USS Barack Hussein Obama

[rightwinger]

Since the period after World War II, the United States has actively pursued a strategy of 'forward defense.' What this means is simply that the United States fights on foreign shores or in foreign waters instead of waiting for the potential of fighting on the shores or close to North America.

Now the question that must be answered BEFORE you can discuss military spending is whether or not that strategy is still valid. So the question is: Do you support the forward defense strategy? Why or why not?

If you look at the forces of the United States you will find that they are built with that strategy in mind. Ten carrier task forces, long-range bombers, Marine expeditionary forces, etc. But you have to answer the above question first.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I support the strategy with a diminished US role

Let Europe defend its own sphere of influence with the US providing intel and air support
Let Japan and Korea do the same

We have a military larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those are our allies. Time to back off

 

[Ame®icano]

Defense spending is a sacred cow. Neither party will touch it

$487 billion cuts over ten years under Panetta and $500 billion sequester cuts over ten years under Hagel.

 

[bendog]

Since the period after World War II, the United States has actively pursued a strategy of 'forward defense.' What this means is simply that the United States fights on foreign shores or in foreign waters instead of waiting for the potential of fighting on the shores or close to North America.

Now the question that must be answered BEFORE you can discuss military spending is whether or not that strategy is still valid. So the question is: Do you support the forward defense strategy? Why or why not?

If you look at the forces of the United States you will find that they are built with that strategy in mind. Ten carrier task forces, long-range bombers, Marine expeditionary forces, etc. But you have to answer the above question first.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

First Gore proposed cutting conventional forces designed to confront "traditional armies," such as the Soviets coming through the Fulda gap. Gore proposed more "special force" types. W and Rumsfeld initially, pre 9-11, proposed cutting personnel, including the air groups that now defend US airspace.

I'm not sure what Obama's strategy is, though I approve of fewer deployments and the VA is making progress on disability claim backlogs.

So, while I think it's necessary to alter the make up of forces, looking towards forces better suited to wars on terrorists, I'm not for isolationism.

 

[bendog]

Since the period after World War II, the United States has actively pursued a strategy of 'forward defense.' What this means is simply that the United States fights on foreign shores or in foreign waters instead of waiting for the potential of fighting on the shores or close to North America.

Now the question that must be answered BEFORE you can discuss military spending is whether or not that strategy is still valid. So the question is: Do you support the forward defense strategy? Why or why not?

If you look at the forces of the United States you will find that they are built with that strategy in mind. Ten carrier task forces, long-range bombers, Marine expeditionary forces, etc. But you have to answer the above question first.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I support the strategy with a diminished US role

Let Europe defend its own sphere of influence with the US providing intel and air support
Let Japan and Korea do the same

We have a military larger than the next ten forces combined and eight of those are our allies. Time to back off

Our military's role is to protect avenues of free trade, and not allow any nation to impede other nations' trade. We get into internal political tuffs when either party (BushI for example) suggests coalitions rather than unilateral force.

 

[Wyld Kard]