and I asked you first
On Jan 13, 10:27 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl,
>
> Do you agree with Carfano's assessment?
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://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.
No comments:
Post a Comment