Reading deficit reduction plans can be tricky. They must be read carefully and completely; it is easy to hide wolves and sheep in the skin of the other by using a few of the devices budget wonks have in their gimmick collections.
While reform is a by-word of everyone regarding the Pentagon these days, too many overlook the essential foundation for any defense reform: real understanding of how defense dollars are spent as a basis for decision-making in the future.
It's like a disease. I've not seen one Republican leader, from DeMint to Rep. John Boehner to Rep. Eric Cantor to Sen. Mitch McConnell answer the "which specific programs would you cut" question with a straight answer.
The U.S. would be wise to be patient and see how Europe's new approach to a common defense materializes before making any decisions with lasting impact, or significantly altering the transatlantic defense landscape.
Visits by U.S. Presidents to friendly countries are more symbolic than substantive. They are meant to reaffirm policies already in place. Still, Obama's visit to India next month presents an opportunity to examine the American elite's view of India today.
Proposing and designing expensive new systems may no longer be realistic for the aerospace and defense industry. Instead, providing advancement and affordable new directions for proven technologies will be the key to success.
Just as massive deficits forced the conservative UK government to cut deep into its military programs, the United States will soon have to choose: Update its force structure or cling to obsolete Cold War posture?
Strategic Defence and Security Reviews are all too rarely about keeping us safe, and all too often about saving us money. In this respect, the SDSR the government is currently undertaking looks more egregious than ever.