The Obama administration's 2013 defense budget outline is an attempt to accept current fiscal realities while avoiding the age-old mistake of planning to fight the last war.
The president is right to prepare to defend American interests with a greater reliance on unmanned drones and special forces such as Navy SEAL Team Six, which in the past year has been responsible for high-profile successes such as taking out al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and freeing an American hostage from Somali pirates.
Military plans for a floating command post, perfect for directing such special forces operations in Iran, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere, seem to underscore the importance of combating this type of threat.
The president's plan will undoubtedly be refined in the coming months, but the approach of ramping up high-tech, fast-response military efforts while scaling back on conventional approaches is a strategy that has made sense since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Beyond that, this budget plan smartly reflects historical precedence. The nation has always decreased military spending as wars end. Past cuts have gone far deeper than the Obama proposal.
While there are understandable fears of a "hollow" force, the president's plan protects a greater percentage of troops than past drawdowns. The cuts appear to be particularly smart in the low number of non-commissioned officers expected to be affected. Non-commissioned officers, from naval chief petty officers to Marine gunnery sergeants, are essential to training new forces. History has shown that keeping a strong non-commissioned officer group is essential if the need arises to quickly rebuild a larger standing military.
As the Iraq effort is over and Afghanistan begins to wind down this year, decreasing military spending was predictable and appropriate, given the ongoing budget strains.
A leaner military with high-tech capabilities means force can be projected at lower cost. The hope must be that Congress can avoid purely partisan fighting on this necessary action and keep in mind what is needed for national defense.
- Doug Robinson: Utah man's new running shoe...
- In our opinion: A darkening cloud is hanging...
- My view: People deserve rights at our borders
- Richard Davis: Airlines should do more for...
- Letters: Federal encroachment
- Snapshot of 2013 in political cartoons
- Michael Gerson: Reinvigorating the GOP will...
- Timothy R. Clark: Graduation advice for my...
- Letters: Stop the witch hunt
35 - John Florez: Show leadership on...
31 - Supreme Court, Congress, citizens: The...
27 - Letter: Media failure
25 - Letters: Threats justified
24 - Robert Bennett: Sticking to facts is...
23 - Doug Robinson: Utah man's new running...
19 - In our opinion: Limit the power of the...
18




The key word here is "Smart."
Problem is there's not much smart in the Republican side of Congress.
I like Obama's wars vs. GW Bush wars.
Some Tomahawk cruise missiles, no troops deployed, or a 6 man Seal Team is surgically dropped in at night.
Bin Laden is dead, Gadaffi is overthrown, and not one American is dead.
vs.
More..
'Only an Fool would invade Iran....hear that, Romney?' - LDS Liberal | 2:45 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012
Well said.
**'GOP contenders argue on Iran' - By Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/12/11
"If we re-elect More..