| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| SecDef Targets USN, USMC |
| 2010-05-04 |
| First, what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire – in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City – forcing Saddam's army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again – especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much? Second – aircraft carriers. Our current plan is to have eleven carrier strike groups through 2040 and it's in the budget. And to be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But, consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities. And that bring me to the third and final issue: the budget. I have in the past warned about our nation's tendency to disarm in the wake of major wars. That remains a concern. But, as has always been the case, defense budget expectations over time, not to mention any country's strategic strength, are intrinsically linked to the overall financial and fiscal health of the nation. And in that respect, we have to accept some hard realities. American taxpayers and the Congress are rightfully worried about the deficit. At the same time, the Department of Defense's track record as a steward of taxpayer dollars leaves much to be desired. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #5 WMF > SecDEF GATES repor siad that all of these new techs amy mean the end for the freedom of action/movement the US had enjoyed in EAST ASIA + WESTPAC for the past 60 years, as CHINA is perceived as being increasingly able to STOP THE USA COLD IN EAST ASIA DURING A CRISIS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-05-04 23:50 |
| #4 The Department of Defense is one of the major purposes of having a Federal Government. Is is one of the powers which the Constitution gives to the Federal Government. The Entitlement programs are not. Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc... (1) The EPA is not. The Department of Education is not. Healthcare is not. BTW: Defense of our Borders *IS*. (1) Yes I know getting rid of any of these programs is not likely in the near future. Nevertheless IMHO they should be handled by the STATES not the FEDS. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-05-04 15:50 |
| #3 Defense is not the largest part of the budget, so why start with cuts there? Cut the largest budget areas first: that's entitlement spending. Including that boondoggle mess of a heathcare bill that just passed. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-05-04 15:42 |
| #2 USS Murtha. 'Nuff said. |
| Posted by: mojo 2010-05-04 11:36 |
| #1 Navy shipbuilding politics are nasty and not at all in the best interests of the country. Gates is saying that if the Navy cannot come up with a plan for the future, he, or Congress, will. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2010-05-04 11:29 |