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

    Politics of defense cuts: emphasize the positive

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is preparing to tighten its belt, but with an election-year battle looming in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wants to stress the positive: Parts of the budget devoted to reshaping the military to fit a new global strategy will actually get fatter, he says.

    But that's unlikely to mollify Republicans who say President Barack Obama's plan will leave the Pentagon stretched too thin to handle potential security threats in the Middle East, Asia and beyond.

    Panetta is expected to outline the main areas of proposed spending cuts and increases at a Pentagon news conference Thursday, more than two weeks before the Obama administration submits its 2013 budget proposal to Congress. He will be joined by Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for a presentation designed to highlight the military leadership's embrace of defense cuts.

    Panetta and Dempsey are expected to cast the plan as one that reflects President Barack Obama's strategy for reorienting the military as it recovers from a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Prominent in the Obama plan is a renewed focus on Asia, where China's rapid military modernization has raised worry in Washington and rattled U.S. allies. That, along with continued security threats in the Middle East — especially Iran — is why Panetta wants to invest more in certain air and naval assets. He also is putting a focus on cybersecurity and commando forces like those who killed Osama bin Laden last May and who swooped into Somalia on Tuesday to rescue two hostages, including an American.

    The Pentagon has embraced a proposal by special operations chief Adm. Bill McRaven to send more manpower and equipment to worldwide "Theater Special Operations Commands" to strike back wherever threats arise, according to a senior defense official who spoke to The Associated Press, and other current and former U.S. officials briefed on the program. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the details of the proposal are still being worked out, including how fast the changes could be made.

    The stepped-up network would put top special operations personnel closer to the problems they face, better able to launch unilateral raids like this week's Somalia mission. McRaven also wants the newly invigorated commands to build new relationships with foreign armies to help them lead their own operations, the senior defense official said.

    To save money, Panetta would reduce the size of Army and Marine Corps ground forces and shrink the U.S. presence in Europe, while maintaining a commitment to building missile defenses in Europe.

    He also is expected to delay production of perhaps 100 or more of the F-35 Lightning II stealth attack planes that the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are counting on to replace a portion of their aging aircraft fleets. The F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program. Nonetheless, it is among those that Panetta has publicly identified as central to a strategy for maintaining American air dominance.

    According to defense officials, substantial budget savings will come from slowing — but not eliminating — programs. In the case of the F-35, Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, said there are no plans to cut the total number of fighters purchased — which is about 2,400. Instead, the intention is to reduce the number bought each year over the next five years.

    The construction of some Navy ships also may be stretched out over a longer period.

    Panetta also has made clear the administration will resist any effort to shrink the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers. He said last weekend while on board the fleet's oldest carrier, the USS Enterprise, that keeping 11 of the warships is a "long-term commitment" that Obama believes is important to keeping the peace.

    "Our view is that the carriers, because of their presence, because of the power they represent, are a very important part of our ability to maintain power projection both in the Pacific and in the Middle East," he said.

    Obama has said he hopes to further reduce the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, but Panetta is expected to make clear that the basic structure — a "triad" of land, sea and air nuclear forces — will be maintained. The Pentagon may find some savings by stretching out planned modernization programs.

    The defense budget is being reshaped in the midst of a presidential contest in which Obama seeks to portray himself as a forward-looking commander in chief focusing on new security threats. Republicans want to cast him as weak on defense.

    Obama has highlighted his national security successes — the killing of Osama bin Laden, the death of senior al-Qaida leaders and the demise of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi — to counter Republican criticism. He also has emphasized the completion of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and the start of a drawdown in Afghanistan as turning points that offer new opportunities to scale back defense spending.

    But several congressional Republicans see a political opening in challenging the reductions in projected military spending that the GOP and Obama agreed to last summer as part of a deal to raise the nation's borrowing authority. They've echoed Obama's potential presidential rivals Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who plead for fiscal austerity but contend that sizable cuts would gut the military.

    The defense budget this year is nearly $671 billion, including a base budget of $553 billion and $118 billion in war costs. Panetta is expected to announce on Wednesday that the administration's request for 2013 will drop to about $525 billion for the base budget. That is still far higher than the $480 billion base budget for the Pentagon in 2008, President George W. Bush's final year in office.

    The administration's projected defense cuts would total nearly $490 billion over 10 years. If Congress fails to agree on other reductions in federal spending this year, the defense hit could double under automatic cuts that would take effect in January 2013.

    Several Republicans argue that even the initial cuts totaling nearly $490 billion would "hollow" the military and costs tens of thousands of jobs nationwide, adding to an 8.5 percent unemployment rate that they already blame on the president's economic policies.

    "While Secretary Panetta has conceded that our nation is now accepting more risk as a result of the budgetary vise squeezing the Pentagon, it remains unclear exactly what risks our nation is assuming," Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., a House Armed Services Committee member, said this week.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Kimberly Dozier and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

    ___

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

     
    • PattiW  •  28 days ago
      One question? Security? Whose?
    • lee  •  Milwaukee, Wisconsin  •  28 days ago
      AND WHY does America NEED to spend almost as MUCH(on defense) as the rest of the whole world all TOGETHER?
    • Stan  •  28 days ago
      Ron Paul is right, why do we need to police the entire world when we are broke.
    • Sherley  •  Lima, Ohio  •  27 days ago
      Want to make the world safer, less terrorism....spend 1/2 on defense....simple.........get our troops off foreign soil.....start respecting others rights, views and their religion.......stop funding corrupt governments...and STOP believing that GOD CHOSE US TO STICK OUR NOSES IN WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG...........This nation has had far too long to get us off of foreign oil.....and that pipe line fight is so the Koch Brothers and .other investors make it big....and all that oil that will be refined in Texas...IS BEING EXPORTED WE ARE NOT KEEPING A SINGLE DROP.....ITS BEING EXPORTED... all that steel pipe..is being imported and transported by foreign workers....NOT HERE....and facts, facts say there will be less than
      6000 low pay, temporary jobs...and those will not be all American jobs.......get the facts!
    • Jeff  •  Clarksville, Tennessee  •  28 days ago
      This is exactly why lawyers and politicians are nothing more than lairs, word parsers and frauds. The truth to these people is whatever they can say to make themselves look good.
    • Lost  •  28 days ago
      Less troops and less contractors, more high tech will solve the budget cuts. Contractors get paid $80,000 to $120,000 for every person they hire, the people they hire only get a small portion of it. Some of it goes back to the politicians that support a massive military complex. One heck of a nice scam for the few.
    • Potassium  •  28 days ago
      How many of our inventions and technology improvements over the last fifty years came from the space program or the military industrial complex?
    • Lost  •  28 days ago
      Super Power Communist China, made that way by our unpatriotic government and their unfair trade laws. Stop the insanity now, fix the laws that are bankrupting our people.
    • Donion Foops  •  Kansas City, Missouri  •  22 days ago
      Time to close a bunch of domestic military bases. Way too many.

      Start by closing 99% of the bases in Red states, and move the jobs to blue states.
      Texas, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Nevada.... close them all.
    • Gary  •  Seattle, Washington  •  22 days ago
      Obama - the one man wrecking ball.
    • Todd  •  Omro, Wisconsin  •  28 days ago
      Get rid of the Military "Contractors" and let the soldiers do the work. That would cut a lot off the Defense Budget. Stop building the F-35 (WAY over budget and behind schedule) as well as more Aircraft Carriers and Submarines. We already have more Carrier Groups than then next 5 nations. Cut back on the overseas bases, most are used as that countries military. If something happens overseas, how long would it take us to get anywhere from our bases in Germany, Japan or Italy?
    • Lost  •  28 days ago
      Military contractors when working in foreign lands hire non Americans at slave wages to increase profits. Contractors need to go, return the military to its former glory.
    • Reeses  •  28 days ago
      I have never heard this said as simply or as well. Class war at its best.

      The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
      because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

      And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

      And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

      Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

      So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

      We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.
    • bushwacked  •  28 days ago
      Most people who are informed know that our present day military is not so much about "keeping" us safe. It's about maintaining global supremacy. Seven hundred plus military bases cost a lot of money to maintain. We've got twelve aircraft carriers, three of which are in drydock at any one time supposedly; the Chinese have an old Soviet era one they just refurbished. They have long way to go to challenge the US. And Romney says we need more! Ron Paul is right, we need to focus on our own politics instead of worrying about the rest of the world. Until we do we'll be finding plenty more enemies.
    • taml  •  Chicago, Illinois  •  28 days ago
      world leaders have to control commodities,biotech and weapons if they want to sit on top of leaders....!
    • Retired Teacher, Army Vet  •  28 days ago
      Companies that make weapons for their governments make more money than companies that have to compete in the rough and tumble world of international capitalism. We can expect great whining and gnashing of teeth as these corporate welfare queens will claim that with only a dozen or so aircraft carriers and 8,000 (or more ) fighter jets and probably 60-70 submarines and thousands of helicopters and 2,000 plus military bases and on and on that we are going to left DEFENSELESS and helpless by any military cutback.
    • Xj  •  28 days ago
      Doesn't matter if it's a good idea or a bad idea. Nobody is willing to pay taxes, so we have to cut EVERYTHING.
    • George C  •  Elmhurst, Illinois  •  28 days ago
      put our Troops on S. Border - Its Our TAXES
    • Nathan  •  28 days ago
      Defense companies should not be able to lobby politicians because they are doing so with our tax payer dollars. This would definitely cut back on the number of expensive wars we get ourselves into.
    • Potassium  •  28 days ago
      Get ready for some layoffs at a location near you.

      WHERE IS THE F-35 MADE? WHICH PARTS ARE MADE IN THE U.S.A?
      Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, is the final-assembly point for the F-35 Lightning II. F-35 components are made in 48 states, as well as in factories worldwide. Some major components include center wings from Marietta, Georga., the center fuselage from Palmdale, California, and the aft fuselage from Samlesbury, Lancashire, England.
    [ [ [['Dekraai', 10]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/mourners-remember-seal-beach-shooting-victims-1318620627-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/3/2c/32c8e92d889f42edb719cb5257afdf4e.jpeg', '461', ' ', 'Reuters/Lori Shepler', ], [ [['iPhone 4SXXXXXXX', 11]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/thousands-line-up-for-apple-s-iphone-4s-1318602841-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/f/4f/f4f15e8f6f323f5386dc9fdf9e15dca8.jpeg', '500', ' ', 'AP/Kirsty Wigglesworth', ] ]
    [ [ [['xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx', 11]], '27013743', '0' ], [ [['keyword', 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999]], 'videoID', '1', 'overwrite-pre-description', 'overwrite-link-string', 'overwrite-link-url' ] ]