It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama unveils new strategy for 'leaner' US military

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:59 AM
The US military will become "leaner" as it switches focus to the Asia-Pacific region, US President Barack Obama has announced.

a rare appearance at the Pentagon, he unveiled a far-reaching defence review under which thousands of troops are expected to be axed.
"So yes, our military will be leaner," Mr Obama told reporters on Thursday, "but the world must know - the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats."

Joined by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, President Obama stressed that the defence budget would still grow, but at a slower pace.

He said the US was "turning the page on a decade of war" and faced a "moment of transition".

"Even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding," he said.

President Obama added: "At the same time, we have to renew our economic strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength around the world. That includes putting our fiscal house in order."

The president said the new strategy would end "long-term, nation-building with large military footprints", with the Pentagon instead pursuing a national security strategy based on "smaller conventional ground forces".

Mr Panetta said the review would make the US military "more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly".

Mr Obama has been closely involved with shaping the blueprint, meeting high-ranking defence officials six times since September.

Slim down he says to deploy more quickly deploy were the US have bases in nearly every country in the know world.

here is a look at the top war sorry i mean defense budgets

6,302battle tanks 3,252fighter/ground attack aircraft 71submarines 450land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launchers

7,400battle tanks 1,669fighter/ground attack aircraft 71submarines 66land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launchers

227battle tanks 220fighter/ground attack aircraft 11submarines 0land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launchers (can launch from submarines)

3,310battle tanks 1,439fighter/ground attack aircraft 65submarines 292land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launchers

3,233battle tanks 784fighter/ground attack aircraft 15submarines 0land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launchers (can launch from submarines)

That is were you tax payer money is going to.

God help us all

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:03 AM
So basically were haulting/slimming down our military so we can stay economically ahead of China??

About time if I understand this?

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:06 AM
....He says as he deploys troops to Israel to start a new war against Iran.

This talk of his, is just for elections-sake. He's saying one thing and doing another.
edit on 5-1-2012 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:07 AM
I do not know about this. Downsizing the manpower of the US military may or may not be a good thing. Sure, if we do indeed have too many, then by all means downsize some. On the other hand, downsizing may be the way for the TPTB to justify bringing in NATO troops to US soil to do the job that the US troops would refuse to do. After the military is downsized, it would be very easy to justify a year or two later that bringing in outside troops is necessary because the US military does not have the troop count.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by judus
Sad. The military has been reduced to something you take out of the closet to scare someone with.

A reduced, weakened fighting force, where once stood noble, proud, brave men and women.

As long as I'm alive, I will treat the members of the military with the honor and respect that they deserve.

Thank you. Each and every one of you that stood up and demanded that you be counted.


posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:09 AM
This whole topic is so full of crap I need hip waders to simply turn on the TV and listen to a press conference on it. Leaner military?? How about GUTTED military! He isn't cutting the things that would help us in any billion dollar programs for new weapons systems...or bases out the ying yang in nations all over Planet Earth. No No.... Troops! We must cut MEN! Cut Planes! Cut Ships!

How much would anyone like to take bets that when this obscene emasculation of America is done...the COSTS of the Pentagon and Department of Defense won't have changed a whole lot, whatever the claims...We just won't be getting HALF what we do right now for the same bill or more.

The only saving grace here is that when Obama leads his nation into a losing world he's trying SO HARD to do here....America CAN throw him overboard and gear up for the fight in staggering time. 1941 showed HOW fast we can move from 3rd world military status to a 1st world super-power with little or NO equal. We'll do it AGAIN if need be.... We'll just have to throw this pretender out of OUR White House first...Nov will be a landslide AGAINST him at this rate.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by judus

Obama won't even be in power a decade from now so this new "strategy" of his means squat

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by bluemirage5

I'd just note here....the damage Jimmy Carter did to the United States Military and United States position and credbility world wide took the better part of a decade to fix and it took a man with the strength and conviction of Ronald Reagan to accomplish. Obama has already gone BEYOND anything Carter did....and I don't see a Reagan running for office....not even remotely close.

I'll count us very fortunate if we ONLY suffer the pain of Obama's harm to America for 10 years. I fear the effects my last longer than that.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by judus
.Slim down he says to deploy more quickly ....

gawd this 'community organizer' has no clue. Dropping the number of troops doesn't mean a quicker (or more effective) deployment. And it certainly doesn't mean that our forces are any stronger. bassackwards.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Leaner military?? How about GUTTED military!

Exactly. Sure looks like the guy is trying to inflict as much damage as he can upon our national security before he is kicked out of office.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:23 AM
it looks like office talk to me.

There are all full of BS

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

Exactly. Sure looks like the guy is trying to inflict as much damage as he can upon our national security before he is kicked out of office.

Katie bar the door if he gets re-elected.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:32 AM
I enlisted under Carter and retired under Obama. I've been through this three times and it is never pretty. We had what the Air Force calls "Hanger Queens" all over our motor pool.

A Hanger Queen is a piece of equipment in need of repair, but eventually gets stripped as other pieces of equipment need repair themselves but the repair parts just aren't there to do the job.

Eventually, you end up with a shell that is useless and more than likely a investigation as to why that particular Command just scrapped a tank or aircraft.

Field excersizes are toned down to Computer simulations, troops are given notice that they are to be discharged with little time to prepare for the transistion, in some cases, before their expiration of service, etc, etc.

One other thing I have always noticed was that everytime a conflict arose, the were always investigations as to why units were not "Combat ready" when the time came for them.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by Skewed

Why would NATO troops be brought to US soil. After all NATO troops are already on US soil in the form of US troops, the USA being a founder member of NATO. ???

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee

Work with me here, I do not intend to split hairs.

Was only trying to make a point.

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:22 PM
This is a plot in order to compete with the growing popularity of the Ron Paul-esque non-interventionism.

Coming from Obama, means it's probably a lie. they will say they will do this but i'm sure the eventual actual evidence will reflect little or no change.

I'm willing to bet that this point will be a major selling point for Obama's campaign in 2012 against (surely) Ron Paul. But it will fail in comparison to Ron Paul's rock-solid platform.

top topics


log in