My prediction, for what its worth: Patriots 30 - Giants 24.

But there's an obvious contradiction in the conservative position, because the same people who want to preserve the current, robust level of military outlays also want to reduce the budget deficit without raising taxes. That just doesn't add up in an economy that is struggling to reach three-percent growth annually. We can have higher taxes and continue generating nearly half of all global military outlays; or we can keep taxes where they are and bring federal outlays down to the level that current tax receipts would sustain. But there is no third option if we are intent on reducing the deficit.

Some conservatives contend that this all can be reconciled by simply paring back the welfare state. But you could wipe out the entire Social Security program -- over a quarter of the federal budget -- and Washington would still be running a sizable budget deficit. Since there is little evidence voters would stand for cuts to Social Security or the major healthcare entitlement programs, opponents of military cuts have some explaining to do. So let's hear it AEI, Heritage, et. al. -- what's your plan? Do you want to raise taxes or just keep borrowing money from China? If you don't want to do either, inquiring minds want to know how you propose that a country with five percent of the world's people and 25 percent of the world's economic output can continue generating nearly half of global military expenditures.

"France to sell Rafale figher jet to India"

But many proponents of the U.S.-India deal argued at the time the pact was being consummated that it would create lucrative new markets for U.S. defense and nuclear business.  This hasn't exactly turned out to be the case.

Speaking of nuclear business, U.S. companies have still not yet started nuclear trade with India and may be reluctant to do so if New Delhi does not resolve concerns regarding its policies on liability for nuclear reactor suppliers in the event of an accident.

As you may remember, we were quite skeptical of the deal on nonproliferation, national security, and economic grounds when it was an issue before Congress in 2007 and 2008.  Last June, Michael Krepon provided an assessment of the status of the implementation of the agreement to date, and asked whether in retrospect supporters or critics of the deal had the better argument.

According to Krepon, "So far, U.S. backers of the deal have...been proven wrong on every count." It's difficult to disagree.  

UPDATE 2/2: For more on why the U.S. approach to civilian nuclear cooperation in general doesn't appear to make much sense, see my post from last week here.

In a January 31 (local time) statement, its Foreign Ministry said," The Dutch government regards the request as a sign of trust and has responded positively. The chairmanship will be officially transferred at the 2012 Summit in Seoul in March."

An official announcement is expected in late March during the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, as was case after the first 2010 Washington Summit.

Apart from the killing of bin Laden, the only foreign policy issue that merited its own paragraph was Iran.

President Obama’s critics have accused him of being weak on Iran. During the Republican debate on Monday night, Rick Santorum even went so far as to say that, “Obama’s Iran policy has been a colossal failure.”

The President countered this criticism on Tuesday, saying, “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

He then added a vitally important caveat, “But a peaceful resolution is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”

Although Obama is not ruling out the possibility of a military strike, at least rhetorically, it is clear that he will not consider it until all other options have definitively failed. Indeed, many in Washington, both in and out of government, have highlighted the dangers of military action in Iran. In fact, several Iran experts argue that that a military strike in Iran will virtually guarantee that Iran continues to pursue, and eventually obtains, nuclear weapons.

And it is not only the civilians in Washington who believe that military action in Iran would be detrimental to regional and global security. In a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, argued for greater engagement with Iran, saying, “We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days…of the Cold War we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran so we don’t understand each other.”

For an excellent primer on how a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear challenge might be achieved, see Arms Control Association analyst Peter Crail’s important analysis here.

Currently, Obama’s Iran policy has been dominated by economic sanctions. The United States-led multilateral sanctions effort has been joined by many other key nations, including Russia and China. And on Monday, the European Union tightened its existing sanctions against Iran, just in time for the State of the Union.

Thanks in part to these sanctions, Iran has become increasingly isolated over the past year.  In the words of Colin Kahl, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East:

One year after the Egyptian revolution began, Khamenei's hopes -- and Western analysts' fears -- have not materialized, and are not likely to. Although it has been fashionable to describe Iran's growing power in the Middle East, actual events suggest the opposite. Iran's economy is reeling under sanctions, and the regime's nuclear activities and saber-rattling increasingly mark it as a pariah state. And as the Arab Spring marches on, Iran will find itself falling further behind.

Whether this will still be the case a year from now remains to be seen. Sanctions alone are unlikely to force Iran to rethink its nuclear program. It’s up to the administration to ensure that economic pressure is paired with the aggressive pursuit of a diplomatic solution.  

Secretary Panetta revealed that the budget, expected to be released in full detail on February 13, will contain $525 billion in base spending for fiscal 2013.  This excludes funding for the wars as well as nuclear-related activities at the Department of Energy, and represents a $6 billion decrease from the fiscal 2012 base budget approved by Congress.  Congress’ final number for fiscal 2012 was rolled back by $22 billion from the administration's original proposal in order to comply with the Budget Control Act.  

In addition, the Pentagon will request $88.4 billion in funding for the wars overseas, approximately $27 billion less than fiscal 2012 due to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The Pentagon’s stated “hope and plan,” according to Secretary Panetta, is to grow the base budget (PDF) to $567 billion by fiscal 2017.  Although the budget would decrease slightly this year, 2.3 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, it would see a real increase of about a half a percent over the remainder of the next five years.

The Pentagon has taken a hard look at its priorities and scaled back some of its most pie-in-the-sky projects, but its actions have not impacted the country’s ability to fight a war.  "This budget is a first step — it's a down payment — as we transition from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges," said Dempsey, "This budget does not lead to a military in decline."

In fact, the Pentagon document, titled “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices,” notes that “Even with these reductions, the Army and Marine Corps will be larger than they were in 2001.”

If anything, the debt debate has provided the Pentagon with a long overdue opportunity to reexamine its priorities and reevaluate its strategy in light of ongoing and realistic threats.  The last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) punted on the subject, recommending that the Pentagon choose to prepare for everything short of a zombie invasion.

The Pentagon’s new strategic guidance, released January 5, and corresponding budget request convey a Pentagon decision process guided by strategy, effectively shifting the focus away from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan toward the threats of the future.

The Pentagon will shift its geographic focus toward the Asia Pacific region while maintaining an influence in the Middle East.  Changes include a two year delay for the Ohio-class replacement strategic nuclear weapons submarine and slowed procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  No changes were made to the Pentagon’s plan to build a next generation long-range bomber.

The Army’s end strength would be reduced to 490,000 from a post-9/11 peak of approximately 570,000 in 2010, and the Marine Corps’ to 182,000 from a peak of approximately 202,000.  In addition, the President will request that Congress authorize use of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process to identify savings from closing and consolidated bases that might be reinvested in high priority missions at the Department of Defense.

Although at this point the Pentagon has chosen to protect the nuclear triad – land-based, sea-based and air launched nuclear weapons -- the document notes that “An ongoing White House review of nuclear deterrence will address the potential for maintaining our deterrent with a different nuclear force.”

Current Defense Department proposals do not account for the possibility of budget sequestration that Congress agreed to last year, which would impose an additional $500 billion cut beginning in January 2013 if Congress does not act.  While most can agree that across-the-board sequestration cuts would not be desirable, an additional $500 billion cut would not be disastrous in itself.

It argues, "Congress provided the full $233 million NNSA requested for the B61 life extension program in FY 2012. However, when you read the fine print, it is less clear how Congress will respond to future funding requests. According to the Conference Report for H.R. 2055, the legislation which funds the government for FY 2012, including NNSA, Congress withheld $134 million until “NNSA submits to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the outcome of the Phase 6.2/2A design definition and cost study.

The results of this study, as well as other stringent reporting requirements mandated by Congress, are likely to present insurmountable hurdles to NNSA’s plan to move forward with the most ambitious option for the B61 LEP. The current budget environment is no doubt also a key driver of the need to reevalutate the objectives of the program, but a rethinking of the goals of the planned refurbishment would be necessary even in better economic times."

You can read the entire piece here.