NEW YORK TIMES: …can the need to cut spending be used to create a smaller but smarter military by challenging expensive orthodoxies that still hold sway two decades after the cold war ended and a decade after Sept. 11? Or is this simply an exercise in managing a shrinking budget?
First, the Pentagon did not just touch the third rail of budget politics — compensation for military personnel and retirees — it leapt onto the tracks. Mr. Hagel said that tens of billions of dollars in savings could be found by limiting military and civilian pay raises, forcing retirees with second careers to use private health insurance, reducing housing allowances and lowering overseas cost-of-living adjustments. Without these changes, personnel costs could grow to 80 percent of the budget in a decade, leaving little money to train for and fight wars…
Are aircraft carrier strike groups still the most effective, and cost-effective, way of projecting power? Are humans still required in the cockpit of warplanes? While the Navy may need its own small army, called the Marines, does the Navy’s small army really need its own air force? Does the current triad of nuclear bombers and missiles in silos and aboard submarines still make sense, and at what numbers?… (more)
