Receive pushback from congress and veterans groups. You can call in this morning we have also set aside a line for active and retired military this morning host as always, you can join us on social media, our facebook page, and you can always email us. Walk usus now to through the announcement from the Defense Department, a defense reporter from the wall street journal. Your story has this headline, the defense to department targets new threats. What are the new threats and what does it mean for the changes in store for the Defense Department . Is the end of an arrow for the u. S. Military. The war in afghanistan is coming to an end. Ground forces are coming home. We will have no more than a few thousand troops in afghanistan. The military has to pay her back because of budget spending. Now we are looking at emerging threats in asia. People are looking at china, threats on the open seas, threats in cyberspace. This is where we have been turning our focus. We have been talking about a pivot in asia. At turning looking our focus towards china, which means a new focus on cyber threats. To create more cyber warriors. They are also talking about placing more emphasis on special forces, the navy seals, the people who have rescued aid workers in smalley a. They want to boost the special forces, somalia. They want to boost the special forces. What that means is that the big military is going to come down is preworld war rome in two levels. Our real shift for the pentagon. Talk to us about numbers. At its peak the army was at 570,000 in the post9 11 era. Right now it is at about 520,000. We are talking about going as 420,000 under this plan, taking us back to preworld war roman to levels. For those host for those in the military who look at troop levels, how have they weighed in . Guest general o tierra know, the head of the army, says he thinks about general odie ,rnaud, the head of the army says this is necessary to carry out a war. Obviously many people think about needing more than that. People want to fight wars on two fronts. As of yesterday, secretary hagel said that we are not going to be preparing for major ground wars anymore. That time is over. One of the things that people say these circumstances is that we are always fighting and preparing for the last war. September 10, 2001, none of us knew what was coming up for the next 13 years. Right now we are saying look, we are not going to fight ground wars or major operations around the world. Who knows what could happen to change that calculus. Right now the Obama Administration and secretary hagel say that we have to focus on what we think is down the road, focus on the things that we think are coming down the road, basically focusing on the emerging threats from asia and potentially other issues being raised, like in africa, al qaeda threats from south africa, east africa, mali, places where they want to go in and conduct limited operations. There is a kind of emerging effort in africa to build up operations there. Those are the areas where you are seeing a little bit more focus from the military. About there talking right now strategy, but i am sure that critics would bring up the what if strategy. Partguest this will be a of the debate. There will be a lot of criticism and a question about the right strategy. Congress has to weigh in on this. Veterans are going to weigh in on this. Secretary hagel says that this is a strategy that allows us to adapt,le, allows us to threats that come down the road. This is going to be the debate for the next coming years. , joiningn nissenbaum us for our first hour. If you want to asking questions, here are the numbers again if you want to ask him questions, here are the numbers again are a member of the military and want to give your thoughts on these announcements from yesterday, social Media Channels are open to you as well. Lets take our first call from bob, pennsylvania. Democrats line. Good morning. Have a question. Remember haiti . When they were delivering supplies . Guys, 60 guys passing boxes from one to another. In you imagine if you had supermarkets with two truckloads of guys unloading trucks . Putting that food into the market . How much more would it cost, you know, to feed the people in the United States if we had to do that . They use roller bars to emerald unload trucks. Why doesnt the military use that instead of using 50 or 60 people . Pretty simple. It might cut down on the cost of what it costs for rescuing. Are a lot of questions about efficiencies and the pentagon. Somen certainly generate savings. There are a lot of ways to save money and they are trying to do that, but when you are looking at the Bigger Picture, the tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars in savings are going to come in other ways. Major weapons programs. There has been a program to change pay compensation benefits. There are a lot of questions how to reduce that. If efficiency is one of those things efficiency is one of those things that people think you can make savings without a lot of pain, which can get you so far. The questions are if troops are not actively fighting wars, then what are they doing . Guest there is training. One of the things that secretary hagel is pointing out is that you cannot just cut people who are prepared to fight. At the end of the fight you need to be able to train, have the right equipment. The head of the joint chiefs of staff says that we do not want any of our guys going into this not in a fair fight. We want all of these guys and women to be able to go in and crush their opponents. That takes training. That takes equipment. Of course, when they are not fighting wars, there are rescue operations, patrols. There are a lot of things the military does before aside from fighting on the frontlines. Hear from we now retired military. Maine, good morning. Caller i have worked for a power and Light Company since my military service. All i did was run around shutting down factories. Some of them have been in the United States for 150 years and one is in vietnam now. We have no industrial structure to support the military context complex. Pat buchanan and Vladimir Putin both told us we are committing suicide. Obviously a lot of concern about the Manufacturing Base. We do have significant defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, boeing, our top defense contractors do a lot of work here. We have various companies from outside who do provide us with military hardware and technology. We do have significant military bases. That is one of the questions Going Forward, as we start the drawdown. What impact is this going to have on companies that do business . The Top Contractor is Lockheed Martin. Wonheir budget they sort of and lost. The most expensive program in pentagon history is the effort35, the new fighter jet f 35, the new fighter jet. That is one of the most expensive programs to maintain. And callers may call in wonder why we dont cut back rather than cutting benefits, but the pentagon is locked in, so Lockheed Martin wins on that. At the same time, the navy will have to cut its plans to build a new combat ship. They wanted to build 52, 55, and secretary hagel said that they are only building 32. They lost on that. Where are those jobs going to go . It is a tradeoff. There are a lot of questions about the impact that this will in the United States. Secretarys hear from of defense, chuck hagel, speaking yesterday. [video clip] increase theust pace and scale of its postwar drawdown. Today there are around five hundred 20 thousand activeduty soldiers, which the army had planned to reduce the 490,000. However the strategic choices in management review and cutie are bear theave brought to light of no longer sustaining organizational strategies. Given the reduced budgets, this is larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready. We have decided to actively reduce active Army Strength to 400 sorties soldiers 440,000 soldiers. , how do wenissenbaum get to that number . Guest you will see troops leaving over the next five years. People retiring, being pushed out of the army. You are going to have bases that are going to lose brigades. A five year strategy. It will obviously not happen overnight. So, this is through attrition more than anything else . Guest it is not clear, but for sure. Host what is the timeframe that we will see these happen . Guest this is a fiveyear plan. We are talking about a gradual drawdown over five years. Is andrew. Andrew is from minerva, ohio, independent line. Yes, sir, iller have a question for you. Does our u. S. Military, is it the only thing backing our dollar . The military protecting Foreign Trade . If it is, what kind of affect will it have on our dollar if we shrink protection for Foreign Trade . Guest interesting question. I am not sure exactly what he is getting at, but obviously the military is there to protect our interests around the world. We have other ways of doing that, politically, diplomatically, things like that. I am not sure what he is trying to get at, but the military is only one component, not the only component, of how we protect forces abroad. Host what about the argument that 400,000 troops cannot really protect an attack on u. S. Soil . Guest what is inadequate size force . A healthyill have military. We will still have a large number of troops. Our is going to be for generals and politicians to decide. Guest if should host if we are changing the strategy, does that mean we are changing how they are trained to fight wars . Guest most likely. Right now we are seeing a shift from Ground Forces to a more heavy emphasis on maritime and naval operations. We are trying to use special operations a lot more to use conducted, targeted operations. I think that ideally the military would like to use those tines of operations as much as possible. You also see an increased use of drones, you these controversial targeting strikes around the world. Drones, these controversial targeting strikes around the world. Drones, these controversial targeting strikes around the world. Headlinelective of the that talks about the story in usa today, Technology Trumps troop levels and the budget. Guest we would love to be able to use technology on every front. The f 35 is a very advanced jet. It lets you look all around, 360 degrees. These vehicles, these allow us to stay off the battlefield and target people without putting people in harms way. Obviously a lot of debate about the strategy here around civilian casualties and what that does diplomatically, that certainly Technology Going forward will be an important part. Host california, retired military, henry, independent line. Caller you could reduce the military by one half of its strength and they would still be too much. I witnessedthat trillions of dollars of the military waste in extending their budget. Their allocations, fiscally i am talking about submarines coming in and dumping. Heir allocations the u. S. Army does the same thing. If they do not expend what they have been allocated, they have to dump it in order to qualify for the next allocation or it will be reduced. Generals iranked have witnessed, personally, the waste of expending government money on their personal use, for to build homes themselves. Now, the f35 question, they have been doing that all along. We have aircraft hidden in the desert that are being literally destroyed because of the cost overrun and the public does not know. We have spent trillions in the there,py outfits trillions in defense to support korea. Host guest guest ok, thanks for the call. There is a lot in there host ok, thanks for the call. Guest there is a lot in there. Host he mentioned generals, spending, things along that line. Guest the generals are going to take a oneyear pay freeze. Setting the messes that they are willing to sacrifice as well. Sending the message that they are willing to sacrifice as well. Owntop generals have their gulfstreams, their own folks on their planes. A lot of people say what, are these rock stars . Why are these generals having this kind of support . This will be part of the debate Going Forward. People sort of chafe at that kind of thing when they see it sometimes, generals flying around in their own planes with troops that might not have the training on the front end. At the end of the day, is that going to save you the big ticket that you need . No, but people do want to see that the people at the pentagon, the generals, are taking some of the brunt of this as well, along with the people who will be forced out of the army. Host has the dod try to make these types of reforms . The issue. Is secretary bob gates tried to make a lot of these reforms when he was in office at the pentagon. He just came out with his memoir. When we talk about reform he was to convincerefit congress and get compensation through. It is difficult in this town, as you know better than anyone, to get a mr. Congress. The pentagon has constituents in each state. State has the national guard, programs that they want to protect. Everyone has a constituency that can lock a lot of these programs from being cut Going Forward. Not myways say program. Not my national guard. It makes it hard to get this stuff through. Currently ane appetite in congress to accept these kinds of changes that secretary hagel wants to see . Guest this is the big question. Everyone in Congress Says that they would understand that Everyone Needs to tighten their belts, but what you heard from a lot of constituencies yesterday was not my program. Not my national guard. Not my bases. This is where you get to the paralysis. It is difficult to find the constituencies to make this stuff come together. Tom, brooksville, florida, hi. Caller good morning. My question is made my question is the statement that was made to general mathis last year. He was commanding Central Command and he said that if you do not fund of the state department fully, i need to buy more ammunition ultimately. I would like to hear his comment on that. Comment would be that i dont have the knowledge on good or bad to reduce the military on retiring, but it will have two effects, globally and continental wise. Globally reducing the military means you have to increase diplomacy. That is part of it. I do not disagree with reducing the military, but what are we going to do to increase diplomacy . With true diplomacy we have the possibility of saving lives and dollars. Hear that certainly from the pentagon as well. They understand that these programs are meant to drive Diplomatic Solutions and that they are a tool. Diplomacy is often the endgame here. In afghanistan, to get out of the country, they have tried to negotiate a deal with the taliban and to have a peace deal. Diplomacy is pretty essential and i do not think anyone at the pentagon would debate that you need to have a vibrant state department and a vibrant the nomadic effort to make sure that troops are used as little as possible. Host troop use was one issue taken up yesterday, benefits to military was another. Secretary hagel address those. We will get what he had to say and get your thoughts as well. [video clip] it is not fair, responding to these adjustments in the spending package. Fiscal year 2013, we have recommended a one percent raise for basic pay for military personnel, with the exception of general and flag officers, the pay will be frozen for one year. Basic pay raisins beyond this year will be restrained, though raises will continue. We are also recommending a number of changes. We will slow the growth of taxfree Housing Loans are currently cover one hundred percent of housing expenses until they cover an average number of 95 of housing expenses, with a five percent outofpocket contribution. Why comparison, the average was late 1990s. We will also no longer reimburse for renters insurance. Over three years we will reduce by 1 billion the annual nowidies provided, which total 1. 4 billion. We are not shutting down commissarys. All commissaries will still get. Ree rent and pay no taxes they will be able to continue to provide good deals to Service Members and retirees. Enlistedi am an person, what does that mean for me . At the end of the day . Nothing. This is probably the most difficult part of the program Going Forward. They are talking about trying to redress paying benefits, but a lot of the Analysis Shows that thatgoing to be done this will be nearly impossible. No one in a year like this wants to be seen cutting benefits. Secretary hagel is saying that we just need to reign things in, we will not cut pay for anyone. We are just going to reduce subsidies for Grocery Stores on these bases, but you will still be able to go there. Budgetse kinds of solutions are really anathema to people in congress. Anything that says that you reduce support for veterans or our troops can be turned into a 32nd advertisement very quickly. This is where secretary gates has the biggest problem, it is very difficult to get these kinds of solutions through. I do not see this happening this year. Congress will be putting together a Compensation Commission next year. I think we will be at least another year before we see any kind of proposals like this get any traction. Host this housing is a big deal . Guest it does help a lot, but they are talking about reducing support from 100 to 90 . Was 80 . Int it it has gone up over years and they are trying to just bring it back in line a little bit. You give veterans groups saying that you cannot balance the budget on the backs of the people who are fighting. If you want to reduce the number thehe f 35s that you buy, ships that you buy, but dont do it on the backs of those on the front line. , of then nissenbaum wall street journal, joining us to talk about the cuts that were announced yesterday by secretary hagel. We want to get your thoughts today, phone lines host for active and retired military is retiredon military from leesburg, virgin