Sequestration and service Chiefs

Rimasta

Member
The Chiefs testified on the Hill when asked "could the U.S. Military could execute its Strategic Planning Guidance which require U.S. Forces to engage one adversary in conflict and deter another. The Chiefs answered "no" they would not be confident in even fighting a single conflict while the Marines answered, "yes, but" and explained the USMC's differing mission, but added without support from other services his "yes" is irrelevant. This seems very dangerous due to rising tensions in numerous flashpoint regions and that other nations appear to be rearming not disarming.
My question now is, could the continued effects of sequestration be more damaging than mere fiscal constraints on the armed forces? Could these cuts increase the likelihood of a war or wars breaking out since there are now very "limited" forces available to even surge to a crisis?
Is the danger real, or imagined? It seems real to me but more concerning is the general apathy towards these cuts.
 
Top