Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Obama unveils strategy for slimmed-down military

    WASHINGTON (AP) โ€” President Barack Obama put his personal stamp Thursday on a rejiggered Pentagon strategy for absorbing hundreds of billions of dollars in defense budget cuts, marking a turning point in U.S. security policy after a decade of war.

    In a rare appearance in the Pentagon press briefing room, the president announced that the military will be reshaped over time with an emphasis on countering terrorism, maintaining a nuclear deterrent, protecting the U.S. homeland, and "deterring and defeating aggression by any potential adversary."

    Those are not new military missions, and Obama announced no new capabilities or defense initiatives. He described a U.S. force that will retain much of its recent focus, with the exception of fighting a large-scale, prolonged conflict like the newly ended Iraq mission or the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

    "As we end today's wars and reshape our armed forces, we will ensure that our military is agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies," he wrote in a preamble to the new strategy, which is titled, "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense."

    The strategy hints at a reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and says Asia will be a bigger priority. It also emphasizes improving U.S. capabilities in the areas of cyberwarfare and missile defense.

    Obama's decision to announce the strategy himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.

    In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

    Obama also wants the new strategy to represent a pivot point in his stewardship of defense policy, which has been burdened throughout his presidency by the wars he inherited and their drag on resources.

    The new strategy moves the U.S. further from its longstanding goal of being able to successfully fight two major regional wars โ€” like the 1991 Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait or a prospective ground war in Korea โ€” at the same time.

    The strategy document announced by Obama contained no specifics on the size of expected troop reductions; the Army and Marine Corps already are set to shrink beginning in 2015. The document said the Pentagon will have to find savings in pay and health care benefits for members of the military, but it offered no specifics.

     

    It made clear that while some current missions of the military will be curtailed, none will be scrapped entirely.

    "Wholesale divestment of the capability to conduct any mission would be unwise, based on historical and projected uses of U.S. military forces and our inability to predict the future," the document said.

    The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

    Appearing with Obama to answer reporters' questions about the strategy document were Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey. Panetta in recent months had previewed the main themes of the strategy by emphasizing a need to continue pressuring al-Qaida and paying more attention to Asian security challenges, including China and North Korea.

    Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

    The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

    A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

    The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the U.S. got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its position in other regions.

    China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.

    ___

    Robert Burns can be reached on Twitter at http://twitter.com/robertburnsAP

     
    • Josh  •  4 mths ago
      Are we going to cut foreign aid to Pakistan and other countries as well?
    • GREGG  •  Tucson, Arizona  •  4 mths ago
      Cut money to countries that hate us would be a good start.
      • TJH 4 mths ago
        The millions of dollars in Foriegn aid are drops in a five gallon bucket compared to 680 billion per year in defense spending
      • Eman 4 mths ago
        Maybe cutting their money will make them realize how much they don't hate us.
      • Tvan 4 mths ago
        Your thumbs down are clearly coming from the countries you speak about.
    • Whozzit2  •  4 mths ago
      As a former Navy pilot back in the 60's, I remember having to fly extra hours at the end of the fiscal year just to burn fuel so that next year's budget allowcation would not be reduced. With thinking like that, no wonder our military expenses kept mounting.

      My point is that, yes there are ways to reduce military costs. It does not require reduction in pay and benefits of service men and women, but common sense and ethical planning. A reduction in force could begin with allowing service separation on a voluntary basis, with priority to those who have served multiple combat tours.

      Many such ideas could be presented if the Pentagon would be willing to be considerate to those who have served, especially those who have given of the best years of their lives.
      • Jay 4 mths ago
        Boy are you right on the mark!!!!
      • Anonymous 4 mths ago
        who, BUT don't think about the extra hours you got in the air and the extra experience you got flying. that could count in your favor! don't always look at the negative in a situation when there may also be a positive!
      • Anonymous 4 mths ago
        who, by the authority vested in me, i put you in charge of collecting signatures on a petition to present to the Congress to create change on the service separation situation. try to add that voluntary discharge for troops who served multiple tours of combat to your petition to get a change u desire/recommend. may the force be with you/good luck!
    • myrnapotter  •  4 mths ago
      I served in the Army for 10 years. I paid the same taxes every hard working American paid. I was sent to a different continent every the Army got the chance. On call or on duty 24/7/365. To those who have never served - your ignorance is showing when you make stupid statements like "make the service members pay taxes".
      • BR 4 mths ago
        One hundred percent behind you Myrnapotter. Thanks for your service.
      • Ron 4 mths ago
        Good grief, we PAID taxes when we served. Someone doesn't seem to know anything about the military. I spent 21 years in the military (3 Army, 18 AF), and a Vietnam Vet.
      • Mackenzie 4 mths ago
        Thank You
    • Josh  •  4 mths ago
      How about we focus on this continent: North America?
      • Bob 4 mths ago
        Where do we attack?
      • Carlton 4 mths ago
        Build the Great Wall of America on the US-Mexican border. With lots of land mines in front of it.
      • CommonGround 4 mths ago
        Carlton the leeches are already in the lake
    • chris  •  4 mths ago
      Cut funding to 3rd world countries like pakistan what the hell are we doing there anyway.
    • James M.  •  4 mths ago
      Having served in the military for eighteen years, including a tour in Iraq as an infantryman, I feel we do not need to be spending 41% of our annual budget on national defense. It is natural for militaries to downsize after a war. We had over ten million in uniform following World War II, yet most were discharged once it was clear that hostilities are over. Most of the perceived threats against the United States are myths perpetuated by those who seek to gain monetarily within the military industrial complex (after all, they were the only "winners" of the Iraq War), who would rather have us in a state of war without end. The actual threats to our security are predominatly in the form of terrorist attacks; the defense against does not require a fleet of new $130 million planes. We'd be better served using our resources to take care of the health and well-being of our own people, rather than spending trillions on unnecessary equipment to fight a phantom enemy, that in the end only makes the MIC more wealthy.
    • Laur  •  4 mths ago
      How about we cut the benefits for the house, senate, and other officials too considering you get elected for one 4 year term and you get a lifetime of medical insurance and pensions paid for by the tax payers.
    • david  •  Conway, South Carolina  •  4 mths ago
      I am a conservative and a veteran. I can tell you that they could definitely cut a lot of useless spending. Seems conservatives never want to cut military spending but, there are many areas that could be cut. Remember the PALIDIN artillery? Commanche Helicopter?

      So many waisted billions, but still we go to Iraq in hummvees with canvas tops. I was laughing about unarmored vehicles back in the 90's when I served. I would be driving a humvee thinking "man, if we got ambushed in this thing we'd be dead"'-yet generals and politicians didn't seem to get it.

      Always fighting the previous war I guess.
    • Steve  •  White Oak, Texas  •  4 mths ago
      While they may be cutting back on conventional armed forces, what about the massive amount of money paid to "private contractors?" This past year I did construction work for a retired air force pilot who now flies for a private contractor. They fly supplies to Afghanistan and sadly bring back the bodies of our conventional soldiers. Money was never an issue because he was making $350 and hour to fly a 747 cargo plane. $250 an hour to sit in the hotel room waiting on his next flight. While I'm happy that a retired pilot is getting the check, I still think that it's ridiculous! Our leaders have gone insane with corruption and power, at our expense!
    • Tyler Jones  •  4 mths ago
      Thank you to all the men and women serving our fine country salute to you God Bless
    • DeathFromAbove  •  4 mths ago
      I wonder how much the US would save in the billions obviously from cutting foreign aid to countries that do not require it. Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.
    • Told Ya  •  Naples, Florida  •  4 mths ago
      How about just quit policing the world, and butting into everyone else's business...
      that might save some money,
      and how about no more "foreign aid" ie: payoffs to other counties...
    • Eric C  •  Carlisle, Pennsylvania  •  4 mths ago
      The document said the Pentagon will have to find savings in pay and health care benefits for members of the military, but it offered no specifics.

      How about cutting pay and health care benefits for government employees instead of those who protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
    • Donald  •  Montgomery, Alabama  •  4 mths ago
      After fighting wars this country for more than ten years we are repaid with a pink slip. We did our jobs maybe congress should have done theirs.
    • Mike  •  4 mths ago
      Why not slim down a few welfare checks why were at it?
    • Bruce  •  Greensboro, North Carolina  •  4 mths ago
      Stop all foreigh aid to all nations that do not support us. To hell with the rag heads and others who would love to distroy the u.s.a.. cut or at least freeze all of congress and other federal payrole. From top to botton. Start with the white house and move downward
    • Sickov Idiotz  •  4 mths ago
      We don't need a "slimmed down" military as much as we need a slimmed down welfare state.....
    • raymond  •  4 mths ago
      I remember Rumsfield talking about streamlining the military, and in particular saying we did not need a lot of troops to invade Iraq--over the objections of his generals. And then we invaded Iraq, and to actually hold it we did need a lot of troops, just like the generals had said. It took 3 or 4 years before the Administration would agree to do what they should have done in the first place, and Rumsfield had to get out of the way.
    • MarkC  •  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  •  4 mths ago
      Instead of cutting the military, cut congress in half.......cut their salaries and spending accounts.
    [ [ [['Connery is an experienced stuntman', 2]], 'http://yhoo.it/KeQd0p', '[Slideshow: See photos taken on the way down]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['Connery is an experienced stuntman', 7]], ' http://yhoo.it/KpUoHO', '[Slideshow: Death-defying daredevils]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['know that we have confidence in', 3]], 'http://yhoo.it/LqYjAX ', '[Related: The Secret Service guide to Cartagena]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['We picked up this other dog and', 5]], 'http://yhoo.it/JUSxvi', '[Related: 8 common dog fears, how to calm them]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['accused of running a fake hepatitis B', 5]], 'http://bit.ly/JnoJYN', '[Related: Did WH share raid details with filmmakers?]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['accused of running a fake hepatitis B', 3]], 'http://bit.ly/KoKiqJ', '[Factbox: AQAP, al-Qaeda in Yemen]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['have my contacts on or glasses', 3]], 'http://abcn.ws/KTE5AZ', '[Related: Should the murder charge be dropped?]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['have made this nation great as Sarah Palin', 5]], 'http://yhoo.it/JD7nlD', '[Related: Bristol Palin reality show debuts June 19]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['have made this nation great as Sarah Palin', 1]], 'http://bit.ly/JRPFRO', '[Related: McCain adviser who vetted Palin weighs in on VP race]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['A JetBlue flight from New York to Las Vegas', 3]], 'http://yhoo.it/GV9zpj', '[Related: View photos of the JetBlue plane in Amarillo]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['the 28-year-old neighborhood watchman who shot and killed', 15]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/white-house-stays-out-of-teen-s-killing-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/cv/ip/ap/default/120411/martinzimmermen.jpg', '630', ' ', 'AP', ], [ [['Titanic', 7]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/titanic-anniversary/', ' ', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/b/4e/b4e5ad9f00b5dfeeec2226d53e173569.jpeg', '550', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['He was in shock and still strapped to his seat', 6]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/navy-jet-crashes-in-virginia-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/cv/ip/ap/default/120406/jet_ap.jpg', '630', ' ', 'AP', ], [ [['xxxxxxxxxxxx', 11]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/russian-grannies-win-bid-to-sing-at-eurovision-1331223625-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/1/56/156d92f2760dcd3e75bcd649a8b85fcf.jpeg', '500', ' ', 'AP', ] ]
    [ [ [['did not go as far his colleague', 8]], '29438204', '0' ], [ [[' the 28-year-old neighborhood watchman who shot and killed', 4]], '28924649', '0' ], [ [['because I know God protects me', 14], ['Brian Snow was at a nearby credit union', 5]], '28811216', '0' ], [ [['The state news agency RIA-Novosti quoted Rosaviatsiya', 6]], '28805461', '0' ], [ [['measure all but certain to fail in the face of bipartisan', 4]], '28771014', '0' ], [ [['matter what you do in this case', 5]], '28759848', '0' ], [ [['presume laws are constitutional', 7]], '28747556', '0' ], [ [['has destroyed 15 to 25 houses', 7]], '28744868', '0' ], [ [['short answer is yes', 7]], '28746030', '0' ], [ [['opportunity to tell the real story', 7]], '28731764', '0' ], [ [['entirely respectable way to put off the searing constitutional controversy', 7]], '28723797', '0' ], [ [['point of my campaign is that big ideas matter', 9]], '28712293', '0' ], [ [['As the standoff dragged into a second day', 7]], '28687424', '0' ], [ [['French police stepped up the search', 17]], '28667224', '0' ], [ [['Seeking to elevate his candidacy back to a general', 8]], '28660934', '0' ], [ [['The tragic story of Trayvon Martin', 4]], '28647343', '0' ], [ [['Karzai will get a chance soon to express', 8]], '28630306', '0' ], [ [['powerful storms stretching', 8]], '28493546', '0' ], [ [['basic norm that death is private', 6]], '28413590', '0' ], [ [['songwriter also saw a surge in sales for her debut album', 6]], '28413590', '1', 'Watch music videos from Whitney Houston ', 'on Yahoo! Music', 'http://music.yahoo.com' ], [ [['keyword', 99999999999999999999999]], 'videoID', '1', 'overwrite-pre-description', 'overwrite-link-string', 'overwrite-link-url' ] ]
    Loading...