Romney Gets Down to Business on Defense


What can strengthen the US presidential election the most, the National defense? Though conventional wisdom states this year’s election can either be lost or won on domestic economy, the national defense can still be a winning term, if Romney can apply some of the skills that he achieved in the private sector to the military budget.

Until now, Mitt Romney has not done anything to set keyed up the spirit of a defense wonk, but he has criticized the current President Obama for trying to cut the defense budget by $500 billion over next couple of years.  The slashes are actually ordered by Congress’s Budget Control Act 2011.

Mitt, presumptive nominee has called for the Pentagon budget to have a base of 4% of gross household goods, which is up from the current status and includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also insisted the government not to cut uninformed forces, but rely on investments through new shrinking civilians, new efficiencies, and contractor ranks as well. He is right about shedding the fat, especially acquisition of services or goods. Yet US simply cannot afford the Marine and Army Corps forces it now has that have increased by 27,000 and 65,000 active-duty workforces, respectively.

Pentagon itself has called for the Marines to be cut from 202,000 to182, 000 and the Army to 490,000 from 520,000. If Mitt feels that cutting these would imperil safety, he wants public to think to want he thinks and how generals are wrong. Though eliminating suppliers is essential, their ranks have grown since they cost less than uninformed people doing the same work as informed personnel.

He says that the army inventory is largely compiled of weapons and equipments, designed about 50 years ago. B-52 bomber remains one of the best strategic aircrafts in the world, which has been kept in optimum working condition with a refitting program. Today’s military mix of stealth craft, bombers, cruise missiles, and fighters is vastly superior to what we had in the early 90s.

Mr. Mitt said he would bring his corporate skills with specificity and nuance to bear on Pentagon’s bottom line. If he is aiming at payroll bloat, he has to look at army’s combat commands, where a number of commanders have been increased by more than 50% in a decade.  Mitt’s critics have argued that the US president cannot be a ‘CEO in Chief’ and Pentagon, in many ways seen as a successful business and it is up to the private-equity firm to advise voters how Romney would turn it around.


Leave A Reply