The United States Army conducted an environmental assessment of potential force reductions at 30 installations and determined there would be no significant environmental impacts, only socioeconomic impacts. Both a 2013 assessment and 2014 supplemental analysis examined potential reductions at multiple installations. The Army determined an environmental impact statement was not required. However, the proposed Army force reductions of 70,000 active soldiers would qualify as a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment according to NEPA guidelines, requiring an environmental impact statement to comply with regulations.

1. THE UNITED STATES ARMY – FORCE REDUCTIONS
1 OCTOBER 2015
“The Army evaluated the environmental impacts of potential reductions of active
component Soldiers and Army civilians (Army employees) at 30 installations. The Army
determined there are no significant impacts, other than socioeconomic impacts, and
that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.
Both the 2013 assessment and 2014 supplemental analyzed potential reductions at Fort
Benning, Georgia; Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Campbell,
Kentucky; Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Drum, New York; Fort Gordon, Georgia; Fort
Hood, Texas; Fort Irwin, California; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Lee, Virginia; Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort Polk, Louisiana; Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort Sill, Oklahoma;
Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Wainwright, Alaska; Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson,
Alaska; Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington;
and, United States Army Garrison (USAG) Hawaii -- Schofield Barracks, Hawai`i .
The supplemental also analyzed potential reductions at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Fort Huachuca, Arizona; Fort Jackson, South Carolina;
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Fort Meade, Maryland; Fort Rucker, Alabama; Joint Base San
Antonio -- Fort Sam Houston, Texas; and USAG Hawaii -- Fort Shafter, Hawai`i.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Source: United States Army. http://www.fortbraggpresscenter.com/go/doc/5287/2419750/Army-
completes-environmental-study-for-possible-force-reductions
Genesis and raison d'être for mandatory force reductions by United States Army
President Barack Obama and the Congress of the United States of America
The Tea Party Express
“Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest Tea Party political action committee, is
disappointed by the President’s jubilance over a deal that kicks the can down the road and
accomplishes nothing.
Tea Party Express’ Chief Strategist Sal Russo said, “The President continues to cry over
spilt milk instead of accepting the cause for the mess. Our government spending
continues to rise while our economy is sputtering along. 11 million people are out of
work and Obamacare continues to pursue the high tax, high regulatory federal policies
that have made this economic recovery the worst in modern history.”
Tea Party leaders are trying to address the unparalleled growth and cost of the federal
government, but the President and his party continue to ignore the problem.

2. Both parties have shown apathy for tackling this fiscal crisis, always saying there was a
better time to get the American economy growing strongly again. The problem is that
time never comes.
Five years of trying to work with the failed presidency of Barack Obama has given us
only the unintended sequester to rein in spending and nothing to undo the anti-growth
policies endemic in Washington.
“The politicians in Washington seem totally out of touch with the American people. The
Tea Party has sprung up because people were upset with excessive spending and debt, a
weak economy and crony capitalism. The deal struck by Congress and the President just
continues the bad policies that have endangered the American dream for many of our
citizens,” Russo concluded.” [Emphasis Supplied]
Source: Tea Party Express. http://www.teapartyexpress.org/7130/president-obama-fails-
to-grasp-americas-fiscal-woes
SEQUESTER REPEATED. Message in 2014: “Office of Management & Budget to
Congress: Fix 2015 budget to avoid return of limited sequester”.
“If Congress doesn't take action in its final fiscal 2015 budget, the departments of
Defense and Energy and the FBI could be on the hook to cut millions of dollars more in
discretionary spending to meet the current budget cap levels.
Under the Senate's appropriations bills, the three agencies and others — considered under
the defense category — would have to find an additional $34 million in non-mandatory
spending to cut in order to meet the current budget numbers slated for 2015.
DoD, Energy, FBI and other agencies already face an expected reduction $44.7 billion in
discretionary spending compared to the original Budget Control Act caps, while non-
defense category agencies would see their budget come in $27.6 billion less than those
BBA levels.
“The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA) took an important first step towards replacing
the damaging Joint Committee reductions with sensible long-term reforms," OMB wrote
in the report. “However, the 2015 level set by the BBA and the cap reductions that are
scheduled to take place starting in 2016 do not provide sufficient resources for national
security, domestic investments, and the core government functions that are required to
ensure that the nation is achieving its full potential in a growing economy.””
Source: Jason Miller, Executive Editor, Federal News Radio.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/513/3690078/OMB-to-Congress-Fix-2015-budget-to-
avoid-return-of-limited-sequester

3. SEQUESTRATION | 2013 + 1 October 2015 - FORCE REDUCTIONS – IMPACT
UNITED STATES ARMY
Force Strength 2013 570,000
Force Reduction 2013 ▬ 80,000
Force Strength at End of 2013 490,000
Force Strength 2015 490,000
Force Reduction -- 1 October 2015 ▬ 70,000
Force Strength at End of 2015 420,000
MILITARY CHIEFS WARN ANEW ABOUT SEQUESTER CUTS – 1 OCTOBER 2015
February 2, 2015
“The chiefs of America's armed forces warned that more across-the-board cuts could
require them to craft a new national defense strategy while possibly losing their ability to
conduct two major operations simultaneously.”
Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, ““Said his force is as unready as at
any other point in its 239-year history.
Odierno said if sequestration hits again, he will remove tens of thousands more soldiers,
and end, restructure or otherwise change “all” of its acquisition programs, resulting in a
"40 percent modernization decrease.’”
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert, “Warned a new round of
sequester cuts would require a re-examination of the national defense strategy.
The CNO also said more across-the-board cuts to non-exempt accounts would put at risk
some missions with which his sailors currently are tasked.
“We [would] go from high risk to we cannot execute those missions,” Greenert said.”
Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh ““We're now the smallest Air Force
we've ever been."
He also warned the service's fleet is older than it has ever been, and 12 fleets would
qualify for antique license plates in the state of Virginia — if they were automobiles, that
is.
Welsh said if sequester kicks in again, the Air Force would be unable to defeat one foe
while holding off another and "defending the homeland.””

4. Marine Corps Commandant General Joseph Dunford, “Another round of
sequestration would leave the Corps unable to meet the requirements of the country's
current defense strategy.”
“Senior Senate Armed Services Committee (SSASC) Ranking Member Senator
Jack Reed, Rhode Island, said he knows the service chiefs "will manage" with
whatever funding and cuts they are dealt.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Source: Bennett, J. (2015, February 2). Military Chiefs Warn Anew About Sequester
Cuts. Defense News. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-
budget/congress/2015/01/28/sequestration-military-isis-budget/22462259/
SEQUESTER YIELDS ‘MINDLESS’ BUDGET AUSTERITY? HARDLY
Is President Barack Obama powerless in guiding the actions of the federal government,
his hand forced by rigid laws enacted by a stern Congress and implemented by
bureaucratic sticklers?
Of course not. When it comes to the two biggest domestic policy initiatives since the
Great Society years — 2002’s No Child Left Behind Act and 2010’s Affordable Care Act
— the president has effectively rewritten great chunks of both laws. In recent months,
he’s reinterpreted immigration laws in ways that counter their restrictionist spirit.
Whether or not you like what he’s done, it’s plain that he’s been aggressive about using
executive authority to get things done without the cooperation or assent of the House and
Senate.
Yet when it comes to implementing the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama constantly
depicts himself as boxed in. This is the law that requires budget reductions of about $1.2
trillion from 2013-2021, with about half coming from domestic discretionary spending
and half from military spending.
In the president’s Monday speech outlining his proposed $4 trillion 2015-16 federal
budget, he asked Congress to accept a much higher deficit and to scrap the 2011 law.
Obama said its budget sequester process promoted “mindless austerity” that forced rigid
cuts across nearly all government programs, regardless of their value.
But if dumb cuts are made, they are being done for political reasons — not because
government officials don’t have a choice. The worst example was the spring 2013
furloughing of air traffic controllers, creating massive delays at airports across the nation.

5. The White House asserted the Transportation Department had no choice because it was
unable to establish priorities in its $73 billion budget.
Later that year, and closer to home, there was another obnoxious decision: The Pentagon
canceled the popular Miramar Air Show on short notice, citing sequestration. The
problem with that claim: The air show made money in 2012.
Thankfully, a more sensible approach has taken hold. Agency bosses have chosen to be
more flexible in budget decisions, sometimes with direct congressional encouragement
and authorization. The result, according to a Washington Post analysis, is that “the ‘meat
cleaver’ of sequestration often became a scalpel.”
Nevertheless, the White House website continues to promote the idea that the sequester
requires “arbitrary and across the board budget cuts.” That’s not the case. What the
president depicts as “mindless austerity” instead looks like the first truly sustained effort
to contain government spending in decades.
Should there be major changes in the sequester law? Perhaps. The Pentagon makes an
increasingly strong case that it has cut to the bone, and that spending caps for six more
years would put national security at risk.
But six months or a year of strong economic growth don’t change budget fundamentals.
The aging of our population will lead to a huge surge in the cost of Medicare and Social
Security. Our $18 trillion in national debt requires massive debt service payments.
Republicans should be wary of any compromise that makes this long-term picture worse.
Everyone should be wary of a president whose budget posturing ignores these hard truths.
Source: Sequester yields ‘mindless’ budget austerity? Hardly. (2015, February 3). U~T
San Diego News. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/03/mindless-
budget-austerity-far-from-it/

6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
“FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT”
OR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
DISCUSSION
United States Code and Case Precedent

7. STREAMLINING the BUZZ Word for Defense Spending and United States Army
proposed Drawdown of Forces requires full, total compliance and adherence to the legal
requirements of The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [Title 42 United States
Code §4321 et seq.] and regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) [Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-15081]
The shortest pathway, though timesaving and administratively convenient, is, as taken by
the United States Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment - Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Assessment - Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment for
Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment utilizing an ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT (EA), FINDING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT is, part, albeit
incomplete, piecemealed portion of the process.
NEPA requires an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) be prepared.
The proposed action of the United States Army is a major federal action significantly
affecting and impacting on the quality of the human environment, existing social and
economic activities and conditions, law enforcement and fire prevention, growth and
development patterns, land use patterns, neighborhood character and cohesiveness,
housing, local utilities, public services, etc.
Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment - Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Assessment - Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment
for Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment.
“The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to
consider potential environmental impacts prior to undertaking a course of action. NEPA
is implemented through regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508) and within the
United States (U.S.) Department of the Army (Army) by 32 CFR Part 651,
Environmental Analysis of Army Actions. In accordance with these requirements, the
Army has prepared a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA) to
consider environmental effects on installations that could result from implementation of
the Proposed Action to realign Army forces from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 through FY
2020. The SPEA was prepared as a supplemental NEPA evaluation to the Army’s 2013
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (2013 PEA) due to changes to the Purpose and
Need described in the previous document.”
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) for Army 2020 Force Structure
Realignment - 4 June 2014
Source: http://aec.army.mil/Portals/3/nepa/Army2020SPEA-FNSI.pdf

8. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) PROCESS
The NEPA process consists of an evaluation of the environmental effects of a federal
undertaking including its alternatives. There are three levels of analysis: categorical
exclusion determination; preparation of an environmental assessment/finding of no
significant impact (EA/FONSI); and preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS).
1. Categorical Exclusion: At the first level, an undertaking may be categorically
excluded from a detailed environmental analysis if it meets certain criteria which
a federal agency has previously determined as having no significant
environmental impact. A number of agencies have developed lists of actions
which are normally categorically excluded from environmental evaluation under
their NEPA regulations.
2. EA/FONSI: At the second level of analysis, a federal agency prepares a written
environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether or not a federal undertaking
would significantly affect the environment. If the answer is no, the agency issues
a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The FONSI may address measures
which an agency will take to mitigate potentially significant impacts.
3. EIS: If the EA determines that the environmental consequences of a proposed
federal undertaking may be significant, an EIS is prepared. An EIS is a more
detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives. The public, other
federal agencies and outside parties may provide input into the preparation of an
EIS and then comment on the draft EIS when it is completed.
If a federal agency anticipates that an undertaking may significantly impact the
environment, or if a project is environmentally controversial, a federal agency may
choose to prepare an EIS without having to first prepare an EA.
After a final EIS is prepared and at the time of its decision, a federal agency will prepare
a public record of its decision addressing how the findings of the EIS, including
consideration of alternatives, were incorporated into the agency's decision-making
process.
Source: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.]
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html

9. JACKSON COUNTY V. JONES - No. 77-1739 (8th Cir. February 7, 1978)
“The Eighth Circuit affirms a district court's denial of a motion for a
preliminary injunction against the relocation of personnel and equipment from
Richards-Gebaur Air Base near Kansas City to Scott Air Base near St. Louis.
Treating the case as an appeal on the merits, the court rules that the Air Force's
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project was adequate and that
the substantive decision to proceed with the base relocation was not arbitrary
and capricious and thus not reversible under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
The court finds that the Air Force is not exempt from the statute's mandates and
that the Act is applicable to this relocation because it will directly and
substantially affect the physical and economic environments of the two areas.
The court rejects the contention that the impact statement did not discuss all
feasible alternatives in sufficient detail; although the discussion of alternatives
was less than thorough, it was nevertheless adequate. [Emphasis Supplied]
V. Conclusion
The EIS was adequate and the final decision to proceed with the proposed
action was not arbitrary or capricious. We affirm the district court's denial of
the preliminary injunction. [Emphasis Supplied]
1. McDowell v. Schlesinger, 404 F. Supp. 221 [6 ELR 20224] (W.D. Mo.
1975). No appeal was taken from the district court's judgment.
1
1
“This Court is satisfied that plaintiffs have made the requisite showing that defendants'
proposed action could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. As more
particularly set forth supra at pp. 235-237, plaintiffs have shown that the proposed transfer from
the RGAFB area of approximately 7,500 persons could and will result in significant impacts to
the RGAFB area on, among other things, existing social and economic activities and conditions in
the area; problems relating to law enforcement and fire prevention; growth and development
patterns in the area, including existing land use patterns, and neighborhood character and
cohesiveness, etc.; and aesthetic considerations. With regard to the Scott area, as
particularized supra pp. 237-239, plaintiffs have demonstrated that the proposed relocation of
approximately 10,000 persons to that area could result in significant impacts on that area,
including inter alia impacts on the availability of housing, and the overburdening of local utilities
and other public services. Further, the proposed action will result in unknown, but potentially
significant, environmental impacts caused by the construction of new housing and other
community facilities in the Scott area which will be built to accommodate the incoming
population.

10. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants in this case are: Jackson County, Missouri; Kansas
City, Missouri; the State of Missouri ex rel. John Ashcroft; the State of
Kansas ex rel. Curt T. Schneider; Mid-America Regional Counsel; Cass
County, Missouri; Johnson County, Kansas; Kansas City, Kansas; certain
named employees (and/or their spouses) of the Air Force employed at
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base; American Federation of Government
Employees (AFL-CIO), Local 2127.
The defendants/appellees in this case are General David C. Jones, United States
Air Force, Chief of Staff; John C. Stetson, Secretary of the Department of the
Air Force; the Department of the Air Force; General George S. Brown, United
States Air Force, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dr. Harold Brown,
Secretary of the Department of the Defense; the Department of Defense. The
defendants/appellees will be referred to as the Air Force.
3. No issues of national security are before this court. The only such issues
raised before the trial court were resolved in favor of the Air Force. McDowell
v. Schlesinger, supra at 257-59.
While most of these potential impacts may properly be termed "secondary" impacts, they are
within NEPA's ambit. See CEQ Guideline 1500.8(a) (3) (ii), 40 C.F.R. § 1500.8(a) (3) (ii) (1974),
and the discussion of the scope of NEPA supra at pp. 244-246. Where such impacts may be
significant, § 102(2) (C) of NEPA applies to the proposed action, including its requirement of the
preparation of a detailed EIS by the defendant agencies. Thus, under the teachings of M. P. I. R.
G. v. Butz, supra, defendants' proposed action must be considered a "major federal action
significantly affecting *255 the quality of the human environment" within the meaning of §
102(2) (C) of NEPA. The decision of defendants to effect the relocations, realignments and
transfers of Headquarters, AFCS, the ETAC and DCA units, and the Squadron of C-130 aircraft
to Scott Air Force Base will be set aside. Defendants will be directed to specifically comply with
the requirements of § 102(2)(C) of NEPA, including the requirement that an EIS be prepared and
filed, prior to and as an integral part of any reconsideration by the defendant agencies of the
decision to effect these realignments, transfers, and relocations to Scott. An appropriate injunctive
order will be entered. Judgment shall enter accordingly. [Citations Omitted, Emphasis Supplied]
It is so ordered.”
Reference: 404 F.Supp. 221 (1975) - Robert L. McDOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, v. James R.
SCHLESINGER, Secretary of Defense of the United States, et al., Defendants, Jackson County,
Missouri, Intervenor-Plaintiff. No. 75 CV 234 W-4. United States District Court, W. D. Missouri,
W. D. July 9, 1975. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2131578/mcdowell-v-schlesinger/

11. At oral argument before this court, the Air Force asserted for the first time that
other and broader national security issues were involved in the proposed
relocation. These assertions are unsupported by the record. [Emphasis
Supplied]
4. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared before the federal government or its
agencies proceed with a major action. An EIS should include a detailed
discussion of:
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
42 U.S.C. § 4332(2) (C)(i-v).
5. For a comprehensive discussion of the history of AFCS and its function and
its location at Richards-Gebaur in 1970, see McDowell v. Schlesinger, supra.
6. Alternatives (1) through (4) provided that approximately 91 percent of the
base personnel at Richards-Gebaur be transferred to other Air Force bases, with
most transferred to Scott.
7. In each alternative, the Air Force considered it essential that certain technical
support units, the Detachment 2, 1814 Communications Squadron, 1842
Electronics Engineering Group, and the 1815 Test Squadron be located at the
same base as AFCS. The functions of these technical support units are directly
related to the functions performed by AFCS. In each alternative but (5), the Air
Force retained the option of moving the 37th TAS to Scott or to Pope Air Force
Base in North Carolina. Also proposed was the relocation of the 1866th Facility
Checking Squadron.

12. 8. The Military Airlift Command is headquartered at Scott AFB, Illinois.
9. These alternatives were proposed by Robert L. McDowell, the original
plaintiff in McDowell v. Schlesinger, supra,at the hearing held by the United
States Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on the
Armed Forces on September 15, 1976. EIS, App. 2, Vol. 2, p. 597.
10. The Air Force advanced the following argument in response to alternative
(11)(a) that we deem to be utterly without merit. They stated that current
Department of Defense regulations do not permit pro rata cost sharing of
facilities jointly used by active and reserve units of the various branches of the
Armed Services. Thus, no savings would be affected by using a portion of
Richards-Gebaur to accommodate Navy and Air Force personnel in space
vacated by the 1840th Air Base Wing (1840 ABW). Any serious cost savings
efforts must disregard antiquated regulations designed to perpetuate artificial
barriers between branches of the Armed Services and between active and
reserve units of the various services.
11. Scott AFB is located near St. Louis, Missouri, which has a large enough
supply of rental and purchase properties to absorb the influx of personnel which
will result from the relocation of AFCS. The parties dispute whether or not
certain portions of the St. Louis metropolitan area are within a one-hour rush
hour commuting distance of Scott. A one-hour commuting distance is that
considered acceptable by the Air Force. We need not determine which party is
correct in this dispute. As discussed earlier in this opinion, we are not to decide
whether the Air Force's decision was the most correct one, but merely whether
all relevant factors were presented to and considered by the decision-making
agency.
12. This estimate was made by McDowell in his testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee, EIS, App. 2, Vol. 2, p. 597. See n.9, supra.

13. 13. See n.11, supra.
14. Richards-Gebaur dependents represent approximately 4,123 (1.9 percent) of
the 219,000 average daily attendance (ADA) in public schools in the three-
county area. However, five districts service 72.3 percent of all Richards-Gebaur
dependents (Table 26). Belton School District No. 124 has the greatest
concentration; 1,524 of 4,313 ADA, or 35 percent, are dependents of Richards-
Gebaur personnel. Next, in order of percentage of ADA, are Consolidated
District No. 4 (areas within Kansas City, Grandview and Lee's Summit), 13
percent; Raymore-Peculiar R-2, 5.3 percent; Harrisonville-Cass R-9, 4.5
percent; and finally Consolidated No. 1, 3.8 percent (areas within Kansas City
and Grandview). The remaining Richards-Gebaur dependents are distributed in
approximately 80 communities. EIS, p. 67.
Source: 8 ELR 20300 | Environmental Law Reporter
http://elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/8.20300.htm
Footnoted Reference: McDowell v. Schlesinger, 404 F. Supp. 221
(W.D. Mo. 1975) [Supplied for Clarification]
FISCAL BATTLES RESURFACE
“With the era of falling budget deficits coming to an end, President Obama and Congress
are hurtling toward a clash over spending as the White House and Democrats press for
an easing of fiscal austerity just as Republicans redouble efforts to balance the
budget.
“Congress is under new management, and so is this committee,” Senator Michael B.
Enzi, Republican of Wyoming and the new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
said Wednesday at the panel’s first hearing of the new Congress. “I intend to run a
Budget Committee dedicated to the proposition that we must confront spending, bring the
deficit to an end and, ultimately, balance the budget.”

14. Division in Washington is nothing new, but gridlock and inaction seems not to be an
option this year. A series of fiscal showdowns will be coming, starting with an end to
Department of Homeland Security funding on Feb. 28, a sharp cut in physician payments
under Medicare on March 31, the depletion of the highway trust fund on May 31, a debt-
ceiling showdown this summer or fall and the return of across-the-board mandatory cuts
known as sequestration on Oct. 1.
If those cuts happen, “we will not be able to defeat an adversary, deny another adversary
and defend the homeland,” Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, told the
Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. “I do not believe that is good for
America.”
“We have always, in the past, come down from our wartime footing to a significantly
lower level of global engagement, and that is just not the case anymore,” said Ryan
Crotty, the deputy director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Democrats also hope Republican defense hawks such as Senator John McCain of
Arizona, the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, will push Republican
leaders to increase military spending, something Democrats will not accept without more
domestic spending.
“Let’s be clear: If we continue with these arbitrary defense cuts, we will harm our
military’s ability to keep us safe,” Mr. McCain said at his hearing Wednesday.
“This comes down to a battle in the Republican Party between fiscal hawks and defense
hawks,” Mr. Van Hollen [Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland] said
Wednesday, “and you will see a lot of pressure from defense folks to raise the caps.””
Source: Weisman, J. (2015, January 30). As New Leadership Takes Over in Washington,
Fiscal Battles Resurface. The New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/us/politics/as-new-leadership-takes-over-in-washington-old-
fiscal-battles-are-resurfacing.html?ref=topics&_r=0

15. THE REALITY OF WAR
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
“I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war,
I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand
to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the
Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the
tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view,
the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of
gradually developing democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a
conflict was vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight. For example, we
can now see that during the Cold War, the principle of nuclear deterrence
had a certain value. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess al such
matters with any degree of accuracy. War is violence and violence is
unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible, and never to
presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war
will be beneficial or not.
For instance, in the case of the Cold War, through deterrence may have
helped promote stability, it did not create genuine peace. The last forty
years in Europe have seen merely the absence of war, which has not been
real peace but a facsimile founded dear. At best, building arms to maintain
peace serves only as a temporary measure. As long as adversaries do not
trust each other, any number of factors can upset the balance of power.
Lasting peace can assure secured only on the basis of genuine trust.”
Source: Office of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war