Obama ending two-war strategy
January 4th, 2012
01:43 PM ET

Obama ending two-war strategy

By Chris Lawrence

The United States should give up the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously, according to a Pentagon review that will be presented this week, a U.S. official said Wednesday.

The review will be publicly outlined by President Barack Obama, the White House announced. The president will join Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen Martin Dempsey on Thursday at the Pentagon to discuss the military posture vision.

The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the strategic review presents priorities to guide the military into the future, but "they are proposals, not all of them set in stone."

The review sets forth potentially big changes in U.S. strategy, including, the official said, removing up to 4,000 troops from Europe and downsizing the overall ground forces even further. The 2012 budget request already called for cuts of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines in the next four years, and those numbers could increase.

The military would not maintain its ability to wage two large conflicts at the same time, such as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official said.

But the United States would still be able to deploy troops and equipment to "deter a second adversary" while engaged in a major ground conflict. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said the military needs to be able to respond rapidly to a crisis, even with a smaller budget constrained force.

The official said the report is not expected to call for massive cuts to weapons programs.

The review took eight months, the official said, and builds upon themes from the Quadrennial Defense Review conducted in 2010. That QDR called for greater cooperation between services, particularly the Air Force and Navy.

The official said the Pentagon will put forward a proposal to continue to allow the U.S. military "to conduct long-range strikes and protect its interests and allies around the world."

The review was conducted in light of potential limits on federal spending and the need to reduce the Pentagon's budget.

Currently, the Pentagon is committed to nearly half a trillion dollars in cuts over the next decade and could be on the hook for another half trillion dollars if Congress does not find a way around automatic cuts that enacted after the failure to reach an agreement on the federal budget.

soundoff (1,347 Responses)
  1. sparky45

    Geographically speaking we are pretty lucky. We aren't likely to be invaded and have a war on american soil anytime soon. So I don't really have a problem with this as long as we can maintain our technological advantage.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:37 am | Reply
    • Myles

      we are always told they protect american intrest abroad but to know what they are is a national secret. but oil is an intest they admitt to, and protecting the oil insures huge profitts for oil tycoons. Why should our tax dollars go to providing security for oil barrans who could hire the same blackwater troops our goverment does for security. If oil is so expensive to protect lets take the hard medicine and only use what we make. in 10 years with huge shortages of oil we will transform to greener tech. Nessisity is the moter of all invention and we spend 200 billion a year making wepons in bulk to fight and protect oil when tht money would and could make oil less needed in this country.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:48 am | Reply
    • Uzi4u

      "Technological advantage"? Where do you think most of the cuts are going to come from? They are going to cut many future weapons programs and that means killing a lot of R&D which give the US its Technological advantage. Where do you think the Internet, sattelite technologies, computers, and nuclear power come from? Military programs that eventually gave birth to entire industries and led to technological revolutions that changed the way we live.

      A weak America will never bring peace. A weak America will only invite aggression. Lunatics and dictators around the world will think they can get away with anything, and millions of American lives will be lost because evil will be allowed to grow!

      January 5, 2012 at 10:03 am | Reply
      • sparky45

        @Uzi4u Switch to decaf dude. Like I said – as long as we maintain our technological advantage. That means that I'm not in favor of cuts in R&D.

        Do a reduction in force, close or skeleton crew some overseas bases, retire some aging ships from the navy. We might have to agree to disagree but I don't think those measures are going to cost the lives of millions of americans as you suggest.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:20 am |
  2. Wilma

    It's about time. With every other sector of the country cutting back, you can't tell me that there isn't waste, and lots of it, in the military. Or, don't want to cut anything? Have the military pay taxes on the purchases in the PX and such. That might do it.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:36 am | Reply
    • justageek

      "Have the military pay taxes on the purchases in the PX and such" – Funny. How about we just tax Internet purchases if you really want to tax something that'll make a difference.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:47 am | Reply
    • richard

      you wnt them to die for you but you will spit on them . how much is your life worth !!!!!!!!!!!!

      January 5, 2012 at 9:50 am | Reply
    • Timothy Bennett

      Wow Wilma, your a true patriot. Let me ask you and please be honest with yourself... Would you be excited to meet your favorite movie star or musician? I bet you would be soooo excited would you not? I will assume from your comment bashing a six cent per dollar benifit the American people have afforded American Soldiers as a thank you that you would not nearly be as excited to meet one of these Hero's. A true hero, not some moron wearing makeup and talking or singing to a camera. These Hero's get up every day and go to work knowing that if any country in the world decides to test our resolve and try to take away their countrymens freedoms or even lives, they could die first defending what they love most dearly. Every American soldier wakes up ready to defend us against any enemy foreign or domestic... yet you probably won't walk five feet out of your way to shake ones hand or thank one in public (embarrassed maybe? or is it not grateful?) but I bet you would go five feet out of your way to jump up and down with excitement over your favorite musician or movie star in person... I hope you get yourself straight Wilma. You are not in my book a patriot, lover of freedom, or appreciative of American men and woman who protect you and your family from any enemy foreign or domestic. Check yourself....

      January 5, 2012 at 9:56 am | Reply
    • thekamikaze

      Congrats to Wilma!!! She figured out the budget problem. All along it was those selfish military members not paying sales tax when they buy their clothes or groceries. Seriously??? Do you really think that the sales tax that military members(less than 1% of the total population) don’t pay will have any effect on the overall budget? Its a drop in a very large bucket. Ever heard of the old saying "think before you speak"? It applies to typing as well........

      January 5, 2012 at 9:56 am | Reply
      • thekamikaze

        By the way Wilma, I am going to go buy a huge flat screen TV and a home entertainment system tomorrow at the BX/PX, tax free. BOOM!!

        and all I had to do Wilam was spend 18 of the last 24 months away from my wife and two kids. WHAT A DEAL!!!

        January 5, 2012 at 10:03 am |
  3. BOB (burnt out bad)

    Give peace a chance.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:36 am | Reply
    • Eula May

      We did... That's how we ended up with WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, etc....

      January 5, 2012 at 9:43 am | Reply
      • Steve

        No, we ended up in those wars because a few crooked people wanted to sells war materials to make profits. And they funded both sides. War is a racket. Nothing more.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:50 am |
  4. meangene52

    Great idea! Let's hand our enemies their solutions on a silver platter.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:34 am | Reply
    • 2+2=5

      ?! yeah because 20 years ahead just isn't enough right? or how about 100 in some cases. Get a little more paranoid.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:39 am | Reply
  5. Cassandra Chu

    ... if we hadn't given away all of our money to the liars in Israel, then maybe we could afford one war. as it is, we're broke.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:33 am | Reply
    • 2+2=5

      Quite a few places our money went last 10 years, majority of it disappeared.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:39 am | Reply
  6. Terry

    The FBI should be hunting down these pieces of shit officials who keep anonymously leeking this type of information to the media.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:32 am | Reply
    • 2+2=5

      What the hell are you talking about?!? Listen, most of you went head first into two failed wars, we are done taking THAT advice. This is what we wanted, watch us decide otherwise now due to propaganda like always. There is nothing here that can be used against us that nobody already knew....come on now...get a grip.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:43 am | Reply
      • FJ59

        I think what Terry meant was why are officials who are "not authorized to speak publicly" speaking pubilcly.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • BobBobson

      You should learn how to spell "leaking".

      January 5, 2012 at 9:46 am | Reply
  7. Badger

    But...but. I thought the government couldn't create jobs. Jobs are created by risk taking entrepenuers and small businesses. Now the governement is going to kill jobs for Americans. The only solution is to cut more spending and lower taxes. It'll all work out. Just not the way we want.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:32 am | Reply
    • Myles

      the goverment can create a job but the goverment does not have capital (money already earned in savings ready to be used in the economy) the goverment takes money from the economy and makes jobs with it so the money changed hands but its a wash because that money was alrady going into the economy. People with savings can increase the economy and productive (to the economy not to society) jobs better because the capital they used is in addition to what was already going into the economy. The goverment can stimulate for a small time with massive spending but it does little to add growth as a whole because no new capital was invested because the goverment has nothing they have to take it from someone and since taxes are based on income and not savings (capital) all of thier spending breaks even in respect to growth.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:41 am | Reply
      • kfitton

        This is entirely wrong...yes the government collects taxes and yes that money goes into paying employees..however, you make it sound like there is no production of services at all which is totally wrong. Government employees contribute to the economy in a variety of ways and those benefits are often things that private entities don't want to take up because it's not always profitable in tangible ways (education, environmental cleanup, food safety, etc). Simply dismissing the public sector as a tax sucking, make work waste of time is not accurate at all and really shows a lack of understanding as to how economics really work. Those employees make a living by contributing to the nation in a variety of ways and then use the money they earn to spend on all sorts of goods which in turn adds to the economy again.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:01 am |
      • Sean

        @ Myles and kfitton:

        You are both right, so some extent. The government can create jobs, but the big problem with the jobs, as kfitton said, is that those are the jobs typically not taken up by the private sector because they are not profitable. When the government allocates a significant amount of funds to head up a program they can employ folks within the program, but only for a set amount of time. Once the money runs out you have two options, either allocate more money, or cut the people working them. Either option is not favorable.

        The republican mind set (which explains the Bush tax cuts) is that by cutting taxes on the wealthy, they will create more jobs in the private sector. Ideally, this would work perfectly (trickle-down economics) but greed (which is probably the single largest problem in the world in my opinion) hinders that process. Sure, maybe if a wealthy man has more money in his pocket, he can invest it in his business and begin turning higher profits, but what prevents him from just leaving it in his pocket.

        What I'd like to see more of is government involved, private sector industry. Not involved in the way that they are pushing regulations all over a company; I'll do my best to explain it here. Since we are on a military topic ill use an example relating to that (but it could be applied to many other things.) Say the government creates a contract for weapons. They could even allocate a start up loan, with certain stipulations, such as all manufacturing is done within the country, all R&D is headed by engineers in the country, and all resources needed to produce the product come from within the country (if possible!) They could also guarantee x number of products are bought once the company has produced them. Catch is that it's a private company, but they have a contract from the government guaranteeing business. Let the company then chase its profits, hire American workers, and produce and American product for the American government to be used for the American armed services. If the government allocated more money to this type of investment it could have great payoffs for the economy, if many many sectors.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:06 am |
  8. Myles

    The military knows that the single biggest threat to America defence is one day trying to pay for something and the money not being there. If you cant pay the troops then they wont fight... period! No other military has attacked this country in over 50 years, soldiers will not fight in some far away country for free. If the country can not afford to pay its service men and women (paychecks and vet benifits) we will not have an army capible of being spread around the world like we are today! Yet uneducated people believe that the largest debt ever held will not affect how we can or can't protect this country. think USSR.

    And trust me when i say reforming social welfare will not provide the extra money needed to maintain the current military, we spend 600 billion on defence spending yet we borrowed 1.2 trillion the same year. we fund the military and social security on a credit card and the bill has come due!

    January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am | Reply
    • 2+2=5

      Wow, someone that makes sense. 🙂

      January 5, 2012 at 9:44 am | Reply
      • Myles

        the service men and women know this because they dont have vet benifitts coming in now. They know that the govermnet currently is not going to be able to fufill thier promises to the military vets or for social security and then there will be rationing just wait and see, if we continue the way we are we will have bread lines again. just like russia today, they had everything but no longer.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Badger

      Ronnie Reagan collapsed the Soviets by out spending them on military.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:54 am | Reply
      • Myles

        soviets ran up thier debt on military spending and social programs paying for everyones electric, water sewage. health care and retierment while invading countless countries. The overprinting by the central bank lead to such inflation that the sister states in the USSR no longer accepted the watered down Russian currency and the economy collapsed. the military fell and the people suffered while the rich stayed rich.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:32 am |
  9. Rusty Shakleford

    About time we did this. All we seem to get in return for war are physical and mental cripples.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:27 am | Reply
    • SteveC

      Try to imagine a world without the constraints U.S. power places on wacko's like Hitler, Tojo, Hussein, etc. We pay an enormous price for peace on the planet. Unfortunately, diplomacy (although necessary) is not enough in this world to quell violence and world war.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:37 am | Reply
    • 2+2=5

      Steve I feel uneducated just looking at that. How you can compare Hitler and Saddam is beyond me but it proves they did well to brainwash you. Very well...In fact, we've killed more people last 10 years than Saddam EVER has haha. Not even close. Spare us...This stuff isn't good vs evil, black vs white, and that is what scares me most about militant wanna be's, and their complete lack of maturity in these subjects, unfortunately, more often than not, coming from the right.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:47 am | Reply
    • KC

      You're an idiot Rusty. Move to red China if you don't appreciate the freedoms those "physical and mental cripples" afford you. Even if you don't agree with the war, have a little respect. I bet you don't have the guts to go over there and risk your life.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:20 am | Reply
      • Myles

        the swiss have more rights and freedoms then here inthe US and thats a fact. They kept those freedoms even during WWII. Every person of 18 years of age joins the military and serves 2 years then goes home with thier rifle. No one will attack them for 2 reasons.1) they dont offend anyone or antaginize anyone. 2) In a moments notice the entire country becomes the army and goes to war if needed not just some trained people! So you can be afforded freedom and security without creating hundreds of thousands of crippled people! dont be niave we can have peace and pass the policing tourch to another country like the UK or France or

        January 5, 2012 at 10:38 am |
      • Myles

        the swiss have more rights and freedoms then here inthe US and thats a fact. They kept those freedoms even during WWII. Every person of 18 years of age joins the military and serves 2 years then goes home with thier rifle. No one will attack them for 2 reasons.1) they dont offend anyone or antaginize anyone. 2) In a moments notice the entire country becomes the army and goes to war if needed not just some trained people! So you can be afforded freedom and security without creating hundreds of thousands of crippled people! dont be niave we can have peace and pass the policing tourch to another country like the UK or France or let the UN do it! Provide some forces to be used under UN oversight. Then US is not the bully and peace can be enforced. Instead of ignoring the UN and invading a country!

        January 5, 2012 at 10:40 am |
  10. Alberto Gardellini

    I would think the most important issue is, can the US protect it's own territory in case of war? This two-wars military strategy is regarding fighting two wars ABROAD at the same time and to my belief, this is not why the military was created. Well, maybe in the time of the Romans, Spartans and Mongolians, they had armies to invade and conquer territories, but in the XXI century, this shouldn't be the case.

    Wars make money to some while creating devastation, loss of life and famine to most. This is not a hippy thinking comment about peace and love. This is about coming back to the basics of the american military. To protect their own. Most of this wars have been politically and economically oriented. They are really not helping the US protect their own.

    In the end, after all is said and done about the dangers of nuclear war, if Iran or Iraq, North Korea, the Taliban or a madman from a James Bond movie has "nuclear capabilities", the sad reality is that the US has been the ONLY nation to EVER use nuclear weapons. Twice.

    So don't start that speech about going abroad to stop "evil doers" from going nuclear. I fear only the ones that have actually done things, not the ones that might. Use the military wisely. To serve and protect the country.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:23 am | Reply
    • Alan

      Alberto, what would have happened in WWI and WWII if the U.S. followed your strategy? Perhaps that history isn't relevant but if it isn't, why isn't it relevant?

      January 5, 2012 at 9:32 am | Reply
      • Alberto Gardellini

        Alan, I do believe the involvement of the US in WWI & WWII was not only necessary, but a game changer. But to put things in perspective, this was about Germany and it's ally's going for world domination, like the ancient Romans. This was not about let's keep and army in another country in case they go nuts.

        Yes, there are dangers EVERYWHERE, the key question is, if ANY nations military focuses more abroad than at home, wouldn't that be a serious threat for the nation itself?

        January 5, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • Alberto Gardellini

      And a bit food for thought. Before the 50's, all wars the US had been involved were directly related to the protection of it's territories and citizens. After that (Korean War, Vietnam War, Invasion of Panama, Persian Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan) the have been about "restoring world order" and "preventing the development of WMD's". In my opinion, this strays from the principles the US military was created. And yes, this saddens me a lot.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:33 am | Reply
      • 2+2=5

        We also haven't won a war in how long?!?!, pretty bad if you ask me, specifically when you have people claiming we "kicked the Vietnam syndrome" when truth is, it's alive and well, %90 of the community still thinks you win wars by bombing cities, flying your flag, and taking ground, when the truth is, its much much more complicated than that, and I honestly feel bad for the simpletons that just can't get that 10 years later. Amazing really...Many thought we won in Iraq just because we took Baghdad, remember it like it was yesterday, and these kids were soldiers, it didn't matter, they are still at ground level and knew diddle squat as much as we respect them. It's time to listen to people that KNOW....

        January 5, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • 2+2=5

      We hate common sense though!!! Ok honestly though great comments, we need people with brains and the balls to be real about these topics, I hate to say it but nationalism has taken away any hope of criticizing well.....ANYONE in the military, much less the strategy and so on. And right under this comment is someone using their service as some sort of an intellectual gap when the reality is, we have a whole lot of people viewing the world through a tiny pinhole and have since 9/11 and its killing us in many different ways as far as our relations with the rest of the world. We will be lucky if we ever recover from this, so its good hearing viewpoints from people that ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND as opposed to 18 year old's fresh out of HS with zero experience in life. Something to remember.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:53 am | Reply
    • Alex

      Ok well first off I'm not republican, and although I'm active military I'm not a "flag-waving war monger". I served over there and while I feel that nothing about this was worth one life lost, I won't spit on their memories by saying it was a complete waste. I will look for positive things that will possibly change the world for the better because of their sacrifice. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I'm also a realist who knows that change doesn't happen with a significant degree of strife and hardship on *someones* part – change doesn't happen without displacement and even on a scientific level, that causes conflict/disruption. Perhaps you're the kind of person who would call the American Revolution "war mongering" and the ultimate result a pointless waste? Do you believe we could have achieved the same results with Twitter and Youtube? Is anything worth anything to you, or is the glass always half empty with dark clouds and hopelessness?

      January 5, 2012 at 10:21 am | Reply
      • Alex

        That last reply was intended for my thread just below.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:22 am |
  11. Alex

    "Iraq was a waste of time." Well if everyone can agree that the Arab Spring was a positive thing for the region, try to picture it happening if Saddam Hussein or his sons were still in power. It wouldn't have. Stop focusing on only the negative.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:23 am | Reply
    • BHPT

      This is a great example of faulty logic. Modern technology and communications have far more to do with the Arab Spring than events in Iraq.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:30 am | Reply
    • steveo

      yea, every republican disaster in our foreign policy in the last 30 years was a misunderstanding and every victory the result of something great they did when reagan came to em in a dream and spoke to them.. you're on drugs. the arab spring had nothing to do with getting rid of saddam and you know it. bush squandered $3 TRILLION dollars and wasted the lives of 4500 Americans for zip, zero, squat nothing (except for a HUGE budget deficit you now deny was a result of that unmitigated disaster)
      if you really believe your own fantasy then tell me why a) the arab spring didnt start in Iraq (we there remember not in countries 1500 miles away on different continents with completely different cultures) and b) if you're the flag-wavin', democracy-promotin' war-mongerin' American tough-guy you wish you were, then why didnt you have the spine to go after all these OTHER dictators (Gadafy, Mugabe, Kim, Iran, Myanmar etc,etc, etc). Yea, thats what I thought.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:46 am | Reply
  12. bezerkur

    yeah cut spending and have the biggest employer where i live lay off people so they can suck on the entitlement nipple. not to mention all the other vendors with military contracts like general mills and basically everone else. a aircraft carrier is like a city in itself. you think the military itself makes all the supplies that go in it? do u get it now .

    January 5, 2012 at 9:22 am | Reply
    • chazman

      Dude, you are missing the point. The idea is to bring home many of the troops that serve abroad, like germany, japan, etc. The idea is not to "fire" anyone. 20- 40,000 troops is not a lot. The ability to fight a ground war is there, but the idea that we can or should spread all of our troops around the globe like they are now is proposterous.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:41 am | Reply
  13. humtake

    The sad part is, we already had a President who gutted our military spending recently. Guess what happened? Terrorists blew up two of our biggest buildings. The fact that Obama wants to repeat Clinton's mistakes is just another reason why Obama is a worse President than Bush ever was. At least Bush failed at trying new things. Obama is failing because he keeps wanting to try things we've already tried that didn't work.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:20 am | Reply
    • JoeyE

      eh? blaming Obama.. how interesting of you being so naive!

      January 5, 2012 at 9:25 am | Reply
    • yikes

      What an insanely uninformed opinion. You think military spending had anything to do with 911? It was an intelligence failure that had nothing to do with boots-on-the-ground spending. Vital information that was known about the plot was simply ignored (mostly by Bush). It wasn't a matter of spending at all. And Bush tried new things? Like what? Oh yeah, tax breaks for the rich and the deregulation of the financial sector. Not even novel concept, but oh how destructive they were. The man single-handedly set our country back a decade and you yearn for another president just like him. kys

      January 5, 2012 at 9:33 am | Reply
      • bigdoglv

        Yikes, you must live in the most shallow end of the pool.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:42 am |
      • yikes

        GREAT comment tinydog(lol)! You really added some keen insight and analysis to the conversation. Go back to fapping to fox news you mental midget.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:57 am |
      • Sean

        Speaking of uninformed, I think that's you. The deregulation that caused the financial crisis actually came from Clinton. Time magazine even did a report on those most at fault for the banking collapse. And guess who checked in right behind that actual owners and CEO's of the banks that fell; that's right, your beloved Clinton. It was his legislation that was pushed through that actually deregulated those banks to the point they could try to push profits so high that they fell apart.

        And get this. After 2006, Bush went to congress (then DEMOCRAT controlled) THREE TIMES and told them Wall Street was in trouble. But they wouldn't hear it. Then lo and behold, in 2008 the sh*t hits the fan. Now all the blame lands on Bush. For the record, I love that all republicans blame democratic presidents and democrats blame republicans. The mess we are in is a result of the lack of fiscal responsibilities demonstrated by BOTH PARTIES. There is no one or the other. The white house and congress for the last 20 years are responsible. Every one of them.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Anon

      Actually, Bush made more military cuts to personnel and equipment than Clinton. And that was during war time.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:40 am | Reply
    • nick

      so you think a bigger army would have stopped the civilian planes from flying into the trade centers. When Clinton cut our military he cut an aging military that was based on arcaic military strategy. As technology changes so does the function of the military. Obama as ran with Bushes programs of using technology to fight these wars IE. drones and special Ops. Through your train of thought we should have used our aging bloated military to fight these wars only do it in a new and creative way.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:50 am | Reply
    • The Veteran

      This is long overdue. Terrorist don't use a military (in case you have not been paying attention). I use to be a Antiterrorism Officer in the Air Force. He is doing the right thing. We need a smaller more agile military. Not a big cold war monstrosity.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:53 am | Reply
  14. charms

    Great job Obama. This will reduce immense costs

    January 5, 2012 at 9:18 am | Reply
  15. finalturismo

    Ron Paul Predicted this, as soon as inflation starts, everything becomes more expensive.
    Even the governments purchases. I mean heck look at the dollar menus, they are going away arnt they?

    Inflation will end an empire faster than you can blink.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:16 am | Reply
    • The Veteran

      Ron Paul just got trumped with an Ace of Spades.... What!!

      January 5, 2012 at 10:57 am | Reply
  16. M

    Too bad. We accomplished so much in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. And what would we do with the extra $2 Trillon plus interest that we would save.? Who would secure all these nations for CHINA , so they could go in and get the oil and mining contracts they need?

    January 5, 2012 at 9:14 am | Reply
    • Josh

      How about we take some from the failed stimulus package, that every knew was going to fail. But Obama wanted it anyway. How about that?

      January 5, 2012 at 9:34 am | Reply
      • M

        Bailouts and Stimulus were started by George W Bush. Obama just continued his policies. Bush left a financial disaster. Without saving GM jobs, economy would be much worse.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:44 am |
  17. werratai

    The MIC thanks you for your service, now step aside so we can squeeze every last dime out of the taxpayer.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:13 am | Reply
  18. bezerkur

    @KM. That was the best comment yet. thank you

    January 5, 2012 at 9:10 am | Reply
    • Louisiana Man

      BULLETIN: We had no right to invade a sovereign country in the first place nor occupy a second. Two worthless, WIN LESS, treasury sucking wars– for naught. 4500 of our kids killed/32000 maimed. If hell does exist-war profiteer cheney & his puppet, GWB.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:22 am | Reply
      • BobBobson

        Amen. If there wasn't so much money in defense contracts this wouldn't even be an issue. The American people clearly do not support this ongoing drain on our economy and society. Yet another way our government does not represent us, fails to listen to us, and continues to serve its own interests.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:50 am |
  19. C


    January 5, 2012 at 9:09 am | Reply
    • Matt

      Yes, because as soon as Ron Paul is elected WORLD peace is going to break-out. I really wish the Paul followers would think a little bit. Isolationism does not work...we tried that after WWI and look what happened? Maybe if we had left troops in Europe, we could've stopped Hitler.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:47 am | Reply
  20. Thomas

    Just another bad idea coming from the Obama administration. A strong military is what keeps America safe, keeps people employed, keeps companies running, and leads the World. If you want to save money cut out government corruption and excess spending on parties, travel, etc....

    January 5, 2012 at 9:06 am | Reply
    • samadams

      Maybe you can tell me why we are in Iraq?

      January 5, 2012 at 9:13 am | Reply
    • gino

      Ah yes, war is good. Spoken like a true Republican hawk. You have a son, hawk?

      January 5, 2012 at 9:15 am | Reply
      • sbast18

        It always amazes me when people like you try to speak. You enjoy the fact that you can awaken in relative safety each day without realizing that the only reason you're as safe as you are is because we're a nation that is decidedly difficult to attack. Reducing our military to a one-theater operation puts the entire nation in jeopardy and renders the world one step closer to the use of weapons of mass destruction. Had we been unable to operate in 2 theaters during WWII, we may well have been conquered by the Japanese or by the Germans – who came very very close to world domination. Had we been so limited in recent years, our cold war with the soviets may not have been so cold at all. The moral of the story is that maybe you should try to think before you try to speak.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:23 am |
      • Josiah

        As I recall, we didn't have the ability to fight two wars at the onset of WWII but quickly mobilized our industry and population for war. In fact, America was pursuing a decidedly isolationist policy until the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:36 am |
      • BobBobson

        sbast18 – If you think fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan made you safer then you are an idiot. Go study a little more history. We owe much of our safety to geography, not invading countries at will and trying to impose democracy.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • Ed

      Get rid of bush tax cuts. Not hard to figure out it takes money to run the top milatary in the world. dud

      January 5, 2012 at 9:25 am | Reply
  21. Been there

    I quite agree. Keep the weapons programs. Nobody will notice another 87,000 unemployed Americans, or the lost tax revenues. We need to cut the military, after all. (The total force size now is smaller than the Army was when I enlisted in 1983.)

    January 5, 2012 at 9:03 am | Reply
  22. bezerkur

    cutting military when the planet is in this much turmoil is foolish no matter what your beliefs are. Nukes are not a option and everyone knows it. It only worked once because there wouldnt be a retaliatory strike. We cant just say "aww we're sorry for policing the world and lets all be friends now" North korea is a unknown Iran Pakistan. We leave them areas to there own demise and we give them the strategic advantage to fortify areas that could halt shipping and cause a way worse situation.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:02 am | Reply
    • kevin

      you guys are crazy , they are cutting ground troops , and thats a good thing, because fighting a ground war is old school and people loose alot of lives, we can take a country out without even moving, we have air craft carriers, the most in the world, we have the largest air force also, we dont need the army or marines on the ground anymore.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:17 am | Reply
  23. KM

    Not being able to fight a war on two fronts will be the nemisis of the US moving forward. This initiative to gut the military comes in light of the fact that our duly elected politicans do not have the intestinal fortitude to reform entitlement programs and have decided to cut what theyb wrongly feel is "low hanging fruit". . Given the absence of this commitment, they have chosen to cut an area of government that is essential to our continued viability to remain a world power. There are areas of the world in which we do need to maintain a military presence, not because those areas necessarily agree with our need to be there, but because WE need to be there. A good example of this is Korea. Our ally, Japan, looks to us to assist in the region in standing ready to intervene quickly in this tenuous relationship with North Korea. In Europe there is the spectre of a nuclear Russia on the rise to power again. In the Middle East and North Africa we still have a vested interest in curtailing the prospect of extremists formenting terrorism. Particularly, a nuclear armed Iran will stand in the way of any progress we have made in Iraq. The reason we have been successful in the past is due to our ability to defend our interests abroad. This fundamental concept of our status as a superpower will never change, nor will the tried and true methods of enforcing our perogatives abroad.. Other countries are not necessarily interested in acting in our interests when they desire to act on behalf of their own, while enemy nations will always be pursuing methods of exploiting any perceived weakness. With the reduction in the size of our forces, expect that interest to increase along with the commensurate attempts to attack, as our operational capacity is reduced. Feel free to disagree, but I suspect our desire to reduce our military operational capacity will threaten our national sovereignty moving forward.

    January 5, 2012 at 9:00 am | Reply
    • Dia

      Dude, lay off the Call of Duty.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:05 am | Reply
    • feldy77

      WAR was not declared per Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". So any "WAR" action is illegal under the Constitution which trumps any illegal federal law.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:08 am | Reply
      • Sean

        Please come back when you are off what ever drugs you are taking. Maybe you miss typed something here? Congress has the power, given to it by the constitution to declare war.... Then you say war is illegal... (in some cases it is, like we there is no declaration of war by congress [see Obama's invasion of Lybia.])

        January 5, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • kevin

      i cant believe yall are still thinking old school, we dont need ground troops over there anymore, its pointless, we have drones, planes, ships, missles, nukes, and everything else that we can hit with FAST and from a distance. last year yall must have forgot about this The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever.[12] The United States Air Force (USAF) budget data in 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II , war is changing and the US is changing to stay on top.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:23 am | Reply
      • sbast18

        Personally, I think you've played one too many games of Risk. It has become reality for you. What a pity.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:26 am |
      • Josh

        Hey Kevin. You are dumb sir. How are you going to hold the ground? You need ground troops sir. ANybody who has spent at least one day in uniform knows that. So stop trying to comment on something you don't know.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • ed

      I agree with your first statement but not necessarily your second. This move is a mistake. But it is not prompted directly by politics as much as by the Pentagon brass. This move is a result of the fact that the Pentagon is in love with high tech warfare and dismisses the necessity of ground forces in conflict. If given an order to cut budget by politics this generation of military brass picks drone strikes over man power in pecking order. I don't understand why conservatives pick on entitlements as the cause of our evils. The causes of our budget problems are many– but one issue can be singled out. While the poor and middle class are paying the same percentage of their yearly pay as they have historically–the rich are paying far less of a percentage of their yearly pay as they have historically. That's a fact. Why do conservatives think that iit is alright that a hard working middle class person can do less with their pay than the same person could ten years, 20 years or 50 years ago; but the rich people can do more with their pay under the same periods comparisons. Why has the pay of a brick mason stayed the same relative to the standard of living while the pay of doctors, lawyers, ceos, and other business executives(not to mention baseball players, actors, and other entertainers) has tripled relative to the standard of living. When you here a liberal like me talk of income distribution this is the disparity we are talking about. It has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with a defect in the capitalistic structure of our economy; this trend is not a positive attribute(even for the rich) it is a fatal mechanical bug, that will destroy our country if not fixed. In the meantime the military should strike a balance between ground forces AND technical industry work.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am | Reply
      • Kam

        Well said Ed!

        January 5, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • Kam

      Well dude we didn't have to spend a couple trillions to take down Mummar Gaddafi, did we? So what does that say? If our leaders acted responsibly we would be able to keep our enemies on check at all times without spending the trillions we did in the last 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:32 am | Reply
      • Sean

        Actually the only reason Libya worked out the way it did is because enough of the population rose up to fight to take the weight of ground troops. You know.. just like they predicted for IRAQ. Nice try though.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:56 am |
      • Kam

        @Sean : You are missing my point. The prediction worked right for Syria because it was based on real facts that were collected by Intelligence and our leaders acted responsibly and did what was required to take care of the situation at hand. Whereas for Iraq, it was an unnecessary war to begin with and then all the facts behind the intention to go to war was all fabricated and the leaders we had back then didn't make the right moves. War is a BIG deal and it involves a LOT of lives and we should at no point go in based on false predictions.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  24. Levi

    It is just the cutest thing when people who don't know jack about the military have oppinions based on ignorance. Americans cry to much about what these wars have done to them. What did they give up? Except for a small percentage most people haven't. Oh the wars cost a lot, so does maintaing a big Federal govt but hey thats cool, while your at what can you give me.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:41 am | Reply
    • Huh?

      Good comment. Lots of opinions from people who sacrificed nothing, and have no idea what it means to serve. The Iraq war affected a little over 1% of the population of the US...99% of Americans contributed absolutely nothing, but they sure have a lot to say about it. Sleep comfortably knowing what your country does to protect you, against things so horrible you would never even leave your house if you really knew...and more importantly, unless you are involved, shut your stupid mouth.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:51 am | Reply
      • AmishAirline

        Yes, I am so thankful that we were protected from those invading Iraqis, they were about to take over Nebraska.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:59 am |
      • Jared

        Agreed. We suffered no food or gas shortages like in previous generations. There was no draft. We still had rubber for our tires, metal for our whatever, and we didn't have to sell war bonds to pay for bullets, food, and equipment. For most the wars were little more than news reports from the standpoint of day to day life.

        But I would say that the war affected more than 1%. Maybe it is because I live and work in two seperate military towns, but I have plenty of friends who were in one war or the other (both) with some being wounded or killed in action.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:00 am |
      • Norman Scorn

        The actions of our military affects our entire country as a whole, therefore your argument is totally invalid. It doesn't matter whether or not someone has served, it matters if they are seeking the truth. The Iraq war was waged on falsified intelligence, was a waste of time, and only served to degrade the standing of America in the world as a whole.

        I have nothing but respect to a man or a woman who would risk their life to serve their country, but it's flat out wrong to say what you did. One's opinion should not matter more just because of a uniform, it should matter more only if it's true.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:01 am |
      • Sean

        I fully support our troopers but you two are idiots.
        Should a male OBGYN keep his mouth shut because he has never given birth? Should a politician who’s JOB it is to make the decision that run the country keep their mouth shut because they haven’t served, dug a ditch or worked at McyDs? Should citizens not vote because they are not politicians or political analysts? Speaking our minds is a MAJOR part of being an American and part of what ‘those who serve’ are supposed to protect. Get over yourselves.

        /kicks your soap box.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:02 am |
      • Nothing?

        99% Contributed nothing? Lol how about tax dollars, you know the ones that fund the war?

        January 5, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • cindy

      Yeah, we needed to go into Afghanistan. We needed full force a whole lot earlier than we did. But Iraq was nothing. Less threat to the American people than Iran or Afghanistan. It was an unbelievably stupid decision based on old intelligence: not the current knowledge produced by the on the ground inspectors. Yeah, it cost us big, it cost our Defense budget big, it cost our economy big, it cost the Iraqi people big, it cost our troops big. Yet, in the definition of the Defense of this country, it was nothing.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:04 am | Reply
  25. Richard in Houston

    Sounds greatt but why not do that with the private sector to help unemployment. Oh wait the President has been trying to do that already about hell no Boener and the rest of the republicans are stopping it.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:41 am | Reply
  26. IranianAmerica

    I have an idea, let's take over another camel riding, shoeless, poor, and desperate nation to show the world that our military is still the strongest. And while we are at it, with all the policing, we should continue helping the communist China succeed in the path that we originally set to take but now have failed. Go Ron Paul or we will keep shrinking.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:40 am | Reply
    • Huh?

      What an ignorant comment from a typical liberal bleeding heart fool. Your interpretation of events and our security is embarrassing, you worthless joke.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:53 am | Reply
      • notatall

        It may sound stupid, but there is a lot of truth there. We wouldn't be in the middle east if it weren't for the oil. American Ingenuity could free us from oil dependence if our government would stop listening to the big oil lobbyists. And why, oh why do we run to Walmart to give so much of our hard earned money to China? If we ever have to confront them militaristically, we will know we funded that force against us.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:09 am |
      • sbk

        A Ron Paul fan is NOT a liberal.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:10 am |
      • Norman Scorn

        sbk, when you're in that mindset, anyone who opposes your opinion is a 'liberal.'

        January 5, 2012 at 9:14 am |
  27. cullenpest

    Sure, let's scale back the military so we can give more to people that don't want to work.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:37 am | Reply
    • notatall

      It isn't about not wanting to work; so shut your sanctimonious face. This is another don't speak about it if you don't know about it. And you obviously have no knowledge on the plight of the US poor. You haven't an inkling of intelligence in what it is like to be raised poor in a US city. "Walk a mile in their shoes."

      January 5, 2012 at 9:17 am | Reply
  28. eric

    Proaganda Page peeps :goto above top secret for up to date news 🙂

    January 5, 2012 at 8:35 am | Reply
  29. eric

    Propaganda Page peeps : goto to above top secret for uptodate news

    January 5, 2012 at 8:33 am | Reply
  30. Deborah Rosen

    That's typical! The military will cut lower- and middle-class jobs (you can bet no elite, or high-ranking officer positions will be scrapped) while continuing to let defense contractors feed on the taxpayer's teat. When are Americans going to have enough of this crap?

    January 5, 2012 at 8:32 am | Reply
    • Huh?

      If you don't think that officers will be cut, then you are a fool. Oh...and an officer is not middle class?

      January 5, 2012 at 8:37 am | Reply
      • notatall

        Pay, special pay and benefits push them into the wealthier status. Besides, they are still getting raises.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:23 am |
      • notatall

        Oh, yeah...don't Generals get paid more than the President of the United States?

        January 5, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • Bobbito

      Actually, I for one know the Air Force has been highly selective in taking in new officers, they call it "Force Shaping." There was a time that any Joe'Schmo could walk into a recruitment office with a college degree and go into the Armed Forces as a Lieutenant, a decent paying position. Now, that's not true, perhaps so for the Army and maybe the Marines, but for the most part they're only taking in new officers with the education to fill a certain role (engineer, legal, financial administration, etc.). They're cutting the higher paying positions and are more interested in retaining the lower paying Enlisted ranks.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:42 am | Reply
    • John Denver

      95% of officers are middle class. Don't talk about things that you know nothing about.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:45 am | Reply
    • sedulous

      The defense industry creates large numbers of engineering, manufacturing, contracts, and other skilled labor jobs. This is just what the economy needs. Plus, our ability to fight two wars at once allowed us to prevail in WW2 and has been overall boost to the economy. Obama should leave the military budget alone, as that is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:58 am | Reply
      • Chris R

        So when I was reviewing the Air War College course material I was struck by the fact that the instructors kept hammering home the point that a strong economy is essential to national security. As such, purchases that increased the velocity of the currency (how often it changes hands) provided a much larger boost than purchases and outlays that were for much longer term durable goods. These would be good with projected life spans of longer than ten years. Most military capital outlays fall into that category. From sidearms to aircraft to carriers you are looking at purchases with projected life spans measured in decades. So while military purchasing does help the economy to a degree (and is necessary to a point (stop foisting pet projects on to the military to appease local manufacturers!)) consumer spending does a *lot* more to grow the economy and make this country stronger. As such the idea that we have to keep spending as much as we do on the military for the sake of the economy is overblown. The country remained strong and the economy grew in spite of the massive consolidation in the defense industry in the late 80s and early 90s.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • Jared

      First, according to the government it is cheaper to have contractors do a lot of the work that the military once did. I'm not sure I agree with them, but that is what they day. In part it has to do with required infrastructure and training.

      Second, a lot of training is generally given to officers, and yes they will be cut like everyone else. You can't cut 27,000 troops while leaving the leadership in place for all of them. Some will retire, others will transfer to other duties. The Army will offer early retirement bonuses and more will retire. But there is a certain ratio of officers to enlisted personnel that they will maintain.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:05 am | Reply
  31. Saiditbefore

    We need to invade Iran next. I figure it should cost about 4 trillion. Of course we can't raise taxes to pay for it, so let's keep borrowing money. When the American economy collapses, China will buy everything for bargain prices then start hiring Americans again. They might be minimum wage jobs for a communist regime, but at least America will be strong again, if only as a hegemonic puppet state of a new world power. Long live Republican Militarism!

    January 5, 2012 at 8:28 am | Reply
    • Joe

      And you'll have Barack Obama to thank for it.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:40 am | Reply
      • Norman Scorn

        To lay all the blame at the foot of the current president is outrageous. The blame spans many administrations, don't be a partisan child.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • Mark

      I believe China already has more of a stronghold in our country than we know. Just like we beat the japs in WWII, they went on to become a major economy, surpassing us. Taiwan beat them out, not China is the dominant factor, only due to cheap/slave labor.
      Chine is just waiting. I served 27 yrs til 09 and thought they'd act up while we were busy in Iraq, but they haven't. Timing, as the japs showed at Pearl Harbor, is key (timing was not good only because 4 aircraft carriers were not at anchor, as thought). Now China is sea-trialing an aircraft carrier, one analyst thought wouldn't be ready for trials til second half of this decade... now they say it won't have aircraft/be operational til then, but I can prove they've been wrong before 🙂
      Iran with its nukes and "dirty bomb" capability need to be dealt with too.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:02 am | Reply
    • Readbeforyoupost

      You sir, are a moron. We have more debt in country than out.....open a book or a new tab and research. Don't be that ignorant. China invested most of its monies in US Treasury bills....a big difference on how this occurs vs. taking out a small business loan or a title loan on your car. And blame Obama all you want for our debt, Regan was the one who started this giant mess of tax cuts, that has continued and spiraled to create this pile of debt. That was your first sign that he was nuts.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:05 am | Reply
  32. americans for a free america

    The defense establishment is not going to allow this to happen. Eisenhower warned us 60 years ago.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:20 am | Reply
    • jim

      Smart man. Good to see some here remember the important things.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:52 am | Reply
    • Mark

      LOL. What defense establishment? Most of them have been shuttered. Only aircraft manufacturer we now have is boeing. We pissed off Northrup/EADS out of EU on the KC45 deal, so if they surge in aircraft production during a major conflict we'll be robbed blind. Also, Boeing just announced it is closing one of 4 plants, even though it promised jobs there for the KC45 contract it stole/I mean won. The politicians fouled us over getting involved in that... I served 27 yrs til 09 and am so glad I am retired, as our military is at a major weak point. I pray I am not called back in for the next political foul up.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:06 am | Reply
    • D. Clemens

      Slow down everyone...this isn't about just the military. Its about a massive deficit that is adding trillions of dollars to the American debt load every year. At some point, not only will this country not be able to afford health care or old age security....but the downsized military will have vanished as well. There needs to me a massive reorg at the top to set budgets and funding goals that are 1. affordable for the nation ..ie the tax payer and 2. in the best interest of that same tax payer....after all what is America? It's the people right...We the people.... Yes I think the nation should be wary of China..definitely. We should never return to the era of pre 1941. Remaining vigulant is vital.....But somewhere there must be a politician with the common sense to fix whats broken, thats willing to take up where Eisenhower and John Kennedy left off.....

      A concerned Canadian

      January 5, 2012 at 10:01 am | Reply
  33. michaelfury

    “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”

    – Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997

    "I've learned an immense amount from Dr. Brzezinski."

    – Barack Obama, 2007


    January 5, 2012 at 8:13 am | Reply
  34. John Stein

    This is what I voted Obama in for. Downsize the military. A bloated over fed agressive pig.
    Thanks Barack

    January 5, 2012 at 8:12 am | Reply
    • Huh?

      And you are a childish and naive liberal fool...you have no idea what you are asking for. What an embarrassment.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:28 am | Reply
    • Isoliberal

      Don't be mad because you work at a shell station and did not qualify to join the service

      January 5, 2012 at 8:36 am | Reply
    • Kris

      Kind of Funny how that he waits for an election year to do it eh?

      January 5, 2012 at 9:08 am | Reply
  35. David

    This is Jimmy Carter's administration redux.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:10 am | Reply
  36. citizenUSA

    Well they probably don't have a choice with budget cuts and all. I guess it's OK as long as we step-up our one war capabilities to get them over quickly.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:08 am | Reply
    • scott

      The wars are over quickly, because that's what our military is good at: application of rapid overwhelming ability (not numbers, we operate under the 'quality>quantity' methodology)

      The problem is using a force designed to obliterate an enemy for occupation duty. It just doesn't work.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:16 am | Reply
      • Huh?

        Why not? We've done it repeatedly...WWII, Korea to name a couple...

        January 5, 2012 at 8:30 am |
      • JimfromBirmingham

        Rather than saying that "It just doesn't work", let's just say that using the US military forces as an occupation force is a prolonged, unexpected, and unpredictable burden on the national debt. A good recent example was Iraq. The first US forces entered Baghdad in about 3 weeks. Now, 8 years later, we have drawn down.

        Unfortunately, the need to occupy is coupled with the decision to invade, which is something Rumsfeld ignored. He worked the equation backwards, and thought he could determine the assets necessary for occupation based on the assets required for invasion. I suppose it makes sense to a bean counter, but few things work so logically in an armed conflict.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • russ

      It all depends what you cut and where. Instead of mothballling the F117, the US could have sold them to Israel. I agree with reducing nukes. Sell Humvees and MRAPs to Japan, Korea, The Phillippines, Saudi Arabia. Sell the 3 subs you want to cut to Korea or the UK. Make a profit and sell with what what you are cutting. The nations that would buy these products would still need the US to service and maintain them for a price.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:34 am | Reply
  37. matt

    So, what are they going to do when they decide it's time for another war with Iran or North Korea? Just say "Oh well, might as well use nukes, they've been lying around for a while and we should make sure they still work." I hate these people.

    January 5, 2012 at 7:52 am | Reply
    • mc1

      It means we get involved in wars of necessity only. And really, nukes? Is that a serious question?

      January 5, 2012 at 8:13 am | Reply
  38. michaelfury


    January 5, 2012 at 7:47 am | Reply
  39. meki60

    President Garbage strikes again

    January 5, 2012 at 7:36 am | Reply
    • Ted

      More meaningless drivel from the right.
      No solutions, no respect for any Democrat President, and no responsibility for their drivel.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:41 am | Reply
      • meki60

        I was wondering when you paid Obama comment responders would come out of the woodwork, guess you don't start early.

        January 5, 2012 at 7:43 am |
      • LBJ


        Democrats have been the ones that get us into wars. Their actions and policies set the stage for wars. It is called US History....read it....learn it....respect it.

        Have a great day


        January 5, 2012 at 7:52 am |
      • mc1

        LBJ – REALLY? Dems got us into Iraq? There was a rather Republican administration that pushed for that one, and did a pretty good job of it. I'm all for a strong military and I'm mixed about downsizing the two major wars capability. It's a matter of fiscal reality right now, but perhaps our recent history might suggest that having that capability is too much for some itchy trigger finger politicians and top brass to handle. But please, don't pin this on 'the Democrats' and revise history. Plenty went along with the freight train, but lets not forget who the conductor was, who was driving the engine and commanding the tracks. It was all about the hawks in the GOP. Try again.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:20 am |
      • Huh?

        Sure...libs/dems paid Bush a lot of respect. You kidding me? You have no idea what this review and process even means.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:31 am |
      • JimfromBirmingham

        @ mc1

        Agree. Plenty of folks on both sides got us where we are. I wonder if the two war issue would be better addressed by removing most of the forces in Europe, but keeping the two war concept. After all, forces in Europe were there during the Cold War to confront a Soviet threat that no longer exists. The Russians are no longer deployed in the Eastern European nations, and at this time do not seem as capable of the same problems that the Soviets could have caused 30 years ago.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:35 am |
  40. Greg

    People often forget the lessons from history that wars are won on a combination of sound economics and military strength. We have jeopardized our national security by overspending, and weakening our economy. These two wars have been the primary causes of our fiscal demise.

    Our government needs to focus on bringing jobs back to the US, especially in key industries, and to make a more accurate assessment of what level of military spending is prudent. I believe the cuts Obama proposes are not significant enough..currently China is financing our military operations and I don't see that continuing for long.

    January 5, 2012 at 7:34 am | Reply
    • JimfromBirmingham

      Agree with much of what you say, but these ideas on reducing the military budget are being proposed by the Penagon, not Obama. I'm not a big Obama fan on domestic issues, but Hillary and the Pentagon have kept him straight on foreign policy matters. This Pentagon review is their effort to get ahead of the national debate on budget cuts.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:51 am | Reply
    • Huh?

      Primary cause of our fiscal demise? I beg to differ...the fingers are pointing everywhere else, but one place. Yourselves. You, the American people, got yourselves into debt beyond your wildest dreams...take responsibility for your actions.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:39 am | Reply
    • khan

      Apparently, you haven't been keeping up. China is hardly financing our two wars and they haven't been doing it for a couple years now. Japan on the other hand is. Probably in 2012, Japan will own more US foreign debt than China owns.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:59 am | Reply
      • Greg

        Sorry, but it is you who are misinformed. China is the largest foreign holder of US Treasuries, and here is the site where you can verify.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
  41. Donald

    How come we cut from defense spending but allow people to live their entire life on welfare or government assistance? How come we give tax money to illegal aliens for college when there are legal citizens who could use that money for college assistance? How come we accept refugees and set them up in government paid houses and neighborhoods when there are homeless American citizens? How come we hand money out to foreign countries for food aid when there are hungry Americans?? But our beloved leader wants to focus on cutting defense spending.........try looking at the whole picture with this goon.

    January 5, 2012 at 7:17 am | Reply
    • mfhpr

      Ummmm...so you're saying that pre-Obama the U.S.A didn't do any of that stuff? Wow, he really is a socialist for all but Americans. Thanks so much for the "whole picture"! How enlightening!!!

      January 5, 2012 at 7:30 am | Reply
      • Rick

        Exactly. Of course we need to cut our defense budget. The US accounts for over 40% of the world's defense spending. We spend more than the next 5 nations on the list combined, three of whom are our allies. There is this myth floating around about how China is this great world military power. Yet, we spend 5 times as much as they do on defense and twice as much as a percentage of our GDP.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:20 am |
    • meki60

      because Obama needs the votes from those benefactors, no other reason

      January 5, 2012 at 7:35 am | Reply
      • Leon

        Anyone who wants to cut down the US's bloated military budget will always have my vote. We are still paying for the military build up and spend during the Cold War.

        January 5, 2012 at 7:38 am |
      • Ted

        Obama didn't put those people on welfare....Bush and Republicans did that 2000-2006 with their irresponsible policies.

        January 5, 2012 at 7:43 am |
      • meki60

        Ted: are these comments written for you or as part of the job, you must create them?

        January 5, 2012 at 7:45 am |
    • DB/AR

      What job will you give the troops coming home? Vets are homeless now? where are their jobs? What better way to show the world we are no longer the strongest country in the world. How about redeploying the on the border were drug cartel continue to escalate. I agree bring them home. But don't make it a right winged let wing thing. Lets do it because it is right.

      Lets stop giving other countries money to militarize and spend it on the right people/equipment here that will make us strong along with the "cut-backs." Hell we could probably feed more Americans that sit on there hind-quarters expecting a handout because they exist.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:58 am | Reply
    • FatSean

      "Lives on welfare" eh? Well, create these people some jobs that they can live off of. Problem is the part time jobs they can find often don't pay enough...so they stay on the program to afford both food and housing.

      And besides, we already spend too much on Defense, Medicare and Social Security. We already spend too much killing foreigners instead of helping our own people.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:17 am | Reply
  42. John

    Here is a novel idea – How about not have any wars to begin with!!!

    January 5, 2012 at 7:14 am | Reply
    • Mark9988

      still in Kansas, Dorothy

      January 5, 2012 at 7:25 am | Reply
    • Huh?

      oh, sure thing...we can give each other gumdrops, and ride around on rainbows all day, we can all be friends! good luck with that.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:41 am | Reply
    • Myles

      heres a novel idea if you do go to war and win then that country is now a territory of the US! Just like wars past the loosing country pays reperations to the victor and the American people dont foot the bill! PS our defence was not served by invading Iraq and Afgan was taken in a week and then we should have left with thier drug money. the end!

      January 5, 2012 at 9:22 am | Reply
  43. stephen

    when the next country after us spending 580 BILLION LESS then we do on Defense, I start to think we might be overspending a bit..... Maybe we dont need EVERY jet, and EVERY boat. Why not be smart and maticulous with our money instead of having an unlimited budget?? Seems like common sense

    January 5, 2012 at 7:13 am | Reply
  44. John B

    This is really going to upset the people who call Obama a war monger. Now what are they going to do? I'm sure they will come up with something...maybe call him a racist or something.

    January 5, 2012 at 6:58 am | Reply
    • Donald

      Well his mentor was rev wright soooooooooooooo.......just saying on the racist comment.....

      January 5, 2012 at 7:08 am | Reply
      • M.D.

        I guess Catholics who received service from gay +/- pedophiles makes everyone who attended those services gay +/- pedophiles?
        The Rev Wright nonsense has been old and dead for quite some time, so give it a freaking rest. Or is it you have nothing substantial and objective to criticize the President over?

        January 5, 2012 at 7:27 am |
    • JimfromBirmingham

      The title of the article is a bit misleading. This is a Pentagon review, and Obama has not seen it yet. Based on past behavior, he will probably go along with a Pentagon recommendation while making only modest revisions.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:13 am | Reply
  45. Great Idea

    This is the best idea yet, while we are at it let's cut spending on the CIA and other intelligence departments. That worked great for us in the 90's, at least until 9/11,

    January 5, 2012 at 6:31 am | Reply
    • JimfromBirmingham

      I'm not thrilled about it either, but cuts to correct the national debt are as much a national security issue as where the the cuts come from. Unfortunately, our "spendaholic" behavior during the last 12 years is coming back to haunt us and restrict our options. In addition to proposing difficult cuts, the Army is also concerned about how to maintain a fighting edge after the drawdown from Afghanistan occurs in 2014. We cannot repeat the post-Vietnam era of poorly trained and equipped forces under the Carter Administration.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:05 am | Reply
      • M.D.

        And you can confirm the weaknesses in the military were a direct result of specific policies enacted by President Carter? Not the result of a long, drawn out unpopular war with anti-war sentiment?

        And thos deficiencies lead to what negative effect on the US?

        January 5, 2012 at 7:45 am |
      • JimfromBirmingham

        No problem, M.D. I was enlisted at the end of Vietnam, and became an officer in 1979. The policies adopted by the Carter Administration, particularly those related to what civilians would call HR, were awful. His Secretary of the Army believed that there were no misfits. I had a guy in my unit who had been convicted in a Court Martial, and we had to put up with his lousy attitude (wouldn't get out of his bunk, stayed in the barracks instead of training, etc.) because the SedArmy's policy was to coddle, not discipline. Training opportunities were restricted due to budgetary constraints imposed by the President, and this was noticeable even in my units which were Corps level assets to the XVIII ABN Corps. As a collective result of these kinds of problems throuhout the military, the US was perceived to be a "paper tiger" by countries like Iran, who seized our Embassy and took our diplomats hostage.

        The first thing that happened when Regan became President was the implementation of more easily administered administrative discharges for the misfits. We were suddenly allowed to get rid of the drug users and alcoholics, which was like a fresh breeze for morale (both in the Officer and NCO corps). Equipment slowly improved, and by 1982, the training slogan in our Brigade was "Train like you Fight". This attitude was never present during the Carter Administration.

        It's difficult to explain to someone who has never been there. The difference between the Carter and Regan Administrations, however, was remarkable – and obvious even at my level.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:26 am |
    • Huh?

      Sure. I love the liberal philosophy of "If i cant see it, it cant hurt me." Let me know how that one turns out, when you cut intelligence and defense.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:43 am | Reply
  46. William M

    Prez. Obama. I am a staunch Democrat. I have to say though that we cannot afford to cut our defense spending. There is no reason to diminish our capability to fight 2 or 3 wars perhaps. Protect the interests of the world, but ours the most. I would be willing as an Occupy Wall Street advocate to pay more taxes to protect the nations best interests. I am Patriotic and these "tea party" people do not realize that everyone is American and the Democratic Party is the the party that is most interested in every American's well being.

    January 5, 2012 at 6:04 am | Reply
    • Paul

      you are fake ... this said, you have got to chose, either you own yourself , which requires to stop waging wars for the sake of stupidity, or you admit you are a communist and sell yourself to the Chinese government in name of continuing to spend more than you produce and have it financed by China.
      The US does not need to have armed forces whose overall size is 15 times the size of all other armies of the world combined. You can do better .. just stop the madness.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:33 am | Reply
      • mark

        china is an army

        January 5, 2012 at 7:15 am |
    • Bill Peters

      Why Raise Taxes in a Recession it kills a Recvery at least short term and why hold Military Prepardness hostage to get tax hikes Raise taxes when economies are in good shape and there is no reason to in a Recession Obama said so in 08

      January 5, 2012 at 6:44 am | Reply
    • affdude

      Do you serve?

      January 5, 2012 at 7:26 am | Reply
      • affdude

        That question was posed to William M. I find it funny for someone to advocate for 2-3 wars if not in uniform...if you were, you might have a different opinion...

        January 5, 2012 at 7:28 am |
    • Ted

      William, in Germany alone, we have 4 air force bases, 13 army bases and 12 marine corp bases. In Japan alone, we have 3 air force bases and 4 navy bases (Japan isn't that big). See a redundant trend with our global military occupations? I see a lot of waste.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:46 am | Reply
      • Jeff RetUSAF/UK

        4 USAF bases in Germany? Last I heard it was two, we allready closed 5, Spain closed two USAF bases, hmm England
        two flying operations left, closed 5 flying bases. Yes closing bases is good, but don't throw the baby out with bathwater. We also have NATO comitments to think of. Just rmemeber if your worried about jobs lockheed /martin and boeing do lot of work for the military. When those contracts go away because of a draw down thats another 10,000 people out of work. Plus all the mom and pop orginization that support them. Slowly with good planning is better.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:41 am |
  47. General Turgidson

    So I guess we are going to rely on nuclear weapons to handle a second "war?"

    Shug, say your prayers.

    January 5, 2012 at 5:56 am | Reply
    • M.D.

      No dumb dumb. Read the article again. It specifically states 'the United States would still be able to deploy troops and equipment to deter a second adversary'. Key words being 'deploy troops and equipment'

      January 5, 2012 at 7:52 am | Reply
  48. Ron Paul

    Ron Paul has the idea that would fix this Obama, maybe you should give him a call. 🙂

    January 5, 2012 at 5:48 am | Reply
    • Wayne

      Whats that? Legalize pot? From all the college kids I have talked to who support him they really stopped paying attention after they heard that.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:00 am | Reply
    • M.D.

      Uh yea, Draw them down even more in Europe and abroad so we wouldn't be able to respond to a second conflict at all?

      You Ron Paul acolytes are mind boggling.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:59 am | Reply
  49. George In Reisterstown

    Eventually we will have wars that are 100% mechanical and automated from beginning to end. Do you think the invaded countries will miss the human touch?

    January 5, 2012 at 5:44 am | Reply
  50. Maltese Falcon

    By all means lets evolve into a major 1-theatre-at-a-time strike force. Yes.

    January 5, 2012 at 5:40 am | Reply
  51. bezerkur

    hey did u know i know what im taking about. do u want to debate technical data on fighter jets? go ahead u first. thrill me with your knowledge. its only been my life for over 30 years.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:54 am | Reply
    • Bart Fargo

      Your life for over 30 years? I feel sorry for you.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:55 am | Reply
      • Donald

        His thirty years mean more than your thirty seconds to post dribble..........

        January 5, 2012 at 7:09 am |
  52. bezerkur

    the selling of the F-15s to the saudis was a mistake. although the F-22s are tactically more sophisticated the F-15s are still no slouches. they still hold the record for vertical climbing rate and are just as maneuverable especially if they have the F-15MTDs . they are a superiority fighter which could comeback to haunt us. I dont trust the Saudis if we do get into a conflict with Iran. which seems likely. i hope we didnt sell them our missle systems for the 15 either.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:42 am | Reply
    • aDunbar

      Very true. The f-15 is still an excellent platform. However, the effectiveness of the craft has always been secondary to the pilots doing the flying. I'm sure the Saudi guys are fine...but pitted against Israeli pilots....I'm not sure there will be an issue.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:48 am | Reply
    • JimfromBirmingham

      I generally agree to the extent that I wouldn't want to fight our own weaponry. However, the Saudis are Sunni and the Iranians are Shia. The Saudis are Arab, while the Iranians are Persian. Anything can happen, but the likelihood of them getting along is a low probability.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:52 am | Reply
  53. daddyofjas

    Here is what scares the crap out of me. We need a large military presense in order to deter agression. Countries like Iran, China and North Korea know we wont use nukes but in the past we had the capability to fight multiple wars if need be. Using the strategy stated would mean we would no longer be able to if we had to. Picture it like this, if we draw down troops to the levels they are talking about it would be like saying instead of defending both east and west coast we are only going to worry about 1 coast at a time. Using the strategy stated will severly limit us on what options are available and by adapting this strategy it will in fact promote a comflict since a number of countries who may not have taken action before now will because we will not have the sixe military to do stop them. I truly hope someone will come to their senses before an unimaginable number of lives are lost just to save a buck.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:35 am | Reply
    • do...or

      It's a draw down in troop levels, not military capability pound for pound. Any military conflict that may erupt with China would take a long enough time to develop that the US would have time to adopt a different strategy and build up to appropriate strength. Asia and the US are too economically intertwined for war the break out suddenly. Iran (in the short term) is not a major problem in relation to China (in the long term) as far as overall threat in military capability. There will not be significant cuts in military technology. This is the avenue by which future wars will be waged.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:03 am | Reply
    • someone

      The draft is still an option if a major conflict happens.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:46 am | Reply
    • aDunbar

      Maintaining a huge standing peacetime army has, historically speaking, not been a very good idea. The US has never done it until after WWII. Eisenhower warned against it. The cost sucks resources from private growth, and leads to a never-ending series of wars, which we have seen. I can't think of very many wars after WWII that we needed to be involved in. Now, a very powerful Navy is another thing altogether.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:54 am | Reply
    • M.D.

      You speak as if we had the capcity to fight two wars before the Afghanistan conflict started. I think it can be clearly concluded that we did not have the capacity to fight two wars over the last 8.5 years as evidenced by the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2009 necessitating a shift of our major forces back to Afghanistan in 2009. Iraq then became Operation New Dawn which was mostly a supportive effort until withdrawel in Dec 2011.
      This new plan actually sounds like requisition of our pre-war capacity plus some modest improvements in handling a second front. I say this as a 16th year on active service, 2 time veteren and field grade officer.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:16 am | Reply
  54. walter

    This situation will show the left's true colors. They scream and squawk that any cuts in government spending will result in job losses. And yet, they have no problem with the loss of thousands of jobs in defense. Clearly, the left wants more government jobs – just the kind that they approve of.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:16 am | Reply
    • Uzi4u

      Just like western powers did before WW2, they are cutting defense spending, reducing their standing armies, and hoping that everything will be OK. But it didn't turn our so well last time, did it? The US Army Air Force and Navy are all smaller and leaner than ever. And Russia, Chins, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, the Taliban, and every other bully on the block can see this.

      A weak America won't bring peace, it invites aggression! Millions will die because America's enemies will think that they can get away with anything. And this won't be in the distant future. War will come to the west in the next four years. Prepare the war bonds ladies and gentlemen...

      January 5, 2012 at 4:38 am | Reply
      • aDunbar

        Actually, it was a democratic president, FDR, that was pushing big time for increases in defense spending while war was looming in Europe. It was the republicans that were screaming to stay out of Europe. FDR had to resort to all kinds of tricks to enhance our military capability. That being said, there certainly isn't a rearming anywhere like what we saw before WWII.

        January 5, 2012 at 6:59 am |
      • AngryJew

        Israel sucks.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Reasonable heads

      Cutting taxes has its victims. This mantra flies in the face of maintaining a superpower status from a military standpoint. The wealthiest have the most to lose and best ability to pay. Our defense contractors make up a signicant portion of our government dollar. Do you read the budget? But we get caught up in partisan chatter. Not that selling our weapons to other countries is a sane method either in maintaining a superpower. The benefits and healthcare of the ground war troops and exisiting vets from previous ground offensives is also part of maintaining a superpower. War is utterly expensive because the cash flow continues well beyond the end of a war. But we can't explain that in our schools, because we need the cash to maintain our superpower status too.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:04 am | Reply
  55. Ed Stock

    "The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly...."

    And so, what is the real difference between this official and, say, Bradley Manning? This is as much of a leak as the "earth shattering" information in the Wiki Leaks case, and just as unauthorized.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:09 am | Reply
    • Robert

      and the fact that if a draft was established we could have millions enlisten immidiately.. probably around 17 million. and that's scary it's like .. somethings up ?

      January 5, 2012 at 4:11 am | Reply
  56. billy

    Those were not two major ground wars... those are two major OCCUPATIONS! We occupied those countries, wasting time and money with people who will turn around and bite us the second we leave. Waste... Yes we did great during our initial push but then we sit in a country hoping they will change and become civilized humans.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:25 am | Reply
    • Ed Stock

      You're absolutely correct. Obama's big mistake was in claiming during the 2008 debates that the Afghanistan occupation was the "good" war, when neither of these occupations was "good" for anyone but the corrupt governments we propped up and the defense contractors who were obscenely enriched over the past decade.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:11 am | Reply
      • Kirby

        Yeah, sure, whatever, except the war in Afghanistan isn't against the people of Afghanistan. It's against the Taliban who are trying to control Afghanistan and turn it into an extremist state. Read a book like The Kite Runner or A Thousand Splendid Suns and you'll see the truth. The middle east used to be a great place, but has been over run by extremists. Someone needs to get them out of there, and if the Afghanistanis can't do it, someone needs to help. Someone like the US.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:47 am |
      • Donald

        Kirby,........Joe Biden says the Taliban are not the enemy....they are our friends.....so WTF did Obama want in afghanistan??

        January 5, 2012 at 7:11 am |
  57. rick

    john/kc, you left out Australia. What the _______ are we doing there?

    January 5, 2012 at 2:05 am | Reply
    • MI GUY

      We have a contigent of signal Intel soldier, some postal, and a handfull of admin soldiers their, its about 200 troops, and they are there beacuse that place is geoloigacally important to specific satellites and other ground stations around the world

      January 5, 2012 at 2:54 am | Reply
      • Uncle Sam

        That's Classified Information you're giving there..

        January 5, 2012 at 3:06 am |
    • toadears

      vacationing and ogling women.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:42 am | Reply
    • aDunbar

      Australia is just part of our strategy of encircling China, similar to what we did with the old Soviet Union, or what Great Britain once did with Russia. Along with the small, but expandable presence in Australia, we have begun ongoing negotiations with other nations in the area. In VietNam, we are working on the rights to use Cam Ranh as a repair port. Clinton's visit to Myanmar was not an accident. We've begun what used to be called, "The Great Game."

      January 5, 2012 at 7:09 am | Reply
  58. JustSaying

    Is anyone even a little afraid of the new law? So now the military can imprison American citizens indefinitely from anywhere on the planet.

    January 5, 2012 at 1:02 am | Reply
    • ddblah

      Do you expect otherwise? I mean, do you expect the military can not even handle unarmed citizens (or invaders)?

      January 5, 2012 at 1:12 am | Reply
      • JustSaying

        What do you mean?

        January 5, 2012 at 1:15 am |
      • ddblah

        What do I mean? If your military force does not even have the ability to arrest/capture regular folks, do you expect them to be able to fight for the country when we need them to?

        We definitely can have a military that can't fight. Do you want that? Even if you do, I bet majority of American people would want our military to be able to deter invaders.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:21 am |
      • WEBSPY

        I think the USA could bring every plane boat man and women home and still be able to blow up the earth 1582 times

        January 5, 2012 at 1:32 am |
      • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

        JustSayin is referring to the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the military the right to apprehend innocent American citizens under no charges without incrimminating evidence and detain them for as long as they wish. Meaning the government can come into your home, grab you and your family, and send them off to some secret detention center without trial. Judging by ddblah's comments my guess is that he's/she's legally retarded, because I can barely make any sense of ddblah.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:43 am |
      • lol @ paranoia

        JustSaying & Duderino, do you really think they weren't able to do that prior to it being written on a piece of paper? So now it's been written into law, tell me... what is the LIKELIHOOD of your door being busted down and you being snatched up without it being warranted? The main goal behind the NDA Act is to be able to deter a possible threat that the government isn't fully capable of providing Probable Cause for beforehand. I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but real criminals don't usually like to post banners over their homes saying "Criminals Present, Involved In Criminal Activities." In Lee County Alabama, it is illegal to sell peanuts after sun down on wednesday. In Cathedral City Calefornia, it is prohibited by law to sleep in a parked vehicle. How many people do you think are arrested/given citation for those offenses? Just because they have the authority to snatch you up, doesn't mean they will.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:04 am |
      • AngryJew

        and yet, innocent men were imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo. This is a dangerous law and it we Americans will come to regret it.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Coyote06

      I have been serving in the US Army for the last 21 years and this new law allowing for the military to detain at will frightens me. Further more I have serious question about why the government wants to further cut the military troop number makes no sense, as of current the military doesn't have the strength now that is why so many National Guard and Reserve components are being utilized.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:17 am | Reply
      • Kirby

        Coyote06, You've been fighting in the Military for 21 years?!? Isn't the whole point of the American Army system to have young men fight and then send them to college? I highly doubt that's what happened in your case considering your run on sentences.... Just saying.... It's scary that men without basic intelligence are overseas "fighting for us".

        January 5, 2012 at 3:54 am |
      • Deployed

        Suit up Kirby. Bring that large cranium of yours to Afghanistan. Maybe you can figure this out. No? Then shut up.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:11 am |
      • The Point Of Military

        Kirby, the point of the "American Army System" (much like every other nations military), is to defend it's nation. It's scary to think that we have such highly sophisticated individuals such as yourself that somehow aren't able to grasp that concept.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:13 am |
      • rachis

        Get a life Kirby. No need to insult anybody here and certainly not someone who did you a favor. His error wasn't even bad enough to spend time commenting on. If you can understand what he's saying then go with it. Don't be a troll.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:16 am |
      • Herby Sagues

        Why are Americans so in love with war? Do you realize that's not normal? Other than some police states and failed states, there's no currently any country in the world where being at war is a normal or desirable state. War is a tragedy. Sometimes is a necessary tragedy and this country should be prepared for that. But chronically waging wars and expecting to have capacity to spare in case you want to fight a second *major* ground war is absolutely absurd.
        The US can beat any army in the world today (yes, ANY army) and would still be able to do so if its military was one fourth of the size. The large military of today has no added value for fighting wars, it is only useful for long term occupations, which don't add value to our country and only create more enemies.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:31 am |
      • George In Reisterstown

        Kirby....I hate people who troll others online to exploit gramatical errors. The worst is that you are doing it to a U.S. soldier. Not everyone is entitled to go to college. In fact in my case I wasn't eligable to get the good money for college because I was in the nuclear field. They told me 3 days into bootcamp. The reason being is that I was going to 3 of the top 5 most difficult schools in the country. Nuclear Field A School, Nuclear Propulsion School, and Nuclear Prototype. The other two schools are MIT and Harvard. Picking on someone online for no other reason than to insult them is childish to say the least. Picking on someone who risks their life for your security is not only an insult to humankind, but an insult to all who serve or have served in place of you.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  59. Power Hungry US Government

    Lots of government public employee parasites on this board.

    Watch their comments as they talk of combat THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE.

    They visualize themselves as military types because they maybe served a one enlistment stint 40 years ago.

    The same kind of mental midget who walks around in camo clothing, camo hat, and utters words like ... deploy.... or ..... tactical...... the kind of fool who idolizes military assault rifles and instruments of death. Yeah. The kind of guy who people prefer to avoid. The kind of adult – child who still reads publications like the old "Soldier of Fortune."

    January 5, 2012 at 12:51 am | Reply
    • Tyrone

      Your free to move if you dont love our country – just sayin. Why the self hate??

      January 5, 2012 at 1:11 am | Reply
      • Ronald Mcloughlin

        What?! That old saw from the 70s, "Love it or leave it"?

        January 5, 2012 at 3:13 am |
    • cwiz

      @"Power Hungry US Government".......the kind that gives you freedom of speech? And if you're not an American citizen, I could understand the jealousy. Your post is emotionally and illogical. Get over yourself.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:27 am | Reply
    • Steve

      This is how it works: The warmongers shout: be patriotic, go to "defend the country". Clueless people volunteer and go to war to die while the warmongers go to hunt pheasants in Texas.
      Then the warmongers tell the rest of us: "be patriotic, support the troops, they are fighting for your freedom". Oh let me add, we are also paying for all this crap.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:14 am | Reply
      • Joseph

        beautifully said mate.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:50 am |
      • Herby Sagues

        It is a bit more complex than that. Because the warmongers don't just fight anywhere. They fight where they can amass the biggest number of enemies in the long term, so there will be reasons to remain at war for decades to come. It is called "sustainable war strategy".

        January 5, 2012 at 4:33 am |
      • Donald

        LMAO! dude, relive the '60's through the history channel not in online forums.

        January 5, 2012 at 7:13 am |
    • toadears

      armchair warriors. Real soldiers can't stand them, believe me.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:19 am | Reply
    • K

      Looks like somebody got denied a government job. Sorry about your luck.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:11 am | Reply
  60. On Man Speaks

    Our military was laughable at beginning of WWI, during that war we built our military to what it needed to be to secure victory along with our allies.
    At the beginning of WWII the U.S. military was an amateur underfunded organization. By the end of WWII we were one of the greatest military powers in history.
    China has a military of 2 million people and a population of 1.3 billion.
    America has a military of 1.4 million and a population of 300 million.

    We are wasting money here folks.

    We don't need to be able to fight to wars when there aren't two wars to fight.

    January 5, 2012 at 12:50 am | Reply
    • Power Hungry US Government

      The voters of America never intended for the US government to be playing world cop.

      The US constitution never authorized the Feds to play world cop with our DEFENSE military forces.

      But you see. That army of public employee parasites needs to have employment. They would be driving cabs
      if it were not for their do-nothing, overpaid, overperked government jobs.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:54 am | Reply
      • ddblah

        Actually, the constitution never authorized the existence of computers or using them for whatever the purpose. But, you are using it.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:15 am |
      • ddblah

        For that matter, you can't dispute the fact that the constitution never authorized your own existence. But, you are still here. Go figure.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:23 am |
      • cwiz

        @"Power Hungry US Government" – the voters democratically elected Congress and the President who led the nation into victorious battle. Stop pouting because you didn't get your way. And if you think government employees are over-paid and over-perked you're completely ignorant. These people, especially the military, let you sleep in peace at night. Maybe someone should drop you into the middle of a tribal war in Africa or an ethic cleansing in slovakia – and see how bad you troll your government and military.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:32 am |
      • Joseph

        I can see both sides here, but why dont we drop you into the tribal war or whatever if you are so down with war and soldiers. Seems like a good place to wave a flag.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:57 am |
    • Ronald Mcloughlin

      That's pure, blind and dangerous nationalism. The WW I soldiers were semi-literate to illiterate with less than 3-5 years of schooling. They were mostly canon fodder during that war. The WW II soldier was ranked abt third to the British, Russian and other European soldiers. Their education level was less than high school. Without the GI Bill we'd still have a bottom-of-the-barrel armed forces. When U have a good civilian life promise, war is not yor best choice, U cud get killed!

      January 5, 2012 at 3:21 am | Reply
  61. Power Hungry US Government

    The greedy, power hungry bully of the US Government has no business keeping its combat troops around the world in the first place. Either the criminals of the government bribe foreign powers with billions of dollars in so called foreign aide or they bully brought threats of combat troops and warships. The voters of America never granted its government any such vote of confidence to play the world cop. But the criminals in that government merely thumb their noses at anyone who objects. Its all about ego, greed, power. Just look at the various US Presidents in their speech making and pompass arrogance.

    January 5, 2012 at 12:38 am | Reply
    • Fritz

      I agree, the U.S. government has become a criminal organization whose sole aim is to control the behavior of the people to prevent its overthrow. I wasn't surprised to learn that government officials allow themselves to engage in insider trading, a crime any one of us would be sent to prison by the lackeys in the justice system whom they control. I still remember the children of Waco and all those FBI and ATF officials who went unpunished for that crime. But I also believe that those who live by the sword-die by the sword. It's just a matter of time.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:01 am | Reply
  62. Beefburger

    In case you missed it, we HAVE been invaded by Mexico. There is a conservative estimate of 12 MILLION (with a possibility of almost twice that) Mexicans within the borders of the United States. With our Anchor Baby policy it is a war of demographics. They are using babies as bullets. Does an invading force need guns to be considered a clear and present danger?

    January 5, 2012 at 12:32 am | Reply
    • Beefburger

      Btw, China has a standing army of only 2 million, well within the scenario of being able to roll straight over all of Europe, what does that say about a force that is 6 to 12 times larger within the smaller confines of the U.S. borders?

      January 5, 2012 at 12:35 am | Reply
      • JustSaying

        I think you are comparing apples with oranges there.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • Vlad

      Mexico is one of few countries that lost two thirds of their territory to a neighbor. So, please don't get too upset if they came to claim it back.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:54 am | Reply
      • toadears

        They can have Texas. Also, they are Mexicans, not Native American or Central American Indigenous people. They were originally from Spain, which last time I checked was a European country, so stuff it.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:23 am |
      • JustSaying

        Si, California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico. Otros?

        January 5, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • steve

      Seems kind of appropriate after the land grab during the war in 1846.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:03 am | Reply
    • Ronald Mcloughlin

      If U know yor history Mexico has been one of our staunchest allies. U may remember that we confiscated 2/3s of their territory after the 1848 war yet when Germany sent the Zinneman telegram to Mexico at the start of WW I (yes!) that Germany wud give back all the territories that the US stole IF they wud come on Germany's side. Mexico politely sed up yours! In WW II Mexico proved a staunch ally by shipping all its Japanese citizens to the US for internment and at the request of US govt grew the poppy to aid in the production of morphine to relieve the pain of the wounded. Mexico has been a staunch ally. In 1821 in their independence from Spain they copied our Constitution word for word. Know yor history before U speak ill of Mexico and Mexicans.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:33 am | Reply
  63. manhandler

    Boy, there sure are alot of armchair Generals around. Wonder why they're not all on the front lines.

    January 5, 2012 at 12:13 am | Reply
    • Kujo

      Front lines have internet. Welcome to the 21st century.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:15 am | Reply
    • Alex

      I almost went to Libya to fight. I don't want to fight American wars.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:15 am | Reply
      • Jack Kilgore

        Not trying to be rude here, but how did you almost go fight in Libya? Like, do you mean you almost got sent there? Because I know that there were no ground forces in Libya, at least not American.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:42 am |
      • Power Hungry US Government

        There were ground forces in Libya. So much for the clown who pretends to know what he does not know.

        There were AMERICAN special ops force ON THE GROUND in Libya. It was well reported.

        Start reading the news instead of playing online all day.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:56 am |
    • Joe

      The US spends more on defense than the entire rest of the world combined. In fact the US and its allies account for the vast majority of military spending. Exactly how much defense do you need to feel safe? We spend 6x more than China and 11x more than Russia. Cut military spending by 50% and the US would still be spending double Russia and China combined.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:34 am | Reply
      • Kyle

        And even though the numbers you spout about how much we spend on the defense budget, our nation's mandatory entitlement spending is still three times that amount and growing. While the military makes cuts, and the men and woman who are out on the front lines, in the air, and on the sea have to make due with less and less...we're more than happy to continue spending on people who abuse the system and shouldn't be on an entitlement program.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:41 am |
      • Power Hungry US Government

        Its all about keeping public employees in a government job. Not really about defense.

        Just like the army of so called justice system workers in the USA.

        How many do we really need for the "war on drugs?" The government refuses to let go and continues to steal our
        money to pay for its army of prosecutors, cops, sheriffs, court staff, parole and probation, and jailers and prison guards. Legalize pot and you eliminate the need for half of those public employee parasites at the same time as you eliminate 70% of the drug cartel profits from pot. But the criminal government must keep its parasites in a job.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:59 am |
      • Ronald Mcloughlin

        Our military expenditures are only 6% of Gross National Product!

        January 5, 2012 at 3:35 am |
      • Hey Guys

        Did you know that 72.37% of all statistics are made up on the spot by those stating them?

        January 5, 2012 at 4:47 am |
    • yeahoksure

      Iran is not a threat to the U.S. Or anybody for that matter.. they havnt invaded anyone in over 200 years and are only acting in self-defence... being that the U.S. is surrounding them from all sides.. Leave those damn Muslims alone.. they are not worth our time.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:35 am | Reply
      • cwiz

        @yeahoksure – as a military intelligence veteran who has spent time in the Middle East: you sir, are completely wrong! They'll take the first chance they get to hit Israel or Europe with a nuclear weapon or disrupt the global economy.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • Power Hungry US Government

      I notice you offer zero solutions to an out of control American government that seeks world dominance.

      While Obama gives his daily speeches in the hopes of impressing voters, Hillary is wandering around the planet with her hair on fire and smug, ugly facial expressions trying to convince the world that the criminal US Government has it right.

      I might add that the criminal US Government does not even bother to acknowledge in public that it has been quietly transferring billions and billions of US tax dollars into the IMF and then on to the European governments at American taxpayer expense. No matter that the streets of the USA are potholed and that schools are crumbling. The criminal crowd of the American government employees are greasing the wheels of interacting governments to the harm of the hard working people of the world. They do save enough money, though, to fund their public pensions. Of course !

      January 5, 2012 at 12:44 am | Reply
      • cwiz

        @"Power Hungry US Government" – You really sound like an idiot. At least check your facts before ranting like an uneducated conspiracy theorist.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:36 am |
  64. Kujo

    Invade Pakistan, and then it will just be one large ground war and we won't have a problem.

    January 5, 2012 at 12:10 am | Reply
    • Alex

      I would certainly worry about Pakistan more than Iran right now. Even though we would need more than 220,000 troops.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:14 am | Reply
      • Power Hungry US Government

        What makes it an American worry ?

        YOU want to invade? Go for it. But you wouldn't because you want OTHER people to fight your wars and suffer the combat wounds while you sit in your political office or in your defense contractor office doing nothing but drinking your daily coffee and stuffing your fat public employee face with pastry.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:46 am |
    • yeahoksure

      pakistan has nukes bud...

      January 5, 2012 at 12:29 am | Reply
      • Power Hungry US Government

        So what ?

        Tell China.

        Tell Russia.

        Let someone aside from the USA worry about it. NOT our problem.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:47 am |
    • reality

      America is only able to do sneak peak attack in Pakistan, If they invaded Pakistan, They are definitely going to use their nukes for deterring invaders.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:30 am | Reply
      • Aeroman

        Pakistan only has the ability to launch nuclear weapons within their region. Therefore, the most they could do is fire them at our bases in the Middle East (which would mean nuking other countries like Qatar and Bahrain) and nuking themselves as we invade. They do NOT have the ability to nuke the United States. We, however, have that capability. If they decided to lob a few nukes at us, they'd be obliterated. What kind of deterrence do you think that is? Not much.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:37 am |
  65. Blackwater Mercenary

    It is going to be a while lot of fun to engage in the next turkey shoot. It will be better than Katrina in New Orleans. I cant wait for the order by Obama to declare martial law and kill a lot of ungrateful American terrorists and traitors. I live for the day when Homeland Secuity deploys us. FUCKING AWSOME !!!!!

    January 4, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Reply
    • Alex

      You think that killing your country men is awesome? Fascist.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Reply
    • Skipper

      Remember: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Reply
      • Alex

        Lol, yeah. But I do it just in case. Someone who posts something like that needs to know that people arn't going to tolerate it if they are actually serious.

        January 4, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • JustSaying

      He forgets that he can also land in the same list.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:51 am | Reply
    • JustSaying

      We can not afford it. Nearly half the people in the USA are now poor or low income according to this article.:

      January 5, 2012 at 1:00 am | Reply
    • toadears

      When does winter break end at your high school again? Soon , I hope.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:26 am | Reply
  66. The1calleddoc

    Just like that. They doNt need us anymore so they kick us right out and make picking up rank harder after years of sacrifice my family has made and the deployments I have done. Thanks for returning the favor uncle Sam

    January 4, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Reply
    • toadears

      And now you know. They have been doing this type of thing since Viet Nam, btw. Old, rich, fat white men sending young men off to battle while they rob the taxpayer to buy their mistresses a chalet in Switzerland. It's always been this way in the world, just new to America.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:28 am | Reply
  67. VegasRage

    They must be getting ready to go after Iran

    January 4, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Reply
  68. bear

    as a non american, its both sad and scary watching obama hollow out your military...he is weakening america steadily, as if its his plan or something...aside from using drones, he is basically deleveraging your country day by day. He may have inherited a tough economy from bush, but hes made it worse....and by the way, dont forget the democratic controlled congress in 07 and 08 strategically helped drive the economy into the ditch...not to mention 9/11 which was really clintons fault and then katrina...the dems slam congress now for obstruction, but isnt that rich considering they did the same thing when they controlled it.

    Obama and the dems are dangerous for america's long term prosperity. There is no doubt about it.

    January 4, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Reply
    • DaveinSC

      Oh yes, the unbiased troll, only telling us whats good for us.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:05 am | Reply
    • MPAGEL

      So according to your revisionist history, Clinton appointed an ineffective chief of FEMA and caused a hurricane. The dems in congress obstructed Bush and forced him into an unaffordable tax break for the wealthy, a war in Iraq, and deregulation of Wall Street. And the economy is currently worse than the free-fall at the end of the Bush administration? Sorry , but your comment is just silly.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:14 am | Reply
    • KrazyKraze

      Your m0m is pretty dangerous... and hollow

      January 5, 2012 at 12:18 am | Reply
    • Ted Striker

      Dear Easily-Spotted GOP Teenager,

      We are multi-trillion dollars in debt. I thought you people didn't like big government. Our military spending is bigger than the rest of the world put together. If that's not big government I don't know what is.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:18 am | Reply
    • ML

      America has about 5pct of the worlds polulation and spends aproximately 50pct of the worlds military spending annually. So Mr non American I guess that means we can afford to trim back a bit and still kick your ass any day of the week.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:20 am | Reply
    • Welcome to Reality

      Thank you. At least someone gets it. This is scary what Obama is doing. I'm scared for our country and the safety of this nation. If Obama gets another 4 years at this, I don't know what will happen to us. May God have mercy on us until we can get this guy out of office.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:31 am | Reply
      • Topgun

        Holy crap no one can win with you nut jobs. You scream for smaller govt, smaller spending, etc. THIS IS SMALLER GOVT!! This is EXACTLY what you want. Yet, you still arn't happy. Can't have your cake and eat it to.

        January 5, 2012 at 5:04 am |
  69. Alex

    Fighting a two front war is a bad idea, especially when our enemies adopted guerilla warfare after WWII. Iraq and Afghanistan prove that because that streched us thin. If we would have stayed in Afghanistan and won it before 2001 ended, Iraq we would have had enough troops to secure Iraq in one year or less. Long story short: One war at a time!!!! I do hope that Obama's new stategy isn't Ron Paul's isolationism though. I also think that nation building is part of winning the peace now days and we are not doing enough of that in Afghanistan.

    January 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Reply
    • john/kc

      Afghanistan is over 10,000 miles away and is a waste of our money and soldiers lives and quality of life. If we had the money, there would always be a war to be involved in, but we don't have the money. I still can't understand why we are just pulling a few thousand troops out of Europe. That war has been over for almost 70 years. Korea is another place to pull troops from. If these countries don't want to pay the bill including benefits for our soldiers, I say lets leave. Charity begins at home.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Reply
      • Alex

        In Europe, Hungary is turning into a dicatorship, and Russia remains unpredictable. We can rebuild Afghanistan and the US at the same time. We just need smart governance to do that. Btw, Afghanistan hasn't been at peace in 30 years, and I think it's time we end that civil war for the sake of humanity.

        January 4, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
      • Ryan

        US troops in Europe today have nothing to do with WWII, it’s about having a force that you can quick deploy to places and having additional bases for support. The Military is set up all over the world as a network to support its self and works efficiently that way. If they start pulling people out and closing bases it'll cost more in the long run because that network will be weakened.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:12 am |
      • Spare

        John/Kc –

        You're right ... you don't understand. To think that the only reason our troops are deployed in other countries is to protect those countries demonstrates a naivete and lack of understanding of the issues.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • toadears

      Your first sentence is absolutely correct! It is slightly insane to fight a two front war at anytime. But I am concerned what these men and women will do when they come home to no jobs.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:31 am | Reply
  70. 2ND Airborne Pilot

    This is unrealistic. What about the contingency for uprisings here and abroad ? We very well may need to impose marial law over more than 35,000 square miles of domestic territory here as well as ground wars in Afganistan and Iran. What happens if Korea decides to test us while all this is going on? The drone fleet is a big help, but we are going to need a lot of boots on the ground both here and abroad to deal with the potential hostilities. It is not like we have a thousand Chris Kyles. I am looking forward to participating, but our Commander in chief needs to be smart about it. There is only so much we can do even with 6 million troops and law enforcement personell. Our rendition corps will be stretched to the limit in no time.

    January 4, 2012 at 11:39 pm | Reply
    • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

      Perhaps we should have an uprising here considering that the 4th amendment right just got flushed down the drain (look up National Defense Aughorization Act). As for Iraq and Afghanistan; I don't care what happens there. We'll just bomb the crap out of them if they ever do have Al Qaeda hideouts, which is cheaper than babysitting the Dark Age dullards. Also, read history. Any time the US has been faced with threats, we've been able to fluidly redirect our budget to defense when war was upon us.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:28 am | Reply
    • toadears

      Why do you think we would need martial law? What is going on that it would be necessary to do that? Anybody?

      January 5, 2012 at 3:33 am | Reply
  71. helenecha

    I think those won't change the position of the U.S. a role play in policing the world, but I could hardly believe that it's not the national security waiver.

    January 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Reply
  72. CaliMafia

    OK, now if they'll end the war on drugs, get mj off of Schedule one so some real research can happen and spend the billions wasted on the war on drugs on education and rehab, we'll be getting somewhere

    January 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Reply
  73. Shi Wms n Phx AZ

    Time to drain the swamp. Obama 2012

    January 4, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Reply
    • coach

      You are right. Let's start with Obama.........

      January 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Reply
  74. Joshua Ludd

    Well, now that Bush did his best to destroy our military through fighting two wars and then conducting two occupations at the same time without a draft we simply can't fight two wars at once anymore. He and his misguided occupations have nearly broken our military and has done terrible things to our soldiers.

    January 4, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Reply
    • izy

      Joshua Ludd

      dude I agree with you, Bush's war effort toppled the economy, our internationational creditibility, and also exhausted our military's man power and resources for a war that made no sense.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Reply
    • Spare

      Amazing how quickly history is distorted ... if you check your history book, you will discover that Clinton gutted the military in the 90s thru this same method ... as a result, when we were attacked, we were unable to respond (Why do you think Afghanistan went unprosecuted until AFTER we were finished in Iraq?). The resulting rebuilding of the military under Bush was a leading contributor to the budget issues during his administration.

      So, once again, a Dem president will gut the military ... emboldening our enemies ... and WHEN (not if) we are attacked because someone thought we were too weak to respond ... we will continue the same disastrous cycle.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:56 am | Reply
      • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

        Clinton was smart enough to not get us bogged down into a quagmire–much less two quagmires. If Bush (the Dumb one) had any brain cells, he would've listened to General Shinseki's advice about the need for well over 200,000 troops to occupy and reconstruct Iraq. Better yet, he wouldn't have put us in that mess in the first place while we were overwhelmed in Afghanistan.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:20 am |
    • toadears

      Wrong. Our economy was toppled by the repeal of Glass Steagall by both political parties in Congress in 1999. The entire real estate 'boom' was planned on the idea of credit default swaps written against mortgage backed securities. In other words, write any mortgage to anybody you can get regardless of their credit standing so we can bet on them. They are all guilty and they sold this crap worldwide. Then the bass turds shorted the market (every other stock market but the US stopped the short selling) betting that the market was going to fall and drove it straight into the ground with the short selling. THEN.. they had ugly Henry Paulson, who's life was supposedly threatened by Saudi investors, demand we bail out the banks in spite of one million Emails telling them not to do it. Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagall and all of our filthy dirty Congressmen got rich betting against us. I detest politicians on both sides of the aisle.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:38 am | Reply
  75. Californian

    I read about " the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously" and I think that was during clinton's admin. It called for deploying "small number of troops" to any hot spot anywhere in the world. I remember that clinton shelved it. I think it was like a blueprint,one of many blueprints,that they receive every year. How and who adopted this very one, it is a mystery. End result, few trillions in red and will not mention the innocent lives. From the look of it, they are back to the initial blueprint. 2 or more wars all over but with limited numbers. I guess drones will pick up the brunt of future engagements.

    January 4, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Reply
  76. rick1948

    The two front strategy was based on cold war mentality; it's over and time to give the military folks a deployment break.

    January 4, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Reply
  77. Dennis

    Why do we have nukes then?

    January 4, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Reply
    • Jose

      The US is becoming just like France in the 1930's.

      Defeatist democrats lead the way.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Reply
      • izy

        defeatist democrats? seriously? do you not see what repubs did prior Obama? we cant afford a war due to what repub congress is doing right now and what Bush did to this country. we are broke, and our international creditibility is at an all time low, due to warmongers showing us as an international bully. sorry this is repubs fault!!

        January 4, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
      • Ted Striker

        Or a GOP Chickenhawk that sends other people to fight for him while he sits from the comfort of home playing video games.

        January 5, 2012 at 12:21 am |
      • Power Hungry US Government

        Both political parties of the USA have ruined the country for the sole purpose of keeping their lazy , incompetent, greedy butts in a public job.

        Bring every single combat troop home to US soil and then lay off half the greedy defense industry.

        The American taxpayer is tired of babysitting government employees at the local, state, and federal levels.
        They can drive a cab.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:02 am |
      • toadears

        Power Hungry is right. If you still believe in any politician after all they have been found guilty of (remember Jon Corzine before Christmas) then you are their stooge and deserve to be ripped off.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:40 am |
  78. Dennis

    Couldn't we just contract this out to india also?

    January 4, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Reply
    • Ted Striker

      Oh man if you want to get rolled quickly there you go. "Enmy attackering Pls send me codez, kindly reward points 4 solution. Tnx"

      January 5, 2012 at 12:44 am | Reply
      • Ronald Mcloughlin

        Can't we all just get along? Tee hee.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:44 am |
  79. John Schwendler

    We would have plenty of money at half the defense budget level, if we would stop intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. You know, like not invading countries that never harmed us, such as Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I am probably forgetting a few. I understand full well JFK's speech to go anywhere to defend freedom, but this is no longer a luxury Americans can afford. There are other super powers now, China, Europe, and an unstable Russia and Middle East. Let them sort themselves out. Let us stop sending generations of our youth off to die in some lonesome place. Let the locals do their own fighting and dying.

    January 4, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Reply
    • eq

      Europe is not a super power and letting those dysfunctional places sort out things... It would be interesting to see what happens which more than likely means $6 gas.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Reply
      • Kell

        To be honest, bring on the $6 gas. At that price, the alternatives will finally get invested in and soon enough we wouldn't need their gas anyway and can let the middle east go $#@*% itself. There was a HUGE push on alternative fuels back in the '70's during the oil crisis, and as soon as a few of them showed real promise, all of a sudden the middle east pushed production through the roof to drop oil prices down and make it look pointless to continue researching them. If we had kept at it, we would already be off foreign oil completely now. Our domestic supply combined with the synthetics we were working on would be more than enough to cover our needs.

        January 4, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
      • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

        I use a bicycle to get around. Many FAT Americans should try that with a combination of public transit like most of the world does. Besides, our ridiculous interventions had little effect on the cost of gas, and after all is done, it's not as if we get to keep the oil of Iraq.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:05 am |
    • Ted Striker

      Well said John.

      January 5, 2012 at 12:45 am | Reply
      • Leeberson

        For 30 years who owned 99 percent of electric car patents? Shell oil. They were nearly in all cases shelved because the large oil companies did not want any competition for oil. I say just move in and take the oil as a world requirement. Either that or shut the f&^5k up and finish ALL the hybrids.

        January 5, 2012 at 3:31 am |
  80. Dell Stator

    Explain to me how with the biggest defense expenditures of any nation on the earth, our military can't field enough troops for two third world conflicts, what was it, 200,000 or so tops deployed. Maybe they should forget most of the pie in the sky make defense contractors rich (so they can hire ex military as advisors – no conflict there) and concentrate on the capabilities to deploy and effectively carry out modern actions, which seem to involve a short fight, and long bit of nation building (which apparently we don't know how to do, well, don't know how to do AND make defense contractors richer than ever). If the military thinks nation building isn't it's job, they need to pick up a history book and see what they did after WWII, to two countries whose insane leaders and followers make todays terrorists look like kids in a playground (for those who are history deprived, that was Nazi Germany and Japan (mind you, the war with Japan wasn't political, it was driven by the greed of Japanese businessmen – hmmm, hitting close to home?).

    January 4, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Reply
    • James

      The problem facing "nation building" today is that we view it with this notion of winning the hearts and minds and that we need to fold the very crazies we're fighting against into the mix of forming new governments. We wrote Japans constitution and expelled Nazis from the postwar German governemt but now we invite the taliban to the table in Afghanistan... that would be like overthrowing Hittler, and then asking him to help run the new Germany! We have to be as bold and stead fast in our resolve to change these societies, yes change their society... i said it, or they will never come out of the black hole culturally and politically they're in. We are weak in our resolve as a nation to do this these days, which is why Iraq and Afghanistan will falter politicaly for decades to come as we have no will to root out the very problem in there society.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Reply
      • Ted Striker

        You know James back then most of the population just wanted to be left alone and let Europe sort everything out themselves. It was only when they had no choice that they rose to the occasion. Chickenhawks nowadays compare everything to WW2 as if everything happens that way and are constantly looking for a fight to relive a sense of glory they never had the opportunity to experience. Well that was over 60 years ago and alot has happened since then ! Grandma always said don't go looking for trouble cause trouble comes a lookin !

        January 5, 2012 at 12:47 am |
      • Rick

        You said "We have to be as bold and stead fast in our resolve to change these societies, yes change their society... i said it, or they will never come out of the black hole culturally and politically they're in."

        So since WE have the right to "Change These Societies", doesn't that mean that THEY also have the right to "Change American Society" right back in response? How about killing Americans abroad since they do not the means to come here, like we have the means to go there? Maybe you shouldn't go abroad for vacation.

        I say why don't we leave them to their culture and beliefs as long as they don't use violence against us. And stick to that "Violence against us" as pretty much the ONLY reason that we crank up the War Machine. and start KILLING THEIR PEOPLE. Once We bring out OUR guns, I figure that we have given then the right to take out THEIR guns. Anywhere.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:14 am |
  81. James

    I think r military should get bigger because i see 2 threats in the future that will gave 2 be dealt with and u need 2 know that a country won't try something because they think we are preoccupied elsewhere.

    January 4, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Reply
    • George

      Pay for it how????? while children are left to die in the slums of America while taxation that causes starvation is imposed on them. The poor are forced to pay at least 15 % in pay role taxes even though they can not afford food!

      January 4, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Reply
    • ddblah

      Not if we have a few well-armed friends.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:40 am | Reply
  82. Steve

    "Ability" clearly does not include the "ability" to pay for it.

    January 4, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Reply
  83. W8a2nd

    Will the people of America ever be able to fight off the shackles of the military industrial complex? It is morally repugnant, terroristic in means, and inevitably self destructive to those very ones it claims to protect.

    January 4, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Reply
    • JustSaying

      Yup, it sure did not work out for the Romans, British, Spanish....etc...

      January 4, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Reply
    • Bill

      The one thing that terrifies the M.I.C. is not having an enemy to fight. The military works hand in hand with the media to ensure enough propaganda is always being pumped into the population to validate their existence.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Reply
      • Peikovianii

        The M.I.C. is more concerned about the absence of Democrats when crawling and surrendering comes due. Join in the fun. You guys were down on all fours anyway.

        January 4, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
  84. ahatfl

    Good idea. If the republican party won't admit that this is a good move then obviously it must be in the democratic agenda. Looking out at the political landscape Obama is seeing independents moving to Ron Paul for this very reason. He can shore up his presidential campaign by making these moves now. Too bad the other guys aren't smart enough to see the writing on the wall over this very issue.

    January 4, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Reply
  85. Retired military

    As a retiree who has worked in the maintenance field on Aircraft and the intel field to include the National Security Agency (NSA). This is a huge mistake. The last downsize was done during the Clinton era and military members were paid huge bonuses to exit before retirement. Alot of those folks were able to come back in full time after being out for years and were not required to pay bonuses back. We should always have a force to stand ready to fight 2 major conflicts. People don't understand that China is such a huge threat and a sleeping giant. They are working on and will have their first Aircraft Carrier in the near future. They will build their sea mobility to a point that they can be equal someday with the U.S. They have the money and steal so much technology from us. Also don't be mistaken we will be back in the middle east sooner than you think. The white house is so weak and should not be making decisions about americas military direction. All they are doing is creating a situation to make a war draft possible. Problem is those drafted folks will not be specialized and experienced. Of course downsizing will dump our troops into a job market that cannot even support the demand as it is. Way to go Obama. Typical treatment of military servicemen who have given their lives to protect our freedoms

    January 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Reply
    • ProudAmerican

      We can no longer afford this size military. We are practically bankrupt.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Reply
      • john

        Half the people in the U.S. don't pay any taxes. Freedom never was free. It is something we take for granted. You fight 'em over there, not on your shores. Besides we are becoming more efficient with intelligent robotic, weaponized vehicles. You fight when and where it's necessary. That's the way it will always be. It's quite simple: Kill the bastards before they kill you. USAF 1964-1968.

        January 4, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
      • Marine5484

        Yeah but, the military is not the reason why we are broke. Iraq is over and that saves us billions right there and I have no problem with that money going to other civil projects but, the military needs to maintain operational readiness and be ready to defend our national interest.

        January 4, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
      • MikeBike

        John, stop repeating the "half of Americans don't pay taxes" lie! It's bad enough you believed it the first time, but it's been debunked repeatedly since the moron from Texas, Perry, said it. First of all, he was only talking about Fed taxes, and secondly, he was still wrong – the actual number is closer to 1/3rd. And most of those are retirees whose income is mostly from Social Security (which isn't taxed, for obvious reasons) and the extremely poor who make too little to be taxed. And, again, that's only Fed taxes – that's not taking into account what they still have to pay at the state and local level. It's time for you guys to get honest and stop repeating that lie. How can you seriously believe that half the adults you know pay ZERO taxes, federal, state or otherwise???

        January 4, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
      • la


        I see a lot of free people around the world and they don’t all live in countries spending billions on defense. How come they don’t have to pay what we do for freedom?

        January 5, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • pat carr

      And what part of 'broke" do you not understand? How much more of our money are we supposed to toss to the military while cuts happen elsewhere. America does not have the money or resources to have a new war every year

      January 4, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Reply
    • hez316

      II continue to wonder why China would ever want to harm the US. Can you imagine if Walmart suddenly quit importing from China? Why bite the hand that feeds you. I will agree with you;however, they might be tempted to o "bite the hand" in a show down over Taiwan.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Reply
    • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

      Retired Military, it is the US that is the sleeping giant. After the attack on Pearl Harbor we did a complete 180 in policy. You can't continue to be scared all your life and bankrupt the nation by having a military that costs more than the next 15 largest militaries in the world combined, on the POSSIBILITY of China invading. Besides, China makes huge profits from us as we do from them. To be at war with them would trigger an economic collapse on both nations. I'm more worried about high unemployment and the $14,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion, a lot of zeros) debt in our own nation. I have to worry about the crime & shootings in my poor dilapidated neighborhood, and I don't want to have to stab another mugger in self defense, so don't lecture me about potential and unlikely threats.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:52 am | Reply
    • El Duderino (if you're not into the whole brevity thing)

      Retired Military, you're right about the Clinton administration, and we all know how horrible things were under the Clinton administration (typed as I roll my eyes in sarcasm).

      January 5, 2012 at 3:10 am | Reply
    • Ronald Mcloughlin

      Yeah, and the Russians are coming!

      January 5, 2012 at 3:47 am | Reply
  86. ESlice

    The two front strategy was originally devolped to fight a massive land war with the Soviet Union and North Korea. We have to give credit to it as North Korea despite the many opportunities with the last 20 years, has chosen not to act up. I'm sure they were very aware of the US's 2x front ability!

    January 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Reply
    • ProudAmerican

      Wars do not create bread they only create use-once bombs and other dangerous things.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Reply
    • john/kc

      South Korea is a very strong country and can take care of their own defense. With all the Hundai and Samsung stuff coming over here, if those companies paid more taxes for their own defense, maybe they wouldn't have such a price advantage with their products, but us dummies pony up thousands of troops and material at our expense to defend them. Why?

      January 5, 2012 at 12:24 am | Reply
  87. O.T.

    This is the inevitable consequence of electing a community organizer to the White House. Hate to say we told you so.

    January 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm | Reply
    • neal

      did...obama go through a surplus? did obama add $10 trillion to the deficit?...did obama start TWO meaningless wars?...

      January 4, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Reply
  88. Alex

    Ending the two war strategy is a good idea, because no country has ever fought a successful two front war. It just makes wars hard to win. I say when we go to war we hit hard, nationbuild, pull out with honor, then repeat the same with another coutnry if NECCESSARY.

    January 4, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Reply
    • cellblock131

      what do you call WWII? dumb dumb.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • hawkeye

      alex–WWII–did we not help to defeat the Nazis and then beat the Japanese? That would be a success in anyone's book.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Reply
    • wobbles

      None? So we did't beat the Germans and the Japanese in WW2? News to me. Study your history a little better and you'll understand the pasting we took in the first few years of that war is the reason that 2 war requirement came about. We learned the hard way, and almost lost the war in the pacific in the early years because of it. I guess what Santayana said about those who forget history being condemned to repeat it is a lesson lost on folks like you and the Obama administration. W'll pay in blood for these cuts one day, without a doubt.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Reply
      • Hiernonymous

        Well, actually, the countries really pressed to fight 2-front wars in WWII were the Germans and Japanese. We had the luxury of choosing where and when to fight, and Japan's capabilities were so limited that we could choose to fight an economy-of-force mission against them until Germany was defeated. We also had the luxury of having the Soviets do the lion's share of the fighting against the Germans, and the Sovs were NOT fighting a 2-front war. But as long as you're bringing up WWII as an example, then it suggests we don't need to maintain a huge standing regular military in order to deal with the eventuality of a major war involving multiple major world powers.

        January 4, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • Alex

      I was reffering to counter-insurgency wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Reply
      • Pete

        Irrelevant point.

        January 4, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • Retired military

      Ever heard of WW2

      January 4, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Reply
    • Pete

      So did you flunk history, or are you assuming that World War II ever happened? I am going with the former.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Reply
    • MidWest Values

      @Alex: "Ending the two war strategy is a good idea ....". Really? And you think that if the U.S. plays nicey-nicey with other countries that want to kill us that they'll just wait in line and take us on one at a time? How old are you? Seven? Probably younger because I know some 7 yr. olds that realize WWII had the U.S. fighting 2 wars at the same time.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Reply
      • Brad

        If you are going to bring in WW II as an example. I would believe you would remember how this war was fought. It wasn't kind it was sweet and it was nasty. We didn't play around with political correctness. My Grandfather who fought in World war 2 said 3,000 soldiers would die in just one day of battle. We bombed civilians and we bombed factories. The battle lines were clearly drawn in WW 2. Afghanistan and Iraq were both guerilla wars and the US was foolish to fight these wars with a standing army. You're wrong about one other thing. It was Germany that was fighting two fronts, two wars Russia on one side and Europe on the other. Maybe the Italians helped a little, yet by in large it was the Germans, the Axis, by themselves who fought two wars and they lost. If you are going to fight a war, fight it like the Romans did in ancient times. I guarantee no one would screw with us if we did that, yet we are stuck in political correctness and we will never win a war that way. Look at Korea/ Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all police wars. Were going to get screwed with again because we don't fight like the Romans anymore.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:50 am |
    • GK

      The US may have fought a 2 front war in WWII, but it was with the British, Canadians and many, many other nations. The US didn't win WW2 on it's own. Even at D-Day only 2 of the 5 beaches were American. Not to mention the Russians were occupying a massive portion of the German military in the east (hello Stalingrad). Had it been the US on its own against Japan and Germany they would not have won that war.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:15 am | Reply
    • Rick

      WWII was a two front survival response to Germany sweeping across Europe and elsewhere, and Japan sweeping across the Pacific and elsewhere. It is quite different from Afghanistan and Iraq who were pretty much staying within their own borders.

      Note the lesson of the former Soviet Union. No country is so big it can't go broke, especially if it becomes necessary to spend Borrowed Money Abroad (i.e China buying T-Bills ) to finance US wars.

      January 5, 2012 at 1:40 am | Reply
      • Brad

        I agree with what you are saying Rick.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:34 am |
    • Ronald Mcloughlin

      When Hitler invaded Russia (oops, the Soviet Union) he opened a Second Front with disastrous results.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:49 am | Reply
  89. PETA

    Need our forces to flatten Iran...

    January 4, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Reply
    • mannycl

      Good answer

      January 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply
    • Dave

      No troops required, just missiles.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Reply
    • ProudAmerican

      The problem is not Iran, it is Israel and the Israel lobby.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Reply
    • jason

      what are you talking about, have you even researched Iran? They have over 80 different sites that house their nuclear program spread ALL over their country. We couldn't stop them if we wanted to. If there is one single bomb dropped on Iran you would literally see thousands of rockets simultaneously launch in a salvo destroying Europe, Isreal, and our 5th fleet in Bahrain. Robert Gates even admitted this. You guys are the crazy people for wanting that to happen.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Reply
    • Ted Striker

      PETA if you're so excited to go kill people (most of the Iranian PEOPLE are actually very sympathetic to the West and would ally with us if their government was overthrown), why don't you join up and get your hands dirty?

      January 5, 2012 at 12:50 am | Reply
  90. mark

    it seems ron paul's message is getting through!!! thank god for that man.

    January 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Reply
    • Mark C

      Oh yeah, I think the DoD has pretty much turned over strategic planning to that dork. Hilarious.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Reply
  91. Daniel

    Instead of downsize why not redeploy locally? Take the engineering group and a bunch of troops who can rotate to local duty. They can rebuild our roads, bridges, and railways. those who were infantry can be retrained in welding, earth moving, and grading, and also pickup engineering skill sets.
    States that would normally pay contractors or private companies to do the work would now pay the armed forces. This way they don't loose personal and can rotate them in and out as needed.
    If private firms want to represent the work they will be required to deploy 65% or more current military personal within their staff on the project. You can extend this to work on water, gas and sewer systems.
    We need to work smarter not harder. Empower our local infrastructure from subsidized help plus the military personal can gain much needed job skills as well.
    Plus they need to revamp certification processes for materials used in vehicle construction. They need to fast track certifications and field test things. Eliminate explosive and shock testing on things that don't need to be tested. figure out why you pay so much for things and get your contracts in order.

    January 4, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Reply
    • Rick Scott

      What is next, that military also police our streets as police is corrupt and military has experience from A'stan and Iraq? The soldiers should rotate into the private sector and compete for jobs unless you want another Pakistan where military runs parallel to the govt. There is a reason the sane heads in the congress kept military out of the affairs of the country.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Reply
      • joep199

        Man, no one said anything about using the military for police work, which is why I complimented Daniel on his post. You sound just about as sensible as the idiot you named yourself after (unless you really are the governor of Florida)

        January 4, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Joe

      Your proposal is effectively similar to reducing the size of the standing force while increasing the size of the reserves, which is probably what will happen. And this way the reservist's off-duty jobs and pay are determined by private industry which is probably better.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • joep199

      Now there's a suggestion that I can support without reservations. Get needed infrastructure repair and upgrades done, take care of our veterans, and improve the skills of our workforce. What's not to like?

      January 4, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Reply
      • taybay

        What's not to like? This country has tens of thousands trained, experienced, qualified, equipment operators, laborers, engineers, etc, already willing and able to work-but employers can't afford to hire them. Are you suggesting we lay off current civilian employees to have the military learn to do their jobs and replace them?

        January 5, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • wobbles

      Or we could deploy troops back from overseas to guard our own southern border perhaps? God knows we've been protecting the rest of the world since the end of WW2, maybe it's time we let them defend our country too......

      January 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Reply
    • Haji

      Interesting proposal but fatally flawed. The reason that our military is the best in the world is because we train for war in time of peace, ruthlessly. Having the Infantry dig ditches may improve roads etc but will degrade the troops fighing capability. If you want the infrastructure improved, institute national conscription for a Civil Conservation Corp (CCC) as FDR did in the Great Depression. Panetta is correct, a smaller, more deployable and more lethal force is the best way to go.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Reply
      • bubba gump

        Best my rear end... How long did the war in Iraq take? How many times did people in caves surprise us and beat the crap out of us? Honestly I hope some country wipes us off the planet.

        January 5, 2012 at 1:33 am |
  92. Lunchbox

    Sure lets cut personnel in the two services that have actually been on the pointy end of things the last ten years, but not cut major weapon systems boondoggles....that makes a load of sense.

    January 4, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Reply
    • TallinOK


      January 4, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Reply
  93. RCDC

    We need to leave the World policing to UN and NATO. We are not invisible all the time.

    January 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Reply
    • Rick Scott

      NATO is basically the US, as was proven when NATO couldn't function well without the US in libya.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Reply
      • RNS

        Let's review the facts Rick, dictator removed, zero NATO casualties, minimal collateral damage, local public not turned into NATO hating radicals. Not sure what your definition of effective is but it must be wildly different from mine. Or is the success automatically discounted because it was commanded by a general from CANADA.

        January 4, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
      • JustSaying

        Don't trust Canada. They are just itching to invade us.

        January 4, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
      • wootdude

        but RNS, before "NATO" assisted the rebels, we knew who our enemy was and we pretty well had him contained. Now we have no idea who will lead Libya and I'm pretty sure whoever it is, it won't take long before they start not liking us.

        January 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
  94. brown

    Time to re-evaluate or horrendous foreign policy! Maybe we wouldn't need to spend trillions on defense!

    January 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Reply
    • Rick Scott

      Exactly. The thing that I don't get is why should we babysit Europe when they have the money to do it themselves? With us cutting back, the euros would get the will to pony up for defence budgets if they are afraid of the russian bear. It is time the slackers in europe man up for once.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Reply
      • wobbles

        And all those countries are economic competitors who have used the savings we give them on their defense budget to stick it too us in economic warfare. Let them guard their own house. The russian bear is dead.

        January 4, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
      • JustSaying

        Why do we give Israel 3 billion tax dollars per year? Do we give England or France that much each year?

        January 4, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
      • Anderson

        Everything we defend and pump money into is because it is tied to American Interests and props up the American way of life. Many isolationist liberal who preach "mind our own business" is too simple to realize that there is a lot of things outside the US that is our business .. World economy is like a chain and we are at the top .. when that chain falls into the water we are going right in with it.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:53 am |
    • Huh?

      Typical ignorant comment from American liberal...if you only knew what really happens in the world of international relations. Let's just say you would not sleep at night. But rest comfortably knowing that there are better people than you ready to sacrifice, and respond to the horrible things going outside of your cushy lives. You make me sick.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:34 am | Reply
      • Tom

        Here we go again. What is it with the minority 1% that think they can walk all over eveyone else. So, like all hardcore conservatives feel, I guess police officers, nurses, costodians, teachers, cashiers, firefighters, clerks, accountants, factory workers, and the other 99% who work hard to provide for their family and communities without using a gun are not true Americans. Lets see what will make us stronger as a country? More fear and big guns or more education and innovation. Well I can tell you we are currently in one of the worst recessions in history and while we have the largest military budget of almost all countries combined our schools and education system is crumbling. You do the math smarty pants and go back to living in a bunker.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:26 am |
  95. Michael Reed

    Time to downsize and re-evaluate the force.

    January 4, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Reply
    • Richard

      yeah ok Michael....lets go ahead and downsize and lets put you on the front and fight like these people do, I'm sure you will have a different view on things. You should never back door our troops that give you the freedom to say what ever you want.

      January 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm | Reply
      • pat carr

        and he has the right to say it. It's called freedom of speech. Chickenhawks need to learn the meaning of that

        January 4, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
      • JustSaying

        I did not know that Canada and Mexico had invaded us. Support the troops by bringing them back and giving them jobs and brand new homes. We need nation building right here in the USA.

        January 4, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
      • john/kc

        What freedom are the US citizens buying by putting troops in Korea, Japan, and Europe? We have over 900 foreign military bases in over 135 foreign countries. Are any of those countries paying all the expenses involved including the life long benefits of our troops guarding those countries? I didn't think so! No wonder we are broke. The savings other countries have for us providing their defense enables them to have lower taxes so businesses locate there. We are fools!

        January 5, 2012 at 12:16 am |
      • JohnnyDH

        Of course he has a write to say it, just I have the right to say I think he is a dirt bag for supporting cuts to the military in favor of giving more free money lazy people who sit home all day.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:55 am |
      • Anderson

        @justsaying: Those troops do have a job. protecting American interests. The American way of life depends on our involvement in international issues. South Korea is a huge economical interest to the US. If North Korea takes south Korea .. you can kiss the good money life goodby

        January 5, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • Huh?

      Easy to say when you haven't been there, right michael?

      January 5, 2012 at 8:35 am | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply to kardinal stick


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.