the unexpected and sending the wrong message

Submitted by myth (Germany), Jan 11, 2012 at 07:21

One cannot pick and choose one's enemies. A defence strategy based on today's enemies and threats is designed to invite tomorrow's enemies. That day may well be literally tomorrow. The military needs to prepare for the unexpected with a wide choice of possible reactions. By the very nature of this business, the major achievement of a good military is every war that does not break out. It is every potential enemy that does bite its lips rather than act.

Reducing the US-military would send the wrong message. Primarily to their allies. It would motivate european governments to further cut defence-budgets.

Read how the Dutch sent their entire tank force into retirement:

www.government.nl/news/2011/05/26/dutch-tank-history-ends-with-a-bang.html

Why does the US need to demonstrate global presence? Because global logistics is what the US military does best. That creates the core credibility of its deterrence. Should the US throw that position away, some other power would pick it up. Once that credibility is gone, one cannot buy it back with money.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".