Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on military issues

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has not been expansive regarding his views of the war in Afghanistan – perhaps because both he and President Obama do not have significantly different plans. But here are five areas where the candidates differ on military issues.

4. Troop levels

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/File
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on Jan. 27, 2012, to discuss US Army cuts.

If Romney is elected, he says he would reverse the Obama administration’s plan to decrease the size of the US Army by 80,000 and the size of the US Marine Corps by 20,000.

At the same time, Romney has stressed that since the year 2000, the Pentagon’s civilian staff has grown by 20 percent. “The Department’s bureaucracy is bloated to the point of dysfunction and is ripe for being pared,” he says in an issues statement. 

That said, he notes that during the same time period, “our active duty fighting force grew by only 3.4 percent. That imbalance needs to be rectified.”

The Obama administration has stressed that its decision to reduce the size of the US military by 100,000 troops is an effort to save defense dollars, since personnel costs – including health care and other benefits – are the fastest-growing expenses for the Pentagon.

Health-care costs for troops have soared from $19 billion in 2001 to $52.5 billion 10 years later.

Whether these cuts in military strength are enacted will in turn affect the population of US veterans, analysts say – and the resources that will remain for their care.

4 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.