(영어신문사설 추측하기) 워싱턴포스터지 November 7

진정한 독해는 최대한 여러 상황을 반복적으로 접함으로써 그런 상황들에 대한 추측의 정확성을 높이는 것입니다. 그러려면 일단 최대한 많은 상황을 접해야 합니다. 많은 상황을 접하려면 일단 많이 읽어야 합니다. 아래 내용을 100% 다 이해하려고 노력하지 마십시오. 알 수 있는 것만 이해하시고 모르는 것은 그냥 넘어가셔도 됩니다. 다음에 또 그런 상황이 나옵니다. 그렇게 여러 번 유사한 상황을 만나면 저절로 이해가 됩니다. 모르는 단어가 나와도 사전 찾지 마시고 추측하시기 바랍니다. 추측도 훈련이 필요합니다. 평소에 추측을 전혀 하지 않던 사람이 갑자기 정확한 추측을 하게 될 수는 없습니다. 그저 이 사설에서 한 두 가지만 얻어 가겠다는 결심을 해보십시오. 아주 현명한 생각입니다. 그렇게 하면 마음의 여유가 생겨 시야가 훨씬 넓어지며 유연한 추측이 가능해집니다. 독해할 때 욕심을 내면 시야가 좁아져 제대로 추측할 수가 없으며 또한 공부를 오래 할 수도 없습니다. 금방 지쳐버립니다. 그러면 많이 읽을 수가 없고, 당근 많은 상황을 접해볼 수가 없는 악순환이 시작됩니다. 마음의 여유! 넓은 시야! 유연한 추측! 고수들이 반드시 가지고 있는 것들입니다.

U.S. defense on the defensive
By Editorial, Published: November 7

SINCE THE congressional supercommittee is reportedly at an impasse, let’s hope its members have used some of their idle time to catch up with the testimony of the nation’s military chiefs at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. The chiefs were asked to assess what would be the consequences if $600 billion in across-the-board cuts were imposed on the defense budget — a sequestration currently required by law in the event the supercommittee fails to agree on a debt reduction plan or Congress fails to pass it.

Their answers were blunt: “Cuts of this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military,” testified Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, a former Iraq commander. “My assessment is that the nation would incur an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk.”

“A severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” said Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, chief of naval operations.

“A Marine Corps below the end strength that’s necessary to support even one major contingency,” said Marine Commandant James Amos.

“Even the most thoroughly deliberated strategy may not be able to overcome dire consequences,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz.

True, the Pentagon brass are known for pushing hard for their funding. But they rarely speak in such apocalyptic tones — and there is good reason to take their warnings seriously. Under President Obama’s budget plan, $465 billion is already due to be cut from military spending over the next decade, from an annual budget now of about $700 billion. That will already require a downsizing of the Army and Marines, the reduction or cancellation of more weapons systems and a shrinking of the Navy to its lowest size in decades. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, a lifelong budget hawk, is rightly concerned that such cuts may go too far.

If the additional sequestration goes forward, the total reduction could come to $1 trillion. This, Gen. Odierno said, would “almost eliminate our modernizations programs” in the Army, including new armored vehicles. Adm. Greenert said it could force the two U.S. companies that build Navy ships out of business. The Air Force would have to retire some 1,000 aircraft. In all, about 1 million military and civilian jobs would be lost.

Some in Washington may believe the threatened cuts are a paper tiger, since they would not go into effect until 2013 and might be reversed before then. But it’s not that simple: As Adm. Greenert explained, layoffs of personnel and suspensions of programs would have to begin in 2012 to reach the necessary spending level by the start of 2013.

In the meantime, a bad and even dangerous message would be sent to U.S. allies and adversaries. “We’ll have those who attempt to exploit our vulnerabilities,” Gen. Odierno said. “We might lose our credibility in terms of our ability to deter.”

Congress set this bomb in place when it agreed in the summer that half of $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts would be assessed to defense if a debt reduction plan failed to pass this year. Now it has heard from senior commanders just how much damage its explosion would cause. It would be an unconscionable act of political irresponsibility to allow their predictions to come true.