Our entire defensive establishment needs an overhaul. It just doesn't make simple common sense, for decades we faced a massive Soviet military threat from the Eastern Bloc, comprised of armies of millions of men and tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Why are we still spending the same amount (or more) to defend against rag-tag bands of fanatics? We could slash the budget in half and still be the strongest nation on earth.

So what's the correct number in europe, 10-20% of the current force?

To an extent true. But the armed forces do serve a function. Sort of like insurance on an Atuo. You complain about the price, till you have to file a claim. I just think some of the pork barrel politics need to be reigned in. I would say to let the military decide its bases etc. Although they did want to kill off the A-10. Some bases have been closed. There were a few in Indianapolis, that closed. Indiana has survived or even thrived. I think one of the few places that wants its military base closed in San Deigo. The real estate value is quite high. That is one the Navy wants to keep open, though.
Tom

But they've finally figured out how to win the cold war.

I agree that cutting their budget by 50% would be a good start.

Sure, they still serve a function; but they need to get much, much smaller than they are now. I don't know that they are qualified to make those strategic decisions without having their mission significantly redesigned by the civilian leadership.

Actually, I was mostly referring to civilian defense contracts, that's where the real money is; and that's where the cuts will be politically difficult.

I don't know -- I'm not a defense analyst. However, I don't think 10-20% of the current force is nearly enough to support the eff and flow of Afghanistan and Iraq. Take a look at Ramstein AFB; it's the main route in and out of the ME. People (and cargo) pass through there each and every day. Supporting that kind of mission is a massive endeavor.

Europe has been scaled back immensely since the 80's. A bit more probably won't hurt, but it's important to understand the function of bases in Germany and England. They're not just cold war relics; they serve an important function to this day.

This is not to say that the defense budget can't be cut -- it's just an illustration of how much more complex the issue is than most people realize.

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

There's no doubt that there is MAJOR fraud, waste, and abuse in the DoD (as in any big gov't agency), but a 50% cut would probably preclude the continuation of action in the ME. I understand that's probably the goal of many (getting out of the ME, I mean), but don't gut that budget and expect the military to continue to do the job it's been asked to do over there.

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

I understand that it's complex, but I hope they are not just talking about rearranging the deck chairs. I think they need to completely rethink the mission of the military for the next 50 years and act accordingly. I'm not sure I want the US military to have that much capability to move massive amounts troops to the ME; if the military has less capability, future administrations might be less likely to use it for "ill-advised" missions. Maybe the only way to control this beast is to de-fund it?

It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

I'm not sure I agree entirely. I'd certainly like to see more restraint from future leadership, but at the same time, I want them to have the tools necessary to get the job done as quickly as possible when necessary, too. Taking those tools away, in my opinion, would be a grave mistake.

The best way to control the "beast" is probably to avoid electing cowboys as CinC. Don't hamstring our defense in the meantime.

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

I think de-funding the military might be the only way to control civilian leadership. Would GWB had entered into the current mess if he hadn't been given the tools by the previous administrations?

I do think the US needs to get out of it's current conflicts before the end of this term.

Doesn't that kind of limit our options when/if we DO actually need to respond, then???

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

I simply don't trust them, and I would be inclined to take away their capability to do future damage. I do think the US need to maintain "defensive" capability, but I have a pretty narrow definition of "defense."

I think your definition of "defense" would be far too limiting. I understand where you're coming from, but I am comfortable knowing that most threats can now be contained before they reach our soil. I wouldn't want to risk losing that advantage.

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

A strong defense is good for the economy.

Of all the Government-sponsored programs, only DoD projects produce jobs in large quantities. Only DoD buys Big Hardware, ships, aircraft, tanks, computers, etc. Big Hardware requires Big Manufacturing Facilities and the full spectrum jobs that go with them, everything from scientists to floor sweepers. The only substitute is a large National endeavor such as a space program. During the push for the moon landing the entire nation was busy working.

Defense-based spending stimulates technology. We went from canvas and bamboo bi-wing airplanes to jets and liquid-fueled rockets within 6 or 7 years during WW2. We went from fire-on-the-uproll to fire control computers in that time. We went from not flying at all to walking on the moon in less than 60 years. Good Grief! Will we ever see progress like that again?

Military spending also assures those jobs (for the most part) remain right here in the U.S.A. There are exceptions opf course. A lot of our ships have an Italian antiaircraft gun for example.

Aside from large Government-sponsored military hardware programs such as those other large scale endeavors such as infrastructure, energy or food-related projects simply don't employ the numbers or spectrum of jobs.

The rest of the Government departments generally just shuffle paper and pass money from one pocket to another, usually our pocket to thiers. They buy very little hardware.

I have rigged my collision mat.