只要認真執行「重返東亞」的大戰略與「海空一體作戰」的戰略，建州運動支持五角大廈新的建軍方案與方向(中)
三
接下來，大家可以讀「紐約時報」的一篇報導(部分轉貼):
“Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level”
By THOM SHANKER and HELENE COOPER
The New York Times
FEB. 23, 2014
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.
The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.
Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.
A spending plan that will be released Monday will be the first sweeping initiative set forth by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.
Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its release the budget is certain to come under political attack.
For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.
Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.
The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at 11.
Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama’s national security directives: to defend American territory and the nation’s interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.
“We’re still going to have a very significant-sized Army,” the official said. “But it’s going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be trained.”
Mr. Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s land forces — active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.
The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr. Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years.
I agree that we can change our thinking to match the real world threats we face. If we accept the notion that future major ground conflicts...
After downsizing the military, Chuck Hegel should be made our Finance minister, where he can cut our budget to our size of the pockets...
The budget is the first sweeping initiative that bears Mr. Hagel’s full imprint. Although Mr. Hagel has been in office one year, most of his efforts in that time have focused on initiatives and problems that he inherited. In many ways his budget provides an opportunity for him to begin anew.
The proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like veterans’ organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel costs; arms manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some members of Congress who will seek to block base closings in their districts.
Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.
The Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced operating status during modernization.
Although consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought in for overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be terminated in future years under tighter budgets.
四
在東亞的駐軍人員的規模是否也會跟著刪減，這是很值得關切的事，因為這也是觀察「重返東亞」的大戰略與「海空一體作戰」戰略是否被認真執行的指標，我們現在來讀「美軍星條旗報」的一則報導。---Read More---
“Pentagon budget cuts take first toll in Japan, England”
By Travis J. Tritten
The Stars & Stripes
2/26/2014
Facing fiscal constraints, the Defense Department will try to preserve high-tech warfare capabilities while cutting people and platforms and curbing the growth of pay and benefits, according to a budget preview unveiled by Pentagon officials Monday.
Personnel reductions at Misawa Air Base in Japan and RAF Menwith Hill Station in the United Kingdom may provide an early preview of the cost-cutting budget priorities unveiled by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this week.
On Monday, Hagel gave a first showing of a proposed defense budget for the coming year that would focus on cost-saving technology, whittle the Army to its smallest size in about 75 years, and reduce ballooning military pay and benefits costs.
The initiatives have triggered outcry from Congress, veteran groups and service members who are concerned U.S. defense could be hobbled and earned benefits could be unfairly stripped. It’s also led some military watchers to wonder what the proposed cuts could mean to previously announced plan to shift the U.S. military focus to the Pacific region.
“The U.S. Department of Defense is currently realigning the workforce around the globe by employing enabling technologies and combining similar mission activities worldwide,” Capt. Korry Leverett, spokesman for the 35th Fighter Wing at Misawa, wrote in a statement Wednesday.
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sounded no alarms Wednesday, saying such changes are considered in typical military shifts and do not lessen the deterrent effect of U.S. military forces based in the country. The city of Misawa was notified by the ministry of the changes earlier this week.
It remains unclear what other reductions or shifts may be in store for the Pacific, where the United States has been focusing intensely.
Hagel said the DOD will favor high-tech force multipliers over personnel, but the move is largely due to spending constraints.
The law now limits DOD spending next year to $496 billion, which is $45 billion less than White House forecasts. Meanwhile, Hagel pointed to the continuing specter of sequestration as driving the need for force reductions.
There was no immediate worry Wednesday in South Korea, where the U.S. has maintained one of its largest overseas military presences in support of the uneasy armistice that ended the Korea War. The country’s Ministry of National Defense had not publicly commented on the DOD’s proposed budget cuts. However, a ministry spokesman said he believed U.S. troop levels in South Korea would not be affected.
The spokesman said the U.S. has given past reassurances that sequestration would not lead to a reduction in forces or military equipment in South Korea. The official spoke to Stars and Stripes on the customary condition of anonymity.
Still, the proposal to slim the defense budget comes at an uncertain time in the region.
Asia-Pacific countries are now watching whether Washington will make good on promises to beef up its military presence and relationships, said Ralph Cossa, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Hawaii.(著名的美國智庫「戰略與國際研究中心」設在檀香山的「太平洋論壇」的負責人柯薩指出，亞太國家正在觀察華盛頓是否會兌現強化美國在亞太的軍事存在與強化美國跟這個地區的關係的承諾。)
The U.S. needs to continue to show its flag throughout the Pacific despite the budget cuts, Cossa said.
“People are going to be watching closely to make sure that is the case,” he said. “The first time a major exercise gets canceled or scaled back, people will say, ‘Here’s the proof that they weren’t serious about the rebalance.’”
Ross Babbage, a former Australian assistant defense secretary, said he was reassured that production of a new long-range bomber, the Joint Strike Fighter and a new aerial tanker would be spared from the budget axe, but he added: “There is some serious questioning of U.S. resolve at the moment.”
It’s important to U.S. allies in the Pacific that whatever results from the defense budget cuts doesn’t lead to more debate about the rebalance. (對美國在太平洋地區的盟友來說是很重要的: 不管美國如何刪減國防預算，都不要涉及或導致美國「向亞太再平衡」的大戰略的論辯。)
“It is important for allies, neutrals and potential hostiles that they don’t get the impression that the U.S. is weakening or going away,” Babbage said.(不讓美國的盟友、中立國以及潛在的敵人得到「美國國力在衰弱或美國正在離開亞太地區」的印象是很重要的)
Stars and Stripes reporters Seth Robson, Ashley Rowland, Yoo Kyong Chang, Chiyomi Sumida and Adam Mathis contributed to this story.
接下來，大家可以讀「紐約時報」的一篇報導(部分轉貼):
“Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level”
By THOM SHANKER and HELENE COOPER
The New York Times
FEB. 23, 2014
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.
The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.
Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.
A spending plan that will be released Monday will be the first sweeping initiative set forth by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.
Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its release the budget is certain to come under political attack.
For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.
Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.
The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at 11.
Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama’s national security directives: to defend American territory and the nation’s interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.
“We’re still going to have a very significant-sized Army,” the official said. “But it’s going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be trained.”
Mr. Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s land forces — active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.
The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.
That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.
The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr. Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years.
I agree that we can change our thinking to match the real world threats we face. If we accept the notion that future major ground conflicts...
After downsizing the military, Chuck Hegel should be made our Finance minister, where he can cut our budget to our size of the pockets...
The budget is the first sweeping initiative that bears Mr. Hagel’s full imprint. Although Mr. Hagel has been in office one year, most of his efforts in that time have focused on initiatives and problems that he inherited. In many ways his budget provides an opportunity for him to begin anew.
The proposals are certain to face resistance from interest groups like veterans’ organizations, which oppose efforts to rein in personnel costs; arms manufacturers that want to reverse weapons cuts; and some members of Congress who will seek to block base closings in their districts.
Mr. Hagel will take some first steps to deal with the controversial issue of pay and compensation, as the proposed budget would impose a one-year salary freeze for general and flag officers; basic pay for military personnel would rise by 1 percent. After the 2015 fiscal year, raises in pay will be similarly restrained, Pentagon officials say.
The Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced operating status during modernization.
Although consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought in for overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be terminated in future years under tighter budgets.
四
在東亞的駐軍人員的規模是否也會跟著刪減，這是很值得關切的事，因為這也是觀察「重返東亞」的大戰略與「海空一體作戰」戰略是否被認真執行的指標，我們現在來讀「美軍星條旗報」的一則報導。
“Pentagon budget cuts take first toll in Japan, England”
By Travis J. Tritten
The Stars & Stripes
2/26/2014
Facing fiscal constraints, the Defense Department will try to preserve high-tech warfare capabilities while cutting people and platforms and curbing the growth of pay and benefits, according to a budget preview unveiled by Pentagon officials Monday.
Personnel reductions at Misawa Air Base in Japan and RAF Menwith Hill Station in the United Kingdom may provide an early preview of the cost-cutting budget priorities unveiled by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this week.
On Monday, Hagel gave a first showing of a proposed defense budget for the coming year that would focus on cost-saving technology, whittle the Army to its smallest size in about 75 years, and reduce ballooning military pay and benefits costs.
The initiatives have triggered outcry from Congress, veteran groups and service members who are concerned U.S. defense could be hobbled and earned benefits could be unfairly stripped. It’s also led some military watchers to wonder what the proposed cuts could mean to previously announced plan to shift the U.S. military focus to the Pacific region.
“The U.S. Department of Defense is currently realigning the workforce around the globe by employing enabling technologies and combining similar mission activities worldwide,” Capt. Korry Leverett, spokesman for the 35th Fighter Wing at Misawa, wrote in a statement Wednesday.
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sounded no alarms Wednesday, saying such changes are considered in typical military shifts and do not lessen the deterrent effect of U.S. military forces based in the country. The city of Misawa was notified by the ministry of the changes earlier this week.
It remains unclear what other reductions or shifts may be in store for the Pacific, where the United States has been focusing intensely.
Hagel said the DOD will favor high-tech force multipliers over personnel, but the move is largely due to spending constraints.
The law now limits DOD spending next year to $496 billion, which is $45 billion less than White House forecasts. Meanwhile, Hagel pointed to the continuing specter of sequestration as driving the need for force reductions.
There was no immediate worry Wednesday in South Korea, where the U.S. has maintained one of its largest overseas military presences in support of the uneasy armistice that ended the Korea War. The country’s Ministry of National Defense had not publicly commented on the DOD’s proposed budget cuts. However, a ministry spokesman said he believed U.S. troop levels in South Korea would not be affected.
The spokesman said the U.S. has given past reassurances that sequestration would not lead to a reduction in forces or military equipment in South Korea. The official spoke to Stars and Stripes on the customary condition of anonymity.
Still, the proposal to slim the defense budget comes at an uncertain time in the region.
Asia-Pacific countries are now watching whether Washington will make good on promises to beef up its military presence and relationships, said Ralph Cossa, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Hawaii.(著名的美國智庫「戰略與國際研究中心」設在檀香山的「太平洋論壇」的負責人柯薩指出，亞太國家正在觀察華盛頓是否會兌現強化美國在亞太的軍事存在與強化美國跟這個地區的關係的承諾。)
The U.S. needs to continue to show its flag throughout the Pacific despite the budget cuts, Cossa said.
“People are going to be watching closely to make sure that is the case,” he said. “The first time a major exercise gets canceled or scaled back, people will say, ‘Here’s the proof that they weren’t serious about the rebalance.’”
Ross Babbage, a former Australian assistant defense secretary, said he was reassured that production of a new long-range bomber, the Joint Strike Fighter and a new aerial tanker would be spared from the budget axe, but he added: “There is some serious questioning of U.S. resolve at the moment.”
It’s important to U.S. allies in the Pacific that whatever results from the defense budget cuts doesn’t lead to more debate about the rebalance. (對美國在太平洋地區的盟友來說是很重要的: 不管美國如何刪減國防預算，都不要涉及或導致美國「向亞太再平衡」的大戰略的論辯。)
“It is important for allies, neutrals and potential hostiles that they don’t get the impression that the U.S. is weakening or going away,” Babbage said.(不讓美國的盟友、中立國以及潛在的敵人得到「美國國力在衰弱或美國正在離開亞太地區」的印象是很重要的)
Stars and Stripes reporters Seth Robson, Ashley Rowland, Yoo Kyong Chang, Chiyomi Sumida and Adam Mathis contributed to this story.
(待續)
台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
沒有留言:
張貼留言