I don't really see the reduction in army divisions as a security problem. The mission has changed a great deal; we are no longer assuming a ground confrontation with Soviet forces in Europe. Current military scenarios generally involve relatively small, fast deployments, so a smaller and more mobile force makes sense. I do think that airlift and sealift capability have been consistently neglected and need to be upgraded. Transport is a lot less exciting (and a lot cheaper) than high-tech big-ticket items, it delivers the goods, and in today's world any troops you can't move quickly are hardly worth having.
If you worry about the state of the Navy, try this exercise. In one column, list our assets in each of these categories: aircraft carriers, major non-carrier surface combatants, attack submarines, strategic missile submarines. In the other column, list the combined naval assets, for each category, of the rest of the world. I think you'll find the results reassuring, unless you're planning to square off against aliens.
I would agree that retention of trained people is a major problem, and that compensation packages should be upgraded. I don't think this needs new money: the waste that could be trimmed from just one big league cost-plus procurement boondoggle (a nicer word than scam) could go a long way, distributed among individuals.
I also suspect that we could remove the oldest 25% of the warheads and delivery systems from each leg of the strategic triad without significantly reducing the credibility of our nuclear deterrent. Pass the money you save around to the skilled troops, and you give some people a reason to stay.
I would suggest that you enroll in Chinese, and Arabic, 101 classes.
I don't see China, or any Arab power, as a significant military threat to the US. In fact, I'm not sure if anybody could qualify as a significant military threat at this point. There is really no reason to continue military spending at cold war levels or anything approaching them. |
