The Trib and its columnists are overreacting to the military cuts proposed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. He isn't calling for unilateral disarmament. The U.S. is the strongest military power in the world and will still be strongest if those cuts are made.
The U.S. spends far more on its military than any other country. The Pentagon's annual budget is more than twice what China, Russia and Iran combined spend on their armed forces. It still will be if Hagel's cuts are enacted.
And the U.S. has more active military personnel than any other country except China. The personnel reductions that Hagel has proposed — about 40,000 out of over 1 million — won't change that.
But before saying what size the military should be, let's first decide what it's to be used for. Do we want to play world policeman, engage in nation-building, fight other countries‘ civil wars and impose Jeffersonian democracy on tribal warlords? Then we'll need to increase both spending and manpower.
But even with the cuts that are being called for, the U.S. will still have armed forces more than strong enough to defend the U.S. from military attack and protect our strategic interests and allies abroad.
Really, isn't that enough?
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.
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Gross in 45th
- Watson in 33rd
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Wrong on EPA water proposal
- Positive promise
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Wolf is the right choice