Obama unveils new defense strategy
President Obama and Pentagon leaders on Thursday unveiled a new defense strategy for a smaller, more flexible military force, which the president says will prepare the nation for the threats of the future while restoring balance between the defense budget and domestic spending.
"Yes, the tide of war is receding," Mr. Obama said Thursday in a rare appearance from the Pentagon, noting the end of the Iraq war and troop drawdowns in Afghanistan. "But the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need after the long wars of the last decade are over. And today, we're fortunate to be moving forward, from a position of strength."
Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the nation's fiscal challenges -- and particularly the $350 billion in cuts mandated by Congress in last summer's Budget Control Act -- required the Pentagon to shape a leaner military force. However, they said that the ever-changing threats to the U.S. also required such changes to be made.
"The size and structure of our military and defense budget have to be driven by a strategy--not the other way around," Mr. Obama said. "Moreover, we have to remember the lessons of history. We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past -- after World War II, after Vietnam -- when our military was left ill-prepared for the future."
While the U.S. winds down large-scale military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Panetta said evolving threats include cybersecurity threats, violent extremism, the proliferation of lethal weapons, destability in Iran and North Korea and the rise of powers across Asia.
Mr. Obama said the U.S. will "get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future" -- including intelligence, surveillance and counterterrorism.
"So, yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know -- the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with Armed Forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats," Mr. Obama said.
Panetta: Smaller military means more risk
Facing huge potential cuts, defense industry goes on offense
Panetta said that the Pentagon will reveal specifics about how much leaner the military will be once it releases its proposed budget later in the year.
"There's no question that we have to make some trade offs, and that we will be taking, as a result of that, some level of additional but acceptable risk in the budget plan we release next month," Panetta said. He added, however, "with this joint force I am confident we can effectively defend the United States of America."
Panetta outlined the changes the military will see, which he said represent a "historic shift to the future."
Firstly, the U.S. joint force will be smaller and leaner.
"Its great strength will be that it will be more agile, more flexible," Panetta said, adding that it will be ready to deploy quickly, more innovative and technically advanced.
Next, U.S. forces will focus more on the Asia Pacific and broader Middle East regions, which are growing in significance to the U.S., both in terms of the economy and national security. Additionally, the U.S. will continue strengthening key alliances, particularly with NATO. Also, Panetta said, the U.S. will develop its capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.
"Confronting the threats of the 21st century demands greater flexibility to... shift forces," Panetta said, adding that "how we defeat the enemy may very well vary across conflicts."
As the military readies to downsize, Mr. Obama said it's the right time to recalibrate military spending compared to domestic spending.
"After a decade of war, and as we rebuild the sources of our strength--at home and abroad--it's time to restore that balance," he said.
The president noted that even though the defense budget will grow more slowly than it has in the recent past, it will still grow. Furthermore, the U.S. defense budget is larger than the military budgets for roughly the next 10 countries combined, he said.
That said, Panetta reiterated his warning that the additional $600 billion in cuts threatening the Pentagon -- as a result of the congressional supercommittee's failure to find other budget savings -- could critically hurt the military.
"It would result in a demoralized and hollowed out force," he said. "That is not something we intend to do."
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 170 Comments
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Obama: Racism is no excuse for not excelling Play Video
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 107 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 363 Comments
- Obama to discuss legality of drone program
by taxchurches January 5, 2012 6:22 PM EST
Since Clinton at least, the Republican strategy has been: Always, without exception, disagree with any Democrat president, regardless of what he says. If Obama said gun ownership was a patriotic duty, abortion was punishable by death and Christianity was mandatory, you jackoffs wouldn't be happy.
I have an idea. From now on, let's just have ideas presented to us, with no idea which party or politician is sponsoring the idea. Imagine the smell of frying brains as "Conservatives" no longer know whether they're supposed to love the proposal or hate it, because they don't know who it came from.
------------------
Thats the best idea I've heard in a long time! Force people to think for themselves!
Reduce the size of the military and turn them all into EPA investigators!!!!!!!
*---------------
Great Idea Progress! : )
Military advisers wanted President Obama to leave 30,000 troop in Iraq, and draw down more gradually. President Obama is running for a second term, so he ignored them and did the political thing. In President Obama's mind, I guess killing Bin Laden ended the need for the capability to wage 2 wars at once. Never mind that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons, and the leadership of Iran has threatened to totally destroy Israel. Never mind that the new dictator of North Korea says he will carry on the same violent and threatening policies of his father. Never mind that we foolishly pay more than $300 billion to China in interest on loans each year, and that China is using most of that money to massively build up a military.
President Obama has a political campaign to run. I certainly hope we do not have the need to be able to wage two wars at once. No one wants war, but we leave in a very volatile world and troubling times.
Court: Obama must be 'constitutionally' eligible
Judge denies president's motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy
Published: 2 days ago
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/
Obama knows he's on his way out...why not leave the USA in a mass of destruction before he leaves? He needs to be gone NOW. Don't give him any time to make things worse. Iran is NOT a threat as long as the USA stops promoting war. Why can't Iran have nukes if everyone around them including the USA, China, Russia and Isreal have them. I know.. they are too valuable to left alone. The illegal wars have to stop. As far as the Military.. as you read, the USA is sending thousands of troops to Isreal and need I say more?
Here...watch this too. It'll open your eyes. Then ask yourselves who the terrorists really are?
USA: Beyond Treason and the use of Depleted Uranium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcjJDNVU7OU&feature=related
Court: Obama must be 'constitutionally' eligible
Judge denies president's motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy
Published: 2 days ago
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/
Obama knows he's on his way out...why not leave the USA in a mass of destruction before he leaves? He needs to be gone NOW. Don't give him any time to make things worse. Iran is NOT a threat as long as the USA stops promoting war. Why can't Iran have nukes if everyone around them including the USA, China, Russia and Isreal have them. I know.. they are too valuable to left alone. The illegal wars have to stop. As far as the Military.. as you read, the USA is sending thousands of troops to Isreal and need I say more?
Here...watch this too. It'll open your eyes. Then ask yourselves who the terrorists really are?
USA: Beyond Treason and the use of Depleted Uranium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcjJDNVU7OU&feature=related
RTC, my friend - we've spoiled attacks HERE before and after. The 9/11 fiasco was inexcusable - Bush had actionable intelligence, yet went on a month's vacation and didn't even bother warning the airlines.
--
I'm not sure about the actionable part Slappy. Pre 911 it would have been pretty hard to do a DHS type operation. Public reaction would have been harsh. I do blame him for the aftermath. At least everything after the Taliban fell.
Aww meboard, you never really think like the slowone.
9/11 goes back to Bill Clinton refusing Bin Laden on a silver platter 3 times. What about the other attempt at the Trade Center in 1993 and Clinton did nothing. It's Bush's Homeland Security and strong military that kept you safe you ungrateful Obama lover.
You'll be wishing Bush was back to protect you after Obama gets done.
---
Well sport...having been an officer in OUR armed forces during that entire time I can tell you that we lost more service mebers from 2001-2009 than we did from 1992 to 2000... So in terms of keeping me and my fellow service members "safe"...we did much better off under Clinton.
Progress,
Seems more like she taught you Ebonics.
----
If she had, maybe WE could understand YOU!!!!!!