Create Account

Username
Password
Remember me
Email
 
7
Viscera
Viscera

New Pentagon strategy stresses Asia, cyber, drones

6 comments, 155 views, posted 2:52 am 06/01/2012 in Military by Viscera
Viscera has 9248 posts, 1097 threads, 1214 points, location: 1123 6536 5321
Jedi Master

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama unveiled a defense strategy on Thursday that would expand the U.S. military presence in Asia but shrink the overall size of the force as the Pentagon seeks to reduce spending by nearly half a trillion dollars after a decade of war.
The strategy, if carried out, would significantly reshape the world's largest military from the one that executed President George W. Bush's "war on terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cyberwarfare and unmanned drones would continue to grow in priority, as would countering attempts by China and Iran to block U.S. power projection capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.
But the size of the U.S. Army and Marines Corps would shrink. So too might the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the U.S. military footprint in Europe.
Troop- and time-intensive counter-insurgency operations, a staple of U.S. military strategy since the 2007 "surge" of extra troops to Iraq, would be far more limited, with the force no longer sized for large-scale, long-term missions.
"The tide of war is receding but the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need long after the wars of the last decade are over," Obama told a Pentagon news conference alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
SMALLER, LEANER
Panetta said the new strategy would mean the Pentagon would field a "smaller and leaner" military force but said the exact number of personnel would not be determined until the Defense Department finishes its proposed 2013 budget in the coming weeks.
Administration officials have said they expect Army and Marine Corp personnel levels to be reduced by 10 percent to 15 percent over the next decade as part of the reductions.
The Army's current strength is about 565,000 soldiers and there are 201,000 Marines, meaning an eventual loss of between 76,000 and 114,000 troops.
Critics already are charging that the cuts are being driven by budget woes rather than U.S. defense needs but Obama and Panetta emphasized that the reverse is true. They did not divulge details of spending and cuts, which will be detailed in Obama's upcoming federal budget for fiscal year 2013.
"Some will no doubt say the spending reductions are too big; others will say they're too small," Obama said.

Rest of Article Here

I am persoanlly for any and all measures taken to inusre the lives of our soldiers are protected. I hope it works the way they think, but if it does then i would be all for it

Extra Points Given by:

Quaektem (5)

Comments

0
4:21 am 06/01/2012

z0phi3l

So basiccally gut the Army, keep the Air Force happy and busy, let the Navy look important, got it. 


He's been wanting to gut the Militaary, finally has a chance to do some harm

1
1:42 pm 06/01/2012

Cnik

Quote by z0phi3l:
So basiccally gut the Army, keep the Air Force happy and busy, let the Navy look important, got it.





He's been wanting to gut the Militaary, finally has a chance to do some harm

When we already have the ability to flatten any country in less than a week if we want, why should we continue to waste money on outdated weapons and outdated tactics?
It really makes no sense to have an oversized expensive military if we don't need it.

3
2:37 pm 06/01/2012

backroom

Quote by z0phi3l:
So basiccally gut the Army, keep the Air Force happy and busy, let the Navy look important, got it.

He's been wanting to gut the Militaary, finally has a chance to do some harm


Even Vezzini know you never fight a land war in Asia.

1
8:23 pm 06/01/2012

Viscera

2
8:25 pm 06/01/2012

Viscera

Quote by z0phi3l:
So basiccally gut the Army, keep the Air Force happy and busy, let the Navy look important, got it. 


He's been wanting to gut the Militaary, finally has a chance to do some harm


I (already having well established being the son of a Marine DI) am a fan of the military. But the reality of it is, if the job can be done by other means, without threatening the lives of our enlisted men/women, then I think it's only reasonable to do it. The caveat is, if it works the way they are envisioning.

3
10:41 pm 06/01/2012

Quaektem

Quote by Viscera:
...then I think it's only reasonable to do it.



Reasonable? I would say mandatory. I am all for carpet-bombing half the rice-fields of China if it saves one American soldier's life.

The most despicable thing America keeps doing in it's wars is sending in American troops and then preventing them from doing everything in their power to win, and the cost has been paid in blood.

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!


Teh NookMayrHayasdanJaranWebAngryShirtsGoneGeekEat Liver