Cutting the military: Unacceptable strategy
Budget-cutting must not weaken national security. But that's what the Pentagon's new 10-year plan for dealing with sequestration would do. And defense-budget experts from both ends of the political spectrum agree.
The Pentagon's Strategic Choices and Management Review lays out $500 billion in cuts that would shrink the Army to fewer than 400,000 troops, retire but not replace more than half of Air Force bombers and eliminate two or three Navy aircraft-carrier strike groups. Speaking at the liberal Brookings Institution, both Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon and the conservative American Enterprise Institute's Mackenzie Eaglen criticized the plan.
Both said it would render the Pentagon unable to fight two conflicts at once. With China increasingly flexing its military muscle, Iran, North Korea and the Syrian situation still threatening and new threats sure to arise, that's not an acceptable strategy.
Defense, about 20 percent of federal spending, nevertheless bears more than 40 percent of sequestration cuts — cuts in addition to nearly $1 trillion that this administration already has cut from military spending, The Heritage Foundation notes. Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish.
The congressional counterparts of the liberal Mr. O'Hanlon and the conservative Ms. Eaglen must emulate their consensus and act to prevent these disastrous sequestration cuts to the military — “a budget-driven exercise devoid of any strategic planning,” as Heritage puts it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- Sunday pops
- Volunteers’ contributions: Growing flowers & more in Connellsville
- The Box
- The Plum sex scandal: New, sad questions
- The ‘green’ ruse: Germany’s poor ‘model’
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- Saturday essay: Waltz of the robins
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances