Pentagon

The Missiles in the South China Sea Should be Scarry!

According to the reports, China has deployed surface-to-air missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles in the Spratly Islands chain that is located in the South China Sea. This is just another move that Beijing made, along with the installing the jamming equipment in the region that is there and designed to disrupt all radar systems and all attempts at communication.

Source:abc.net.au

This anti-ship cruise missile system is land-based and it is believed to be the famous YJ-12B, which is good enough and strong enough for China to strike surface vessels within the 295 nautical miles range. HQ-9B missiles are the surface-to-air-missiles that are able to reach great distances. They can engage targets at ranges of 160 nautical miles. Intelligence assessments say the missile platforms have been moved in the past thirty days, which is pretty interesting.

The White House is well-aware of what the Chinese are doing and they have stated that there will be both short-term and long-term consequences for their moves – mainly for Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea.

What about Pentagon? Well, The Pentagon is also pretty concerned about China’s actions. They have stated that China actually benefits from America’s military presence in the region.

Source:newindianexpress.com

Dana W. White, the Defense Department spokeswoman, has explained that the US has always had concerns about Beijing militarizing these islands. She pointed out that East Asia country has always been the beneficiary of the free navigation of the sea. The US Navy has been the one that constantly guaranteed that.

When you take a look at this situation, the deployment of the missiles is a huge provocation. If they don’t move these systems from their bases, the other regional powers like the United States, Japan, and Australia are going to be angry, they are going to talk a lot less and take a lot more actions.

Source: nationalinterest.org

Lavrov Says That US Has No Plans to Leave Syria

/

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that US military is in Syria for the long haul, judging by their efforts on the eastern bank of Euphrates river.

“The US pledged that their only aim was to repel terrorists from Syria, to defeat the so-called ‘Islamic State,’ but, despite all their claims, despite President Trump’s claims, the US is actually positioning itself on the Eastern bank of the Euphrates and have no intention of leaving,” Lavrov said.

Lavrov stated that there are several nations whose only agenda is the disintegration of Syria and that the road to economic recovery will be a hard one unless all foreign troops leave the country. Russia has been actively supporting Bashir al-Assad’s regime by providing air cover, training, and weapons and often even infantry support in heavy fighting that has occurred in Syria in the last several years. Syria hosts the only major Russian naval base outside its territory and is seen by Kremlin as a key ally in allowing Russia power projecting capabilities in the Mediterranean.

Earlier this month President Trump announced that he is planning to withdraw all United States forces from Syria, a statement that seemed contradictory to what his closest advisors, including senior Pentagon and State Department officials, who all claimed that the US will keep a strong presence in the region.

Source:abc.net.au

Turning 180 degrees on a previous statement is nothing new for Mr. Trump, but this announcement confused even his allies in the Congress, which doesn’t share President’s views on the Middle East situation.

US military has been present in Syria since at least 2014, where it has been leading a coalition of nations in a fight against ISIS. Now that ISIS threat is mostly eliminated, US forces have been positioning themselves on the east bank of the Euphrates river in order to protect their Kurdish allies from attacks by regime forces and Iranian-backed militias.

Source: sputniknews.com

Defending Defense: Setting the Record Straight on us Military Spending Requirements

/

After the Cold War, both the Republicans and Democrats have reduced the funding of the military, and instead of replacing worn out equipment and fixing what needed to be fixed, they did little. Today’s wars which happen on and off require a nation to be prepared, but they also call to cut the Defense Department’s budget. Read on to see what are the myths and what are truths about the military spending?

Myth

The US spends more on defense than half the world combines, which means that no more should be invested.

Truth

The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and the military is here not only to protect the citizens of its country but to keep the world peace and be the world policeman. What is important is that overall cost is compatible with the size of the country’s economy. Mackenzie Eaglen of the Heritage Foundation wrote: “Defense spending is near historic lows… Between 2010 and 2015, total defense spending is set to fall from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), even though the nation has assigned more missions to the military over the past two decades.”

Source:huffingtonpost.com

Myth

During Bush Administration, Pentagon spent heaps of money.

Truth

This was not entirely true. America was waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more money was being spent at the time. But AEI’s Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly summed up the situation: “The budget increases that have occurred…are largely tied to fighting the wars. When Bill Clinton left the White House, and Dick Cheney told the military that “help [was] on the way,” the defense burden stood at 3 percent of GDP—a post-World War II low. When George W. Bush headed out the door, the figure for the core defense budget was about 3.5 percent. This is an increase, to be sure, but not one to make the military flush after a decade of declining budgets and deferred procurement.”

The goal during this time is to return the military to pre-war readiness level, and this was difficult to achieve. Part of the money was used to increase the number of the US ground forces. Also, the moral obligation needed to be considered as well. The families of those who fought in the Middle East had to be tended. However, they had to receive an amount of money which would motivate them to answer the call to service.

Source:sputniknews.com

Myth

Additional earnings can be made in Pentagon by cutting waste and excess. This would make up for shortfalls.

Truth

According to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, it was necessary to reform defense acquisition and reduce overhead costs, which is why he started an initiative. Even if this was put into practice, it wouldn’t do much to close the gap. The requirements would still be great and resources scarce. The bipartisan Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel stated:

“[T]hose savings will be insufficient for comprehensive [military] modernization. We cannot reverse the decline of shipbuilding, buy enough naval aircraft, recapitalize Army equipment, modernize tactical aircraft, purchase a new aerial tanker, increase our deep-strike capability and recapitalize the bomber fleet just by saving the $10 billion-$15 billion the Department hopes to achieve through acquisition reform….Meeting the crucial requirements of modernization will require a substantial additional investment that is sustained through the long term….Although there is a cost to recapitalizing the military, there is also a potential price associated with not recapitalizing – and in the long run, that cost is much greater.”

Myth

We are spending too much on defense.

Truth

Source:sbaranes.com

The defense budget is relatively small compared to the federal budget. Pentagon keeps spending less and less in real dollars, but you cannot eliminate the spending entirely. Even if Pentagon had done that at some point, the deficit of the country would still be in trillions. The US national debt has exceeded $20 trillion recently, and the budget used for defense is just one drop in the ocean. Once again, Mackenzie Eaglen noted:

“The substantial decline in the defense share of the budget largely reflects the dramatic growth of entitlement spending. Entitlements now account for around 65 percent of all federal spending and a record 18 percent of GDP. The three largest entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—eclipsed defense spending in 1976 and have been growing ever since. If future taxes are held at the historical average, these three entitlements will consume all tax revenues by 2052, leaving no money for the government’s primary constitutional obligation: providing for the common defense.”

Myth

The USA has a role of the “world’s policeman,” and that needs to stop.

Truth

After the Cold War, Europe has entered the durable peace which lasts today. Countries in East Asia have grown stronger economically and millions of people have exited poverty. However, this peace couldn’t have been achieved by itself. It was partly due to America’s involvement and the fact is that no-one would be able or would want to assume the role of the USA. According to the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, the future is:

” …likely to place an increased demand on American “hard power” to preserve regional balances. While diplomacy and development have important roles to play, the world’s first-order problems will continue to be our security concerns….As the last 20 years have shown, America does not have the option of abandoning a leadership role in support of its national interests….Failure to anticipate and manage the conflicts that threaten those interests…will not make those conflicts go away….It will simply lead to an increasingly unstable and unfriendly global climate and, eventually, to conflicts America cannot ignore.”

In other words, the USA cannot afford to recover all that it has achieved or lose it altogether. Repairing such damage would be too expensive even for the US and preserving the “world-policeman” role is cost-effective.

Myth

Winning the current wars should be the country’s primary concern. The defense spending must be focused on that primarily.

Truth

America’s role is too big to focus on just one or two wars the country is in. They need to defend the homeland, plus there is the newly-created cyberspace which is a hotbed of conflicts and the US nation needs to be dominant here as well. Furthermore, its military must assure access to the seas, in the air and space. The US has been fighting for the common good for years, and that means fighting on numerous fronts. Europe is stable and peace is preserved, while currently, America is building peace across the Middle East. They also need to be ready for the rise of the countries in the Asia-Pacific, such as China. To quote former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates once again:

Source:charlierose.com

“As I look around the world and see a more unstable world, more failed and failing states, countries that are investing heavily in their militaries—as I look at places like Iran and North Korea and elsewhere around the world—as I look at the new kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise missiles and so on—my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense budget what we have done four times before. And that is, slash it in an effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else. I think that would be disastrous in the world environment we see today and what we’re likely to see in the years to come.”