would love to here some informed FReeper views on this without the 'isolationist' versus 'imperialist' hyperbole that too often characterizes this discussion. I'm open to both viewpoints.
I’m open to both viewpoints.
I’m with you but I lean towards the position that we are over relying on “hard diplomacy” as they call it in the foreign policy business.
Also we are over using to the point of abuse our reservists.
First, China is an emerging power, but not the emerging military "threat" that everyone supporting ever expanding military budgets would portray them as. The Chinese are not by nature or tradition expansionists or imperialists. Are they savvy businessmen and traders. Yes. Are the duplicitous diplomatic negotiators. Of course. Do they steal industrial secrets and use them to compete against us. Unrefutably yes.
But the counter to this is not more mechanized divisions to stave of the imagined Sino armored thrust down the Aleutians and through Alaska, Canada and the Cascades to strike at the heartland of California. It is to revitalize our own intellectual and industrial capital and take economic production as the basis for economic competition seriously.
As a Navy Veteran, and a strong supporter of a strong military, I am for cutting costs in our defense spending. Now, before I get flamed, let me put out a few points...
1)My son is currently a paratrooper in the US Army. I want him to be fully supported when he gets deployed, but I want his deployment to be for America’s security, and not to be the Worlds/UN’s policeman.
2)When I was in the Navy, we were under what I think was the Graham-Ruggman Act, which was suppose to reign in spending, but it only excellerated it. Each division was to submit it’s requests for new equipment each year. If the amount you request was more then the previous year, then you would either have to go through a lot of hoops or get denied, so divisions always ordered up to the max amount that they could so that they could maintain their spending. What that meant every year I was on board my sub, was excess tools getting “lost” and excess equipment (vacuum cleaners, dishes, etc.) getting chucked overboard to make room for the new equipment.
The military, like any other government entity has places that costs can be cut. What I think should be done, is trust the local commanders to cut what they think isn’t needed, without threat that they can’t get those things back when they need them (ie, no more Graham-Ruggman shiite).
I think we could bring home many of our troops from overseas and close alot of overseas bases. I think our southern border could be better maintained with those troops.
I don’t know if we really need to continue with the carrier battle group mentality. Like someone else posted, that kind of war at sea like in WWII isn’t going to happen again anytime soon.
I have read somewhere that our military is extremely top heavy. I don’t remember where I read it, but we have nearly the same number of officers today as we did when we fought WWII, yet our overall force is much, much smaller.
A few side notes: my son said just recently that of the 200 soldiers up for re-inlistment in his unit, only about 30 will be able to reup. That doesn’t make sense to me when we are increasing our current “boots on the ground” role in Afghanistan.
It also doesn’t jive with the dems big whine on Bush’s move to go into Iraq with “too few troops” mantra. If they really think we need more troops, then don’t restrict the “boots on the ground” from reuping. This also goes along with the Dems cries for reinstituting the draft. That’s crazy. We don’t need a draft, but maybe the Dems want one for their own nefarious reasons.