Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From BBC news:

The US military will become "leaner" while maintaining superiority as it switches focus to the Asia-Pacific, US President Barack Obama has announced.

In a rare appearance at the Pentagon, he unveiled a far-reaching defence review under which thousands of troops are expected to be axed.

He said the tide of war was receding, and the US needed to renew its economic strength.

The Pentagon faces more than $450bn (£288bn) in cuts over the next decade.

"So yes, our military will be leaner," Mr Obama told reporters on Thursday, "but the world must know - the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats."

Joined by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, President Obama stressed that the defence budget would still grow, but at a slower pace.

He said the US was "turning the page on a decade of war" and faced a "moment of transition".

"Even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding," he said.

President Obama added: "At the same time, we have to renew our economic strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength around the world. That includes putting our fiscal house in order."

The president said the new strategy would end "long-term, nation-building with large military footprints", with the Pentagon instead pursuing a national security strategy based on "smaller conventional ground forces".

Mr Panetta said the review would make the US military "more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly".

Ground forces would see a new mix of active and reserve components, while increasing capacity to mobilise quickly, he added.

Mr Panetta emphasised the military would retain its ability to confront more than one threat at a time, and would be more flexible and adaptable than in the past.

But he also warned that further reductions to the Pentagon budget, possible at the end of the year if Congress proceeds with steep across-the-board cuts, would undermine the military's ability to function at full capacity.

Mr Obama has been closely involved with shaping the blueprint, meeting high-ranking defence officials six times since September.

Analysis by
Jonathan Marcus

BBC diplomatic correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review of US strategy is prompted by three broad factors.

There's the growing pressure on the defence budget in an age of austerity.

The commitment of US combat forces in Iraq is over and the developing draw-down of US numbers in Afghanistan makes this a good moment for a re-appraisal.

There is also a broader desire to re-orientate the focus of US defence policy away from the Middle East and towards Asia.

Today will not be the moment for detailed announcements about troops cuts and weapons programmes delayed or cancelled. But cuts there will be in due course, with more US troops likely to be brought home from Europe.

The US Army and the Marine Corps will be reduced in number and the US Marines will return to their traditional role as a rapid intervention force.

The focus for the future looks to be on what the Pentagon calls "the Air-Sea Battle" - the creation of forces capable of containing a rising military player in the Asia-Pacific region. Nobody says so explicitly, but it's China they clearly have in mind.

A switch to focus on asia-pacific makes sense to me given the aggression that China is starting to show.

It's amazing how things change. Right now I'm reading about the American army pre WW1 and the troop levels of about 20,000 which were considered a drain on the budget by congress!!! Back then, they were still planning against a British invasion from Canada!!

I see Obama's using similar rhetoric to Cameron, as in:

'more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly'

...Or 'smaller', as it's more accurately known. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course. I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue that the USA doesn't do the lion's share in terms of policing the world.

Want to make the military cheaper? Well you could always try solving the horribly bloated costs of the US arms industry but then who would pay for the next election party.

It seems to me to be quite likely that the culture of censure of criticism of the armed forces in the US (which I percieve, may not actually exist) would be an ideal environment for some serious inefficiency and bloat to set in. Certainly the US spends a staggering amount on defense.

Melissia wrote:A switch to focus on asia-pacific makes sense to me given the aggression that China is starting to show.

Why? We have no beef with China. One war was enough thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:It seems to me to be quite likely that the culture of censure of criticism of the armed forces in the US (which I percieve, may not actually exist) would be an ideal environment for some serious inefficiency and bloat to set in. Certainly the US spends a staggering amount on defense.

Someone had to. The Europeans sure weren't doing it.

Nice dig at your allies there
I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.

Frazzled wrote:Someone had to. The Europeans sure weren't doing it.

Probably because the UN said we couldn't

Da Boss wrote:Nice dig at your allies there
I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.

There are no allies, just shared interests, but you're right and thanks for the reminder. I am NOT talking about the UK.

(Am I the only person who never quite connects the UK with mainland Europe?)

As a person who sees some of the spending/waste my base goes through, yeah we could really tighten up on that. One of the civilians on base did some number crunching and a few years ago we were wasting about $500,000 per year on buses. A lot of it has to do with the military contracts that are out there. These guys are getting paid WAY too much for their own good sometimes.

Da Boss wrote:Nice dig at your allies there
I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.

Oh of course we could. It is a government bureaucracy after all.

Step 1: close down 95% of foreign bases and withdraw all troops from non US locations.
Step 2: Profit!

Frazzled wrote:Step 1: close down 95% of foreign bases and withdraw all troops from non US locations.
Step 2: Profit!

That's a radical loss in the ability of the US military to mobilize. Plus, we then have to negotiate (again) with Japan, Germany, or any other country to get space for a facility. As it is now, we have proper facilities already in place and maintained. Foreign bases are worth their costs.

LordofHats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Step 1: close down 95% of foreign bases and withdraw all troops from non US locations.
Step 2: Profit!

That's a radical loss in the ability of the US military to mobilize. Plus, we then have to negotiate (again) with Japan, Germany, or any other country to get space for a facility. As it is now, we have proper facilities already in place and maintained. Foreign bases are worth their costs.

Works for me.

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Nice dig at your allies there
I appreciate (Really!) that the US is responsible for a good bit of my safety. I just wonder if the climate in the US (where any criticism of the military is seen as unpatriotic or an attack on the character of the soldiers) doesn't allow inefficiency and overspending to flourish. I bet you could make your military cheaper without drastically lessening it's effectiveness.

There are no allies, just shared interests, but you're right and thanks for the reminder. I am NOT talking about the UK.

(Am I the only person who never quite connects the UK with mainland Europe?)

Just you and David Cameron.

I thought it was actually a fair dig, especially at the Brits whose worldwide maritime policing of the world preceded our role. Especially in relation to cutting the Harriers and carriers from the RN. The fact that the USMC either has or likely will purchase those British planes and use them is a vociferous statement of what the Parliment gave up. Those GR7s should have been in Libya before the US flew a single mission.

Anywho. While we are "leaning up" the defense budget how bout we lean up our foreign aid, grants, and subsidizing of FORIEGN militaries (that occurs under the Defense budget...slash.) I'm just thinking about how out of one side of his mouth he is talking about leaning up the military, and out of the other about some sort of new plan to "rescue" bad mortgage holders which will cost...how much? I don't really know because I haven't looked deep into either of his newest best ideas ever.

Frazzled wrote:
(Am I the only person who never quite connects the UK with mainland Europe?)

Nah, I don't think we do either.

This isn't a new strategy on Obama's part, more of a return to General (ret.) Eric Shinseki's pre 9-11 vision for the military, a smaller , better trained, equipped and fast response army. At its heart its modelled after how the US Army's Ranger, airborne and air assault regiments/divisions operate, so much so that Shinseki gave every soldier the black beret, a former signature apparell piece of the Rangers. They then adopted a tan beret, so set themselves apart again, thereby defeating the purpose of why the black beret was given to everyone.

I loved the army transformation project, but hated the new headgear with a passion. Never undertood our military's fixation with berets. Nothing says elite combat soldier like a french headpiece, apparently.

Anyway, the army transformation was curtailed by the occupation of Iraq and its need for a larger military presence, which ironically Shinseki warned the Bush administration about and was promptly shitcanned. Its good that we are returning to this project as it will reduce our footprint while still maintaining our combat effetiveness, obstensibly reduce the military budget, and make our military as a whole even more elite.

Do not want. I probably won't be axed while I'm in (they'll always need lower ranking people to do dog crap work), but it does worry me. Makes sense though.

Get rid of the air force and give the army their planes. Air force doesn't need to exist, in my opinion. It worked just fine as the Air Corps. Guarantee that'll save some money.

AustonT wrote:IAnywho. While we are "leaning up" the defense budget how bout we lean up our foreign aid, grants, and subsidizing of FORIEGN militaries (that occurs under the Defense budget...slash.) I'm just thinking about how out of one side of his mouth he is talking about leaning up the military, and out of the other about some sort of new plan to "rescue" bad mortgage holders which will cost...how much? I don't really know because I haven't looked deep into either of his newest best ideas ever.

Our Foreigh Aid budget is all ready pretty low compared to the Defense Budget.



and is pretty small in the overall budget.



It's hard to trim the budget, where almost no budget exists.

Personally, i would rather try to help out bad mortgage holders, then find more ways to kill people that aren't much of a threat to begin with. Call me old fashioned.

Why? We have no beef with China. One war was enough thank you.

What kind of commie loving talk is that! Send in Big Jim Mclain!

There is a reason why Europe doesn't spend a lot on defence these days - it starts with W and ends with 1 or 2


China is still woefully out gunned compared to the USA and it's support/specialists like Medics, sappers, engineers, are even further back still.

LordofHats wrote:Want to make the military cheaper? Well you could always try solving the horribly bloated costs of the US arms industry but then who would pay for the next election party.

He's signed laws in to effect that support that aim.

Ah you guys spend more than ten times what anyone else does, I say save a few billion and do something useful with it. Its not like shaving 50 billion off the budget is going to suddenly make the next biggest spender go "get em!"

Its 2012, the worlds moved on from the last couple of major wars, and it makes sense the military evolves a little as well.

mattyrm wrote: Ah you guys spend more than ten times what anyone else does, I say save a few billion and do something useful with it. Its not like shaving 50 billion off the budget is going to suddenly make the next biggest spender go "get em!"

Its 2012, the worlds moved on from the last couple of major wars, and it makes sense the military evolves a little as well.

What's even worse is that rather than it being a decline in spending, it's a decline in the growth of spending.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Do not want. I probably won't be axed while I'm in (they'll always need lower ranking people to do dog crap work), but it does worry me. Makes sense though.

Get rid of the air force and give the army their planes. Air force doesn't need to exist, in my opinion. It worked just fine as the Air Corps. Guarantee that'll save some money.

Ironically, my MOS in the army has a major history of actually growing during times when the Army is at its smallest.. hooray job security.

I do agree, and had heard rumors (they were just that AFAIK) that the AF will be somewhat Axed, and their various duties branched into the Navy or Army. Which would save a ton of money, since there is a perception that the AF, when building a new base, builds all the super nice housing, and ice cream places, etc. run out of money, then run back to 'daddy' saying, "but we haven't built the runway, give us more money!!!" Not to mention, the Air Force has already started getting smaller, but there was a cover article on AF Times, that said blatantly that they had eliminated 43,000 "enlisted" jobs, yet created 43 "General" slots. To me, this doesn't save money, since often times, we dont need MORE Generals, we need the 'grunts' to actually do something useful.


And, Matty, you should also realize that the military (both of ours) have evolved quite a bit since WW2. Everything from equipment to doctrine and tactics have evolved majorly each campaign is different, and we all as militaries learn our lessons (usually the hard way), and create new doctrine to reflect those lessons.

Unfortunately, at least in our US Military, we are faced with "updating" our arsenal, and in some cases congress shoots them down for very weak reasons. The most telling is in the new AR hunt, read an article about how the XM8 and SCAR both decimated the M16/M4 family in all tests, yet many voices from Congress said that they didn't want to get rid of the M16 family, not because of cost to the military, but because "I used it in "Nam, and it worked great for me, so it'll work great for the boys now" excuse. This sort of mind set, to me ultimately drives up the costs of ALL of our developments, and ultimately hinders certain progresses in our military..

I'm sure if someone sat down and did a proper cost benefit analysis on defence spending (particularly in the last decade), it would be a laughably inefficient use of a country's finances. Yet somehow, defence always seems to be immune to the proper laws of economics.

I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely. It makes me wonder whether war is addicitive... a bit like gambling, but without the big jackpot.

Flashman wrote:I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely.

Yeah, they do pretty well benefitting from our defense spending.

Frazzled wrote:
Someone had to. The Europeans sure weren't doing it.

So you're claiming that there is a global minimum for defense expenditure?

Melissia wrote:

Flashman wrote:I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely.

Yeah, they do pretty well benefitting from our defense spending.

Maybe during the cold war (itself a classic example of billions being spent by both sides for no reason whatsover), the strength of the US dissuaded any Russian musings about an invasion of Europe, but the war on terror? A few bombs stopped here and there perhaps, but nowhere near worth the money that was spent on doing it. Note that the war on terror didn't stop two major bombings in Madrid and London.

Melissia wrote:

Flashman wrote:I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely.

Yeah, they do pretty well benefitting from our defense spending.

Yes that's the obvious point, in the same way that the British empire took on the cost of fighting pirates back when they ruled the waves, all the other people that used the sea benefited from that umbrella but paid nothing towards its upkeep.

I'm not disagreeing with that fundamental point, the Americans spending is what allows the little county's to spend nothing obviously. I'm merely saying that a few billion dollars off what is already a ridiculously large budget isn't sufficient to cause any major issues. A ten percent slash in the US budget wont embolden her enemies to act any more aggressively than they are now.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Flashman wrote:I often look at countries like Denmark and Switzerland who spend next to bugger all on wars and seem to be ticking along quite nicely.

Yeah, they do pretty well benefitting from our defense spending.

Yes that's the obvious point, in the same way that the British empire took on the cost of fighting pirates back when they ruled the waves, all the other people that used the sea benefited from that umbrella but paid nothing towards its upkeep.

I'm not disagreeing with that fundamental point, the Americans spending is what allows the little county's to spend nothing obviously. I'm merely saying that a few billion dollars off what is already a ridiculously large budget isn't sufficient to cause any major issues. A ten percent slash in the US budget wont embolden her enemies to act any more aggressively than they are now.

Oh no, I don't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with the idea that every country should spend nothing on defense.

I'm all for cutting US military expenditures supposing it is done intelligently.