Seth Cropsey has posted an insightful analysis/review of CNA's recent "Tipping Point" briefing on the Weekly Standard website. Mr. Cropsey served in senior defense positions in the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations and is currently a Senior Fellow at The Hudson Institute.
A decline in our naval power and influence will indeed be a choice, and Cropsey's identification of the downside of our slavish adherence to formulaic approaches to resource allocation mirrors themes I discussed at Heritage and in an upcoming (May) Proceedings article entitled "The Unbearable Being of Jointness" (my arguments inspired greatly by Cropsey's previous writings on the subject).
This country needs a real strategic debate, one that questions assumptions that routinely go unquestioned. Just why is "re-setting" the Army so important? So that it can go fight more land wars in Asia? Is this in our strategic interests? What sort of Army are we going to try and "re-set"? What is is we wish it to do with it? To my satisfaction, we've already made the case for "unbalancing" the military in ways that better serve our national interests. Does divvying up the pie equally among the services in an era of declining budgets (which will come) result simply in "less of the same"? Without such a debate, our Navy's reach and influence will indeed eventually reach the "Tipping Point".
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment