Four More Years...

quote:

---

Are there really very many people worried about Bush having undercut our defensive standing in the world, assuming that's even true? I think the common voter tends to be either for or against the war in Iraq and for or against allowing the UN to intervene in our military choices. If they're for the war in Iraq, they aren't thinking anything negative about our defensive standing in the world.

---

Here's the concern that many Republicans have concerning our military position in the world. It has to do with our military assets. Every time we envoke on one of these operations we put more wear and tear on the equipment then if we were using them in a peacetime training scenario. This isn't nessessariily a bad thing because the level of proficiency goes up using these weapons systems in a wartime enviorment.The problem comes in when there are no replacements for the assets when they wear out. Right now there are no replacements for the fighter and cargo aircraft that are being used in this war. The C-17's are being built but their numbers are not going to replace what is being lost in the retirement of other older cargo aircraft. The refueler situation is similiar since the 767 tankers are off the table. Other weapons systems share the same situation with wear and tear being placed on them with no replacements in production. Today the pentagon just cancelled the next generation Commanche helicopter as a sign of the times.There are many weapons systems in proposal and some in developement but not much in production. The fear comes in when if we reach the point where we have worn out our equipment to fast and a real barn burner starts up and we show up to the party trying to square dance in a toga. This may never happen because of our technological advantage but the mule defense systems are being worn out at a faster rate then they are being replaced. The constant theme that we are being preached is to "Do more with less". We just hope it doesn't come down to "Do nearly everything with nearly nothing".

Would you be for cutting the budget by 90% and maintaining a force adequate to provide boarder defense with short range aircraft and patrol boats instead of the super fleets and large air force that we have now?If you "quite frankly cut the budget in half", you would get only as much as if you cut it by 90%. If you take an expensive Harley Davidson and say I don't want to pay that much for it and you cut the price in half, they give you half the bike. Now you could keep the gas tank, tires, frame and seat and still have the nicest looking bike in the hood, but you don't have a functional bike for what it was designed to do. So if you don't want to pay that much for the Harley, buy a Vespa moped and at least you have something functional. It won't cruise you down the highway at 90 mph and it won't command much respect, but it will get your tie dyes, flip flops and granola to campus quite dependably every day.Now, I'll ask you again, would you be in favor of cutting the defense budget by 90% and maintaining a boarder defense patrol supremely suited for that task, or do you want to pay 5 times more and have a military not capable of doing what your politics is creating?