"It is based on the idea that the country must be smarter and more restrained in its use of force — a relief after President George W. Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq. It will mean a significant reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But it doesn’t minimize the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and says the country must still be ready to fight a major land war — although one lasting for years would require another buildup.
It argues, persuasively, that many of the challenges out there can be dealt with by air power, intelligence, special operations or innovative technologies like drones.$ Mr. Obama wants to spend less on nuclear weapons — the most unnecessary part of the arsenal — although how much less is unclear. He plans to focus more resources on naval and air power in the Strait of Hormuz, to contain an increasingly assertive Iran, and in Asia, to moderate and counterbalance China’s ambitions. We agree that the United States needs to be more engaged in both areas, but the new Asia focus, in particular, must not be an excuse to avoid other needed budget cuts.
With all American troops out of Iraq and Mr. Obama’s pledge to draw down in Afghanistan, it is time for a serious evaluation of the strategic environment and this country’s role and responsibilities. The fiscal crisis has made that more urgent.$ Congress has already mandated nearly $500 billion in cuts in Pentagon spending over the next decade, and this strategy takes those into consideration. The failure of the Congressional supercommittee to reach a deficit deal means almost $500 billion more are supposed to kick in next January, but it is unclear how that would affect the new strategy. Both sets of cuts can be absorbed, if made prudently. No one should feel sorry for the Pentagon: It has had a blank check for a decade, and even with these cuts, the budget will continue to grow."
La suite: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/a-leaner-pentagon.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire