Will military cuts endanger the U.S.?

• Author: Lubin, Andrew
• Position: Foreign Policy

MORE, NOT FEWER, amphibious assault ships am needed to implement U.S. foreign policy. "The Navy and Marine Corps must be willing to reexamine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, new threats, and budget realities," according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gales.

In November 2010, the Chinese Marine Corps held a major naval exercise in the South China Sea, massing 1,800 marines and more than 100 ships, submarines, and aircraft for a live-fire display. With the exercise viewed by observers from 40 countries, a Chinese military analyst was quoted as saying that the maneuvers were staged, in part, because unnamed nations have intruded in the South China Sea in recent years, "It's time to oppose these interventions with power politics."

The Chinese already have the world's largest fleet of non-nuclear submarines, eagerly am building bigger blue water ships, and, in January, released photos of their first stealth jet fighter. There is no doubt that China is seeking military and maritime supremacy in Asia With China and others flexing their new economic and military muscles, the U.S. must revamp its strategic thinking in order to project power in defense of its national interests. "We need to be in a lot of places," notes Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff. "We need quantity more than we need high-end exquisite capacity and, if we can't figure out how to get to that, we're living in denial of the world we' re in."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

These are sobering times for the U.S. military. With the 14.2 trillion dollar national debt garnering concerted attention, the Pentagon's 2011 budget of $725,000,000,1300 is the easiest cutting target in Washington, making financial constraints an active factor in implementing foreign policy. With the fiscal crisis worsening, Gates has asked each branch of the military to reexamine its mission and its capabilities in light of 21st-century economics and potential threats. Soon after shocking the defense establishment by cutting the F-22 program, he challenged the Navy on the cost and usefulness of every one of its major platforms. "We have to ask if the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3-6,000,000,000 destroyers, $7,000,000,000 submarines, and $11,000,000,000 carriers.... You don't need a $1,000,000,000 guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s."

The Marine Corps received the next salvo: "We have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again.... On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?

Gates' questions are of great interest, as the Navy continues to direct its shipbuilding money into more nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines and expensive and unproven littoral combat ships. The requirement remains, however, the best way to meet probable defense requirements in times of a rapidly changing world and severe budget stress.

There are some who would say the U.S...