I found this article quite interesting:
If this is actually true, and translates into other areas, then it brings up some important issues....If we cut the military budget, but don't scale back operations, have we really cut anything? And of course even more importantly, do we really want to rely on the whims and capabilities of other nations to determine how we are able to act around the world?
The United States is increasingly relying on the Russian Federation for supplying U.S. forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the U.S. does not have enough C-17 military transport aircraft to address all of its logistical needs and meet its commitments around the world. Freedom is not free, and neither is the Russian help.
In fiscal year 2007–2008, the U.S. taxpayers paid more than $840 million total to the Russians. This equals what the Department of Defense would pay for four additional C-17 aircraft, which would serve the U.S. military for the next 40 or 50 years.
Due to its versatility, the C-17 aircraft is an invaluable resource when dealing with humanitarian catastrophes in hard-to-access areas, such as Haiti or Chile after earthquakes in 2010. These events increased the operational tempo of the C-17 fleet—and increased U.S. reliance on foreign aircraft. This reliance ended up costing the U.S. taxpayers $2 billion. This money could have been used to procure eight additional C-17 aircraft and create jobs to support the U.S. declining defense industrial base.
If this is actually true, and translates into other areas, then it brings up some important issues....If we cut the military budget, but don't scale back operations, have we really cut anything? And of course even more importantly, do we really want to rely on the whims and capabilities of other nations to determine how we are able to act around the world?