Women protesters display placards seen through the opening of a police shield during a rally near the U.S. Embassy in Manila Friday Feb. 10, 2012 in the Philippines to protest the alleged shift of focus in U.S. foreign policy from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Asia Pacific under the so-called "Pacific Century." The protesters assailed the Philippine government for setting up talks with the U.S. counterpart regarding possible increase in deployment of U.S. troops in the country.
Bullit Marquez, Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio — President Barack Obama should stay on track with his plan for a 10-year reduction in military spending of about $500 billion. We are winding down two wars, so troop cutbacks are normal. We recently ended a combat role in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says we will do the same in Afghanistan by late 2013.
Plowing the money savings back into equipment renovation, as some are suggesting, is wrong-headed. The federal government is struggling to reduce the federal deficit, and the military is an obvious area for savings, as was understood by the legislators who worked out last year's spending reduction package.
The real problem is that President Obama is treading too lightly with troop reduction. He would be well advised to take a page from the playbook of Republican presidential contender Ron Paul, who says we do not need to station troops around the world.
But President Obama is increasing our overseas deployments. In January, he announced the results of a Defense Strategic Review, calling for more troops in the Far East. "We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific," he said, "and budget reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region."
Why the Far East? Why is it "critical"?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said for several years that the United States has a strategic interest in the South China Sea, where China is contending with Vietnam, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and others over rights to waters that may hide important oil deposits. Why we should have a horse in that race is not entirely clear. Involving ourselves in the South China Sea disputes may put us in the middle of sticky situations.
But President Obama is inserting troops in new places. He is negotiating with Singapore to station U.S. Navy warships at the Changi naval base there. He is putting troops — actual ground troops — as many as 2,500, into northern Australia.
Explaining the planned Australia deployment, Obama said, "It is appropriate for us to make sure ... that the security architecture for the region is updated for the 21st century and this initiative is going to allow us to do that."
Why we need a "security architecture" in Australia is anyone's guess. But within months U.S. troops and aircraft will operate out of the port of Darwin on Australia's northern coast.
- Robert J. Samuelson: Rethink the notion that...
- In our opinion: Editorial: Underwater...
- My view: Adjusting the definition of marriage
- Would repossessing federal lands help fund...
- Kathleen Parker: In politics, honesty and...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The pros and...
- Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
- Robert Bennett: How I came to write a weekly...
- My view: Adjusting the definition of...
39 - Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
38 - Letter: Lee's financial bungle reflects...
37 - It's déjà vu all over again...
33 - Letter: Remember, Howell is still in...
25 - Would repossessing federal lands help...
22 - Letter: Citizens must overlook emotions...
18 - Hatch's debating 'issue' is manufactured
13






DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments