I'd say the Air Force has done a pretty good job of committing to a ground support role. What do you think those 65-85 CAPs of ISR support are doing? MQ-1/MQ-9/MC-12, etc. All working in support of ground ops.

No one questions the bravery or commitment of the forces in theater to do the job with the aircraft they have.

But where is the A-10 replacement? The AF wants all its eggs in the F-22 basket, an aircraft with zero relevance in the modern landscape. The F-35 has some capability, but you are still moving 600 mph. How hard did the AF dig in its heels over drone expansion? Where would we be without the SecDef essentially slapping the service in the face and directing procurement?

And don't get me wrong, the F-22 is a necessary follow on to the F-15. But if the Air Force was really interested in CAS as its primary mission - which it has been since 1946 - then the entire procurement saga of the past 20 years would be a completely different story.

The basic and definative role of the USMC is quick power projection, either from an element afloat in one corner of the world or another or rapidly deployed from CONUS made up of designated combat elements geared to join and go within hours. One can not, contrary to what is continually done, denigrate the value of the Marine Corps by simply stating that the amphibious operation is a thing of the past so therefore the Marine Corps as a smaller version of the US Army and is redundant and unnecessary.

It doesn't work that way. The Marine Corps operates under the concept of a combined/organic ground force; airlift and support and CAS; and logistics in a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). Afloat constantly are MEU's (Marine Expeditionary Unit)--a battalion of ground troops, a fixed and a rotor wing squadrons and a battalion of logistic troops along with ATC and under command and control again organic to the force. They are afloat to arrive at potential need across the beach in the shortest amount of time. Larger units of Marine task forces: MEB (Brigade) and MEF (division) elements exist as necessary.

Pulling Marine Air out of the combat unit equation and stating that USAF and/or USN air lift CAS could do the same job is flat out wishing. Wishing the Air Force units are within range or tanker range from day one and specifically dedicated to the Marine ground unit entering the target is just that: wishing.

Would you (not the specfic you RPM) equally state that to save in the coming defense austerity that removal of US Army rotary assets and giving the lift mission to the USAF is viable? Understanding people's call for jointness (cue Hunter)--okay. Then you would be advocating for a single uniform defense service with some of the players walking, some driving and towing, some floating and some flying--a single fighting force.

The USMC with MAGTF already does that.

Seems like the best AF asset outside the Warthog is probably the AC-130...but as for a replacement, I'll admit, you've got me stumped. As an intel guy, I worry about ISR. Wouldn't be surprised if they didn't throw a gun on the MC-12 one of these days. Or they could just toss bombs off of an airship, old school style. Jokes aside, point taken about the F-22 not being the best tool for the job.

LOL, love that I get called upon regularly (I need a Bat-signal).

I just got done talking with a whole bunch of stars. Must be careful on what I reveal but the bottom line is I asked them - "what will you put on the table as a bargaining chip? What are you willing to give up to keep what you think is most important?" They told me they had them, but wouldn't tell me what they were. Which is completely reasonable given the circumstances.

We are about to see bloodletting in the puzzle palace the likes of which would make Brutus blush. Each service will be asked to give, and give, and give til it hurts. Brinksmanship and refusals will only take you so far. Your USMC will likely give too, so take your pick GSF? What should they give? Everyone will be forced to tithe, some may (due to wile) be able to tithe less, but not by much.

As one person noted. If you take away ten percent of the budget, what are ten percent of the requirements/capabilities that you are willing to give up with it? Those who have been around the military for long know the answer all ready; you will do all the same with less.

Is never going to find itself in combat without a carrier battle group on station. The Marine F-18s/F-35s are simply nice-to-have, not need-to-have. And that is going to be the core, bottom line question. Who decides those 'needs' is an entirely seperate question.

And I cannot imagine that anyone would consider removing USMC rotary wing capabilities... to include the friggin V-22.

Do not assume a MAGTF of some configuration would not operate w/o a carrier battle group near by. As it stands today, the ARGs (amphib readiness group) are no longer screened by a carrier task force. . . And remember, a benign humanitarian mission can turn ugly quickly along the littorals, by non-state (and state) actors intervening, that possess state of the art weapons systems.

I trying to imagine Jesus calling up Caesar to say, "Caesar, my people aren't doing what I tell them. Would you enact laws to make them do God's will. And if they don't, would you send your troops (but only the straight ones) to make them?" I am always amazed at the theological connection (or lack thereof) between "trust in the Lord" and, in the same breath, calling on government (we the people) to enact anti-gay marriage laws because it is God's will. If God already has a "design for marriage between one man and one woman" then I'm thinking God can handle it without Michelle Bachmann being the "chief author" of government anti-gay marriage legislation. reduction pierre et vacances

we spending = we were spending.

If somehow we went to the post Cold War low in FY 98 (a cut of about $2.25T over ten years), I seriously doubt that would keep us from global adventurism. It certainly didn't then.

Don't be silly. This is America. We don't have strategy anymore. We have political pressure to reduce spending.

And political strategy to keep the military-industrial complex alive and well. Hopefully our wise leaders in Washington can find the reasonable "middle point."

I meant "political pressure" vice "political strategy." Sorry.

Amen Bearcat. How can we talk cuts if we don't know what we want DoD to be doing 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. The proposed cuts give you a hint..focus on Asia and less on conventional ground forces and the middle east. But shouldn't we figure out what we want the Services to do before we slash?

Funny thing about the implosion of the Kingdome in Seattle, pictured above: amusing, because the citizens of King County are still paying down the bonds for the original construction back in the mid 1970s.

Also at issue at the time, was that neither the Seahawks or Mariners, who shared the stadium, saw their sharing it as profitable. . .the Navy sold the Corps down the drain after WW II. . .I believe they'd cut the green side adrift again if necessary when it comes to naval aviation.

So that's what you call it. Dividing up the globe into commands, having over 800 military installations worldwide, 11 aircraft carrier strike groups, SOCOM in 120 countries, etc. Wow, I'd hate to see what "married" means.

So isolationism is spending only 50% more on defense than the rest of the world put together. Kudos to you for using two spin doctor words: creeping and isolationism. The anti-sharia people have a copyright on the first, and if you keep using isolationism, you'll be confused even more for Walter Russell Mead.

I watched the Kingdome implode, but from far away, so the sound took a long time to get there. Eerie, but good riddance. Now if we could just do the same to the Metrodome.

... and don't unleash anthrax against America until some time in 2016.

Much the same point was made by former FBI director Louis J Freeh in May 1998 when in his constant search for headlines, he published via press release his May 1998 testimony to the Senate that the bureau would be in great shape to combat terrorists by 2005. Al-Qaida didn't wait until then, which was to have been expected. Possibly their attention was attracted to this monstroso security breach by its references to al-Qaida itself, and Mr bin Laden by name. They chose to respond the terrorist way, rather than hang around sportingly doing nothing until the Freeh FBI was ready to combat them.

I gather the Emergent vaccine is for only one, named strain of anthrax. Others are as deadly. Possibly, unsporting foreign enemies are looking into the use of strains the Emergent vaccine can't fight.

I would buy into this completely if I believed that Wash DC were capable of thinking this strategically. Individual by individual? Sure, there are probably a fair number in the beltway that push in the direction of US empire building. But together? I read somewhere: none of us individually are as dumb as all of us together. Or something like that.

All that said, I definitely see your point.

I was just trying to sketch out an "empire strategy," possibly exaggerating a bit. And I personally don't fully agree with such a national strategy. If we indeed pursue such a global empire, it's easy to fantasize and see some parallels with good old Rome. The Romans needed full-time legions/professionals to do the non-stop fighting in the far reaches of the empire (and we need an all-volunteer army...an army of wimpy draftees and their mothers would never support an imperial army on constant deployments). And Rome didn't have enough legions even then and had to use the barbarian tribes as allies (we use contractors today). Every now and then, a successful and popular Roman legion commander would come back to Rome and be hailed as a Consul or some such national leader (Petraeus is young; will he run for president after his CIA stint?).

Huck, What if the political austerity CNAS Option 4 becomes fact? History tells us that it will be something close, if only in the conceptions and the hearts and minds of the screaming Uber Neo-cons or whatever they will call themselves when the fever curve goes back up.

The draw down will be servere, a la politics of the present, only to become an renewed issue of the 4 year election cycles of the future. Given the US propensity to engage in an expeditionary war every half generation since 1917... no earlier...is it not fore-ordained that we strike south? Certainly cheaper; don't need all that fuel for C-17's.

Now if we can only get the reason for doing it right the first time and make it stick.

If I understand you -- and I might not be -- you are suggesting that any kind of drawdown will become a charge of "hollowing out the military" in a future election cycle, ala 1980?

That is probably true. Of course, the chickenhawk right seems genetically predisposed to screaming this over and over -- whether there has been a thin dime of cuts or not. They have been doing it for three generations now -- since the late 40's.

If the electorate's butter is being threatened, the guns are going to be cut as well. We might not be that smart, but we are self-interested. There will be a BRAC/NIMBY-style reaction when it comes to whatever aerospace contract or military unit is stationed in this or that electoral district. I don't think we are going to allow ourselves to move in the direction of 18th C. Prussia. But then again, I didn't think we could possibly re-elect Bush.

Politically, the smart move will be to axe, trim or relocate the programs and bases in and around the Basin West. Given the water situation, that area is going to experience a decline in population sooner or later anyway. From the left, what have you got to lose by angering the people of Wyoming or Idaho or Nevada? From the right, where are those same people going to go?

However, I fear it is going to be much easier to hammer vet's benefits. And it will be done sneakily. This would be immoral, economically-stupid (remember the benefits, long and short-term, of the GI BIll) as well as dangerous (the Weimar Republic). But I think a political animal like Boehner is going to wrap himself in the flag but work for the interests of GE Aviation before wounded veterans & GSFs. Same goes for a dude like Schumer - it's just that he's going to be wrapped in a treasury note and will be working for Government Sachs.

On Vera Cruz, et al: I've recently spent some time on our southern border, in an HIDTA. Lots of uniforms, even more of guns -- on both sides. I am stunned that there has not been another Ezekiel Hernandez-type incident. The border fence - which I stupidly thought a good idea when it was proposed - is a joke. Where I was (where New Mexico meets Arizona and both of them meet Chihuahua) a favorite tactic is to back a long-bed tow truck up to the tank traps and simply drive the car over them onto the other side.

But to my mind, beginning with the Carter Doctrine, the Persian Gulf has become more the "American Lake" than the Caribbean (including Mexico) ever was, but our fixations there are contradictory (corporate-controllled oil, a Palestine cleansed of Palestinians, Mesopotamian democracy, and, for the a rebuilding of the Temple) in a way they weren't in Smedley Butler's days (keeping the banana in banana republic).

If you aren't angry enough, here's a blast-from-the-past from one of our best and brightest:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/10/why-tom-friedman-should-not-have-any-job.html

Sorry for the bloodpressure spike, but this jackass has won more Pulitzers than our own Herr Ricks...

Ironically, Mr. Friedman is right (this time). That's the way it went down.

BRAC/NIMBY: Its in full swing already. 2015 maybe the first of the hearings, but all the biggies: civilian, military, political, and local are gearing up. It won't be pretty.

Ezekiels: There are bound to be more of the same or similar flash points. High caliber overshots landing in Laredo and Yuma. Schools and airfields hit; its bound to happen. Rumor in my neighborhood is that the 10th Mountain is going to the South Border sometime soon. Posse comititus be damned.

My own crystal ball: I fear more of the same--foreign policy based on macho Washington leadership, knee jerk reaction, loss of any sense of diplomacy before activation orders of the gunslingers. Wild-ass accusations of gutting the military might of America. A Phoenix-Reagan whipping up the pride of the USA. Total rip of lessons learned.

Hell. Why not Mexico? Its easy!! There will be senoritas throwning cactus flowers at the troops' feet. Great place to have a new conflict!! The troops get to drink tequila in country this time!! Just like the ole days.

I'm barely being sarcastic. And I hope to hell I'm wrong.

I think your crystal ball is right. But will the people fall for such distractions again, absent some sort of domestic terror attack?

I'm just trying to imagine how someone who is 33% underwater on their mortgage, with no hope in sight, is going to respond to more war drums. Then again, wars are a great distraction...