via instapundit from a speech at the Citadel. [rquoter]· …In my view, the first priority of the federal government is the defense and security of its citizens and should be reflected in everything we do in government. We must begin by rebuilding our military with the full recognition that national security comes at a price… · …We have major shortcomings in U.S. defense capabilities. To confront these shortcomings, we must address several key priorities, · First, we must spend more on defense, and we must do so carefully and wisely. Spending today as a percent of GDP is estimated at 4.1 percent – and that includes funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. · According to the Office of Management and Budget, defense spending is expected to decline down to 3.1 percent in 2011. I believe we must be prepared to increase defense spending to at least 4.5 percent of GDP, not including what it takes to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes to matters of budgets with Congress they say all numbers are fungible. But in this area of appropriation, there should be little room for negotiation. · Second, we must admit to ourselves, as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, that our military is simply too small. Too many commitments today leave our Armed Forces capable of meeting too few contingencies tomorrow. I propose today that we build a “Million-Member” ground force. We should increase Army end strength to 775,000 organized into 64 brigade combat teams and increase active duty Marine Corps forces by 50,000 to 225,000. Half-measures and small increases will no longer do. We need the best all-volunteer force that can meet the security needs of this country, and they must be organized, trained and equipped to deal with tomorrow’s threats as well as today’s. · Third, we must modernize our Armed Forces. The average age of our military aircraft is 24 years; some are over forty years old…twice the age of most of you. The Army’s main battle tank and fighting vehicles were designed in the 1970s and 80s. And the entire fleet of vehicles is not aging gracefully either, with an average age of 13 years, made worse by years of tough use. · We must fully field and fund the next generation of military systems to ensure U.S. forces retain dominance in the full battle space: On the battlefield, in the skies above it, and in the waters surrounding it. The investments we make today provide the means to defend our nation tomorrow. They will make our military personnel more effective and safer. We need sustained technology development, and we need the best and brightest working on our defense programs. · Finally, and most importantly, we must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They are the life-blood of our defense establishment. Whether they are active duty, Guard or Reserve, they are entitled, as well, to expect the best pay and benefits our country can afford, including a modern GI Bill with educational assistance that will help us recruit and keep our nation’s finest in uniform. They also deserve the best healthcare and the best support possible for their families. · And for those who have already served, we need to fix the VA system and implement many of the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veteran's Disability Benefits Commission report. · These four pillars of a revitalized national defense are part of a much more detailed plan that must include, among other initiatives, enhancing the capabilities of our Special Operations Forces to hunt down terrorists; rebuilding the Navy to show American resolve, full time, in trouble spots; strengthening our intelligence gathering and analysis; procuring modern long-range cargo aircraft to project power anytime, anywhere; building a robust missile defense system to defend our homeland, our troops and our allies from ballistic missiles; and ensuring the means to protect our space-based assets and cyber systems.[/rquoter]
Modernizing the military and extending care to all vets would be about, oh, I'm guessing a trillion or more, particularly if you're talking brand new planes, tanks, and ships.
It looks like We are not spending enough on defense when our defesne budget is more than that of the next twenty countries combined. How about use the money budgeted for defense wisely?? Instead of wasting money on totally useless pork projects? How about cut down on the waste with these no bid contracts?
I didn't read the article. How does Fred Thompson think we should defend the pick-and-roll? I bet he wants Yao to chase point guards.
We clearly can't afford to modernize all our systems and have a million man army. We should focus on "Force Multipliers" that will get the most out of the systems we do have. More C-17's, F-22's, AC-130's, KC-10's, E8-JSTARS. Kill the F-35. The M1A2's are still world class and will be for a long time to come. I think the future growth of the tanks is pretty limited. Next generation of tanks will have a small autocannon and some sort of vertical launched, extended range hellfire type setup... with UAV's providing intel and targeting. Irrespective of a replacement to the Abrams, they need to be refurbished and kept functional. The war Iraq is going to cost us dearly in this regard. None of the 600 billion spent so far pays for the replacement of worn equipment. The navy is the one part of our military that is so far ahead of any potential adversary that funds for future projects could be diverted for a few decades with no fear of being left behind. No one else is close.
hey, thanks for the genuine response, don't know if i understand much because i'm not familiar with military systems and equipment, but at least you are looking at how can improve the military. you said a lot more than fred
I'm not wasting time reading articles posted by basso until he gets over his paralyzing fear and finally stands on one side or the other of the torture issue. To those who did waste time reading it, do you think Thompson's views here might be attractive enough with the GOP for him to surge into fifth place in New Hampshire?
His speech should have ended right here - this makes no sense. Why on earth would you tie defense spending to GDP? You should spend on defense based on what you need to build a good defense. If the economy shrinks, that doesn't change - you don't just suddenly cut a bunch of projects. If the economy grows really fast, you don't just spend more money because you can. There's no reason to fixate on 4.5% of GDP. Depending on the circumstances, it might be higher or lower. Dumb, terrible, absurd philosophy.
Excellent post. They could also downsize our carriers. Not reduce their number, but replace some of the giant targets with smaller, high tech carriers that can be force multipliers, but at a cheaper cost. Just a thought. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
Smaller aircraft carriers? Are you nuts? Carriers are more than a strategic asset. They are a symbol of American might. They are perhaps the ultimate phallic symbol that proves we have the biggest. Wait. I take that back. We have an even larger one to show the world.
I'm not sure you get a proper return on investment in building newer smaller carriers. Once you shrink carriers you loose the ability to fly AWACS planes off of them. You loose you eyes and ears, and serious strike power, while having to build new carriers. I think a better alternative would be to refurb two Iowa class battleships as flagships. We're currently lacking the ablity to support a maritime invasion force with anything other than a destroyer's single 5' gun. They are quite a presence. Honestly, I think the best money saver, while keeping our ability to project power, would be the arsenal ship. A large capital ship that carries 500 or so, cruise missiles. It would be much smaller than an aircraft carrier, and could be manned by 600 people, VS 5-6000 for a Nimitz. The yearly operating costs would be an order of magnitude lower for such a ship, would get the message across, doesn't risk the lives of U.S. aircrews, and could work brilliantly in conjunction with current carriers if called upon.
