New Pentagon Strategy Calls For Leaner, But Still Dominant, Military
The Pentagon’s new military strategy unveiled today will result in a “smaller and leaner” military force , but one that President Obama insists will maintain America’s military superiority around the world.
Though no Defense budget spending information was presented today, the new strategy provides hints at potential personnel cuts that will be announced in a few weeks.
Entitled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense” the new strategy lays out a vision for what the American military will look like by 2020.
The president made a rare appearance in the Pentagon briefing room to provide the first details of the military strategy review begun in early 2011 that was designed to guide the anticipated $450 billion in defense spending cuts slated to take place over the next decade.
“Our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority,” Obama said.
With the end of the U.S. involvement in Iraq and with significant troop reductions slated for Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the new strategy serves as a roadmap for where the military should prioritize its resources in the lean budget years to come.
“We will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region,” the eight page document states, reaffirming a point that Obama and other senior administration officials have emphasized recently.
The shift away from Iraq and Afghanistan also means there will be less of a need to maintain the increased number of Army soldiers and Marines required to conduct a counterinsurgency fight. U.S. forces “will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations” says the strategy. That statement translates into smaller Army and Marine forces.
Another main highlight of the strategy released today is that it does away with the Cold-War era requirement that the military be able to fight two wars simultaneously.
Seeking to ease any concerns that dropping the requirement could leave the U.S. vulnerable if it has to face multiple threats, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, ”We can confront more than one enemy at a time.”
As an example, Panetta cited the possibility of having to fight a land war inKorea while dealing with a naval threat in the Strait of Hormuz at the same time.
“We have the capability, with this Joint Force, to deal with those kinds of threats, to be able to confront them, and to be able to win,” he said. ”That’s what counts” and that could be done “without tying ourselves to a paradigm that is a residual of the Cold War.”
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the new strategy doesn’t mean the U.S. is not going to fight land wars. “It doesn’t say we’re never going to do stability operations. It does say explicitly we have to be capable of conducting operations across the full spectrum,” Dempsey said.
Of the shift towards Asia, Dempsey said “all of the trends, demographic trends, geopolitical trends, economic trends and military trends are shifting toward the Pacific. So our strategic challenges in the future will largely emanate out of the Pacific region.”
He cautioned that ”it would be really a mistake for … anyone to walk away with the impression that we’re going to niche ourselves to some point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power.”
The Army and Marines were already planning to reduce their numbers beginning in 2015, but the strategy unveiled did not provide specific information whether they would be reduced beyond current planning.
However, a U.S. official confirms to ABC News that the Army will likely drop to 490,000 soldiers from its current end-strength of 570,000, a deeper cut than a planned cut of 520,000. That force strength will still be 10,000 more soldiers than were in the Army the year before 9/11.
The Marines are currently at 202,000 and had already planned to reduce their number to 186,800, a figure that will still be more than 10,000 higher than the number of Marines who were serving prior to 9/11.
The Navy will retain its fleet of 11 aircraft carriers and won’t be reduced to 10 as some national security analysts had speculated. Maintaining that number of carriers should make it easier for the Navy to continue to project U.S. power in the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East where for the past few years the Navy has maintained a two carrier presence for much of the year.
Another way the U.S. is expected to project its power in the coming decade will be through the purchase of more than 2,000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The program has been beset by cost overruns resulting from production difficulties. A lot of speculation has swirled around the F-35 being a likely target for any potential budget savings.
But the U.S. official says the purchase plan for the F-35 will slide to the right by a few years so that production factories remain in operation to give some time for some of the plane’s design kinks to be worked out. That move would continue the program, but also free up spending that could be spent elsewhere.

Email
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
A military that is “smaller and leaner”, but still “dominant”? It will be interesting to see that philosophy tested by North Korea, Iran, or others in the future…Sure hope the generals and admirals who signed onto this position know what they’re doing….On the other hand it may be time for the USA to finally shed the notion that it is the world’s US Marshal……
Posted by: munster42 | January 5, 2012, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
You can in no way trust Obama. His mission is to destroy America, our traditions, our history and our military. Bill Clinton started the process but Obama has been sent to finish it. Neither will succeed. The enemies of America like the Japanese and Germans found out that REAL Americans will not tolerate the policies of the Communists. In 2012 we will again elect an American as President and send Obama and his ilk packing.
Posted by: ZMan | January 5, 2012, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
I remember when Carter cut the military budget. They thought they were smart back then to.
Posted by: aforefreedom | January 5, 2012, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
Let’s not forget the military reduction during the Bush administration. I am speaking of H.W Bush the father. I was in the military at this time. A lot of bases were closed and a lot of personnel was released or forced out. I was not one of them. I am not saying that I disagreed back then or that I disagree now but i am just putting out the facts. I do believed that president George H.W. Bush, his staff and congress knew what they were doing back them and that President Obama, his staff and congress are capable of making this decision now.
Posted by: Terence | January 5, 2012, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
The budget has tripled since 1997. We need to make the cuts.
Posted by: lexingtonlady | January 5, 2012, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
Obama’s plan is simply outrageous! His hate for the military is obvious! His plan to make these big cuts may force the U.S. into a full out nuclear war with Iran or North Korea because it will be the only option to stop any determined enemy! Obama just made nuclear war far more likely!
If its really money Obama wants to save, there are many other cuts that could be made. Obama has already wasted billions on promoting his Green programs and what about his $100 million dollar vacation trip to India! Then we have the hundreds of billions spent on Obamacare that has yet to lower the cost of health care and NEVER WILL!
Posted by: BIG JIMMY | January 5, 2012, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
Militaristic peons have killed more than one nation.
Posted by: Jim Lennox | January 5, 2012, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
So much depends on how much of the residual funding for national defense of the United States is spent appeasing individual Congressional districts and states. Part of the wild expense of the typical military aircraft is the book each defense contractor compiles of how components of these aircraft are produced not where most economical, but where most politically expedient, with some airframes having parts made in almost every state of the Union for this reason. And I want to see if General Electric, a major beneficiary of the Obama administration, somehow manages to retain most of its defense contracts, despite things like its SECOND engine for the F35 being clearly the product of political patronage, not military necessity.
Posted by: loupgarous | January 5, 2012, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
Leaner is not still dominant. In the calculus of military science quantity has a quality of its own; it was not so much superiority in training or equipment that caused the Allies to prevail over Nazi Germany and Japan in World War Two as it was the United States’ ability to mobilize vastly superior numbers of forces and equip them not so much with BETTER equipment as MORE equipment. This is relevant specifically because of the massive disparity in numbers between mainland China’s military and the United States’. In 1950 in Korea, Chinese forces were prevented from taking South Korea over for North Korea because their forces were SO inferior in training and equipment to the UN forces that they were unable to decisively defeat a much smaller US force which had similarly poor equipment and morale until the US Eighth Army was massively reinforced and resupplied and US air power gained essential superiority in Korean skies. We can no longer rely on a “poor” Chinese army and navy; in many ways they have parity in quality of equipment to us and MUCH greater numbers. To a large extent, US military dominance will depend on strategic military systems – nuclear weapons – to an extent unprecedented since the 1950s. And in that field, successive US presidents, including Barack Obama, have sold the people of the United States out. We have bargained what until two decades ago was unquestionable strategic superiority to any country on Earth to a decided second place to the Russians – a nation governed not by its own people but a corrupt oligarchy many of whom are vocally hostile to the United States and much of democratic Europe.
Posted by: loupgarous | January 5, 2012, 11:08 pm 11:08 pm
“In 1950 in Korea, Chinese forces were prevented from taking South Korea over for North Korea because their forces were SO inferior in training and equipment to the UN forces that they were unable to decisively defeat a much smaller US force which had similarly poor equipment and morale until the US Eighth Army was massively reinforced and resupplied and US air power gained essential superiority in Korean skies. “——————-You don’t have any idea wtf you are talking about . The longest military retreat in US history was in N. Korea . The Chinese ran the US out of N. Korea wearing bedroom slippers and cotton pajamas in near zero degree weather at the Chosin reservoir . From Wiki: ———— “While the US X Corps was being evacuated from the eastern front, the US Eighth Army had already retreated to the 38th parallel on the western front in the aftermath of the Battle of the Ch’ongch’on River. With the entire UN front collapsing, the race to the Yalu was ended with the communist forces of China recapturing much of North Korea.” —————-People like you need to pontificate less , and learn more before you open you mouth / type.
Posted by: duh_thatsyou | January 5, 2012, 11:29 pm 11:29 pm
No worries…been in the Army 24 years (retiring in 4 months) and this is normal. The military always expands and contracts based on need. I agree with the cuts, we need to save money. I know our military can mobilize and kick some butt whenever and wherever. NO ONE can match the American fighting man! So do the cuts and we will stand ready to protect America and her interest overseas.
Posted by: ARMY_SF | January 6, 2012, 12:01 am 12:01 am
So do the cuts and we will stand ready to protect America and her interest overseas.——–Spoken like a true American patriot warrior. We can mobilize if need be , but with our vast air superiority and technical superiority and many powerful allies around the globe , it’s usually more-or-less unnecessary . 2 AWACs , some close support air cover , a few Predator drones armed with Hellfires and a smattering of intel can do what 2 battalions of trigger pullers can’t . Not that US soldiers aren’t the best , but we need them here at home going to college to be Dr.s and engineers and scientists etc. far more than we need them to be buffed up grenade tossers. Use some of that pricey top-secret DARPA stuff that costs taxpayers out the yinyang for a change . Let’s fight smarter , not harder .
Posted by: tents4all | January 6, 2012, 1:08 am 1:08 am