The Obama defense cuts - opinion? Ah... well, what you spend on the military ain't really the problem [if one's sympathies are pro military] - how you spend it is the issue - which doesn't mean cutting the budget is necessarily bad - it just means that the real issue viz the Pentagon is lack of an overall strategy that informs the procurement process beyond the twisted reach of short sighted political motivations - in other words, the problem is systemic, politcal, strategic - how the money is spent, not how much per se [again, assuming one is not a liberal who believes tax dollars are of course always put to better use when spent on social programs rather than defense].
But Obama has announced a new strategic focus, no? The Asia pivot. Right... believe it when I see it. To actually engage in a robust Asia strategy, according to the way most experts envision it, you'd probably have to keep the budget roughly the same, just allocate more funds to the Navy and less to the Army - but that's not what they're saying - which is why the putative Asia pivot is just a feint as far as I'm concerned designed to give the illusion of some robust strategy that is actually just a cover for hollowing out the Pentagon - which was the purpose of Libya war too: dramatically change the perception of the uses of American military might [lead from behind] so you can dramatically cut budgets which in turn has the effect over time of transforming the American military into an emasculated force for good as opposed to a dominant power in the service of an empire. And Obama's drone wars, same thing - the illusion of power rather than actual power - and it's amazing how many conservatives have fallen for this charade - they congratulate Obama for his aggressive use of drones, completely failing to see the political ploy behind it - the illusion of power without actual power - war the way liberals fancy it should [and can] be.
The putative Asia pivot looks like a shell game to me - I haven't read anything that suggests the practical considerations required to make such a strategic shift real and possible - ie, you have to commit to a larger Navy - are anywhere in the pipeline or seriously being discussed - expect more leading from behind. In short, without a reform of the procurement process and without something real and palpable to lend substance to the supposed strategic shift, all I see is a anti-military liberal agenda at play in the budget cuts.
I was surprised though to see liberal mouthpiece NYTimes raise troubling spectre of the erosion of American hi-tech manufacturing that may follow in the wake of an emasculated military - this huge issue as far as I'm concerned - in fact I've argued that if a great power is going to waste money on something best it be on the military, especially when both economic and military might are so dependent on technological innovation. Very surprised the Times went there - but they're right, the real vulnerability created by a hollowed out Pentagon may have more to do with a technological decline than a military one - although, America's military edge is very much about technology regardless.
