Cut down for a bet­ter mil­i­tary

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

Re: John Bolton’s Com­men­tary piece in the Aug. 22 edi­tion ti­tled “Why tea party should re­sist de­fense cuts” (page 37), I ad­mire the con­tri­bu­tions made by Mr. Bolton in de­fense pol­icy and for­eign pol­icy, but his op­po­si­tion to cuts in the de­fense bud­get, I am afraid, re­flects the cur­rent, out­moded World War II mil­i­tary view of war. It is said the mil­i­tary al­ways fights the last war and I would add some­times not as well. Given the ad­vances in tech­nol­ogy, it has been trou­bling to ob­serve the slow re­sponse of the De­fense Depart­ment to solve the prob­lem of pro­tect­ing coali­tion forces in Iraq and Afghanistan from IEDs.

Mr. Bolton ap­pears to as­sume that fu­ture wars will con­tinue to re­quire large land armies and navies to achieve mil­i­tary suc­cess. The na­ture of war is chang­ing as the war on ter­ror­ism instructs us. The Depart­ment of De­fense has, in fact, in­vested some of its re­sources in mod­ern­iz­ing its ap­proach to fu­ture con­flicts. Ad­vances in the ap­pli­ca­tion of drones, ro­bot­ics and com­puter-gen­er­ated mil­i­tary and naval in­tel­li­gence should re­duce the de­pen­dence on the sub­stan­tial man­power re­quire­ments of large armies and navies, al­low­ing the U.S. to ad­just to new forms of war­fare at lower costs. The de­vel­op­ment of ad­vanced tech­nolo­gies should eas­ily make avail­able the pro­posed $600 bil­lion sav­ings over 10 years. Joseph E. Mur­ray Salem, Ore­gon

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.