Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/pentagon-to-present-vision-of-reduced-military.html
Interesting article because it does attack everything on top of that quote from the 35 to cutting troops to the Navy and their nuclear program to leaving Europe and Asia from a personnel position.
Maybe somebody has the knowledge to answer this, but wouldn't that be tied to our deals with the govt regarding leasing the installations? It would seem to me that it may be difficult to do this from a political perspective.
Many who are more worried about cuts, including Mr. Panetta, acknowledge that Pentagon personnel costs are unsustainable and that generous retirement benefits may have to be scaled back to save crucial weapons programs.
“If we allow the current trend to continue,” said Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant on a Pentagon advisory group, the Defense Business Board, who has pushed for changes in the military retirement system, “we’re going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist.”
Interesting article because it does attack everything on top of that quote from the 35 to cutting troops to the Navy and their nuclear program to leaving Europe and Asia from a personnel position.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, advocates saving $69.5 billion over 10 years by reducing by one-third the number of American military personnel stationed in Europe and Asia
Maybe somebody has the knowledge to answer this, but wouldn't that be tied to our deals with the govt regarding leasing the installations? It would seem to me that it may be difficult to do this from a political perspective.