Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien  force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.
BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.
The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework |
Keep in mind that our strong military provides a strong sense of security for our allies. Cutting back but so much could send a message that may not be so received. I don't think it's so simple to say "sucks to be you" (not that you did) and scale back our force projection.
I think the SecDef has recently been vocalizing cutting back, anyway. Whatever it is, it probably won't be substantial.