Military Budgets
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 4
- next
Response,
Nov/Dec
2009
Andrew Krepinevich's vision for the U.S. military underestimates Washington's existing commitments and capabilities, Thomas Donnelly and Philip Dur argue. Not so, replies Krepinevich, and now is no time to stay the course.
Read
Essay,
JUL/AUG
2009
The military foundations of U.S. dominance are eroding. In response, Washington should pursue new sources of military advantage and a more modest grand strategy.
Read
Essay,
Jan/Feb
2009
The Pentagon has to do more than modernize its conventional forces; it must also focus on today's unconventional conflicts -- and tomorrow's.
Read
Essay,
Nov/Dec
2007
The United States now spends almost as much on defense in real dollars as it ever has before -- even though it has no plausible rationale for using most of its impressive military forces. Why? Because without political incentives for restraint, policymakers have lost the ability to think clearly about defense policy. Washington's new mantra should be "Half a trillion dollars is more than enough."
Read
Review Essay,
Jul/Aug
2007
Two new books discuss how Washington should fight the wars of tomorrow -- and pay for them. But to balance the conflicting demands of strategy and finance, the next president ought to take a page from Eisenhower's playbook.
Read
Essay,
Mar/Apr
2007
The defense budget of the United States, the world's leading military power throughout the twentieth century, is not enough for the country to confront the threats of the twenty-first. It should be increased -- and can be without negatively affecting the economy. The money is available; it must be joined by political will.
Read
Essay,
Jul/Aug
2006
Despite obvious manpower shortages in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration remains wedded to spending defense resources on "transformational" new technologies rather than on new troops. Cutting-edge weapons are critical. But what the United States needs above all are more men and women in uniform.
Read
Response,
Jul/Aug
2006
The U.S. military needs more manpower, badly. And this means reordering budgets, putting troops over technology. Or does it?
Read
Essay,
Mar/Apr
2005
The fighting in Iraq has exposed the limits of Donald Rumsfeld's transformation agenda. The U.S. military remains underprepared for dealing with guerrillas, and such unconventional threats will grow in coming years. The next stage of military transformation must focus on training large numbers of infantry for nation building and irregular warfare--and Washington must make that task a top priority.
Read
Essay,
Nov/Dec
2003
Conventional wisdom holds that Bill Clinton presided over a disastrous downsizing of the U.S. military. But this claim is wrong. In fact, Clinton's Pentagon maintained high levels of readiness and enacted a bold military modernization program that bore fruit in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Read- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 4
- next
