World -   

1
U.S. President Barack Obama discusses defense strategic guidance, Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012, at the Pentagon. (AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais) obama, obama defence strategy, leon panetta The US flag, Iraq flag, and the U.S. Forces-Iraq colors are carried during ceremonies marking the end of US military mission in Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

Obama unveiling revamped defence strategy

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV National News: Big change to U.S. military
U.S. President Barack Obama announced a new design to the military Thursday. CTV's Washington Bureau Chief Paul Workman on the military's biggest change in decades.
CTV News Channel: Defence spending scaled back
Matt Leatherman, a research analyst for the Stimson Centre, says the U.S. defence budget has been similar with what was being spent during the Cold War, and a cutback from that will not threaten U.S. security.
CTV News Channel: Cuts won't hurt military
Michael Shank, the VP for the Institute fore Economics and Peace, reveals how Obama's revamped defence strategy will impact on the U.S. military, saying the cuts shouldn't hurt the U.S.'s military capability.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (12) Facebook   

U.S. President Barack Obama discusses defense strategic guidance, Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012, at the Pentagon. (AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais) obama, obama defence strategy, leon panetta The US flag, Iraq flag, and the U.S. Forces-Iraq colors are carried during ceremonies marking the end of US military mission in Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

Photos

U.S. President Barack Obama discusses defense strategic guidance, Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012, at the Pentagon. (AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

View Larger Image

Date: Thu. Jan. 5 2012 5:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama vowed Thursday the United States will remain the world's pre-eminent military power even as the Pentagon scales back spending, shrinks the Army and Marine Corps and pulls back from Europe, giving Asia a higher priority.

In a rare appearance at the Pentagon, Obama spoke as the military released a strategy that summarizes changes planned in how the military will operate in an era of budget cuts that will amount to billions of dollars.

Obama said the U.S. is "turning a page" after having killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, withdrawn troops from Iraq and begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. He outlined a vision for the future that would ensure an uncompromised U.S. military strength operating with less money.

Obama announced no new capabilities or defence 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 continuing war in Afghanistan.

His presentation strongly suggests a reduced U.S. military role in Europe, notwithstanding a continuing close relationship with NATO, and says Asia will be a bigger priority. It also emphasizes improving U.S. capabilities in the areas of cyberwarfare, missile defence, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

"Our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority," Obama said, with Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey at his side.

Obama said his administration would not repeat the mistakes made after World War II and Vietnam when defence reductions left the military ill-prepared.

"As commander in chief, I will not let that happen again," he said. "Not on my watch."

Both Panetta and Dempsey said they anticipate heavy criticism of their plans, which are meant to guide future defence budgets, including the 2013 spending plan that Obama will submit to Congress in February.

The criticism from Republicans came quickly.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services, issued a statement saying, "This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America." He called it a "retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy."

Dempsey praised the strategy and the work of crafting it, calling it inclusive and comprehensive.

"It's not perfect," the general said. "There will be people who think it goes too far. Others will say it doesn't go nearly far enough. That probably makes it about right. It gives us what we need."

Obama said the strategy overhaul is designed to contend with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget cuts and refocus the United States' national security priorities after a decade dominated by the post.-Sept. 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The strategy, devised through a comprehensive review by civilian and military leaders, centred on the military the country needs after the "long wars of the last decade are over," Obama said.

Panetta said that smaller military budgets will mean some trade-offs and that the U.S. will take on "some level of additional but acceptable risk." But Panetta said that at this point in history, in a changing world, the Pentagon would have been forced to make a strategy shift anyway. He says the money crisis merely forced the government's hand.

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 defence 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," the president wrote in a preamble to the new strategy, entitled, "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defence."

Obama's decision to announce the strategy himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defence cuts. 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 him on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defence, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

Obama also wants the new strategy to represent a pivotal point in his stewardship of defence policy, which has been burdened throughout his presidency by the wars he inherited and the drag these conflicts have placed on military resources.

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

The document released Thursday 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.

It said the U.S. will maintain a robust nuclear arsenal but hinted at reductions.

"It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy," the strategy said.

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

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 strategic position in other regions.

Comments are now closed for this story

Big Bob in Ottawa
said

Whatever they do down there eventually works it's way up here. NO need to panic when the socialists remove the fascists in 5 years we'll start undoing our meagre military too.


Craig from NS
said

The U.S. needs to stay in their own territory? They did that pre-1941 and look what happened in Europe before they finally went to war? How many more people would have been slaughtered by the Nazi's and Japanese Imperialists had they not. If it wasn't for the Japanese gamble on striking the U.S. (and losing the gamble) things might be a lot different today. Since then the U.S. have been active in the world. They don't always get it right, but usually action is better than no action. The U.N. has a terrible record for sitting by and doing nothing while ethnic groups are murdered by the tens of thousands. If you are faced with two evils which do you choose? The greater one or the lesser one? You will always face criticism one way or the other. Like it or not freedom is paid in blood. Like "respect" it is earned, not given.


ron in victoria
said

modern warfare and conditions of conflict have changed. any effective military must adapt to the new reality where technoligy, smart wepons, drones, satillites, computers , etc. are pivitol in defense . the days of marching around a parade square to a brass band are over. get rid of the deadwood in the good old military establishment and move into the 21 century. obama is right on


PBW
said

Jane in Niagara's comments remind me of Jane Fonda, who proudly posed on an anti aircraft gun in Hanoi, used to shoot down her own countrymen while other of countrymen were PoW's nearby. Non- left-wingers are allowed to have opinions too - get used to it.


Defense or Occupation?
said

I do not think american military bases overseas are the line of defence as Trevor from Calgary suggests. These bases are tools of illegal occupation. The world would be a safer place if americans stayed in their own homeland. Deploying military forces in other countries is very costly and unethical. Killing civilians in the name of protecting contraversial interests of greedy oil and armament dealers is wrong, dangerous and will backclash one day or another.


Trevor from Calgary
said

One of Ron Paul's biggest ideas right now is that America needs to withdraw all troops from foreign soil to save money, including from bases they've occupied since World War II. The reality is though that it took decades to acquire that network of foreign bases, and their continued use is paramount to US security. Why not close and consolidate bases in the landlocked states, like Ellsworth, the huge air force base in the middle of South Dakota, and use the money that would save to maintain bases in South Korea, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Australia, bases that actually provide some front line defense.


J.C.
said

I'm not sure if this is a good move on his part or not. Doesn't cutting on defense in the US also lead to fewer jobs as well, especially since so many companies have moved to other countries? Strange isn't it that China, North Korea, etc. are building their forces while the US is limiting or reducing theirs.


CraigW
said

Wars can be pretty cheap if you just get your minions like Harper and Tony Blair to do your dirty work for you.


ChrisM
said

Military expenditure can be likened to an insurance premium. If you don't want to pay the premium you don't get the insurance. Under Obama, America is shying away from paying the premium for a well-rounded and capable military force. Not having a force that can fight in large-scale protracted conflicts is severely short-sighted and ignores history and the makeup of those states that are hostile to US and western interests. Obama is proving wrong for America, and wrong for the West.


Jane in Niagra
said

@PBW,Right, the Repuke way is much better: bankrupt the USA, destroy the global economy, owe China billions, kill millions of innocent in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, displace millions upon millions in those countries and the US via housing crisis & economic destruction, steal from the 90% & give it over to the hoarding, greedy top 10% ... rinse and repeat. It doesn't matter who is in power, the USA is buried for the next 100 years thanks to the Republicans & their insane religious support base (Jewish & Christian Zionists).


PBW
said

Typical Democrat approach - reduce forces to the point where they will be unable to do anything, even defend their own nation. Look what happened under Truman between VJ Day and the beginning of the Korean War; under Carter; under Clinton. Will they ever learn? Isolationism returns, already started by the "Buy American" program. Pity they sent all their industry to China . . .


JB in Ontario
said

President Obama's plan for the military sounds very good with many cost cutting measures...for now. An emphasis on counter-terrorism I think is very necessary. Maintaining a nuclear deterrant is extremely important in this day and age, especially with countries like Iran and North Korea possibly being a threat to the western world. There is a lot of cost cutting he is proposing and I believe he is doing what is right for the United States for 2012. God Bless the United States of America!


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's World Stories

Republican presidential candidates Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, left, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, second from right, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, right, watch as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks during a Republican presidential debate Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012, in Mesa, Ariz. (AP / Jae C. Hong)

Romney, Santorum clash in what could be final debate

More  1 Video(s) 1

Ford Motor Company

Ford Motor to add $3.8B to pension plans this year

More

Security guards stand as black smoke rises from tires which were burnt by protesters during an anti-US demonstration in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012. (AP / Ahmad Jamshid)

Karzai calls for calm after deadly anti-U.S. protests

More   4 Comments 4