Re: Top Five US Defense Moves

Hey PlainOl,

 

Do you agree with Carfano's assessment?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Own the Skies
Rather than slowing production of the F-35—America's newest combat
aircraft, which can replace upwards of a dozen airframes that do a
variety of missions from reconnaissance to attacking targets—the
Pentagon ought to be ramping up production. It is time to reap the
benefits of the $50 billion taxpayer investment in this program.
Likewise, the Pentagon should reopen the recently canceled F-22
production, the companion stealth fighter for the F-35. The two planes
were designed to work together to give the U.S. the capacity to
maintain air supremacy in any theater for decades.
At the same time, the government should be aggressively seeking to
export both planes to any capable ally. In particular, the goal ought
to be to ring the Asia-Pacific from India to the Arctic with a robust
allied air fleet of F-35/F-22 fighters.

2. Build Ships Faster
The U.S. has the smallest Navy since before World War I. While it is
true that modern ships are much more capable than their predecessors,
the planet is the same size. When U.S. presence is absent for critical
areas, as was recently seen in the Strait of Hormuz—trouble follows.
From submarines to amphibious ships to carriers, the U.S. needs to
ramp up production.

The needs also go beyond the Defense Department. Replacing the Coast
Guard's aging fleet of ships continues to lag, undermining the
capacity of the U.S. to protect its sovereignty at sea. In particular,
replacing the Coast Guard (part of the Department of Homeland
Security) fleet of "high-endurance" cutters has to be a priority.

3. Do Not Cut Ground Forces
Human capital is the most valuable resource in the armed forces.
Shedding the most qualified, combat-experienced, volunteer ground
forces in the nation's history would be like Apple canceling the
production of iPhones to save money. It makes no sense.

The argument that "we won't need these troops because we are not going
to do any more Iraqs and Afghanistans" is just a strategy of hope.
These were the same arguments used to justify troop cuts before 9/11.
As then, the enemy gets a vote, and it always votes to fight the wars
that the U.S. is least prepared for. Rebuilding ground forces is far
more expensive—and less risky—than maintaining adequate troop strength
to defend the nation's interests and deter conflict.

4. Put Missile Defense on the Fast Track
President Obama's "phased and adaptive" missile defense program has
proven itself to be insufficient and inadequate. The nation needs
immediate and comprehensive missile defense now. That demands starting
a three-step process:
   Expand and continually improve the Navy's proven and popular sea-
based Aegis missile defense system;
   Pursue advanced integration of the various components of a layered
missile defense system, including ground-based interceptors; and
   Develop and deploy space-based missile defenses, particularly
space-based interceptors, to counter ballistic missile attacks.

5. Start with Smart Savings
There are savings to be gained from more efficient defense spending,
but they should be reinvested in defense modernization. The most
immediate source of efficiencies to be gained is in the area of
simplifying, consolidating, and contracting defense logistics.
Estimates of immediate benefits range up to $90 billion. Congress and
the Administration should focus laser-like on this area of Pentagon
spending—now.

Really curbing cost growth over time requires getting the cost of
manpower under control by establishing a more rational and practical
package of pay and benefits for service members and their families.
This can be done in a manner that honors commitments to those
currently serving and providing more flexible and desirable benefits
that would allow the service to continue to recruit and retain a
quality all-volunteer force at reasonable cost.
The Wrong Way to Balance the Budget

Gutting defense would not balance the budget. However, it would
certainly contribute to making the world less safe for America and its
allies and leave the U.S. less prepared to deal with the dangers
ahead. The smart move would be to invest in defense—rather than pay
the butcher's bill later.

SOURCE: The Heritage Foundation

Jim_CarafanoJames Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director of the
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies
and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies, a division of the Davis Institute, at The Heritage
Foundation.
---
how does this sound to you, Keith?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.