Last weekend Mitt Romney and Senator
John McCain (R-Arizona) were in San Diego to commemorate Memorial
Day. During that appearance Romney committed to keeping the U.S.
Military the strongest in the world with no one else even close.
Well, that shouldn't be that hard. Right now the United States
spends more on its military budget than the next 13 countries
combined. It is true that China is beginning a buildup. Recently
they bought an old aircraft carrier from the Ukraine and are
refitting it and they do have a new carrier in the shipyards. Russia
has several aircraft carriers but only one aircraft carrier strike
group. Great Britain has one. France has one. The United States
has ELEVEN!
A carrier strike group generally
consists of the carrier which has on board a complement of 90
warplanes, at least one cruiser, at least 2 destroyers and/or
frigates and can have submarines attached. With the eleven strike
groups the United States can project power anywhere in the world in a
meaningful way. There is already no one in the world even close to
us and we are still mired in a decade long war with tribesmen who
maintain no army or functional military command at all.
In the do or die effort last year to
come up with a budget deal both major political parties agreed to a
formula of automatic cutbacks in military and social services if they
failed to reach a deal. Not reaching a deal was considered so far
from the realm of possibility that no one feared the outcome. Guess
what? They couldn't reach a deal and now it is coming time to make
good on the promise come the first of the year. Now, we find the
Republicans wanting to toss the agreement and take the whole thing
from social services and the Democrats, of course, don't find this
attractive at all. The deal calls for some $500 Billion to be cut
from the defense budget over 10 years with an equal amount from
social programs.
But exactly what does it take to
protect our country from tribal militias and radical terrorists. The
question has to be whether or not the carrier strike groups, F22 jet
fighters or nuclear submarines can accomplish that purpose. The
answer seems to be that it is difficult to bring that kind of power
to bear on a Taliban base just over the border in Pakistan. Now,
when Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz over our embargo
of their oil we did cruise a carrier strike group through the strait
into the Persian Gulf just to show them we were keeping an eye on
them. Message received. For sure, it is useful and powerful to have
these resources at our command but perhaps we need to take a strong
look at just how much of it we really do need. Eleven nuclear
aircraft carriers and over a thousand warplanes? Is that overkill?
The people really need to wake up and
ask a few hard questions. One would be exactly what is the mission
of the United States Military. If the answer is defense we need to
know what it might take to defend against any enemy. Can we get by
with just a little less in order to right our budget woes? Or is it
possible that the United States uses its military for another
purpose? After all, in the war we are fighting it seems that little
good comes from carrier strike groups.
Actually, the United States uses the
military to keep the avenues open for our mercantile industries and
to support a steady supply of raw materials from all parts of the
world. One could argue that industry is the largest consumer of our
military forces since we have had no attack on the mainland since
September 11, 2001 and our vaunted military was not much help back
then. Fact is, there are only two countries in the world that have
the resources to attack the United States in any meaningful way and
conventional forces are not part of that capability. Nuclear attack
would result in a devastating response so that is unlikely. My point
is that the type of military we have is very useful in an all out war
in which there are battle lines but not so much in dealing with
foreign insurgencies and terrorism.
So, how much military is necessary for
us to present a deterrent to those countries capable of attack? What
kind of resources should we allot to dealing with the shadowy world
of terrorism? The requirements are vastly different. This type of
warfare requires more human assets and technological prowess. As
dreadful as they may be, the drones are quite effective and can be
flown by some former video gamer on the other side of the planet. No
carrier group necessary. The most important aspect is awareness of
the threat before it happens and carrier groups don't help much there
either.
I have spoken only of our Navy which is
a formidable fighting force that includes the Marines. But we also
have a remarkable Army that is technologically heads and shoulders
above anything else in the world and an Air Force that has the
capability of striking anywhere in the world. So, I don't think any
President will have a lot of trouble keeping our military far more
powerful than any other. The real problem is going to be to keep it
relevant and to come up with the money to run it. Fact is, a second
rate economy can't support a first class military.
We all have some idea of what we expect
out of our military and our national budget. What we need to do now
is get past the jingoism and get to the real and logical answers.
Only then will the United States secure its preeminent position for
the future.
That's my take on a powerful but
bloated military. What do you think? Is a military the size of ours
necessary and can we afford it?
No comments:
Post a Comment