CNN.com | “Experts divided on Pentagon’s proposed cuts”
Because of tremendous increases in defense spending the past decade, Panetta’s plan to cut $487 billion in the next 10 years merely holds “the baseline defense budget near historic highs,” Korb said.
The proposed cuts mean that the Pentagon will spend less than originally planned, but the military “will still spend $2.73 trillion over the next five years, more than the $2.59 trillion spent over the last five years,” Korb said in his analysis for the Center for American Progress, where he is a senior fellow.
In a CNN interview, he added: “You’re reducing the projected level of defense spending, so it’s not a real reduction.”
Other analysts expressed serious caution over the planned reductions.
“I wouldn’t trivialize this direction,” said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security.
“Will the United States be the dominant guarantor for the balance of power in the Asia Pacific in the 2020s?” particularly with potential threats from Iran and China, Cronin asked.
“Those countries become symbolic of what could make the United States military vulnerable as time goes along, especially as budget cuts go along,” Cronin said. “Others say it’s hogwash: the United States is so strong, we’re exaggerating the threat.”
The proposal can be interpreted as a new budget of “a second Obama administration” as President Barack Obama seeks re-election this year, Cronin said.
“This defense is the beginning of a declining American military presence in which we’re going to be heading the way of Britain: We’re going to be pulling back east of Suez to becoming a middle power to a minor middle power, in terms of the defense cuts,” Cronin said.
Boston.com | “Pentagon: Army, Marines to shrink as budget slows”
The Army would shrink from a peak of 570,000 to 490,000 within five years, and the Marines would drop by 20,000, to 182,000. Those are considerable declines, but both services will still be slightly larger than on 9/11, before they began a decade of war. Both will keep their footholds abroad, although the Army will decrease its presence in Europe and the Marines plan to increase theirs in Asia.
The solution seems obvious, the administration refuses to make cuts in social programs, yet is gleefully taking a machete to military spending – if you are generational recipients of full government assistance , you simply now work for the government that provides your money, food, housing and medical. It would not increase spending as payment is already being made, there are many area`s of service needed that are matched with your abilities – can`t physically work? Child care for those that do.. Religious beliefs bar you from combat? be a cook, mechanic, supply services, or religious mentor to those that can. Your age prevents your active service or ability to work? Teach. Don`t want to go oversea`s? Provide disaster and community services, as well as infrastructure repair that the National Guard is usually tasked with. You will still receive what is commonly referred to as “MY CHECK”, you will simply now be earning it. Of course, like every other job will come the responsibility that every employee has – show up every day on time, pass a drug screen and submit to random testing, pay taxes on income, answer to a supervisor, perform your job successfully and be responsible for your actions – what? that`s not fair? that`s racist? that`s low income/immigrant prejudice? yeah, That`s what I thought.