Parts of each, absolutely. There are plenty of areas to consolidate or eliminate just as there are in all the other federal bureaucracies.
Cut the number of our people in military when we are fighting two wars and whatever one cares to call Libya? Taking a look at "doing something" about the "generous retirement" our people in the military are able to draw after 20 years, when it remains one of the main reasons the volunteer military can retain men and women our government has spent untold sums of money training to do things few of us would be willing to do to protect our country? Are you people nuts? Do you want the return of the draft? Cut billions from the gold plated Pentagon procurement budget. Stop building new, gigantic aircraft carriers, when the ones we have already are decades ahead of anything anyone else in the world has. Can the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Don't reduce the number of Americans in our armed forces. They are too few in number as it is. Pay them more. Take care of their dependents. Let them have their retirement. They earn it, so the rest of us can sit at home and type on a keyboard. Get rid of the waste and the crap we don't need.
I think you are contradicting yourself. Build less aircraft carriers but keep the same number of sailors? Why? I would support reducing the carriers but it better come with newer technology. I have no problem with paying them more increasing their retirement, whatever but if we are going to cut the budget we better get rid of the numbers. My preference is less people, less wars, and more money spent per person so they: 1. Can pick the best people for the military and are not begging everyone 2. Have the unquestionable best tools to do their job and keep themselves from getting killed 3. Are taken care of after they serve with benefits they earned.
I don't think anybody begrudges pay, benefits and retirement for service personnel. Those are not the cuts I, for one, envision. We build F-35s when drones are safer for their "pilots," have fewer limitations and are more cost effective. We have bases in countries that easily can defend themselves. In short, the military has plenty of fat to trim without cutting into real muscle.
thumbs, we don't have those drones you keep mentioning. Not robotic aircraft that can replace manned fighters and bombers. They are in development, but are years away from deployment in more than an experimental setting. Yes, we have the small drones that can fire a limited number of Hellfire air to ground missiles, and they've been pretty effective in the role given to them, but those are nothing like a modern manned aircraft. We'll get where you want to go, eventually, but we're far from being there now.
How do you plan to kill off the F35, reduce the number of carriers but keep the troop levels the same? Less carriers means less air support for guys on the ground. No new jets means outdated technology, did you mean replace the F35 with something newer or what was your solution there?
You must have missed where I said we should stop building new carriers, because those we have are decades ahead of anything anyone else has, or are thinking of building. There would not be less air support for the guys on the ground. "Outdated technology?" We already have a fighter superior to the F-35... the F-22. We have a world class fighter in the F-18 that may not have stealth technology, but is quite capable of uncorking a can of woop-ass on most of the world's fighter aircraft. It also happens to be vastly cheaper than the F-35, still in development and getting more costly by the day, and an actual 5th generation figther no other nation can touch, the F-22. None of that has anything to do with troop levels.
We don't fight carrier to carrier we fight carrier to entire country. They have to be pretty awesome, and they are not decades ahead. Plus a few are 30 years old. I would be for reducing the number to 7 or 8 but if you want to operate 7 or 8 you will eventually need new ones. you realize the F22 is a F15 replacement right? It doesn't do the same job of carrier landing and VTOL the F35 does. It is also quite old and will quickly be the most outdated plane out there. You are not offering solutions for killing the F35. And I agree none of that has much to do with troop levels except with lower troop levels we could afford better planes so so our guys have a better chance to live. Why do you oppose lowering the levels? You were against the Iraq war so I doubt you see a need for a force capable of two fronts. you want to lower the defense budget but want higher compensation right? Do you really want the same number of guys going out there with a drastically reduced budget? I bet I could find many posts by you about up armored Humvees right?
They told them not to. So much easier and more useful to make 1000 useless cuts spread out over time, you know... cuts on things that conservatives hate... than it is to cut something like defense spending once. This also allows for calling anyone who DOES want to make real cuts in real areas like defense spending a traitor or at least claim they are less than patriotic.
DOD and entitlements have to be brought under control to keep us from going bankrupt. There is government waste everywhere. Trillion + dollar deficits are not sustainable!!!! It is good to find common ground. Most problems are solved in the center.
