Council of Councils
Think Global Health
Online Store
International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But experts say countries aren’t doing enough to limit dangerous global warming.
Video Brief: Defense
March 22, 2012 10:42 am (EST)
- Explainer Video
"Budgetary pressures will in significant part drive the decisions" on defense policy for the winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, says CFR’s Richard Betts. In 2013, the White House and the next U.S. Congress will have to decide whether to reduce the objectives and deployment of armed forces as the defense budget comes under scrutiny, he says.
More From Our Experts
"If the priority is going to be on resolving the gap between resources and spending, then cuts in the defense budget are almost certain, and the debate will be about how much," Betts predicts. If, on the other hand, the priority is going to be maintaining high levels of military power and ambitious policy objectives to shape security developments in other parts of the world, the president and Congress will have to find savings elsewhere, he says.
Betts expects defense budget reductions to center on U.S. Army and Marines ground forces involved in interventions abroad. Support for counterterrorism capabilities will be preserved, he says, as this remains a priority for the United States and relies primarily on special operation forces and intelligence gathering, which are relatively less costly.
This video is part of Campaign 2012, a series of video briefings on the top foreign policy issues debated in the run-up to the 2012 elections.
More From Our Experts
Top Stories on CFR
Trade retaliation looms from Canada, China, Mexico, and the European Union in response to U.S. tariffs. Four timelines lay out their responses, and the experience of American soybean farmers in 2018 shows how damaging this could be.
The U.S. military continues to conduct large-scale strikes on Iran-backed Houthi targets in Yemen to counter their assault on global commerce and attempts to weaken Israel.
There was once a broad consensus in Washington that trade was a force for good—a way to connect, grow, and prosper. But today, trade has evolved into something much bigger than just the exchange of goods. It’s become a powerful tool to rewrite the rules of foreign policy, reshape how the United States is viewed by the rest of the world, and steer us toward an increasingly uncertain future. When did this change begin, and where did we go off course?