Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (16706)	9/15/2001 9:00:20 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22706

here is one... The U.S. military: Ready or not? Election likely to yield more defense spending, no matter who wins By Douglas S. Wood CNN Interactive (CNN) -- The United States has the second largest military in the world in terms of active troop strength and spends far more on defense than any other country in the world. But despite all that, there are questions as to whether the military is ready for war. Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military has been shrinking as the threat posed by the Soviet military faded and the need for the United States to maintain a large, standing, combat-ready force lessened. It was a part of the so-called "peace dividend." President George Bush began the cuts, pushing Congress to authorize a 25 percent cut in the military and those cuts have continued through the Clinton administration. But even as size of the military was reduced, military deployments continued as the Clinton administration dispatched troops into peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo. The peacekeeping commitments have stretched the military during a time when it struggled to keep up recruiting and re-enlistment rates. The vibrant economy and higher salaries in the private sector attracted many potential enlistees and lured away veterans. Republicans in Congress have long accused the Clinton administration of underfunding defense and overcommitting U.S. forces. But the issue became part of the presidential campaign after Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush said in his nomination acceptance speech that "if called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ..., 'Not ready for duty, sir.'" Bush was referring to a classified U.S. Army evaluation first reported on by the Washington Post that found that two divisions were considered to need additional manpower, equipment or training before being able to fight in a major regional war. But the Pentagon said the rating did not reflect the combat-readiness of the divisions, but the fact that they were already deployed on peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. Therefore, the divisions could not be counted in the "first-to-deploy" units the Pentagon might send to fight two major wars simultaneously. Any division with units away from home is required by Army regulations to be listed as not combat-ready. Since then, the Army has revised its plans so that those two divisions are no longer among the first to be deployed to fight a major war. The idea of the U.S. fighting two major wars also is an unlikely occurrence, given that no serious conventional military threat exists against the United States. Threats to the U.S. are more likely to come as acts of political destabilization, small regional conflicts such as Kosovo, or attacks against U.S. or friendly forces and facilities abroad. Bush blames any readiness issues on the Clinton administration, which he says has neglected the military and overextended its capabilities through its willingness to commit American troops overseas. But Bush does not mention what Democrats like to point out: Defense cuts began under his father's administration and when his running mate, Dick Cheney, was secretary of defense. Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore has responded to Bush's criticisms, telling the Veteran of Foreign Wars convention earlier this year that it is "wrong ... when others try to run down America's military for political advantage." Active-duty military officers are prohibited by law and policy from participating in overly political events. But retired Gen. Colin Powell and retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who led U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf War, have buttressed Bush's arguments over military readiness in campaign speeches and campaign appearances. Caught in the crossfire has been Defense Secretary William Cohen, an ex-Republican senator who has been defense secretary since the start of President Clinton's second term and the only Republican in Clinton's cabinet. Cohen has said that he wanted to keep the military out of the political debate over readiness. "I am determined not to allow the military to be drawn into this type of political debate during the course of the campaign in the final two months," Cohen was quoted as telling reporters. However, Cohen has defended the Clinton administration's record but he also has said there is room for improvement in the military, somewhat underscoring GOP criticisms of the administration's defense policies. And while the Pentagon says the military is ready to fight, that readiness comes at a price. Top Pentagon brass told Congress in late September that the military's forward-deployed and first-to-fight troops are fully combat-ready, but only because the readiness of the rest of the force has been sacrificed. "We, collectively, are robbing Peter to pay Paul," said Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To make up for that, the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress that the military needs more money for new weapons and more modern equipment and that it will cost far more than $60 billion a year now budgeted. Shelton said he did not have specific dollar amounts but said $60 billion is not enough to get the job done. The Congressional Budget Office puts the price tag for modernization at $90 billion a year, a full 50 percent hike. And after more than a decade of personnel cuts, the Army, Air Force and Marines all want more people to offset the strain of global commitments. The Navy isn't asking for more sailors, but rather more ships, saying the Clinton administration went too far in cutting the fleet down to 310 ships. The Joint Chiefs are likely to get more funding as more military spending is one thing likely to be a result of the presidential campaign no matter if Bush or Gore is elected. Bush has made increasing military spending a central part of his campaign. Two specific things he has pledged to do are increasing the planned military pay raise by $1 billion and spending $20 billion more on defense research and development between 2002 and 2006. Gore proposes spending $100 billion of the federal budget surplus on national security, including military readiness issues like modernization and improving pay and housing for military personnel.