In all its years of fighting the US military has never looked so lean. The fat boy of the world’s militaries is being forced, by congress, on a diet plane not even Jenny Craig would suggest. Congress has told the US military simply, with looming budget cuts, to Charmin up because less simply has to do more. The US military is experiencing an unprecedented troop reduction due to lack of funding. Consequently, as newton stated so accurately so many years ago, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. As our military shrinks and generals are being told to do more with less, many are reacting by turning to advanced weapon technology to fill the void where boots once stood.
As America heads into a new year, we find our government tightening its purse strings and cracking down on excessive spending, with an emphasis on the US military. According to author Brad Plumer, a reporter at the Washington Post, “U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.” Pared with a more drastic 350 billion dollar cute going into effect over the next ten years, the military finds itself cutting what cost the most to maintain and support troops (Fact Sheet par. 2). In recent years the military has bolstered an overwhelming 1,468,364 troops (Active Duty). These numbers are to be cut substantially; the biggest cut is to be seen in the Army. The Army must deal with a reduction of 80,000 troops, cutting its force of 570,000 troops to nearly 140,000.Subsequently, the budget cuts, which have led to a reduction of troops in the military, has driven the military to turn to advanced weapons technology that requires less people to m...
... middle of paper ...
...ities/globalhawk/Pages/default.aspx
Plumer, Brad. "America’s Staggering Defense Budget, in Charts." Editorial. Washington Post. Washington Post, 7 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Jan. 2014..
Richter, Paul. "U.S. Sending Missiles, Drones to Help Iraq Fight Militants." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 26 Dec. 2013. Web. 19 Jan. 2014. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/26/world/la-fg-iraq-us-arms-20131227.
Roggio, Bill. "US Drones Kill 2 AQAP Fighters in Eastern Yemen." The Long War Journal. The Long War Journal, 8 Jan. 2014. Web. 19 Jan. 2014. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/01/us_drones_kill_2_aqa_2.php?utm_sou rce=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: LongWarJournalSiteWide (The Long War Journal (Site-Wide)).
In addition, Byman argues that “drones have devastated al Qaeda and associated anti-American militant groups... and they have done so at little financial cost” (Byman 1). In the article, Byman compares the financia...
Since its declaration of independence from Great Britain, the United States has experienced wars of many different sorts. Each war introduced a new kind of warfare. The Revolutionary War introduced for the first time in American history, the idea of naval warfare. Ships were armed with dozens guns and carried several dozens of men. The musket, armed with its bayonet as well as the cannon proved to be worthy weaponry advancements in the infantry together with various pistols. The Civil War introduced the revolving pistol as well as the Gatling gun which enabled soldiers to produce rapid fire and destroy enemies in large quantities with a single round. New technological advancements in transportation such as the railroad, enabled large quantities of troops to travel to a given area in nearly half the amount of time. However, the turn of the twentieth introduced new technological advancements in the country as well as the military. This ignited a century of technological advancements in the military that has enabled the United States to excel in militaristic domination.
...ch overwhelming evidence on the table, it would be hard to ignore the huge negative impact budget cuts will have on the Navy. By cutting down on flying times, eliminating training deemed nonessential, and decreasing the amount of deployments, our sailors are losing valuable experience that they would not gain elsewhere. Through the lack of maintenance on our ships, the Navy is also experiencing a decrease in readiness. By decreasing the amount of forward deployed ships, we are also increasing our reaction time to potential threats to our allies and other interests abroad. Finally, as we miss out on or delay the modernization of our Navy due to fiscal reasons, we are hindering ourselves from attaining the most combat ready force that we could be. As the United States’ economy rebuilds up to its former glory, increased military spending should be soon to follow.
In this paper, I will examine how drone strikes are instituted in America’s foreign policy and their effectiveness against terrorist organizations. Although drone warfare might seem effective and thus desirable for many people, the civilian casualties that it causes increase anti-American sentiment in the region. This sentiment creates a backlash that in fact helps terrorist groups regain their leader, recruit new members, and facilitate revenge, making drones a counterproductive foreign policy
Recent technological advancements on show in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have indicated, to some, that there is a new American way of war. Scholars, however, do not seem to have reached consensus on what a new way of war for the United States would embody. Depending on the scholar, their beliefs are underwritten by the American ability to wage war with highly interconnected, agile, precise, and extremely damaging methods or because the United States is capable of waging war with a small, Special Forces centered footprint. Other scholars argue that there is not a new American way of war because traditional methods are still necessary in many kinds of conflict. Scholars who address this question focus on conflicts that they believe to be important indicators of how the United States will act in the future, but miss the forest for the trees. The choice of a particular method of combat in any given war is not the result of some national tendency, but rather the result of the political object desired. The political object is the ultimate arbiter of the choice of strategy in war, and that is certainly not new to how the United States wages war.
The Army has transformed several times during its history. Adapting to the operational environment is a necessity for the force called upon to prosecute its adversaries. The Army must do what is necessary to protect the U.S. against all enemies, and advance the national interests of the American people. To accomplish this, anticipation of threats is crucial and victory against its adversaries is an imperative. The nation relies on the military for strategic level deterrence and expects that it will be decisive in combat operations. For the military to be successful, it is important that transformation adapt to meet these expectations by conforming to the requirements of a successful force of the future in order meet any new threats in any environment around the world.
To meet future challenges and opportunities the Department of Defense (DOD) must decide how to adjust the armed forces structure in an austere economic environment. Based on current strategic direction and fiscal constraints, the general force structure and capabilities necessary to rebalance Joint Force 2020 is a smaller but fully integrated joint military organization. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes US military power will evolve and remain modern, capable, and ready while accepting some increased risk through force reductions. Rebalancing will require innovative approaches and solutions to protect the homeland, build global security, project power, and win decisively with a leaner organization.
The U.S. Military is a proud institution, on which we as a nation rely on, just as it relies on the funding and directing of the United States Congress. However, when compared to the rest of the world, the United States consistently outspends other countries on Military/Defense spending. So much so that the National Priorities Project (NPP) states that in 2013 “America spent 37% of the world’s total military spending.” They go on to say that in 2015 “military spending (was) projected to account for 54% of all federal discretionary spending” which equates to about 600 billion dollars in federal spending towards defense and military. While there are benefits of spending this much on Military, many argue that such spending gives America an element
In a time of declining budgets the Army must make difficult decisions as to how to protect America’s security interest and role as not only global but regional as well. With new dangers and the unpredictability of our global environment, the question becomes how can the Army “Set conditions to expand when called on” given the current drawdown and limited environment? In response to this particular question, the Army will not need to expand after the drawdown to restructure the
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is an agency under The Congress that helps in synthesizing the budgetary information by providing options that are implemented and bring about savings in the initial budget. The document provides choices in the following areas: Mandatory spending apart from health-related programs, discretionary spending apart from health-related programs, and revenue other than health related programs and finally health-related programs and revenue provisions. In this paper, we shall focus defense spending and in particular the U.S. Air Force spending that falls into the category of discretional spending.
In addition to strategic deployment, the defense budget should be reformed to allocate more money towards specialized, agile units and counterterrorism efforts. By doing so, the United States would be more efficient in fighting the small terrorist groups that pose such a large threat today. In his article supporting defense reform, Berger points out, “many analysts have pointed out in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, future threats to the United States are likely to come from relatively small terrorist organizations and not from state entities which could not realistically defeat us.” The most prevalent danger regarding military within the continental U.S. is not an invasion by another nation, but rather unexpected acts of terror.
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
Following World War II, the beginning of the Cold War and the U.S. vs. Soviet fight for global dominance prompted the U.S. government's rapid increase in military spending. The central foreign and domestic policy goal of the U.S. was to contain and eventually deter Soviet influence at home and abroad, a goal that paved the way for a significant increase in the influence of the military establishment in both foreign and domestic policy. Ever since the era of increased military influence, the military and government have kept the United States in consistent military operations in order to provide a market for weapons contractors. This military-industrial complex, although rarely discussed, is one of the, if not the single most important factor
The “military-industrial complex” is government entities, specifically the Department of Defense, become too “comfortable” with the manufacturers of the weapons it provides for the Armed Forces. The agency grows to ignore the political branches of government, even acting on its own imperatives. This description carries a negative connotation. Some argue that the United States’ worldwide commitments, its large military, and the use of new, high-technology weapons have created a vast industrial machine. This machine is allied with the Pentagon in a way that dominates the political officials who are normally in charge of the Armed Forces. However, the United States has become a world military force because of a decision made by elected officials in 1949-50, not by a military-industrial complex. The industrial machine calls for weapons research, development, and acquisition, but the development and purchase of weapons is made in a wasteful manner. The allocation of funds among the several armed services is also dictated by inter-service rivalry or strategic political motives,
After taking office in 2009, the new president presented priorities that would require reduced defense spending. This process of establishing new priorities likely began immediately after his inauguration and the 2010 National Security Strategy documents this shift. In the opening remarks, the President declares his focus on building strength at home through economic growth and national debt reduction. He also places priority on health care, education improvement and the pursuit of green energy with only cursory remarks on defense capability. Although it may not have been the President’s intent, messages like these prompted DoD leaders to closely examine budgets and identify areas of substantial savings. Under this scrutiny, the F-22 production and modernization program, at more than double its original projections of costs and time, stood