How do they stack up? Or, more specifically, which candidate wants to undo 16 uninterrupted years of cuts to our Armed Forces? All of them, actually (sans weird Ron Paul). An overview of their defense proposals follows, but I think the best prescription comes from Fred Thompson. All of the candidates seem to recognize that Rumsfeld’s lighter force concept has failed and that some sort of revitalization effort is long overdue, but only Thompson properly outlines the scope of the problem and the appropriate fix. Rudy’s 10 additional BCTs, 300 ship navy, and force modernization plan is a step in the right direction–it’s a strong showing from the mayor. McCain would be an outstanding wartime leader (the best of the lot, in my opinion), but he opted to go with a broad overview instead of specifics. I liked Romney’s proposal to trim down the Pentagon bureaucracy but–when describing the details–he sounded like..well, a bureaucrat. Huckabee surprised me. I had to dig for it, but the governor wants to go back to Reagan-era defense spending, with the Pentagon racking in a full 6 percent of the GDP. Great plan, though I’m unsure he understands what he’s saying. We’re at 3.9 percent GDP for defense right now, nearly doubling that number without raising taxes sounds like a fool’s errand. That makes Fred’s plan seem more reasonable and calculated, and Huck sound like he’s just throwing money at the problem. Here are the specifics:
Mitt Romney:
We must increase the size of our military by 100,000 troops. In addition, we should increase to at least four percent of our gross domestic product to defense. This kind of investment will make up for critical gaps in the modernization of our equipment, personnel and health care efforts. However, as we invest in our military, we must ensure that funds are used to address critical needs of the men and women of our Armed Forces, not political or contractor interests.
Rudy Giuliani:
Mayor Giuliani will ensure that our military has all the forces, tools, skills, and technologies it needs to defeat the terrorists and address other future threats. He will add at least 10 new combat brigades to the Army and will expand our Navy to more than 300 ships. He will ensure that the Air Force has the new refueling tankers it needs, and will build a new long range bomber to replace the B-52.
Fred Thompson:
To address the problems and challenges faced by our Armed Forces today, the following initiatives will put us on the path to revitalizing our all-volunteer military over the coming years, enable the United States to advance its interests abroad, and ensure the long-term security of our nation for decades. -Be prepared to increase the core defense budget up to 4.5% of GDP to support the expansion, modernization, and increased readiness of U.S. military forces. -Build a “Million-Member”ground force capable of handling peacetime and wartime tasks without wearing out the troops and increasing U.S. vulnerability. -Enhance the capabilities of America’s Special Operations Forces (SOF) to conduct counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, and other “special” operations -Increase the U.S. Navy fleet to at least 325 ships to increase mission capability across the full spectrum of operations and maintain the ability to project power globally. -Complete the modernization of the U.S. Air Force to ensure continued tactical air dominance over all potential adversaries and the ability to project power globally. The U.S. military is at a strategic crossroads. Years of neglect, conflict, and long deployments are reducing the readiness, effectiveness and flexibility of the greatest military force in history. It is time to restore President Reagan’s promise of “peace through strength” by making the investments and hard decisions necessary to safeguard the nation’s long-term security. The fact is, we can and must do this.
John McCain:
The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops. Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time. John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation’s defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today. John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm’s way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation’s values and interests absolutely demand it.
Mike Huckabee:
Our current armed forces aren’t large enough – we have been relying far too heavily on our National Guard and our Reserves, we have worn them out. When our enemies know that we are spread thin, they’re more apt to test us by provoking a crisis. Having a sizeable standing army actually makes it less likely that we’ll have to use it. So I will increase the defense budget. We have to be ready to fight both conventional and unconventional wars against both state and non-state enemies. Right now we spend about 3.9% of our GDP on defense, while we spent about 6% in 1986 under President Reagan. I would return to that 6% level. I believe we can do this without raising taxes. I will limit increases in other discretionary spending and rely on the normal increase in federal tax revenue that is generated annually as Americans’ incomes rise.
