The military establishment is claiming that across-the-board budget cuts would "hollow out" the military. They are probably right -- the USA probably cannot maintain a global military presence with a smaller military budget.
The solution is clear: pull back on the military's forward deployment and aggressive posturing. For instance, don't establish a new base in Darwin, Australia.
Let's see if that becomes part of the debate. I bet only Ron Paul would make this point.
3 comments:
I think the US should simply rely on the National Guard units of the many states, instead of the enormous standing army it now has.
I can see a justification for an Air Force and a Navy, but an Army seems pointless.
Interesting point, but I'm not clear on why you are making this distinction. For instance, the USA has an Air National Guard and a Coast Guard, so it would have those basic capabilities even if the Air Force and Navy were disbanded. Are you suggesting that the USA should not be occupying foreign countries (simply deploying some heavy artillery when necessary)? If that is the case, then are you suggesting that the NG should no longer be used as an occupation force (as it is in Iraq)?
The purpose of the National Guard is not to occupy foreign lands, but to defend American soil. Period.
Post a Comment