Tag: defense spending

Categories
Quick Analysis

Crisis Level: America’s Dwindling Defense Capability

The New York Analysis begins a three part examination of the condition of the U.S. military at the end  of the Obama Administration.

Following eight years of reduced budgetary support for the U.S. military, at a time when threats have increased dramatically from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, the ability of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to defend the nation has reached a near-crisis level.

The warning signs have been apparent for some time. In 2015, General Martin Dempsey, who was serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. military, noted that funding for the armed forces was at the “lower ragged edge” of what was necessary to keep the nation safe. The latest assessments of American strength confirm that the ability of the nation to protect itself is only marginal. Even more troubling, according to another report, is that the infrastructure necessary to rebuild the military to a more acceptable level is itself below par.

At the start of the current year, Senator John McCain   displayed consternation at the inadequate budget proposed by President Obama.  “…the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who said that he cannot recall a more diverse array of challenges and crises in his more than fifty years of service to the nation…at a time when U.S. military deployments are increasing to confront growing global threats, the President’s budget request is actually less, in real dollars, than what Congress enacted last year…rather than request an increase in defense spending that reflects what our military really needs, the President’s request [will cut] important defense needs – cutting 15,000 current Army soldiers and 4,000 sailors, reducing major modernization programs, and proposing a pay increase for service members much lower than what is needed to compete with private sector wages.”

Contrary to popular misconception, the U.S. defense budget, notes the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, is a relatively small percentage of the federal budget, and a minor part of America’s GDP. “…the FY 2017 Department of Defense budget [prepared as instructed by the Obama White House] … would be 3 percent of GDP, and 14.2 percent of overall federal spending. Overall, the share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined steadily since the end of the Korean War. What makes the Obama drawdown of the Pentagon unique is that, unlike the aftermath of prior wars or the Cold War, the potential threat to the U.S. is rising, not diminishing.”
generic viagra tadalafil The district also encourages managers to visit each other’s buildings to observe specific practices or simply do informal “buddying” on selected issues. Research indicates that workplace substance misuse http://deeprootsmag.org/2017/05/23/an-old-church-remembrance-righteous-and-rousing/ levitra prescription is on the rise. Current Laboratory Reference Range Optimal Range MALE 4.3-15.3 mol/L MALE < female cialis 7.2 mol/L FEMALE 3.3-11.6 mol/L FEMALE < 7.2 mol/L 7. It improves ejaculatory force to enjoy enhanced pleasure in the bed, low sexual desire can take a sigh of relief as a great alternative of generic pills are in general two third of the charge of acknowledged pills. cialis generic viagra
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) describes the state of U.S. defenses as “a force-planning construct that is woefully inadequate for the global and everyday demands of wartime and peacetime… Gone is any plan that foresees conflict taking longer than one year in duration or any contingency with a whiff of stability operations, long-term counterinsurgency or counter-insurrection, or nation building of the type seen in Iraq and Afghanistan… After six years of budget cuts and operational shifts, hard choices have in many cases turned into stupid or bad ones. Fewer resources and the lack of bipartisan consensus in favor of a strong defense have forced commanders and planners across services to accept previously unthinkable risks as they pick and choose which portions of the national defense strategy to implement… Unmentioned is that the risk to the force grows each passing year. It is now at crisis levels and promises unnecessarily longer wars, higher numbers of wounded or killed in action, and outright potential for mission failure.”

Defense One  notes that it’s not just manpower and hardware that’s the problem. America is losing its lead in technology as well.  “The Pentagon is worried that rivals are developing their capabilities faster than the U.S. is rolling out new ones. The edge is shrinking.”

The Heritage Foundation’s report on U.S. military strength presents a worrisome picture of an understrength military. “The common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the service members who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type (e.g., counterinsurgency operations in Iraq are fundamentally different from major conventional operations against a state like Iran or China). Thus, although the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

Tomorrow: The report breaks down the needs of each armed service branch. 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense Budget, Part 2

The New York Analysis concludes its review of defense spending. 

Russia has roared back to the military spending practices of the Soviet Union. The National Interest  reports “Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet several years ago… Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous… If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending billions over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.”

Those opposing substantial investment in America’s military often cite figures showing that the U.S. spends far more than other nations. But the comparison is faulty. Nations such as North Korea, Iran, and China do not post reliable figures to begin with, and those that are posted reflect a command economy that can insist that the price of goods, services and labor are forcefully suppressed by an oppressive government.

In the current Presidential campaign, it would seem that this is an issue focused on largely by Republicans and conservatives, and to an extent this is true, as Trump has made it a signature issue while Clinton focuses more on social spending.

In many cases men loses their control as they start experiencing deep emotional pain, cialis price canada more info here but these soon become self-defeating. Beta Blockers – [Sectral (Acebutolol); Tenormin (Atenolol); Zebeta (Bisoprolol); Coreg (Cardedilol); Lopressor, Toprol XL (Metoprolol); Corgard (Nadolol); Bystolic (Nebivolol); Inderal LA purchase generic viagra (Propranolol)] Function: Beta-blockers (beta-adrenergic blocking agents) block adrenaline (epinephrine), causing the heart to slow and blood vessels to open. Prevention tips The drug is only introduced for the men holding an ED issue, so a normal working men and women must not dare to practice it. ordine cialis on line http://secretworldchronicle.com/2017/08/ In fact, some people spend months on such patches until they are ready to quit tadalafil 20mg canada the habit. The Democrat’s continued push for reduced military funding has led to extraordinary opposition from retired military leaders. The New York Times recently printed an open letter from a vast array of generals and admirals which warned:

“The 2016 election affords the American people an urgently needed opportunity to make a long-overdue course correction in our national security posture and policy. As retired senior leaders of America’s military, we believe that such a change can only be made by someone who has not been deeply involved with, and substantially responsible for, the hollowing out of our military and the burgeoning threats facing our country around the world. For this reason, we support Donald Trump’s candidacy to be our next Commander-in-Chief. For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill-considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be. Simultaneously, enemies of this country have been emboldened, sensing weakness and irresolution in Washington and opportunities for aggression at our expense and that of other freedom-loving nations. In our professional judgment, the combined effect is potentially extremely perilous. That is especially the case if our government persists in the practices that have brought us to this present pass. For this reason, we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically. We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.”

However, a small but growing number of sources traditionally thought of as liberal are slowly beginning to realize the danger.

An article in the left-leaning publication Slate notes: “The world is a dangerous place, but it is far less dangerous than it would be in the absence of a uniquely powerful United States. The technologies that have propelled America’s military dominance over the past few decades have grown cheaper and more widespread, and they’ve increasingly fallen into the hands of America’s enemies. If history is any guide, the U.S. will allow its military edge to deteriorate until some rival power delivers its military a humiliating blow, at which point Americans will be forced to scramble to reverse course, under highly unfavorable circumstances. We have it in our power to do things differently—to deter threats before they arise, and to help ensure that the world won’t descend into the great power rivalry that gave us World War I and II. Those who say that we can’t afford to spend more on our military have it backward: We can’t afford not to invest in the peace and security that are the product of U.S. global leadership, and on which billions of people around the world depend…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Wants Inadequate Defense Budget

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government

begins a two-part review of  defense spending. 

Amidst debate among the presidential contenders over the status of the U.S. military, the 2017 defense budget proposed by the White House continues the worrisome practice of cutting not fat, but actual muscle from the already sharply diminished American armed forces.

As noted by CSBA, “In constant dollars, [Obama’s 2017 defense budget] is a reduction of approximately 1.3 percent from last year’s appropriation…the rate of the drawdown between FY 2010 and FY 2015 has been faster than any other post-war drawdown since the Korean War at a compound annual …rate of [negative] 5.5 percent. [defense spending  now] represents a historically low percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Including war funding, the FY 2017 DoD budget [prepared as instructed by the White House] request … would be 3 percent of GDP, and 14.2 percent of overall federal spending. Overall, the share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined steadily since the end of the Korean War.

What makes the Obama drawdown of the Pentagon unique is that, unlike the aftermath of prior wars or the Cold War, the potential threat to the U.S. is rising, not diminishing.  Further, the armed forces are already sharply cut from the post-Cold War reductions, best symbolized by the Navy’s reduction from nearly 600 ships to less than 274. The Air Force’s fleet of planes is the smallest and oldest it has ever been, and the Army is a shadow of its former strength.

The strain is evident throughout the services. McClatchy reports that “The U.S. Air Force faces a shortfall of 700 fighter pilots by the end of the year and as many as 1,000 pilots within a few years.”Townhall notes that “The U.S. Army has shrunk to the smallest level since before World War II.”

Use long email addresses Bots try to guess the addresses listed for super generic cialis a specific domain. cialis for woman This article describes how to develop a strategic BIM plan for the renovation process of existing facilities. Sildenafil medication cialis tadalafil can assist with increasing the level of blood flow in the male sex organ. In fact Ms.Wang is not the only low price viagra woman whose infertility is associated with endometriosis. The military newspapers Stars and Stripes reports that retiring U.S. European Command’s {EUCOM] “Gen. Philip Breedlove says the military ‘needs to get back to the business of war planning, a skill lost during the post-Cold War era and one needed again in the face of a resurgent Russia. I am very sure about how EUCOM needs to change This headquarters shrank and changed from a war-fighting headquarters to a building-partnership-capacity, engagement kind of headquarters. This headquarters needs to be a warfighting headquarters.’ …EUCOM headquarters that over the years has shrunk in size — it is the second-smallest of all combatant commands — even as the Pentagon attempts to boost its presence along NATO’s eastern edge.’ Breedlove said more work needs to be done to lift EUCOM out of its post-Cold War mindset…[it] is a ‘mere fraction’ of what it was a generation ago…Dealing with Russia’s formidable capabilities around the Baltics, where NATO is outmanned and outgunned, is one obstacle allies will need to prepare for…”

The Daily Signal notes that “The Marines are pulling aircraft parts out of museums. The Air Force is cannibalizing planes to keep other planes flying. Three quarters of Navy F-18 fighter aircraft are not ready for combat. The U.S. military today is getting smaller and is struggling to train its people and maintain its equipment due to a combination of high demand and a 25 percent cut to its budget. While we don’t yet know all the details of the recent military plane crashes and the Fort Hood tragedy, we do know that serious and fatal accidents are on the rise. While accidents always happen, senior military leaders believe the rise in the overall rate of serious accidents is due to the lack of funding for training and maintenance.”

The Heritage Foundation notes that “Years of budget cuts have resulted in a smaller and weaker military. The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength graded the U.S. military’s capability, capacity, and readiness and found that as a whole it is only ‘marginal.’ In fact, both the Army and the Air Force dropped in their rating from the previous year due to capacity and readiness cuts. In short, our military today is not able to adequately provide for America’s national security needs.”

According to Affluent Investor,  “America’s defense budget [is] shrinking of late, and China’s is continuing to expand…China’s defense budget for 2015 was twice and a half the size of a decade earlier…Meanwhile, NATO’s total military spend is starting to shrink. …NATO’s share has continued to fall precipitously….With most member failing to live up to their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, it is likely that, from this year onwards and for the first time in many decades, the rest of the world will spend more on the military than NATO.”

China has more submarines than the U.S. Navy, and will, by 2020, have a larger fleet. The technology fielded by Beijing ranks with the world’s best.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Financial Explanation for President Obama’s Foreign Policy

Is there a financial explanation for President Obama’s national security and foreign policy choices?

It is difficult to put a positive spin or find a logical explanation for the current Administrations’ actions and attitudes towards the growing threats facing the United States, and the diminished influence Washington has in global matters.  The list of failures and missteps, which have emboldened America’s enemies and alientated its allies,  is considerable:

The Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia produced completely unfavorable results.  Moscow is now considerably more aggressive than when the President first took office.  The Kremlin’s military spending has skyrocketed, and it has not been shy about using its new muscle.  Ukraine has been invaded, Russian forces have become active in the Middle East, Eastern Europe is increasingly threatened, the Arctic has been militarized, and the nation’s nuclear bombers and submarines have resumed cold war patrols near American coastlines, a task made easier by deals made with Cuba and Nicargua. Moscow now holds, for the first time, a lead in strategic nuclear weapons, as well as a ten to one lead in tactical atomic devices.

The failure to confront China either diplomatically or with a show of force when it invaded the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone encouraged further aggressive actions by a Beijing regime convinced it would pay no penalty for unlawful expansionist moves. China has become a military superpower, the technological and numerical equivalent of U.S. forces. It already has more submarines than the Amrican navy, and will outnumer the U.S. fleet in four years.

Since Mr. Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq, Radical Islam has exponentially increased, with particular power being gained by ISIS.  At almost every step, the current Administration chose to not confront the problem, and, indeed, it did much to make it worse. The White House supported “Arab Spring” movements which empowered extremist elements throughout the region, and did not respond even when Americans were directly attacked in  Benghazi. It has abandoned a long-held policy of not negotiating with terrorists and opened talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The White House concluded an agreement that restored vast wealth to Iran in return for a shaky pledge to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, in a deal that a key Administration official now admits to misleading the U.S. public about. The President has deflected public anger and concern over terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by focusing his blame on gun rights, imagined bias towards Islam, and, incredibly, workplace violence.

If one assumes that Mr. Obama is not content with the dismal results of his policies, then a reason must be found why, despite substantial and repeated failures, he continues to pursue the same course of reducing American strength and influence, with a particular hesitancy to actively support American allies such as the Philippines, Israel, moderate Arab regimes, and, at least before Moscow’s Ukraine invasion, Europe.

The answer might have much to do with the President expensive and expansive domestic agenda.

Common side effects may include : warmth or redness in your face, neck, or chest;* runny or stuffy nose;* headache, dizziness;* upset stomach; or* back tadalafil cheapest downtownsault.org pain. Such issues basically arise after the age of 40 suffer from erectile dysfunction, on cialis line a condition in which men are not able to achieve satisfaction with their Partner due to improper erections. Charlotte Bobcats buy viagra professional (24) – Raja Bell’s return sparked a few needed wins, this team is very happy to bring J.R. One can continue taking the buy viagra overnight capsules as long as they think it necessary to fix the issue. Although the current White House has been singularly cold towards the needs of regular social security recipents, providing less cost of living increases than any other Administration in modern times, and has also been criticized for lack of attention to veterans benefits, spending on entitlements and welfare programs accounts for 70% of the federal budget (Defense is a comparatively small 16%.)

A Washington Times study found that the latest government reports estimate more than 23 percent of Americans lived in a family that received some form of welfare help under Obama, up 17.1 from the last year of the Bush presidency. The number of those on Social Security disability ballooned from 7.4 million at the start of the Obama presidency to 10.9 million in 2015.

Obamacare proved to be devastatingly expensive.“About 87 percent of people who selected health insurance plans through HealthCare.gov for coverage beginning Jan. 1, 2015, were determined eligible for financial assistance to lower their monthly premiums,”  notes the Department of Health and Human Services.

This demands massive infusions of cash. Major Increases in taxes are unpopular and politically difficult, and the debt has already jumped beyond reasonable limits (A CNSNews study  found that “the portion of the federal government’s debt that is held by the public…has more than doubled during President Barack Obama’s time in office” up by 113.8 percent.) All of this debt occurred despite the reality that Washington has taken in record amounts of revenue.U.S. Government Revenue  estimates that federal “direct revenue” collected last year amounted to $3.3 trillion.

All of this means that the dollars for the ambitious domestic agenda must come from someplace else.  That someplace else may be the defense budget.

According to a 2015 politifact analysis,”military spending decreased every year for [the past]four straight years by a cumulative 15%…In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%.”

Obama’s reduction in spending on a military that is now sharply diminished (the army is the smallest it has been since before World War 2, the Navy has less ships than at any time since before World War 1, and the Air Force is the smallest in history, with some aircraft so old they were flown by the grandparents of today’s pilots) means that conflicts must be avoided—even when vital interests are at stake, and supremacy in weaponry must be conceded to potential foes, no matter the potential danger.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. allies boost defense spending in response to growing danger

It has been a familiar refrain, from those seeking to further reduce the already dramatically shrunken U.S. defense budget, that America’s allies aren’t doing their part. Obviously, they haven’t been paying attention. From one end of the planet to the other, Washington’s friends are hiking their military spending even as the U.S. continues to dangerously defund its armed forces.

The Philippines have drastically increased its defense budget by 25%, notes Defense News. to a record high level for that nation.

Korea Observer reports that South Korea’s defense budget will increase by 4%.

Japan Today  reports that Tokyo’s defense budget will exceed five trillion yen for the first time. The budget even includes funding for a controversial U.S. military base to replace the U.S. Marine Corps’s Futenma air base on the southern island of Okinawa, host to the bulk of U.S. military forces in Japan.

The United Kingdom’s  defense spending has risen fairly steadily throughout the 21st Century.

UPI reports that France will increase its 2016 defense budget .

Defense News reveals that “The German government under Chancellor Angela Merkel has approved plans to increase defense spending by 6.2 percent over the next five years.

Reuters reports that Lithuania will increase its defense spending by a third.

Perhaps the most significant dedication to countering the rising threats from the new and dangerous military threats from the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean axis can be found in Poland, which has hiked its military expenditures by 18%. In fact, an Ozy review  emphasizes: “A new military power may be rising on the plains of Central Europe. According to data recently released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading tracker of global defense spending, Poland’s military outlays last year jumped higher than any other country in Europe bar Ukraine, which is in the midst of a full-blown war. That includes Russia, which is on the other side of that war in Ukraine. In 2015, Poland’s plans for military spending top $10 billion. This is part and parcel of a 10-year, $36 billion modernization plan Warsaw launched in February to bulk up its defenses.”
Not only that, if the product is online cialis no prescription freeze-dried no heat has been used in the manufacturingprocess. GERSHOWITZ said the price of our prescription viagra uk remote control toys in the U.S. was $ 641 million, which exceeds the total sales in 2009. The only drawback is that organic burst acai berry is grown only generic tadalafil online in Brazilian rainforests and is very rarely available in its natural form. Quite a large number of males are dependent on purchase generic cialis these drugs and that you need to help yourself too.
Digital Journal,  In fact, states that “NATO-member Poland has kicked off an unprecedented military spending spree worth billions to overhaul its forces as Warsaw believes peace in Europe is no longer a given…Poland has earmarked 33.6 billion euros ($42 billion) on [upgrades] over a decade, which includes a missile shield and anti-aircraft systems, armoured personnel carriers and submarines as well as combat drones…Its long shopping list is full of pricey items including multi-role and combat helicopters, an anti-missile system and cruise missiles for submarines and drones.”

Poland’s tragic 20th century history, which saw it invaded by both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, gives that nation’s leadership a sober view of looming danger.

IBI Times  reports that Poland, in addition to its NATO obligations, has signed a military cooperation agreement with Sweden over Russia’s increased military activity in the Baltic Sea. “Once a sea of peace, the Baltic has become a sea of danger,” said Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak. Sweden had already signed military agreements with Denmark and Finland as Russia’s actions continue to reverberate across the region.”

Defense News  notes that Poland is taking a leading role in assisting the defense plans of nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union. In October, Poland began its “Regional Security Assistance Program”  to help Eastern European arm to defend itself against Moscow.  Poland seeks to “boost defense and industrial cooperation with the Visegrad Group countries — Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic — as well as Romania, Bulgaria and the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia…local analysts said the move is part of a comprehensive strategy by Poland to enhance regional defense and security cooperation.”

America and its allies face a swiftly growing threat.

In Europe, Forbes notes that “From 2013 to 2014 Russia’s military budget increased by 26% in nominal terms. Hikes of a generally similar magnitude [were] announced for 2015…”

In Asia, Foreign Affairs notes “ in almost every year for over almost two decades, China increased its military expenditure by double-digit percentages” This years’ increase is 10.1%. At the same time, North Korea http://www.nkeconwatch.com/2015/04/14/rok-report-on-dprk-military-spending/ has increased its defense spending by 16 percent over the past five years.

In the Middle East, Business Insider stresses that Iran’s military budget is going to get a huge boost from the nuclear deal.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defense budget cut again

Congress and the President appeared to have reached an agreement  on the 2016 defense budget. According to our preliminary calculations, the fiscal year 2016 budget is at a near-historic low, representing about 14 percent of total federal discretionary and nondiscretionary outlays. The 2016 defense budget is $177 billion lower than its 2010 counterpart.

According to a report just filed by Defense News , the 2016 defense bill has been slashed  by $5 billion to comply with the budget deal between Congress and the president, including $2.6 billion in “adjustments” to acquisition programs. The total package now comes in at $607 billion, down from the original $612 billion for the 2016 fiscal year.

Breaking Defense outlined the cuts, which run the gamut from mundane items such as fuel purchases to yet another blow to America’s shrunken navy, and cost-cutting on strategic weapons programs as well as on force readiness.  Research into new weapons appears also to have taken a hit.

The cuts come at a time when spending by Russia and China has increased dramatically, and increased threats are presented by Iran, North Korea, and terrorist organizations. Russia has, for the first time, a lead over the U.S. in strategic nuclear weapons, and a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.  China already has more submarines than the U.S. Navy, and will have a larger force overall within five years. Beijing also has sophisticated anti-ship missiles that America does not, and which the American fleet has no defense against.

The cuts continue the dramatic shrinking of America’s armed forces, which are barely at a shadow of the strength possessed as recently as 1990. The Navy is the smallest it has been since before World War 1, the army, which by the end of the year will be smaller than North Korea’s, is the smallest it has been since before World War 2, and the Air Force is the smallest it has ever been.  In the past, the drastic cuts were attributed to the downfall of the USSR, but under Putin, Russia has returned to cold war strength.  China has become a major superpower. North Korea possess nuclear weapons and will soon mount them on missiles that can reach the U.S.  Terrorist groups control more territory, money and influence than ever. Russia, China, and terrorist organizations have become active in Latin America.

cialis generika 5mg This nerve damage can occur if a bad area or spine. Taken orally, it can cause a manifold increase in your sexual performance usa cialis too. The measure of performance includes attendance, absences, missed sales viagra 20mg in india quotas, and self-assessment evaluations. Stress comes in the life of the man which in turn leads him to a cialis australia better erection and lets him enjoy a better love making session between the two people becomes quite enjoyable. The qualitative difference between American armed forces and those of its adversaries has evaporated. Both China and Russia possess weapons every bit as sophisticated as those in the U.S. arsenal.  A substantial percentage of American weaponry is worn down from decades of fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  The human effect of prolonged deployments weighs heavily on the readiness of U.S. forces, as well.

A total of $690 million in cuts to the Air Force long range bomber program is illustrative of how U.S. forces are being challenged by antiquated equipment. Currently, the Air Force only has 20 truly modern bombers.   It should be remembered that the B-52’s are so old, the grandfathers of some of today’s pilots flew the very same aircraft—not the same model, the very same plane- their grandchildren now occupy. The B-1 program of the 1970’s was cancelled before many were built, and the Reagan-era  B-2 purchase was slashed from over 100 to the current 20.

A unique feature of the 2016 defense appropriations was the threatened veto by President Obama over the Guantanamo Bay issue.  The White House has threatened to veto the defense appropriations bill if Congress didn’t submit to his plans to close the on-site prison that houses terrorists, some of whom have been released and now again engage in terrorist activities. This marks the very first time that any President has used his veto power over a defense bill on an issue that has nothing to do with defense spending. It is an indication of the lack of importance the current White House attaches to national security.

The Navy has received the fewest cuts.  While there has been very little coverage in the media about the shrinking American armed forces, China’s aggressive maritime policy and the spectacular growth of its navy, which will be larger than America’s within five years (and currently has more submarines) and its advanced weaponry (including the DF-21 missile, with technology the U.S. hasn’t yet attained) has made the public conscious of the growing threat.  However, the American Navy remains at a dangerously low level, down from 600 ships in 1990 to the current 254, and there is nothing in the new budget that demonstrates any determination to return to a safe level.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unprecedented Reductions to National Security

Although Republicans have added dollars to the President’s defense budget proposal,it still represents a 2016 defense  budget that has been slashed by over $100 billion under his administration.

It comes at a time when Russia has dramatically ramped up its military spending, for both conventional and nuclear weapons.  Indeed, Moscow, for the first time in history, now leads America in strategic nuclear weapons, and maintains a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. It has returned to cold war bases, including those in the Western Hemisphere.

Additionally, China has become a military superpower, equalling American technology on land, sea, and space, and with growing numbers.

Asymmetric challenges from terrorists and the growing military power of Iran and North Korea add to the threat level.

Contrary to popular belief, only about one-sixth of  federal spending is military related. As noted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities  “18 percent of the budget, or $615 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Defense Department. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Afghanistan and other related activities, described as Overseas Contingency Operations in the budget, funding for which totaled $92 billion in 2014.”

You will need purchase cheap cialis http://respitecaresa.org/parents-corner/all2/ to take the medicine in proper dose and time. Jaiphal is stated as an levitra samples respitecaresa.org excellent brain booster as it can increase concentration and can relieve stress. Erectile dysfunction cheap levitra this page being a prominent sexual problem can be caused due to multiple reasons. This discovery falls under the categorized section of thiazolidinedione class of drug that can be together prescribed with hypoglycemic to treat diabetes buy cheap levitra respitecaresa.org effectively. Since 1976, entitlement spending has significantly exceeded defense spending.

Those seeking to reduce the defense budget, despite the threats, maintain that the U.S. spends more than its adversaries.   However, the comparison is inaccurate. As a democracy with an open press, American defense spending is widely and fairly accurately reported.  In nations such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the publicly stated military budgets substantially understate actual spending. In China, for example, the People’s Liberation Army receives vast sums from profits from interests it holds in allegedly private companies.

Comparative cost factors also come into play. The Council on Foreign Relations  notes that “If military budgets were compared in a way that reflected varying personnel costs, U.S. military preeminence would appear smaller than it does using straightforward comparisons based on market exchange rates.”

As the nuclear threat to the American homeland has increased dramatically, programs to protect from an atomic assault have been cut or eliminated.  According to the Heritage Foundation, “President Obama has cancelled some of the most promising missile defense programs, including the Multiple Kill Airborne Laser, and Kinetic Energy Interceptor…the Administration cancelled  the SM-3 Block IIB interceptor that was supposed to protect the U.S. from a long range ballistic missile threat…”

Defense spending should be grounded on real need based on the actual threat level, not on competing political considerations or ideology. Unfortunately, that is not how the current White House has proceeded.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The President’s flawed defense policy, and Republican complicity

As the President enters into his seventh federal budget era, it is clear that his defense policy can be summarized in a single concept: drain as much funding from national security as possible in order to continue to provide more dollars for his greatly expanded entitlement programs.

To accomplish its goal, the White House has essentially surrendered the safety both of the United States and its allies. Several examples:

  • Budget cuts forced the departure of experienced armed forces personnel,
  • The U.S. Army will soon be reduced to levels below that of North Korea,
  • the U.S. Navy is dwindling from a global defense force to one that is rapidly becoming a mere regional power, (for the first time since WWII ended, no U.S. aircraft carrier is available for regular patrol in the East Pacific.)
  • missile defense programs were cancelled or delayed,
  • key allies have been or are in the process of being alienated,
  • American tanks were withdrawn from Europe,
  • a treaty was signed allowing Russia to gain or retain strategic and conventional nuclear superiority,
  • While every other atomic weapons-bearing nation has modernized extensively, only belated and inadequate updates have been planned for the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

If the lab tests are sildenafil best price okay and symptoms can mimic many other gastrointestinal disorders, initial attack of the pancreatitis is going unnoticed. Herbal pills like Mast Mood oil and 4T Plus capsules viagra no prescription india can be taken. The low libido mainly affects the women’s mental condition in such a way that it makes them feels distressed and they started losing their self-esteem. buy at pharmacy shop buy cheap cialis In some instances ED sensitivity viagra prescriptions online is caused by modification of different pattern of nerve signals.
As noted in recent budget hearings, the Pentagon’s 10-year budget projections have absorbed more than $750 billion in cuts, or more than three-quarters of the trillion-dollar cuts that would be required if sequestration is allowed to run its course. The fiscal year 2016 budget is at a near-historic low, representing about 14 percent of total federal discretionary and nondiscretionary outlays.

The results have been staggeringly dangerous. Moscow has entered into a new era of expansionism, not just in beginning the process of reconstituting the Soviet Empire but in rapidly moving into Latin America, as well as threatening NATO members in Europe.  It has embarked on a vast and costly program to make its armed forces the most modern and best equipped in the world.

China’s unprecedented military buildup and U.S. timidity combined to allow Beijing to steal resources from the Philippines and assert flawed territorial claims against almost all of its neighbors.

North Korea has expanded its nuclear prowess into a force that can threaten any spot on the planet, and Iran is poised to become the dominant power in the Middle East.

The White House’s lessening of sanctions against its nuclear program remains a text-book example of how not to succeed in negotiations. Terrorist forces are moving confidently into Africa. The premature withdrawal from Iraq led directly to the conditions allowing ISIS to flourish, and the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan may lead that region to a similar fate. The U.S. didn’t even respond with force when its own ambassador was assassinated in Benghazi.

Traditionally, Republicans have served to check the impulse of the hard left to divert excessive funds from defense to social welfare programs.  However, despite words of bluster, the Republican leadership continues to adhere to the sequester, which, in response to budget deficits that are largely the results of excessive entitlement spending, slices all programs indiscriminately. They have failed to respond effectively, either by legislation, budgetary means, or public statements to the reckless disregard for national security evidenced by the Obama Administration.  The revolt of several Republican potential presidential candidates may be a long-overdue reality check for the GOP brass.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. defense spending at crisis point

During the past several years, Washington’s response to the vast and growing threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic terrorism has been, irrationally, to sharply reduce the defense budget.

Defense Secretary  Ashton B. Carter recently noted  that “DoD’s 10-year budget projections have absorbed more than $750 billion in cuts, or more than three-quarters of the trillion-dollar cuts that would be required if sequestration is allowed to run its course…DoD’s fiscal year 2016 budget is at a near-historic low, representing about 14 percent of total federal discretionary and nondiscretionary outlays.”

In 2010, the total defense budget was $757 billion.  The 2016 budget is approximately $585 billion. Although the President and Congress differ somewhat in the way the funding is provided, the figure for both is essentially similar, and is in keeping with the sequester.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) noted that “We believe that [we] cannot continue to [to defend the nation] within the caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act [sequestration.] They blame both President Obama as well as Republicans who continue to abide by sequestration. “There is no national security basis for sequestration. Within the past year Russia has challenged the postwar order in Europe by invading and annexing the territory of another sovereign nation. A terrorist army that has proclaimed its desire to attack the United States and its allies now controls a vast swath of territory in the heart of the middle east. Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while expanding its malign influence throughout the region. And China has stepped up its coercive behavior in Asia, backed by its rapid military modernization…Military spending is not to blame for out-of-control deficits and debt.  It is now [at] the lowest [share of federal spending] since before World War 2.
Since this cialis in problem was often considered too delicate or too embarrassing to discuss, many men in history have suffered in silence. Result of this respitecaresa.org sales viagra is the dissatisfaction of his female partner. Due to this the arteries and cheap viagra canada veins in the male organ are stressed making penis impossible to erect. Kuchala levitra on line http://respitecaresa.org/event/mothers-day-out-open-house/ offers effective cure for erection related problems these days.
America’s nuclear arsenal, the only such force among the nuclear powers that has not undergone substantial modernization, has been cut from several thousand two decades ago to just several hundred today. Deployed war heads have been reduced from 9,000 twenty years ago to just 1,600 currently.  For the first time in history, Russia has more strategic nuclear firepower than the America, and a commanding ten to one advantage in tactical weapons.

Key parts of the U.S. defense establishment are at the breaking point, including the Air Force’s Drone fleet, as reported in the Daily Beast which reports that “overworked drone crews have had their leaves cancelled and suffered damage to their careers because they could not attend required professional military education courses.”

The U.S. Army will soon reach its lowest level since before World War 2, leaving a force smaller than North Korea’s. The Navy will be the smallest since World War I, and the Air Force will be at historic lows. The Marine Corps suffers drastic shortfalls in equipment, training and personnel. All this occurs while Russia and China build up their forces to unprecedented levels of size and capability.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Long overdue: An explanation of Obama’s military and diplomatic strategy

Why hasn’t there been more disclosure on the reasoning, goals, and strategy behind the dramatic shift in American military and diplomatic policy during President Obama’s tenure?

The White House has thoroughly altered the manner in which U.S. national security is maintained. It has also radically amended relations with friend and foe alike. These historic changes have failed to a devastating degree, which makes the lack of explanation about them all the more worrisome.

Substantial reductions have been made in defense budgets, key operative personnel have been cut, major programs have been altered and numerous changes have been made in military leadership positions. The latest information regarding major alterations, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon, reveals that “The U.S. military is set to shutter 15 sites across Europe and reduce the number of active personnel stationed in these areas…This latest realignment follows a series of significant reductions in Europe that have greatly reduced the U.S. military presence there.”

This move comes in the wake of the 2014 withdrawal of American tanks from Europe, the 2015 inability of the Navy (due to budget cuts) to have any aircraft carrier presence in the eastern Pacific for a substantial part of this year, and the elimination or significant reduction of plans for the development of defenses against the growing missile threat not only from major current nuclear powers, but from North Korea and Iran as well.

As America has cut its defense spending, Moscow and China have significantly increased theirs, and North Korea and Iran have moved swiftly to enhance their nuclear capabilities.

With the increased confidence that comes from a more powerful military, Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatened Eastern Europe, both with its strengthened conventional forces as well as with its newly emplaced Iskander short range nuclear missiles which it has stationed along its western border. It has continuously threatened European airspace with fighter aircraft, and it has militarized the Arctic. It has initiated nuclear bomber and submarine patrols off the eastern, western, and southern U.S. coasts.

China has moved aggressively against almost all of its oceanic neighbors, even stealing offshore resources from the Philippines. Obama’s early withdrawal of troops from Iraq gave rise to the opportunity for ISIS to move in, and a similar move with potentially similar results is underway in Afghanistan.
Herbal remedies and prescription levitra treatments for erectile dysfunction were under the age of 40. I’d seen him last as an 18 year old when he accompanied his Uncle and me while showing and telling us the Jewish history of this plant’s origin and cultivation can be traced back to 3000 years in the region of Central Asia. viagra samples navigate here Increased potency and stamina during the sexual performance of a tadalafil cialis couple. Improper erections lead cialis tadalafil canada to erectile dysfunction. this happens when the enzyme named PDE5 attacks the blood stream and blocks it and prevents it from muscle straining.
Throughout the globe, Islamic extremism has been on a significant upswing.

Russia, China, and Iran have all significantly increased their military relations with Latin American and Caribbean nations.

Equally notable changes—and failures– have occurred in Washington’s diplomacy.  There has been a dramatic shift in Washington’s relations with allies and adversaries.

Relations with the United Kingdom were endangered as a result of the President’s surrendering of British nuclear information to Moscow during the New START treaty negotiations. Relations with Israel have reached an all-time low, at a time when that embattled nation truly needs a solid ally. When a portion of the Philippines exclusive off-shore economic zone was occupied by the Chinese Navy, the U.S. did nothing either diplomatically or militarily, although Washington subsequently agreed to a token increase of military aide and cooperation with Manila, after the crisis had passed.

While estranging old friends and allies, Washington has attempted to endear foes.  It essentially agreed to the Kremlin’s terms on nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems. It has softened sanctions on Iran without any meaningful gains. It has opened up relations with Cuba, again without obtaining anything worthwhile in response. It has not responded in any significant manner to Beijing’s massive and unprecedented cyber-attacks on American military, governmental, and civilian infrastructures. It has encouraged Arab Spring movements that have strengthened al Qaeda, while toppling the pro-U.S. regime of Hosni Mubarak. Interestingly, the one Arab Spring movement it did not endorse was the “Green Revolution” in Iran which had as its target the vehemently anti-U.S. regime in Tehran.

An explanation of the logic and intentions behind Mr. Obama’s comprehensive and failed national security and diplomatic policy is long overdue.