|  January 27th 2012  | | 01/27/2012 |
A Slashed and Burned Military The future is not bright for the U.S. military. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave America a glimpse of the half-trillion dollars in defense spending cuts requested by the Obama Administration and detailed how the U.S. military's capabilities would be affected in practical terms. The result is a slashed and burned military that woefully lacks the forces it needs to meet America's security challenges on a global scale.
On the ground, in the sea, and in the air, American forces will shrink drastically -- the Army will shrink by 72,000 people, the active Marine Corps will be reduced by 20,000, the Air Force will see six tactical fighter squadrons de-established while an additional training fighter squadron will be eliminated, the next-generation F-35 Join Strike Fighter procurement will be slowed, and the Navy will retire seven cruisers and two amphibious ships at an early juncture while delaying the procurements of new ships. To put these cuts in context, we are returning to ground forces levels we had under President Bill Clinton when the Army strained and scrambled to execute smaller missions like Kosovo and Bosnia--let alone significant ground force operations.
In order to compensate for the drastically reduced military capabilities, the Administration plans to increase reliance on unmanned drones and special-operations teams based around the globe. But special operations are a scalpel, not a Swiss army knife. They are not an "easy-button" substitute for the many security missions the United States undertakes worldwide. And they rely on a strong backbone of conventional forces in order to succeed. The U.S. Navy's presence was essential in Somalia during the recent hostage rescue, as was the Air Force's support in the first phase of Afghanistan and the Army's muscle during the surge in Iraq. Special forces without robust conventional forces is like a wide receiver without a quarterback and a line.
In a new paper, The Heritage Foundation's Baker Spring, the F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, explains that the U.S. military is in danger of becoming the broken force it was in the Carter era:
As was the case following the Vietnam War in the 1970s, defense budget reductions of the scope previewed by Panetta generally lead to reduced combat readiness and, ultimately, a hollow force. This is because a force that is too small has to endure higher operating tempos and rotation cycles. It also results in a reduction in the technological edge that permits the U.S. military to achieve victory on the battlefield quickly and with fewer casualties. Finally, it becomes more difficult to man the force with high-quality personnel and maintain high morale.
Unfortunately, these cuts are just the beginning. Under the Budget Control Act that Congress passed last summer, the military will face automatic budget cuts amounting to as much as $600 billion in addition to those that Panetta laid out yesterday. As Spring explains, the only way to avoid these automatic cuts is for the Budget Control Act to be amended or repealed -- a measure that President Obama has said he would veto.
All of this comes despite the fact that spending on national defense -- a core constitutional function of government -- has declined significantly over time, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spending on the three major entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--has more than tripled. And while Washington attempts to cut spending, it is the military that is taking the brunt of it: For every dollar the President hopes to save in domestic programs, he plans on saving $128 in defense.
This leaves America in a precarious position. Fewer troops in all the services will be scrambling in a global shell game to mask the fact that the United States can't defend all of its interests. The force will be even more stressed than at the height of Iraq and Afghanistan. By cutting the defense budget, the United States is undermining the responsiveness of its defense industrial base. In addition, without proper investments, the United States will lose technological advantages vis-a-vis its future strategic competitors.
Meanwhile, America's enemies are watching. They can count our troops, our planes, and our ships. They can look on as America's military retreats and loses its ability to project forces around the world. And they will quickly realize that the United States will not be able to cover its responsibilities worldwide. That is an invitation for the sort of security threats America cannot afford -- and they are threats that America may not be able to respond to with its stripped-down military.
Print | Comments | Forward | |
|
| Connect with Heritage
| | Support our work by becoming a member. Donate today. | | The Heritage Foundation | | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | | Washington, DC 20002-4999 | | Call us at (202) 546-4400 |
Add morningbell@heritage.org to your address book
to ensure that you receive emails from us. |
You are subscribed to this newsletter as mitsballan@yahoo.com.
If you want to receive other Heritage Foundation newsletters or opt out of this newsletter please click here to update your subscription preferences. |
Previous News Letters To ensure email delivery directly to your inbox, please add
morningbell@heritage.org to your address book now. If you're having trouble viewing this message, please view it online. | | 01/13/2012 |
So, You Think You're Free? So you think you're free? Thanks to big government spending and exploding debt, the United States -- and indeed the world -- is less economically free today than it was a year ago, according to the 18th annual Index of Economic Freedom, released yesterday by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.
Economic freedom -- the ability of individuals to control the fruits of their labor and pursue their dreams -- is central to prosperity around the world. Heritage and The Wall Street Journal measure economic freedom by studying its pillars: the rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. Things like property rights, freedom from corruption, government spending, free trade, labor policies, and one's ability to invest in and create businesses all factor in to a country's economic freedom.
Sadly, economic freedom declined worldwide in 2011 as many countries attempted -- without success -- to spend their way out of recession. The editors of the Index explain what has led to this troubling decline:
Rapid expansion of government, more than any market factor, appears to be responsible for flagging economic dynamism. Government spending has not only failed to arrest the economic crisis, but also--in many countries--seems to be prolonging it. The big-government approach has led to bloated public debt, turning an economic slowdown into a fiscal crisis with economic stagnation fueling long-term unemployment.
Though some might think that the United States -- the land of the free, the home of the brave -- is of course a leader in economic freedom, they would be wrong. The United States fell to 10th place in the world for economic freedom, and its score continues to drop. The U.S. ranked 6th in 2009, 8th in 2010 and 9th in 2011.
Heritage President Ed Feulner writes, "Under President Barack Obama, [the United States] has moved to the back of the band. Its economic freedom score has dropped to 76.3 in 2012 from 81.2 in 2007 (on a scale of 0-100)." The culprit? Government spending, which has grown to a level equivalent to over 40 percent of GDP, and total public debt, which exceeds the size of the economy.
Americans have been feeling the effects of the exploding government and resulting reduction in economic freedom. Some 13.1 million Americans are out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 9 percent, and the economy has merely been plodding along on the road to a very slow recovery. Though 200,000 jobs were added in December, Heritage's James Sherk and Rea Hederman Jr., write, "At that pace, the unemployment rate will not return to normal levels (or 5.2 percent) for four and a half years--not until September 2016."
America's job creators know that it's the policies emanating from Washington that are constraining their ability to create new jobs. According to a new survey of small businesses by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, more than 80 percent are very concerned about the prospect of new regulations, mandates, and higher taxes. There's another thing Americans should be worried about, as well: According to the Index, the United States has seen its "Freedom from Corruption" score drop, as well, due to the Obama Administration's pursuit of increased regulations. As Feulner writes, "Each new edict means a new government bureaucracy that individuals and businesses must navigate. Each new law opens the door for political graft and cronyism."
The United States isn't alone in the trend away from increased economic freedom. Canada and Mexico lost ground in the Index, and 31 of the 43 countries in Europe saw reduced freedom, as well. Given Europe's huge welfare programs and out-of-control social spending, that's unfortunately not surprising. As the world suffers the economic repercussions of Europe's debt crisis, the price of pursuing policies that constrict economic freedom should be clear.
For all the bad news that the Index uncovered, there is some good news for economic freedom around the world. Four Asia-Pacific economies--Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand--lead the Index with top scores this year, Taiwan has seen increased gains in economic freedom, and eleven of the 46 economies in sub-Saharan Africa gained at least a full point on the Index's economic freedom scale. And Mauritius eighth place score is the highest ever achieved by an African country.
Much of the world, though, isn't so lucky. While some countries have seen their economic freedoms increase, others such as India and China are constrained by government control and bureaucracy. Considering that areas like health and education are highly correlated with high levels of economic freedom, governments would serve their people well by pursuing the freedoms that many in the rest of the world enjoy.
Likewise, the United States would be best served by pursuing an agenda of economic freedom at home, too. The liberty to pursue happiness and profit from one's talents and abilities is central to the American ideal. The Land of the Free should work to ensure that ideal is not just a dream but a reality as it leads the world by example in the quest for greater economic freedom. |
|
|
| |