- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
August 2010 Archives
This question was originally published on Aug. 9.
It's time for our annual summertime reading go-round -- only this time, we're including movie viewing recommendations as well. We'd like to know what you're reading and watching: history, politics, biography and all other forms of nonfiction, sure, but also fiction if there's some tie-in to the themes we regularly discuss on this blog. The fate of the American empire? Whither China, Russia and Europe? War? Peace? An insightful bio of some neglected figure from U.S. history? Whatever is snagging your interest, whether you are situated on a beach chair or still stuck in the office, we'd like to know about it. In a few short sentences, please tell us why your choice might be of interest to others. Links are welcome.
14 responses: Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Paul Starobin, Paul Starobin, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Paul Starobin, James Jay Carafano, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Rachel Kleinfeld, Loren Thompson, Michael Brenner, Ron Marks, Paul Starobin, Steven Metz, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
[From time to time, we depart from our regular schedule to launch a new question in mid-week to respond to breaking news. This is one of those weeks.]
On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates dropped one of his habitual bombshells when he announced significant cuts to his department's bureaucracy, most dramatically the dissolution of Norfolk, Va.-based Joint Forces Command. Any money saved on overhead would be reallocated to more pressing military needs, and most commentators consider Gates' move an effort to preempt actual cuts to the overall defense budget, which he has warned against. What is the ratio of programmatic substance to political symbolism in Gates' latest round of efficiencies? And are any babies being tossed out with the bathwater?
11 responses: David Krieger, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Col. W. Patrick Lang, Larry Korb, Daniel Gouré, Paul Sullivan, Loren Thompson, Michael Brenner, Gordon Adams, Winslow T. Wheeler, Col. W. Patrick Lang
The U.S. military is already unaffordable -- and yet it needs to be larger to sustain America's global leadership, especially in the face of a rising China. That's the bottom line from a congressionally chartered bipartisan panel, co-chaired by Stephen Hadley, George W. Bush's national security adviser, and William Perry, Bill Clinton's Defense secretary. The report, released July 29, is the independent panel's assessment of and commentary on the Pentagon's own Quadrennial Defense Review, released earlier this year.
The Hadley-Perry "alternative QDR" deliberately looks 20 years out and particularly emphasizes building a larger Navy to counter the rising power of China. (Panel members include longtime expert blog contributor Maj. Gen. Robert Scales. The full document can be found here.)
On one hand, the panel writes, the military needs both more manpower and more modern equipment: "There is a significant and growing gap between the 'force structure' of the military -- its size and its inventory of equipment -- and the missions it will be called on to perform in the future.... [So] we propose an alternative force structure with emphasis on increasing the size of the Navy." On the other hand, the panel acknowledges, we cannot pay for what we already have: "The [currently planned] force structure, not including the additional increments the panel believes necessary, will be unsustainable unless growth in defense entitlements, increases in overhead costs, and cost overruns of major acquisition programs are all brought under control."
Frequent expert blog contributor Gordon Adams, among others, has already blasted the Hadley-Perry report for making the underlying assumption that the U.S. can and should continue to invest heavily in being a "global policeman." Is Adams right that the Hadley-Perry report calls for an unaffordable answer to the wrong question? Or are the report's authors correct when they argue that the U.S. must be the leading guarantor of global security? And if the U.S. must lead, has the Hadley-Perry panel laid out the right path to doing so?
19 responses: Michael Vlahos, Michael Brenner, Joseph J. Collins, Daniel Serwer, Larry Korb, Gordon Adams, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Michael Brenner, Paul Sullivan, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Loren Thompson, Christopher Preble, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Winslow T. Wheeler, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Daniel Gouré, Michael Brenner, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Gordon Adams
