In conjunction with a sound U.S. Security Policy the United States must have a Defense Budget to implement that policy. This budget would provide the money to pay for a military which reflects our security situation. If elected to the U.S. Senate I will do everything within my power to see that Congress will
authorize a force structure of 5 active-duty Army divisions (down from 10 now), 1 active Marine division (reduced from 3 now), 7 Air Force expeditionary forces (down from 10 now), and 6 active carrier battle groups with 5 Navy air wings (reduced from 11 and 10, respectively);
require that the armed services compensate for reduced active forces by relying more on the National Guard and the reserves;
A nation’s defense policy (including the defense budget) should reflect its security situation—that is, the geopolitical realities of its environment. U.S. defense policy fails to take such realities into account.
Advocates of higher military budgets regret that U.S. spending on national defense has declined to about 3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, its lowest point since 1940. As a result, they argue that U.S. security is being severely compromised. Although defense spending as a percentage of GDP is a good indicator of what proportion of the national wealth is being appropriated for defense, it is not an indicator of what amount should be spent on a nation’s defense. Such spending should be based on the nation’s geostrategic situation and the threats to its vital interests (which have declined dramatically since the end of the Cold War). Besides, no nation ever fought another nation with a percentage of its GDP. Nations fight other nations with military forces that are purchased with finite quantities of resources.When the U.S. annual budget for national defense is compared with that of other nations, the true magnitude of U.S. defense spending becomes clear. U.S. defense spending roughly equals the combined spending of the next 10 nations—8 of which are our wealthy allies (only Russia and China fall outside this group). The United States spends more than all of its wealthy friends and allies combined and almost one and a half times what all of its rich NATO allies combined spend. More important, the United States spends over three times the combined amount spent by nations that are ‘‘potential threat states’’—Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea.The United States could probably spend less, not more, than other major nations and remain secure. The United States is blessed with one of the most secure geostrategic environments the world has ever seen. It is virtually invulnerable to an invasion. The United States has two great oceans separating it from other major powers and weak and friendly neighbors on its borders, and no major power in the Western Hemisphere poses a challenge. Most important, any nation foolish enough to attack the United States would face the devastation of its homeland by the world’s most formidable nuclear arsenal. In short, a large portion of the $275 billion spent annually on defense (about $1,000 per American) has nothing to do with U.S. security and lots to do with the expensive, self-appointed role of ‘‘world leader.’’New Criterion for Determining the Size of U.S. Forces Is NeededThe virtual invulnerability of the United States allows it to define its vital interests narrowly and intervene militarily only when they are threatened. There has always been—and will always be—instability in the world (although, since the Cold War ended, most indicators have shown that it is declining). In the vast majority of cases, however, instability will not threaten vital American interests. If the United States pursued a policy of military restraint, it could reduce its defense budget by more than a third—from $275 billion to $175 billion per year—and still be, by far, the most capable military power in the world. (the United Kingdom — which comes in a distant second among nations with first-rate militaries on any scale of defense expenditures—spends only about $37 billion per year on defense.)
Optimal U.S. Force StructureWithout assuming a self appointed role of being the world's policeman, the United States could drastically reduce it's ground forces. In this alternative force structure, ground forces—the Army and the Marine Corps—have would be reduced more than the Air Force and Navy. Such a shift of emphasis makes sense for a nation that faces no threat from an invading ground force. There are long distances between the United States and any potential adversary. With a small standing army, more reliance would need to be placed on the National Guard and the reserves. In the case of the rare, large-scale war in a foreign theater that requires substantial ground forces to win back lost territory, plenty of time will be available to mobilize the forces of the National Guard and the reserves.Terminate Unneeded Weapons Systems
Savings achieved through decommissioning some military units and their existing equipment could be supplemented by savings accruing from canceling new weapons systems, currently in development or production, that are either unneeded in principle or relics of the Cold War. Some of those savings could be returned to taxpayers through reductions in the defense budget and some could be reallocated to increase funding for previously neglected, but important, military missions.Terminate All Peacekeeping and Overseas Presence Missions
We need to stop creating terrorists. For all we know, Clinton's cruise missil attack on the Sudan killed some 10 year old boy's grandfather who grows up in 10 years, comes over here blows up a building or worse to avenge his grandfather's death caused by an arrogant United States.
Peacekeeping and overseas presence missions (U.S. troops stationed overseas and regular naval deployments in overseas theaters) have nothing to do with safeguarding vital U.S. interests. In the more benign security environment of the post–Cold War world, such missions only discourage wealthy U.S. allies from spending the resources needed to provide for their own security. Furthermore, those missions lower morale in U.S. forces and consume resources and time that should be used for training to fight wars and to deploy from the United States in the rare cases in which a foreign conflict threatens U.S. vital interests.
Negotiate Further Reductions in Strategic Warheads
By expanding NATO, the United States has slowed the Russian Duma’s ratification of the START II treaty, which provides for mutual reductions until each country has only 3,000 to 3,500 strategic warheads. Yet Russia has an incentive to reduce its warheads below that level, because it would not have to develop an expensive new single-warhead missile. Congress should require that the United States negotiate with Russia to further reduce warheads to a maximum of 2,000 for each country. The United States should develop and deploy a national missile defense system.
Benefits of Adopting the Alternative Defense PostureAdopting a foreign policy of military restraint overseas, buying the forces needed to fight one regional war, and reducing the budget for national defense by $100 billion per year would help to keep the United States out of unnecessary foreign wars. Such potential quagmires have little to do with vital American security interests and incur exorbitant costs—in both resources and American lives.
Also see, U.S. Security Policy