Jim Inhofe

The Marine Corps is going to be required to reduce its end strength from 182,000 to 175,000.

A strong and well-resourced U.S. Navy is vital to protecting our access and freedom of maneuvering.

A shrinking Navy directly impacts our economic and security interests around the world.

The tide of war is not receding, in spite of statements he has made.

We'll continue to advocate for the Air Force to improve the capabilities of the Global Hawk.

I require capabilities that can match the U-2--in both imagery and signals intelligence capabilities.

I remain hopeful the Air Force will rapidly field equally capable replacement aircraft to continue the important roles they fill in our theater.

Do you agree with General Amos, when he said we will have fewer forces arriving less-trained, arriving later to the fight?

I agree with your statement. Getting back to the unpredictability, I do not think this guy is deterred by that type of action.

I have always been concerned about China and their capabilities.

We have said that our friends will not trust us and our enemies will not fear us.

Now we are paying for it and have been paying for it for the last 5 years.

I am concerned that the retreating tide of U.S. leadership and the defense capability will encourage Kim Jong-un to be more aggressive.

The dismantling of our national security over the last 5 years has led to the growth of extremists in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Putin's annexation of Crimea, and has invited increased Chinese belligerence in the East China and South China Seas.

Those who advocate drastically slashing the defense budget and a total retreat from international engagement put the security of the Homeland at risk.

Our domain dominance has eroded due to the diversion of resources from defense to the President's domestic agenda over the last 5 years.

The world is getting more dangerous, and the Pacific is no exception.

Despite these significant achievements, I am effectively prohibited from providing assistance to the Guatemalan Army due to conditions on assistance in place for actions committed by an Army that no longer exists.

I've long been one of the strongest supporters in the Senate of security assistance programs to build the capacity of our partners.

It seems like it's the law enforcement that is the problem, not the military.

I think it's a national security problem for us; if not now, in the future.

It's more important than just that, because it does open the door for others who do not have our best interests at heart.

If the United States is not engaged, that creates a vacuum, right? Who's filling that vacuum?

The threats we face are no longer confined to geographic boundaries that divide our combatant commands.

I have learned that both the Navy and the Air Force are exploring the capabilities offered by the maritime variant of the SFW (CBU-105 D/B).