America Cuts Its Military Muscle

You have to admire this header, from the Washington Post:

Obama announces new, leaner military approach

"Leaner" is a fine choice of weasel words. It implies, of course, that while the U.S. military is getting smaller, it isn't getting weaker. It's cutting out the fat. Unfortunately, that's nonsense.

We are cutting our military muscle down to its thigh bones.

The U.S. military will steadily shrink the Army and Marine Corps, reduce forces in Europe and probably make further cuts to the nation's nuclear arsenal, the Obama administration said Thursday in a preview of how it intends to reshape the armed forces after a decade of war.

The downsizing of the Pentagon, prompted by the country's dire fiscal problems, means that the military will depend more on coalitions with allies and avoid the large-scale counterinsurgency and nation-building operations that have marked the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other words, the President thinks we can simply choose not to fight Afghanistan-like wars and instead choose to fight Libya-style wars. That isn't stupid, but it does involve some wishful thinking. It would do to consider that the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda operating from within and with the cooperation of the government of Afghanistan. Can we always deal with such threats from the air? We do not always get to choose the problems we face.

Consider also that bit about depending on "coalitions with allies". When our European allies decided that something had to be done about the chaos in Bosnia, the U.S. had to do it. Europe had not the means to police its own borders. If another such problem emerges, we will be as short on ground power as they were.

Maybe Ron Paul was right. Perhaps it was a great mistake to insert U.S. ground forces into Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, it was better to have the power than not. We seem to be about to give that power up. That will leave Washington and our allies with fewer choices when (it would be cowardly and unrealistic to say "if") the next crisis occurs.

I find it hard to blame the President for recognizing the realities that "the country's dire fiscal problems" force him to recognize, at least on one of his "rare visits to the Pentagon." Given those fiscal realities, the decline of America's military power was probably inevitable.

I do blame him for his irresponsible neglect of those fiscal problems. President Obama has acknowledged that our fiscal house is in disarray and that our grand entitlement programs are in need of reform. He has done absolutely nothing to address these problems. He lacks either the courage or the interest to address them, or perhaps he lacks both. This may matter, sooner rather than later.

It is relatively easy for a nation with great power to use that power sparingly and judiciously. It is self-deception to think that one can resolve all foreign policy problems with the smart use of diminished resources. The latter is the new Obama Doctrine.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

Wyoming, North and South Dakota will never vote for a Democratic president who is black. Closing Warren, Minot, and Ellsworth but leaving Malmstrom and Offutt to be anchor the nukes would be mostly painless for the party of Truman.

Make it so, Mr. President.

[lynn]

Larry, methinks you protest too much. Everything to you is based on race or hating the earth. BS. Usually if a person squawks continuously about some perceived idea like race, it is because he is in fact a racist himself and trying to cover up that fact.

[larry kurtz]

Jes' plowin' da road, earth hater; jes' plowin' da road.

[larry kurtz]

Let me just say this:

Globalization is evolution. The US must be a strong leader, but model compassion and democracy, messy as it is. The United States of Earth can happen in our lifetimes.

Any of you xenophobes who have not seen this Hawking piece on Discovery is a fool to believe that we do not need Cuba, Iran and North Korea in our community:

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/stephen-hawkings-universe-fear-the-aliens.html

Believing that the Vulcans will be landing outside Bozeman to save humanity in 2063 might be my Faith as it is bounded by the same facts employed by christians, but we all know the timeline can be altered.

Statehood for the tribes and for Mexico.

[A.I.]

You seem to think a robust military is a deterrent to groups like Al Qaeda. If that were true, 9/11 would not have happened.

Granted, a large military such as ours had the resources to dislodge the Taliban prior to the attack and thus rob Al Qaeda of a safe haven, but that was not politically feasible. And even if we had invaded, it seems Al Qaeda would have succeeded because our intelligence agencies dropped the ball on monitoring the groups activities here. So, in essence, we too were a safe haven despite our military muscle.

And by the way, the military spending cuts you decry were the direct result of Tea Party tactics that held hostage efforts to raise the nation's debt ceiling last summer. So, don't be laying these cuts solely at the feet of the President.

[Donald Pay]

According to the cited article this is an eight percent cut over the 10 year budget the Pentagon had previously announced. It's a spending increase that's just a bit less than previously planned. I'm not sure that qualifies as "cutting our military muscle down to its thigh bone." Essentially this is the policy President Bush's Secretary of Defense (remember Rumsfeld?) announced and intended to pursue before being sidetracked into the Iraq war, a war that was unnecessary.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I. We will either have the military we need for future contingencies or we will not. Shrinking the military makes the latter more likely. I lay the blame squarely on the "fiscal problems" that are identified in the article, i.e., the fact that the growth of the federal debt is out of control. I can understand why you want to blame the Tea Party for pointing this out. You would much prefer to shut your eyes for the next decade or so and hope the problem magically goes away.

The President has failed to make any real proposals for managing the fiscal problem. That is solely his fault.

Donald: great! We are shrinking the military but we aren't shrinking it. It's a wonder you don't work the for the administration.

[DDCSD]

"Consider also that bit about depending on "coalitions with allies". When our European allies decided that something had to be done about the chaos in Bosnia, the U.S. had to do it. Europe had not the means to police its own borders. If another such problem emerges, we will be as short on ground power as they were. "

Do you know why they are so short on ground power? They have no reason to actually maintain a decent military when there are more than 80,000 US troops stationed in Europe. They know that if anything happens, we'll be right there to take care of them. We'd be smart to get out of Europe and force them to handle their affairs themselves.

We've got enough nukes to melt the globe many times over, reducing that number would save us a ton of money and have zero impact on threat deterrence.

One aircraft carrier has more firepower than almost every nation on Earth. Our current Naval fleet is more than ample to defend us and provide for all the deterrence needed all around the world.

I'm actually mostly opposed to the use of drones, but I much prefer them to sending in thousands of troops. Special Forces are the best tool we have against actual terrorists and have provided the most real victories in the "War on Terror". We don't need hundreds of thousands of ground troops to root out a handful of terrorists.

The only thing Obama has wrong with this plan is that he isn't actually proposing cutting anything at all. He's simply suggesting that we not increase military spending as much as we are currently planning to.

[Donald Pay]

It pays to actually read the link and know something about budgeting, KB. Anytime someone talks about a "cut" it often means that the rate of spending increase is being cut, not the actual dollar number.

"Leaner" is a bipartisan weasel word. Rep. Paul Ryan uses that word a lot in the same way that Obama uses it.

[duggersd]

DDSCD, you make a very valid point about the "need" to have troops in the numbers we do in Europe. I am ignorant as to how the numbers today compare with the numbers from the 1970's or 1980's. However I do believe Germany has the ability to provide some of its own defense, as does Japan. Perhaps it is time to look at changing policies based upon WWII adversaries and Cold War contingencies.
Donald, one of the few times we are in at least partial agreement. I would like to see a cut be a cut rather than a cut in the increase. This "base line" budgeting is one of the first things I believe we need to get rid of. I would like to see the Congress use numbers a regular accountant could understand.

[larry kurtz]

Good eye, Derek. Nice to see you on the blogs again.

[Jimi]

"Usually if a person squawks continuously about some perceived idea like race, it is because he is in fact a racist himself and trying to cover up that fact."

Lynn,

It was always quite safe to assume Larry is a Racist. I suspect Larry is Native, and unfortunately, one of the Natives who grew being taught that the white man is the source of all Native problems. Alot of them in South Dakota with those immature and uneducated beliefs. NOt much you can do about it, except do your best to ignore it, and keep your giggles to yourself.

[Jimi]

Well...unfortunately everybody is argueing about moot points.

The issue here is not the size of the military or it's cost. The real issue is the fact that world violence increases with every decrease in American Military strength. We are the only nation that can truley make changes in the world. Basically, we just sent the message to all the villians of the world, that the U.S. is gonna take a break for awhile....so have at it.

Then of course, just like after the Democrats gutted the military after Nam and during the Clintons, we will have to spend double to get it up and ready when the next War/Crisis arises. There was plenty of fat in the defense department and research and development to cut...that is a good thing, but just like all the Progressives before, that is not what it is about, it is about cutting America down to size. It is no big deal for us here at home, because no military in the world can touch us even if we made even deeper cuts than this, and there is nothing the military can do to stop the attacks of the future...(i.e. EMP's and Cyber Warfare,) sure they are key on those fronts, but ultimately somebody will eventually slip through.

The silver lining in this is that...during these periods when Democrats gut the military it forces the Sissy French, Germans, Japs, and Brits to pay attention again and start rebuilding their military strength, and let them play cop for awhile. Of course, with Europe in such financial ruin, they really aren't going to do that, so the world may look a little more crazy over the next decade or so....which I think most Americans expected anyway.

[Dave]

The "military industrial complex" feels they are entitled to an extraordinary chunk of the GDP. I'm going to start referring to "military spending" as "military welfare entitlement deficit spending"...

Still the biggest freakin' military budget on the planet btw...