Are we there yet? YES - US Debt Limit is Reached

[turbo]

The point (if I am reading him correctly) was that these countries can invest more time and money into corporations and their people because they do not have to pay for their own large military since they have big-brother America watching over them.

That's exactly the point. If these countries are now allies and trading partners with whom we have a trade deficit, it is high time to cut them loose, and let them provide for their own security. The US spends (reportedly) half of all the money spent on the military in the whole world. I expect that this estimate is 'WAY low in part because of the ways in which many programs are funded off-budget. Still, we don't need all the foreign bases (including the secret ones in "unfriendly" countries), nor do we need to have every single weapons system that some defense contractors can dream up, nor do we need all the carrier groups that we have. It's time for the military to trim down or to be trimmed down. We can maintain credible defense postures without being bled dry by defense contractors.

 

[WhoWee]

If the education is in fields that benefit society, yes. (in general, the more people that graduate with degrees the better, however, if everyone graduated with degrees in medieval literature... well... there'd be basically no benefit).

Be careful - that sounds a tad bit like social planning. If a million people decide study the same thing - hopefully they will all find jobs. Now if you're saying the Government shouldn't guarantee a million loans for people to study an obscure subject - I might agree.

 

[AlephZero]

That's a very good point. If South Korea, Japan, and Germany can all build cars and sell them here, they should be able to pay for their own security. They wouldn't be happy about the draw-downs of US troops and base closures because a lot of US taxpayer money would be lost to them, but that's tough.

You are ignoring some history here. One reason that Japan and Germainy don't have a full independent military capability is because the US (and its allies) told them they couldn't, after WWII.

AFAIK, to change that position, both Germany and Japan would need to change their constitutions - and US citizens should be alble to figure out what sort of political upheavals that could cause, from their own history.

I don't know how SK got to where it is, so no comment on that one.

And the situation of NATO, would also have to be sorted out, of course.

Actually, after the Iraq saga (not to mention stop-overs of "extraordinary rendition" flights) Europe might not seriously object to being rid of US basesl. After all, we would get the land back, plus some useful real estate built on it - ideal locations for converting into industrial sites to sell you more foreign cars, etc

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would be highly surprised if the majority of the US's military spending was on protecting other countries. Maintaining bases in foreign countries is something that most modern militaries do.

As for education I think it's best to advocate a diversity of qualifications in many fields. Yes a small number of people will do something useless but the advantages of having a workforce that is diversely and deeply educated would cancel that out

 

[BobG]

Be careful - that sounds a tad bit like social planning. If a million people decide study the same thing - hopefully they will all find jobs. Now if you're saying the Government shouldn't guarantee a million loans for people to study an obscure subject - I might agree.

Unless they study law. Law degrees are among the most overrated degrees one can obtain. They're worth a ton if you're among the top graduates from a top ranked law school, but result in a pretty mediocre return on invested time and money for most. I wouldn't see much benefit in subsidizing law degrees, either.

 

[Pengwuino]

nor do we need all the carrier groups that we have.

That's taking it a step too far. The carrier groups are essential - they are a projection of power. They truly do provide a necessary component of US defense. They also keep countries on notice that we can run 24/7 operations against any country that we find the need to act against. Remember, we can't make cuts thinking about what would happen today without thinking about what might happen in 10 years.

You are ignoring some history here. One reason that Japan and Germainy don't have a full independent military capability is because the US (and its allies) told them they couldn't, after WWII.

AFAIK, to change that position, both Germany and Japan would need to change their constitutions - and US citizens should be alble to figure out what sort of political upheavals that could cause, from their own history.

Japan and Germany would definitely need to be exceptions to such cuts. Budget cuts are one thing, but Germany and Japan are obligated to forgo having a standing army for offensive purposes.

I don't know how SK got to where it is, so no comment on that one.

South Korea and I assume a few other countries are other special cases. South Korea is absolutely in danger of being invaded without US military personnel on the ground. North Korea is run by lunatics, they do NOT see the world as the rest of the world sees it. Thankfully, eventually China and probably soon after Russia will get tired of North Korea and they're going to allow... uhm... "regime change" in North Korea

Actually, after the Iraq saga (not to mention stop-overs of "extraordinary rendition" flights) Europe might not seriously object to being rid of US basesl. After all, we would get the land back, plus some useful real estate built on it - ideal locations for converting into industrial sites to sell you more foreign cars, etc

They probably will. We do make some contributions to the economies where we have bases. It's exactly how things are in the US. Entire towns might fall apart simply because a base would be shut down.

 

[WhoWee]

Unless they study law. Law degrees are among the most overrated degrees one can obtain. They're worth a ton if you're among the top graduates from a top ranked law school, but result in a pretty mediocre return on invested time and money for most. I wouldn't see much benefit in subsidizing law degrees, either.

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but we discussed this recently in another thread. IMO - everyone shouldn't be financed for a 4 year degree. Perhaps children who choose to be a goof-off (GPA below 2.25?) in high school should pay their own way the first 2 years catching up in college. Also, some people are better served with a focused 2 year trade program.

 

[Jack21222]

I would be highly surprised if the majority of the US's military spending was on protecting other countries.

I don't think this claim was made.

Maintaining bases in foreign countries is something that most modern militaries do.

I don't think Argument from Popularity is a valid argument.

 

[Jack21222]

Japan and Germany would definitely need to be exceptions to such cuts. Budget cuts are one thing, but Germany and Japan are obligated to forgo having a standing army for offensive purposes.

Forever? Seems like a long time. WW2 was a long time ago. They're allies now. Let them raise their own army.

 

[Dale]

The fact remains that much of our defense spending comes from protecting foreign first-world countries who could easily pay for their own defense.

And much more of our spending comes from supporting individuals who should pay for their own needs. You may not like defense spending, but it is unarguably not the biggest source of spending.

 

[Jack21222]

And much more of our spending comes from supporting individuals who should pay for their own needs. You may not like defense spending, but it is unarguably not the biggest source of spending.

You're absolutely right. I also support cutting off Social Security payments for people with over a few million dollars in the bank. They can easily pay for their own needs, but I'm paying for them.

 

[Dale]

Social Security payments for people with over a few million dollars in the bank.

yeah, that should fix the problem and dramatically reduce the deficit. Glad to see that you are unbiased and interested in addressing the real issues of out of control social spending.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Be careful - that sounds a tad bit like social planning. If a million people decide study the same thing - hopefully they will all find jobs. Now if you're saying the Government shouldn't guarantee a million loans for people to study an obscure subject - I might agree.

Not government planning at all, simply stating that there are some fields that the government definitely gains more from subsidizing than others.

That's taking it a step too far. The carrier groups are essential - they are a projection of power. They truly do provide a necessary component of US defense. They also keep countries on notice that we can run 24/7 operations against any country that we find the need to act against. Remember, we can't make cuts thinking about what would happen today without thinking about what might happen in 10 years.

They are a projection of power, and are very good at that, true. I will give you that. Here's a little something I've researched though:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

In short, what this link states is this:

Number of super-carriers that the U.S.A. has: 11
Super-carrier capacity in the United States is 85 aircraft. 85 being declassified, classified number is probably quite a bit higher than that.

Number of non-super carriers that the U.S.A. has: 9
Non-super carrier-capacity sits at around 40 aircraft, give or take depending on the mission.

The entire rest of the world has 10 carriers. TEN. Out of these 10 carriers, 5 are in direct allies hands (2 in UK, 1 France, 1 Italy, 1 South Korea). The rest are in the hands of countries like... 1 - Russia, 1 - Thailand, 1 - Brazil, 1 - Spain, and 1 - India.

I doubt those countries are going to threaten us any time soon... especially since a lot of those countries would have a hard time getting an alliance to hold even 3 carriers at a time... or since none of them would really want to go toe-to-toe anyway.

A few more numbers:

Out of those carriers, the two largest ones (the French and the Russian) only carry each around 40 aircraft... The same number as our SMALLER carriers.

The rest carry less... on top of the fact that none of them has as good of aircraft as our carriers do.

My point? Yes, we do need carriers... but do we really need THAT many?

 

[Office_Shredder]

My point? Yes, we do need carriers... but do we really need THAT many?

The carriers aren't to protect us from other carriers. The carriers are our primary method of conducting the initial stages of an offensive war. Without them our ability to project force is hampered severely

 

[Ryumast3r]

The carriers aren't to protect us from other carriers. The carriers are our primary method of conducting the initial stages of an offensive war. Without them our ability to project force is hampered severely

Once again... 20 carriers. Do we really need THAT many? Could we make do with 19, or 18.. maybe even 15?

My bet is yes, we could.

No, carriers are not to protect us from other carriers, but if nobody else in the world feels the need to have even 5 carriers to our 20, then I think we as a nation need to look at what we were/are thinking when it comes to that many carriers.

 

[CAC1001]

Once again... 20 carriers. Do we really need THAT many?

Yes.

No, carriers are not to protect us from other carriers, but if nobody else in the world feels the need to have even 5 carriers to our 20, then I think we as a nation need to look at what we were/are thinking when it comes to that many carriers.

Plenty of other nations probably feel the need to have more carriers, they just don't have the money. Carriers are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Carriers allow force projection, keeping the sea lanes open, and also allow the U.S. to send aid to other countries in need.

 

[CAC1001]

When did you attend college? Keep in mind that tuition has been growing substantially faster than inflation for quite awhile now. It was much easier to work your way through college a few decades ago than now.

I worked a full time job while in college, and still graduated with a ton of debt (all federally subsidized). State college tuitions are likely to grow rapidly as we further reduce funding to them.

There is a lot of belief now that higher education is in a bubble in the same way housing was.

 

[CAC1001]

Taking forces out of Germany might be a bad idea if Russia becomes resurgent in the future. And taking them out of Japan might be a bad idea if/when China becomes resurgent. Also as pointed out, Germany and Japan right now are not allowed to have offensive militaries.

South Korea needs U.S. forces there. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union pushed to have U.S. forces removed from Europe at the time because it wanted to attack the Western European nations and invade them. The problem with U.S. forces being there was that attacking the Western European nations meant an attack on the United States as well, which would have drawn the U.S. directly into a conflict with the Soviets, something they didn't want. With no U.S. forces present, they could have attacked the Western European nations without attacking America.

South Korea faces a similar situation: without U.S. forces, the North could attack as it pleased. But with thousands of U.S. troops there, attacking South Korea will mean a direct attack on American forces.

 

[Jack21222]

Taking forces out of Germany might be a bad idea if Russia becomes resurgent in the future. And taking them out of Japan might be a bad idea if/when China becomes resurgent.

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

I don't think you'd like it if I kept a gun pointed at you "just in case" you one day want to do something aggressive, why should Russia and China feel any different?

 

[CAC1001]

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

Because Britain is a liberal democracy and one of our prime allies. Russia is not a liberal democracy and not an ally and has been trying multiple times over the past decade to bully its former Eastern bloc Soviet satellite countries. To say Russia will never become resurgent I think is too risky a way of looking at it. Some of those nations are our allies now, and Russia doesn't like that. They will be a lot more inclined to bully them with no U.S. presence in the region.

I don't think you'd like it if I kept a gun pointed at you "just in case" you one day want to do something aggressive, why should Russia and China feel any different?

Because Russia and China aren't liberal democracies, they have a history of human rights violations, and both are power hungry. No, not set on global domination, but China wants to become the prime power in Asia (displacing the U.S. there) and has made claims over territories that other nations dispute, such as South Korea and Japan. Russia wants to control its old satellite nations, and it also can bully Europe overall to a degree because of the oil and so forth it provides.

 

[BobG]

Taking forces out of Germany might be a bad idea if Russia becomes resurgent in the future. And taking them out of Japan might be a bad idea if/when China becomes resurgent. Also as pointed out, Germany and Japan right now are not allowed to have offensive militaries.

South Korea needs U.S. forces there. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union pushed to have U.S. forces removed from Europe at the time because it wanted to attack the Western European nations and invade them. The problem with U.S. forces being there was that attacking the Western European nations meant an attack on the United States as well, which would have drawn the U.S. directly into a conflict with the Soviets, something they didn't want. With no U.S. forces present, they could have attacked the Western European nations without attacking America.

South Korea faces a similar situation: without U.S. forces, the North could attack as it pleased. But with thousands of U.S. troops there, attacking South Korea will mean a direct attack on American forces.

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

I don't think you'd like it if I kept a gun pointed at you "just in case" you one day want to do something aggressive, why should Russia and China feel any different?

Saying Russia could become militarily resurgent again might be a cold war fantasy, since the idea of a Soviet bloc and so many buffer states was an emotional holdover from the trauma of World War II (after averaging about 10,000 dead per day for the duration of the war, there was a commitment to making sure another war was never fought on Russian territory). The old guard gets replaced by new leaders that only read about World War II in the history books and that don't see much chance of being invaded by some European power (or American power). Their military objectives are now much more grounded in real world needs than traumatic memories.

China, on the other hand, is a completely different story. They are experiencing an economic surge, that requires more foreign fuel, which requires a military to ensure that China has access to the fuel it needs. China's foreign policy goals could conflict with US foreign policy goals even if China has no deep-seated animosity towards the US. In fact, both countries pursuing the same oil could create the animosity that's currently lacking.

China's forces have been structured almost entirely for defense of their territory, but I would expect them to slowly (or quickly) transition towards developing the capability to support worldwide operations as their dependence on foreign oil increases.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Yes.



Plenty of other nations probably feel the need to have more carriers, they just don't have the money. Carriers are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Carriers allow force projection, keeping the sea lanes open, and also allow the U.S. to send aid to other countries in need.

Yes, they allow force projection, the same way our foreign bases do, or our long-range aircraft (bombers, para-jumper planes, fighters, re-fuelers, etc).

Planes might not keep shipping lanes open, but I'm pretty sure Destroyers and Cruisers do just as good of a job against our current threats to shipping lanes (Somali pirates... really?) as a Carrier would. In fact, a carrier at this point is probably less effective at keeping shipping lanes open than a Destroyer.

Carriers aren't really about shipping lanes... they are about being able to send fighters quickly and easily into other nations around the world. We could do that with one of the many bases that we are required - by treaty - to keep (Germany, Japan, etc).

I'm not arguing for getting rid of every single one of our 20 carrier task-forces. I am talking about getting rid of a few and finding better -- and more economic ways of accomplishing the same task, especially since currently there is little to no threat to our shipping lanes currently, and in the foreseeable future I doubt there'd be a large enough threat to our shipping lanes or a need to project power so badly that we need 20 carriers as opposed to say... 16. This could be easily accomplished without a large reduction in power since we could dry-dock 4 of them, keeping them maintained enough so that, if needed, we could pull them out in less than a month. If we did that we'd save money by not having to fuel them or have as much work done on them, and we'd still have the same amount of physical power if such a time comes where we'd need all 20 to be floating around on the ocean.

 

[CAC1001]

Saying Russia could become militarily resurgent again might be a cold war fantasy, since the idea of a Soviet bloc and so many buffer states was an emotional holdover from the trauma of World War II (after averaging about 10,000 dead per day for the duration of the war, there was a commitment to making sure another war was never fought on Russian territory). The old guard gets replaced by new leaders that only read about World War II in the history books and that don't see much chance of being invaded by some European power (or American power). Their military objectives are now much more grounded in real world needs than traumatic memories.

You make a good point, but at the same time with the likes of Putin in control of the country, I think that he wants to recreate the old Soviet empire to some degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where does the number 20 come from? I count 1 Enterprise-class and 10 Nimitz-classes. (And 3 Fords under construction) Are you counting LHA's?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Where does the number 20 come from? I count 1 Enterprise-class and 10 Nimitz-classes. (And 3 Fords under construction) Are you counting LHA's?

9 LHD-1 Wasp Class. They are amphibious vessels, carrying LCAC hovercraft and marine/naval helicopters, but they also carry AV-8B Harrier Jump Jet. Wouldn't have added them in, except they can carry quite a few Harriers (up to 20 in their recent deployments, with other helicopters mixed in, I assume for good measure since they are amphibiously-oriented, and helicopters would be a bit better at close support for the deployed - or soon to be deployed - troops).

They are an improved version of the LHAs.

I count them among carriers since they do carry aircraft and helicopters, and most of the rest of the world's aircraft carriers serve basically the same function (Harriers/helicopters).

 

[WhoWee]

Count me convinced - no more carriers - we'll just launch US based missiles to the location of the problem - if that's preferred?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Count me convinced - no more carriers - we'll just launch US based missiles to the location of the problem - if that's preferred?

Not quite what I was going for, and that probably wouldn't be preferable. There is still a use for carriers and large amphibious assault carriers (that also have planes/helis on them).

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's right, they are LHD's now. Gator Navy keeps coming with new designations. (LPH, LHA, LHD - guess the next one in the series)

But there is a huge difference in capabilities between a CVN and an LHD. And a corresponding difference in cost, so it's really not right to lump them together. But the salient point remains - the ability to project non-nuclear power is expensive.

 

[russ_watters]

Once again... 20 carriers. Do we really need THAT many? Could we make do with 19, or 18.. maybe even 15?

My bet is yes, we could.

No, carriers are not to protect us from other carriers, but if nobody else in the world feels the need to have even 5 carriers to our 20, then I think we as a nation need to look at what we were/are thinking when it comes to that many carriers.

You can't really compare our military to any other in the world. Our military is The military that is counted on by all countries to be the World's Policeman. Our role is simply much, much bigger than that of any other country. Sure, we could unilaterally decide to move away from that role, but I doubt other countries would step-up to get back into the role they have decided they don't want, as they have for years been reducing their militaries because they know and accept us in that role. The world would be much less safe if we decided to test if they will pick up the slack. If Indonesia has another tsunami, where else are you going to get 50 helicopters on 3-days notice?

Also, 20 carriers isn't as many as it sounds. A typical navy ship is deployed 1/3 of the time, though carriers tend to be more. So most we have something like 7-10 of these ships deployed at anyone time. And the ocean is a big place. Carriers are fast, but it still takes a week+ to get a carrier from Norfolk to the Med.

 

[russ_watters]

That's right, they are LHD's now. Gator Navy keeps coming with new designations. (LPH, LHA, LHD - guess the next one in the series)

But there is a huge difference in capabilities between a CVN and an LHD.

Yes: The obvious difference being a lack of fixed-wing aircraft except for Harriers! That makes for a pretty limited range of power projection.

 

[Vanadium 50]

While the Harrier is a wonderful aircraft, you're not going to achieve air superiority with 6 of them. Or even 20 of them.

I would also argue that the USN is stretched thin compared to what it is expected to do. There are three wars going on. Plus piracy. Plus keeping an eye on North Korea and arguably China. Plus the SSBN deterrent force. With a fleet that has shrunk so much there are now more admirals than ships. (almost) There needs to be an adjustment in either resources or expectations.

What's most needed is also the least sexy. It needs something to take on the ocean escort role, and it needs more and faster AO's/AOE's.

 

[Ryumast3r]

That's right, they are LHD's now. Gator Navy keeps coming with new designations. (LPH, LHA, LHD - guess the next one in the series)

But there is a huge difference in capabilities between a CVN and an LHD. And a corresponding difference in cost, so it's really not right to lump them together. But the salient point remains - the ability to project non-nuclear power is expensive.

It is very expensive. You (at least I think it was you anyway) said that we were building 3 new Fords correct?

If that's the case, we could dry-dock the 1 non-LHD small carrier (can't remember it's classification right now), and either halt production on the Ford's or replace three Nimitz-class (and maybe dry-dock a fourth, since the Ford's are much better with missiles/planes than the Nimitz's are). With that done, put a temporary halt on production of carriers/large sea vessels like the CVNs until we solve, or partially solve this debt issue.

While the Harrier is a wonderful aircraft, you're not going to achieve air superiority with 6 of them. Or even 20 of them.

I would also argue that the USN is stretched thin compared to what it is expected to do. There are three wars going on. Plus piracy. Plus keeping an eye on North Korea and arguably China. Plus the SSBN deterrent force. With a fleet that has shrunk so much there are now more admirals than ships. (almost) There needs to be an adjustment in either resources or expectations.

What's most needed is also the least sexy. It needs something to take on the ocean escort role, and it needs more and faster AO's/AOE's.

I know you can't cut aircraft carriers willy-nilly, but I was saying cut some of the LHDs, not the CVNs. The CVNs are too big to really cut/dry-dock until we have some replacement (Ford's), or some way to substitute their ability to be out and about. I was saying that since the LHDs are expensive to maintain (they are large ships), and most of their functionality can be replaced with other craft (helicopters -> almost any surface ship, harriers -> carriers, landing craft -> many other surface ships), and since they aren't functionally needed all around the globe all the time (they are really only used for starting a medium operation, most others involve ground-based forces, or helicopters, or planes, or using a combination of all forces available).

There is no easy solution, but the military has to get smarter, just like every other piece of the government.

 

[AlephZero]

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

Actually, you already have several bases in the UK, so you probably don't need another one in France.

As for "cold war fantasies", there was an interview with Henry Kissinger in this weekend's Financial Times newspaper (UK).

His likely scenario for Afghanistan, given the current western polcies, is as leading towards "commemorating the centenary of WWI by re-enacting it".

In summary,
1 Western troops withdraw. (Kissinger recalls writing a memo to Nixon, saying "the first stage of troop withdrawal is like salted peanuts. The more you eat, the more you want.")
2 Any attempt at political negotiations by the West is made futile by troop withdrawal (the other parties know that all they have to do is sit tight for a while).
3 Afghanistan is effectively partitioned: Russian and India form a "northern alliance", and Pakistan makes an alliance with the Taliban in the south.
4 Some "minor incident" triggers a full-scale India-Pakistan war.
5 Cue re-run of 1914- choose your own selection of world powers to support either side.

Al-Quaeda? "They are the least of anybody's worries".

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is no easy solution, but the military has to get smarter, just like every other piece of the government.

One could argue that building Wasps instead of Fords is a cost-cutting measure.

My point is that the Navy is smaller than it has ever been since the 19th century. The Reagan "600-ship Navy" started from a baseline of 530. Today it's 279. In 1988, the Navy's budget was $190B in FY11 dollars. Today it's $150B. Nevertheless, it's charged with doing more than ever before: everything in 1988 + 3 wars + international piracy + taking out the odd terrorist in his Pakistani hideout.

It's reasonable to ask for the Navy to do more. It's reasonable to cut back the Navy. Hoping to do both at the same time, though, is wishful thinking.

 

[Ryumast3r]

One could argue that building Wasps instead of Fords is a cost-cutting measure.

My point is that the Navy is smaller than it has ever been since the 19th century. The Reagan "600-ship Navy" started from a baseline of 530. Today it's 279. In 1988, the Navy's budget was $190B in FY11 dollars. Today it's $150B. Nevertheless, it's charged with doing more than ever before: everything in 1988 + 3 wars + international piracy + taking out the odd terrorist in his Pakistani hideout.

It's reasonable to ask for the Navy to do more. It's reasonable to cut back the Navy. Hoping to do both at the same time, though, is wishful thinking.

Agreed on all points, but we've already started construction on the Fords (and have been for quite some time, IIRC), so destroying them and going for more Wasps would be wasting all the money we've already put into them, though, in the long term, Wasps would definitely be a cheaper solution than building a bunch more Fords (though, like others have pointed out, Wasps can only really carry Harriers and Helicopters since they are primarily landing-craft-carriers, and don't do the air-superiority job as well as a Ford would).

Also agreed on the fact that it's smaller and has a tough job. We are currently fighting three wars, though we are pulling out of one, and working on pulling out of another (Afghanistan/Iraq), and the third one (Libya) we at least have allies helping us out (helping is relative, I'd say we're still doing a grand majority of the legwork there). While piracy is a relatively large issue, it's mostly in one area of the world and we don't really need large vessels for those pirates. Instead of using destroyers or cruisers we could use smaller (but just as fast, since speed is a big part of it) ships to handle the job.

It is wishful thinking to say "do more on significantly less," but I think it's reasonable to say "do just as much as you are now, with a little less." Since every department in the Government is facing cuts, I think it's only reasonable to tell the navy that they should be looking (as they always should be) for cheaper/more efficient ways to accomplish the same goal.