The U.S. defense budget has grown to inordinate levels, and the American public isn't happy about it. Scott Rasmussen sets out proposals on how to create a leaner military spending strategy that is more efficient and satisfies the desires of the voters.

The Congressional Budget Office prepared this report in July 2012, to analyze the long term impact of the 2013 Future Years Defense Program, the Department of Defense's budget projection of fiscal years 2013 to 2017, through 2030. This report considers the budget in light of the Budget Control Act, or sequestration.

Tough economic times are often met in Washington with calls for retrenchment. But for decades, write two former top Pentagon officials, long-term forward deployments of U.S. forces and robust alliances have guaranteed stability and uninterrupted trade, the very conditions the United States needs for economic prosperity. The Obama administration gets it.

The Department of Defense submitted this report in April 2012, outlining its current investment in unmanned aircraft systems (also known as drones) and future financial, personnel, and infrastructure needs through Fiscal Year 2017.

Frank G. Klotz says the possibility of a total stalemate on the U.S. defense budget looms very large, but with American forces still fighting in Afghanistan, and Iran and North Korea remaining potential flashpoints, the consequences could be grave.

Ash Carter, deputy secretary of defense, explains how the United States is transforming its military and defense strategy as a result of financial cut backs.

Ash Carter, deputy secretary of defense, explains how the United States is transforming its military and defense strategy as a result of financial cut backs.

Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter and Richard Hass, President, Council on Foreign Relations discuss the challenges U.S. faces on defense strategy and budget priorities in the 21st century.

Max Boot says cutting spending on Afghan forces is penny wise and war foolish.

This report by the Institute for Economics and Peace provides an overview of the macroeconomic effects of government spending on war and the military since World War II.

Frank Klotz argues that the closure of a military base is economically and emotionally difficult, but the U.S. military cannot afford to maintain facilities it no longer needs, especially in the midst of a budget crisis.

The U.S. Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) reflects the reality that offshore balancing has jumped from the cloistered walls of academe to the real world of Washington policymaking, says Christopher Layne.

This brief by Anthony H. Cordesman analyzes the pattern of cuts in recent, ongoing, and possible future defense and national security spending that affects the U.S. and its ability to project power and aid its friends and allies.

The Department of State's Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance published its "29^th edition of the State Department's World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) report, covering the years 1995-2005". It includes "six years of data (2000-2005) not included in any previously published edition."

Frank G. Klotz argues that the United States has important national interests in Antarctica, and these interests must be fully understood and carefully considered, especially as the federal government looks for ways to reduce the deficit.

Peter Orszag questions whether the U.S. military budget cuts outlined by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will be fully implemented.

The Pentagon's strategic review sets the stage for a new era of restraint in U.S. military spending and a focus on priorities in Asia. CFR's Richard K. Betts and Max Boot discuss the challenges facing the U.S. military and the implications for U.S. defense policy.

Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellows Richard Betts and Max Boot join Staff Writer Jonathan Masters in a discussion of the Department of Defense's recent strategic review, military spending, and U.S. defense strategy.

Max Boot argues that the current plan to downsize the U.S. military is a repeat of past mistakes.

Max Boot argues that cuts to defense spending have the potential to devastate the U.S. armed forces, and if left unchecked, will do more damage to their fighting capacity than the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or any other external foe could inflict.