Il Center for New American Security, think tank molto vicino all’attuale ammistrazione statunitense, ha prodotto uno studio sul bilancio della difesa statunitense.
Il report in questione, “Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity“, si inquadra all’interno di uno specifico progetto di ricerca diretto da John Nagl e David W. Barno il cui obiettivo è quello di analizzare l’impatto che l’inevitabile riduzione del budget del Pentagono avrà sulla strategia degli Stati Uniti.
In particolare in questo primo studio gli autori hanno ragionato su 4 possibili “scenari di budget” e sono giunti alla conclusione che tagli di bilancio superiori a 550 miliardi di dollari nel corso del prossimo decennio renderebbero impossibile il mantenimento dell’attuale “global engagement strategy” statunitense. Scrivono i tre autori nelle conclusioni:
we judge that the U.S. military’s ability to execute America’s global engagement strategy, as it is currently articulated, will be placed at high risk if total national defense cuts exceed $500-550 billion over 10 years. This judgment could change if policymakers recalibrate America’s global engagement strategy and/or generate savings by reforming military pay and benefits for future service members. Reductions beyond this range would cut too many air and naval assets and risk America’s ability to protect its vital interests in Asia and the Middle East, while the cuts in Army and Marine Corps end strength would jeopardize the ability of the United States to prevail against determined adversaries in unexpected ground force contingencies without potentially incurring heavy casualties.
Da notare come anche in questo documento si sottolinei la maggiore importanza che nel futuro avranno forze navali ed aeree:
naval and air forces will grow increasingly important in the future strategic environment. (…) The U.S. military needs to bolster its influence in the Asia-Pacific region and should do so by engaging more with key allies and by developing long-range and precision weapons, particularly as potential adversaries like China further develop antiaccess capabilities. Large active-duty ground forces will be needed less as the United States continues to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, though the nation will still need them to deter aggression by hostile nations and to advise and assist U.S. allies facing regional instability. Cutting the number of ground forces may incur less risk than canceling naval and air modernization programs because the U.S. military can build up additional ground forces more quickly than it can acquire additional naval and air forces once production lines have closed.
Sarebbe interessante valutare le conseguenze di tutto ciò sulla nostra Difesa e sui nostri interessi nazionali.
Qui di seguito allego il documento e più in basso il video del seminario di presentazione.
Hard Choices – Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity