http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/us/pentagon-budget-experts/
A Key section of the article:
"Under the cuts, the Pentagon would become an "agile and flexible military force we need for the future," Panetta said. For example, he said, the Army will save money by pulling two of its four brigades out of permanent bases in Europe to bases in the United States.
But at the same time, the Army will increase rotational deployments to bases so more units will have an opportunity to train with NATO allies."
Key words: AGILE - FLEXIBLE - FUTURE - OPPORTUNITY. Nice messaging.
Also interesting to note: In the picture, ALL the MARINES are WOMEN.?!
Thoughts?
While talking with NATO forces in Germany recently, several officers conveyed the desire to demonstrate their capabilities as a combined force. While they recognize the U.S. as critical partners, they also understand restructuring and the need to streamline forces. My impression is that NATO forces won't perceive the loss of two BCTs in Europe as significant liability to the alliance. How it is perceived from a political point of view is another story. It will be interesting how that plays out.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of the article:
ReplyDeleteThe cut backs I understand, I do wonder however where we are going to shift too? We have to keep platforms open to assist In areas within the world, cutting ourselves too short will be more costly in the long run to reestablish what we already have.
The photo with only women Marines.
I am trying to understand where even in the Army I have ever seen a photo with females only. I have seen the “Battle Buddy” system two women but an entire platoon of women, and with weapons. I am wondering if the article is leading/hinting to another underlying issue.
The army would save much more money by pulling all 4 Brigades out of Germany. The President has clearly stated that the priority is PACOM and CENTCOM theaters. The United States taxpayers have been picking up the NATO tab for half a century. The 173rd and 2nd SCR could easily be moved out of Europe with no loss to national security. I also disagree with MR Cronin statement that ‘we’re going to be pulling back east of Suez to becoming a middle power to a minor middle power, in terms of defense cuts’. The US spends well more than twice as much on defense than any other country and over 40% of the worlds total defense spending is by the United States. These cuts will not relegate the US Military to a ‘minor middle power’. It is however important for the US military to understand that this is just the beginning of cuts, the economic and political situation in the US could cause severe cuts in the next 10-15 years.
ReplyDeleteThe SECDEF announced in December that "the Army would cut two combat brigades from Europe." Well, according to the ArmyTimes (link below), the 170th and 172nd BCT are the two BCTs that will be inactivated. Both BCTs are in Germany. The 170th will be inactivated by October of this year and the 172nd by Oct 2013. However, the Army is not the only service that is drawing down in Europe. The AirForceTimes published that "The Air Force will lose an A-10 squadron in Germany as well as an air control squadron in Italy as part of proposed budget cuts in fiscal 2013." It will be interesting to see how NATO forces and its political leaders perceive or react to this drawdown when it is completed. Keep in mind that in 2010 NATO recently adopted a new Strategic Concept. The Strategic Concept "serves as the Alliance's roadmap for the next ten years and reconfirms the commitment to defend one another against attack as the bedrock of Euro-Atlantic security." (NATO)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/army-europe-baumholder-170th-brigade-combat-team-inactivated-021612w/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/02/air-force-europe-cuts-a10-021612w/
Since this CNN article was published in January of this year, a number of top uniformed officers have backed the Obama administration plan to cut back projected military spending by $487 billion over the next decade. (See http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-congress-pentagon-budget-idUSBRE82S13920120329) However the same military leaders have warned against an additional $500 billion in cuts that could go into effect next year unless Congress takes action to stop them. This additional $500 billion is part of mandatory cuts known as sequestration intended to end the previous decade of trillion-dollar budget deficits. Sequestration is the result of the 12-member bipartisan Congressional super committee failing to reach a consensus this past year. This speaks to the much larger problem facing not only the military, but the nation at large. Unless there is some level of compromise between the major political parties, difficult decisions such as funding for planned weapons systems will be delayed. And this may have dire consequences for a military called to support a contingency somewhere in the world with short notice. In a recent address (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67791), Secretary of Defense Panetta warned of the effects such cuts would have on the military. Military members, regardless of political affiliation, should make their voices heard that the lack of compromise on the part of our congressional representatives is unacceptable, and there is a responsibility to deal with fiscal problems, not ignore them.
ReplyDelete