RSS

October 21, 2010

Bill Corcoran

The war in Afghanistan is without a mission. It is costing us human resources and taxpayer money without any plan. As for Iraq, the country is still without a government and civil war could breakout again. Bill Corcoran, editor: CORKSPHERE: http://corksphere.blogspot.com

October 21, 2010

Sebastian Wiegold

The defense cuts are very drastic and could endanger our security, but only if managed badly. Lobbies are very powerful in defense matters, both industry lobbies and local lobbies that campaign against the closure of bases in their area. If governments manage to ignore these lobbies and cut the huge waste and pork that exists, i.e. conduct "smart saving" then our security will not get endangered.

More cooperation within the EU or within NATO would of course also increase efficiency and allow the national governments to reduce their defence budgets, but that is even more ambitious than cutting pork and reducing spending on programs meant for the Cold War.

The fact of the matter is that we have no choice but to make these drastic cuts and reduce our government deficits. Otherwise, we will no be able to finance our defense in the future. Remember the Bin Laden videotape from 2004? He said: "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-01/world/binladen.tape_1_al-jazeera...

And the enourmously expensive Iraq war has helped Al Qaeda and China. We need to cut our defense spending now, so that we can maintain a sufficient level of defense in 30 years, when China might challenge the Western alliance.

October 22, 2010

Donald Hamilton MacNab, NYU, Silver Contributor (29)

Clearly the United States needs to reduce its defense spending. One has to look at what any defense spending is in its purest form, and that it is government spending. According to the US OMB 2011 budget summary tables, US defense spending accounts for almost ¼ of total federal governmental spending. With a current federal budget deficit approaching 1.5 TRILLION dollars, the United States is really going to have to take some defense related austerity measures soon. Considering that non-military discretionary spending is only about 15% of the budget, simple reason and mathematics would argue that savings will have to come from, at least in some part the defense department.

This is much easier said than done. The United States defense budget employs many in both Republican and Democratic congressional districts. It is worth to mention that military bases are also positioned in both Republican and Democratic congressional districts. The political difficulty to reduce this spending reminds me of when the current Democratic mayor of Oakland, California (Ron Dellums) was a member of congress who represented Oakland. For those of you who may not know of his politics, they are at the least very left wing and very radical, even relative to the politics of many in the Democratic caucus. This was a man who spent decades in office criticizing the US military for what he alleged were human rights abuses, and what he felt were bloated cold war defense budgets which could have been better spent on social programs. When most of the military facilities within his district where chosen to be closed by congress in the early 1990’s Rep. Dellums was in strong disagreement with this (essentially he was against something that he had been publicly supporting for years—less defense spending). He was critical over what he saw was a large financial loss to his city relocating the jobs there to other installations.
Although my favorite example of this political difficulty was former Congressman John Murtha’s extraordinarily strong criticism of the Iraq war, did not lead him to push to un-fund this war that he so opposed. I think that his lack of action may have had something to do with the numerous defense contractors in his district (Murtha chaired a military appropriations sub-committee).
Just some thoughts… need to smoke now
Enjoy 
Don

October 22, 2010

Mike McCormack, Florida International University, Gold Contributor (88)

Donald makes a very important point (at least from the American perspective) in that the Congressional winds can quickly change when defense-related jobs are at stake. Certainly this leads to a tremendous amount of waste in defense spending, and I think those are areas in which cuts can be made (assuming the politicians who resist them can be brought around to fiscal responsibility!). At some point though it does come down to what is truly "necessary" in a country's arsenal.

Many do ask why the US still operates eleven aircraft carriers (notwithstanding this is the size of the rest of the world's carrier inventory combined) as well as over 200 other ships and submarines. The answer is not only a matter of availability of ships at any given time but the necessity of maintaining a capability to project power. Britain learned in the 1980s that it really did need that power projection capability when the Falklands conflict emerged, an idea that had been pushed away from the Royal Navy in the previous decade. Certainly it seems that history is repeating itself as Britain has decided to reduce itself to a lone aircraft carrier in the next decade under its new budget cuts. Britain and France have recently floated the idea of joint nuclear submarine patrols as a means to cut costs, a scenario that was seen as impossible by both sides prior to the current budget problems. Certainly NATO allies are starting to get resourceful in how they pool major resources.

Ultimately I don't think the alliance's security is at risk as micro-level cuts nonetheless don't leave a major dent in NATO's overall capability. What may change, however, is the disparities between different nations in their individual ability to contribute to different missions. I think the associated political disputes that will arise from these disparities may be the real issue in how NATO can properly address a contingency.

October 22, 2010

Eoin Michael Heaney , Atlantic Community , Bronze Contributor (24)

Thank you everyone for your contributions so far. There seems to be a consensus that, at least from the American perspective, there is a serious issue regarding the role of lobbies and the effect which defense cuts would have on jobs in various individual areas.

US domestic and foreign policy has always been intrinsically linked. But,is there a way to overcome this problem? Does precedent exist?

Furthermore, on the European side, how can NATO allies better cooperate and share resources? Or is this even possible?

Thanks again,
Eoin.

October 22, 2010

Marcus Seyfarth, University of Freiburg, University of Marburg, Association of International Relations and Security Studies (AIRES), Bronze Contributor (23)

As far as I know the European Defense Agency (EDA) was built in 2004 to overcome a lot of frictions concerning defense-related issues of the EU member states.

For more details see:

http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=122

In my opinion, the most efficient organizational approach would be to have just a native European Army as first originally planned in the1950's with the European Defence Community. I am afraid that this option is not politically feasible at all, as I doubt that the member states will provide Brussels that much power in the near future.

Instead, the current EU Battlegroup-approach creates an additionial layer of complexity which on the one hand might enhance joint operational capabilities but is of little or no concern to cost savings.

Some form of unification needs to be achieved to get rid of costly redundancies.

As long as this is not the case, only project-driven cooperation might lead to some further cost-savings (e.g. Eurofighter Typhoon etc.).

I doubt that this form of cooperation alone is enough to make a difference in the end.

October 26, 2010

Lidija Levkovska, Booz Allen Hamilton , Bronze Contributor (24)

There are two answers to the Editor's question, "What is a way forward for NATO allies to better cooperate and share resources? .... Or is this even possible?"

The short answer is YES, it is possible;

The long answer is,it is possible to maintain the security levels by not only widening the cooperation among the allies, but also deepening the cooperation.

The cooperation that brings the allies and partners together in forums where they exchange experience, mentor each other and run exercises together is what I call widening.

While the cooperation where the allies and partners manage the available resources by pooling and sharing funds, applying joint funds against joint development programs, joint procurements in order to achieve, accomplish or obtain capability that individually, with constrained defense budgets, allies and partners cannot afford. This cooperation is what I label as deepening.

In support of the above stated I would like also to draw your attention to the following rhetoric.
Early June 2010, NATO Defense Ministers and their partners met at the Brussels NATO HQ to discuss missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo, reform efforts, missile defense and other key issues. Additional issue clearly stood high on NATO agenda. While addressing the primary security challenges, facing the transatlantic partnership, the Secretary General shed light on the importance of spending smart. Three things dominated the defense ministers' agenda: prioritizing, economizing and multi-nationalizing. The need to obtain capabilities within the range of available resources, especially obtain capabilities that countries could not independently acquire, is clearly depicted in the words of the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen:
"Today we'll take a hard look at prioritizing, economizing and multinationalizing. Prioritizing on what we need most, in particular deployable capability; economizing by cutting back on concrete and bureaucracy; and multinationalizing to pool our money where it makes sense to get capabilities we need, capabilities we wouldn't otherwise be able to afford."

Another concurrently ongoing debate of a convened Group of Experts, headed by Madeleine K. Albright, laid the groundwork for the development of a new Strategic Concept for the Alliance. Having completed their task, on 17 May 2010 they submitted to the North Atlantic Council their analysis and recommendations. The increase of efficiency of military expenditure, through joint procurement and specialization, is among the top 5 recommendations the Group of Experts provided for NATO to consider.

The discourse analysis converges around firstly, managing the effects of the financial crisis by cutting fat and leaning muscle; and secondly, establishing real priorities for funding and adopting a process that is coherent across the Alliance and partners, with objective to avoid duplication and maximize the benefits of multinational projects. The latter places the emphasis on multinationalizing and the need to pool resources where it makes sense to get the required capabilities and capacities that individually allies could not afford. The former argues against duplication and in favor of leveraging multinational programs to maintain Alliances readiness, compatibility and interoperability.

Thus, deepening not only strengthens the cooperation among allies and partners, but also provides for the countries another avenue to ameliorate and mitigate the impact of the global financial and economic crisis by obtaining same capacities and capabilities with reduced level of available resources while maintaining the same security level, compatibility and interoperability. It is also valid to say that the joint programs are and have been a challenging endeavor for many western European countries and the US, who have some experience under their belt being engaged in some larger currently undergoing joint procurement and joint development programs. Nevertheless, the joint initiatives present a way forward to get more for less, while cutting the fat and leaning the muscle, as the NATO SecGen likes to state often in his speeches. What's required for this work is a firm commitment for the allies and partners to come together and resort to joint initiatives to explore other avenues and obtain capabilities and capacities needed to continue supporting their core mission and secure and guarantee the freedoms of their people.

It may be really the case that the defense cuts could actually be beneficial for NATO and bring them closer on multiple levels .

October 26, 2010

Mike Maybury

More and more people in the world are showing that they are fed up with the whole concept of WAR. The fact that, worldwide, more than $ trillion are spent each year, purely on paying for war weapons and the necessary brains and bodies to make and deploy them, is a disgrace to our governments.
Perhaps we could start by ensuring that 20% - 30% of the space in ships, and equal quantity in warehouses, be devoted to 'emergency relief''. Troops need to be suitably trained for rescue work in such situations as floods and earthquakes etc. A central command or system of networks needs to be in place, so that aid and assistance reaches any corner of the world rapidly.
I am ashamed that small humanitarian teams, from only a few countries, ever manage to help in such disasters. Their actual effect is purely nominal, although any life saved is worth while.
Such deployment of armed services in humanitarian situations may well help troops psychologically too. They are, as is now common knowledge, often psychologically harmed by taking part in the killing organisations that they are part of. The discipline, organisation and courage that they display could surely be better used.

November 3, 2010

David Johnson, UK

I find the whole concept of the recent UK defence cuts to be short-sighted and dangerous to our national security, and sovereignty. While the EU and NATO bring certain benefits to the UK, it seems more often than not that a lot of the UK's GDP goes into subsidising the costs of other EU countries and into sustaining a huge bureaucracy that insinuates into every reach of an EU citizens life - but nowhere in the EU are the directives more stringently imposed than in the UK!

I wish, Mr. Maybury, that war was done and dusted with, but history has shown it constantly to be otherwise and each nation really must remain prepared for any eventuality, and assuming all wars will be low-level anti-guerilla missions like in Afghanistan and Iraq is a folly, when the world is teetering on the brink of another Cold War over resources, climate change, and the resultant effects.

What certainly surprised me about the recent cuts is that vital capabilities will have been lost when they are already paid for, just to save what is in the grand scheme of things, PENNIES!

1) Nimrod MRA.4 - 95% of total R%D and production costs paid for - initially for a purchase of 21 airframes (laughably to be converted from current MR.2 frames, to appease the "cost-conscious nature at the time - then this task proving hugely more complicated due to the less exact manufacturing tolerances back in the '60s! Indeed the only component from the MR.2 that survives in the MRA.4 is the upper fuselage pressure shell, hardly a cost saving there!) but those 21 frames dwindled to 9, increasing the unit cost, in a similar way that you in the US have found with the B-2A Spirit and F-22A Raptor programmes.

2) Sentinel R.1 - 100% paid for and developed under a UOR, hugely unique and capable platform for the UK and NATO armed forces, and again chopped to save the relative pennies in annual operating costs

3) Harrier GR.9/9A - OK rear fuselage fatigue issues would start raising their heads soon, so can understand the withdrawal in that respect but leaves our current carriers without a fast-jet platform until they are withdrawn.

The list goes on, Hercules retired - a reliable competent transport which is now mostly of the new -J version! At least a 7th C-17 will be brought into service.

I also agree with the ring-fencing of international aid as that can, correctly applied, be vital as a deterrent as the Vanguard fleet, it just remains to be seen whether that aid will be used correctly and that unfortunately is not my area of expertise! Suffice to say that I doubt what projects our aid is working towards in Russia and India?

November 3, 2010

Marcus Seyfarth, University of Freiburg, University of Marburg, Association of International Relations and Security Studies (AIRES), Bronze Contributor (23)

It seems that a first treaty with the goal of serious resource pooling has been signed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/03/anglo-french-de...

November 5, 2010

Marcus Seyfarth, University of Freiburg, University of Marburg, Association of International Relations and Security Studies (AIRES), Bronze Contributor (23)

The issue of resource pooling is also brought up in the second presentation in the following video (in German) by an ex-official of the EDA:

http://bundeswehr.virtuelle-akademie.fnst.org/webcom/show_blog.php?... [November 4th]