Obama’S Damaging Blow To Our Military

[4588686]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-damaging-blow-to-our-military/2012/01/12/gIQA3eMhuP_story.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-damaging-blow-to-our-military/2012/01/12/gIQA3eMhuP_story.html[/url]


[color=#000000][font=Georgia][size=2][left][size=1]
[font=Georgia, serif][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][i]Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, a Republican from California, is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.[/i][/font][/size][/size][/font][/size][/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia, serif][size=1][left][size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]After no hearings and no input from Congress, President Obama unveiled a [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/raw-doc-the-pentagons-unveils-new-strategy/2012/01/05/gIQACPwqcP_blog.html"]new strategy[/url]last week that unilaterally [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-announces-new-military-approach/2012/01/05/gIQAFWcmcP_story.html"]changed long-standing bipartisan defense policy[/url]. As he spoke, flanked by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and a host of military brass, some of the president’s language may have sounded familiar.[/font][/size][/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Georgia, serif][size=1][left][size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A year ago Britain, our predecessor superpower, announced [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/19/uk-can-no-longer-mount-military-operations-like-iraq"]sweeping defense cuts[/url] that have reduced its military to a shadow of its former capability.[/font][/size][/left][/size][/font][/color]
[size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I do not seek to criticize our British friends, a critical ally; they are working hard to do what’s best for their citizens. But it is instructive to listen to the way British leaders sold their military reductions to citizens. When it came time to make significant defense cuts, downsizing that can only accurately be described as immense, London salved the wound with such efficacy that it was plagiarized by the Obama administration.[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The British Strategic Defense and Security Review cut the Royal Air Force’s fighter force to around 200 planes. Forty percent of the British army’s tanks are being put in storage. The Royal Navy combat fleet has been whittled down to about the same size as the task force formed for the Falklands War with Argentina 30 years ago. The joke goes that today’s Royal Navy has more admirals than warships.[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Prime Minister David Cameron’s justification for the broad reductions was “this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in postwar history; it is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead.”[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]In unveiling the review, Cameron said that, despite the reductions, Britain would continue to provide “the most professional and flexible modern forces in the world,” vigilant against “all possible threats.” A year later, [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review"]President Obama said[/url] our armed forces would be “agile, flexible, and ready for a full range of contingencies and operations.”[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Both emphasized balance between domestic and defense spending. The British said that bringing the “defense budget back to balance is a vital part of how we tackle the deficit and protect this country’s national security.” Obama said that “it’s time to restore that balance” among national programs.[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Both made attempts to justify additional risk incurred by reducing forces by retaining the capacity to reverse defense spending cuts. Cameron pledged that Britain would be able to “regenerate” capabilities gutted in the cutbacks. Obama’s review promised “reversibility” to mitigate “shocks or evolutions.”[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Both strategic reviews emphasized capabilities that would be retained but were light on what capabilities would be lost. Both advocated the theory that national interests could be advanced through a drastically reduced military, yet neither explained how that works operationally.[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I am not interested in questioning British strategy, but I have no qualms about critiquing our president’s claim that massive defense cuts somehow bring balance to our national programs. Defense counts for less than 20 percent of the federal budget but totals more than 50 percent of our deficit-reduction efforts, while domestic spending has exploded. No one is discussing lighter or more agile entitlement programs.[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A smaller force may sound synonymous with greater flexibility and agility. But realistically, downgrading our force will only harm our ability to respond to unforeseen crises. Does having fewer Navy warships increase our flexibility to respond in multiple theaters? Does having fewer Air Force transport aircraft grant us greater agility to respond to an unforeseen contingency, such as last year’s earthquake in Japan or operations over Libya?[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Advocates often claim that a smaller military is a “smarter” military. This is fallacious. A smarter military is a force tailored to threats — one that provides an unmistakable advantage over any potential enemy. Going to war with a smaller, “smarter” military led to devastating casualties at the beginning of World War II, in Korea and in Vietnam. Few would argue that a massive troop drawdown in the middle of a war is a smarter strategy or advances our national interest in any meaningful way.[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]A “flexible,” “agile” military resembles the force we had in 1991, when we deployed half a million troops to the Persian Gulf and decimated the world’s fourth-largest army with minimal casualties, all while we maintained our guard against a dying, but potent, Soviet Union. It is difficult to conceive how hollowing that force would have promoted balance, enhanced flexibility or qualified as a “smarter” strategy.[/font][/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The British have a unique security strategy and equally unique fiscal challenges. They are meeting those challenges their own way. Separately, one of the great responsibilities of the American presidency is to maintain a stable global order. Our prosperity hinges on open sea lanes, an accessible Internet and open use of satellites and space. The president’s new defense strategy could end up damaging the sentry that keeps those realms secure.[/font][/size][/size]

[4588686]

What the Congressman seems to be intimating, but hesitating, in the interest of diplomacy, to explicitly state, is of course that Britain's (and France's, and Italy's) 'smarter, leaner' military was shown to be incapable of sustaining an air campaign against Libya (a fifth rate power) without American aid.

[Lil Red]

Thanks for this.

[4588686]

Here's a great article on The Economist. Secretary Robert Gates seems to more explicitly state what the congressman implied.

[url="http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/06/libya-europe-and-future-nato"]http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/06/libya-europe-and-future-nato[/url]

As Gates noted:

[color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][i]Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.[/i][/size][/font][/color]

[4588686]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1326465267' post='2368300']
Thanks for this.
[/quote]

Yes. Everyone should follow Lil Red's brave example and pour accolades upon me.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Hasan

[CatherineM]

Seems like every time we gut our military, we end up in a war. I wonder if the two are related?

[Aloysius]

"The strategy was unveiled today to justify just shy of $500 billion in cuts over the next ten years, which would leave the budget in 2021 just 8% less than it is today"
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/06/opinion/rumbaugh-defense-cutbacks/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2...acks/index.html[/url] (not endorsing this article, that's just where the quote is from)

so after 10 years we'll be spending 8% less on the military than we are now... and this is supposed to be anywhere near analagous to the other nations that spend a tiny fraction of what we spend on our military? it's not, we are not going anywhere NEAR the low levels of military spending that the nations he is comparing us to have, so there is no way our military will be unfit to continue our galavanting around the world enforcing democracy the way other nations are... we are just fine being able to continue to meddle contrary to the intentions of the founders of this country and illegally according to our own constitution. don't worry folks.

Obama's military budget remains large than the military budgets of the next 12 biggest military spending nations after us COMBINED.

I think it's good to cut us down to more efficient levels of military spending, though we should keep spending high enough to keep military defensive capability strong and unparalleled (which Obama's budget certainly does, though we know it won't be used defensively but continue to be used offensively like in the case of Libya and Iraq)

NOTE: the numbers that they consider "cuts" largely account for lowering planned increases in the military budget. meaning if we were going to spend a trillion more over the next ten years and we actually only increased military spending by 500 billion, they'd consider that a 500 billion dollar cut. this is the way they play the game in Washington, on both domestic spending and foreign military spending, so we need to keep an eye out for these kinds of tricks.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Aloysius

[StMichael]

Clinton reduced the military by 60% believing we no longer had any enemies.

Additionally, the administration treated such things like the bombing of the World Trade Center is 1993 as a local police matter.

We sustained many attacks during that time without any offensive ability (ie. Cole attack).

It left the next administration with a diminished military that had to be built up.

With Iran flexing its muscle and China building up their war machines (as well as others), this is irresponsible of this administration to exchange our nations safety to keep a bloated government even more bloated.

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1326475071' post='2368372']
Seems like every time we gut our military, we end up in a war. I wonder if the two are related?
[/quote]

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1326482334' post='2368420']
"The strategy was unveiled today to justify just shy of $500 billion in cuts over the next ten years, which would leave the budget in 2021 just 8% less than it is today"
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/06/opinion/rumbaugh-defense-cutbacks/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2...acks/index.html[/url] (not endorsing this article, that's just where the quote is from)

so after 10 years we'll be spending 8% less on the military than we are now... and this is supposed to be anywhere near analagous to the other nations that spend a tiny fraction of what we spend on our military? it's not, we are not going anywhere NEAR the low levels of military spending that the nations he is comparing us to have, so there is no way our military will be unfit to continue our galavanting around the world enforcing democracy the way other nations are... we are just fine being able to continue to meddle contrary to the intentions of the founders of this country and illegally according to our own constitution. don't worry folks.[/QUOTE]

His point was not that we'd be at similarly poor levels of readiness, although there is no doubt that our capabilities and readiness will be reduced, but that the same deceptive language used to sell Britain's debilitating cuts are being used to justify ours. We are not going to be at the levels of the UK but our politicians are using the same sophistic language to sell the same result: reduced capabilities.

[quote]Obama's military budget remains large than the military budgets of the next 12 biggest military spending nations after us COMBINED.[/QUOTE]

This is true.

[QUOTE]I think it's good to cut us down to more efficient levels of military spending, though we should keep spending high enough to keep military defensive capability strong and unparalleled (which Obama's budget certainly does, though we know it won't be used defensively but continue to be used offensively like in the case of Libya and Iraq)[/QUOTE]

I don't think that Libya counts as exactly an offensive campaign at least not in the sense that Iraq certainly does. We stopped a thuggish dictator from laying waste to the inhabitants of an entire city and large swaths of his country and then gave them air cover as they fought back against the military of said dictator.

Having defensive military capabilities entails having overseas bases and being able to defend our overseas interests. Our current brinkmanship with Iran is defensive. They are threatening to upset the international, and consequently our national, oil market by illegally blocking off an international water way. Following Ron Paul's vision would leave us pretty much defenseless against such activities. At least it leaves us with few intermediate steps between forfeiting our rights to use an international waterway and lobbing ICBM's over to Iran.

[QUOTE]NOTE: the numbers that they consider "cuts" largely account for lowering planned increases in the military budget. meaning if we were going to spend a trillion more over the next ten years and we actually only increased military spending by 500 billion, they'd consider that a 500 billion dollar cut. this is the way they play the game in Washington, on both domestic spending and foreign military spending, so we need to keep an eye out for these kinds of tricks.
[/quote]

I'm not opposed to cutting the Defense Department budget in itself. And I'm all for more careful scrutiny or the global arms trade and our place in it. Particularly with regards to the major multinational corporations that sell our military the latest gadgets. What I dislike is the structure of the cuts (focusing on reducing our ground forces, indicating that Obama didn't learn a beaver dam thing from Rumsfeld's ineptitude) and the dishonesty behind them (pretending that the structure of these cuts doesn't reduce our capabilities)

[4588686]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1326486203' post='2368464']


Additionally, the administration treated such things like the bombing of the World Trade Center is 1993 as a local police matter.[/QUOTE]

Not true. I'm not a fan of Clinton but to say he treated it as a local police matter is just ignorant.

[QUOTE]We sustained many attacks during that time without any offensive ability (ie. Cole attack).[/QUOTE]

We did have offensive capabilities and Clinton utilized some of those capabilities in the form of (far to weak) retaliatory attacks against Al-Queda.

[[QUOTE]It left the next administration with a diminished military that had to be built up.[/QUOTE]

Not true. Rumsfeld followed a similarly stupid path both in not taking the need of a robust ground force seriously and in sending our military into Iraq with far too few numbers.

[QUOTE]With Iran flexing its muscle and China building up their war machines (as well as others), this is irresponsible of this administration to exchange our nations safety to keep a bloated government even more bloated.
[/quote]

I agree.

[4588686]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-defense-strategy/2012/01/06/gIQAKm5pfP_story.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-defense-strategy/2012/01/06/gIQAKm5pfP_story.html[/url]

[i][color=#000000][font=Georgia, serif][size=4][left]Moreover, another $500 billion in across-the-board “sequestration” cuts will take effect in 2013 unless Congress repeals them.[/left][/size][/font][/color][url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/defense-secretary-panetta-faces-tough-choices-on-national-security-in-2012/2011/12/31/gIQAq7WqWP_story.html"]Defense Secretary Leon Panetta[/url][color=#000000][font=Georgia, serif][size=4][left] and the Joint Chiefs have said that such a fiscal hit would be a catastrophe for U.S. defense. But Mr. Obama did not speak against it Thursday. In fact, he has vowed to veto any bill that is limited to repealing the Pentagon sequestration. He seems to be trying to bluff Republicans into accepting other spending reductions or tax increases.[b] But for the commander in chief to toy with measures that would materially damage U.S. national security hardly seems responsible.[/b][/left][/size][/font][/color][/i]

[GeorgiiMichael]

And then there's this:

[url="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/05-3"]http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/05-3[/url]

[Aloysius]

Why is Iran threatening to cut off the straits of Hormuz? Do they really want to cut off their own major export and topple their economy?

or, are they perhaps ticked off that all of our sanctions have already toppled their economy and are sick of us meddling in their affairs ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE&feature=related )? they would not be threatening to close that strait if it were not for our actions. it is in their own self interest to trade and export oil, which tells you just how dire we have made this situation that they are willing to threaten to close those straights (I don't think they actually will do it, I think they're just barking back at as because we keep rattling their cage)

[Aloysius]

woah didn't mean to embed that video, just link to it... razzle dazzle that it embeds like that I guess, good to know. also just clicked GeorgiiMichael's link, which just illustrated the point I was trying to make about Iran's threat to close the Straights. It is our economic war against them that is leading to that threat. We are basically saying "we can fight this economic war against you, but don't you dare try to fire back an economic shot at us"

as regards Libya, I guess I don't really want to get into a debate on that... when I say it was offensive, I mean that it was not in our country's defense, but in defense of a rebellion that, incidentally, consisted of many radical islamist elements as they attempted to rebel against a dictator that we ourselves had propped up for a long time... perhaps it was in defense of some people that might've gotten wiped out by our pet dictator if we hadn't stepped in, but it was still, from the point of view of the United States, an offensive military action, a foreign monster to slay.

sure, Gadaffi wasn't good, but that doesn't mean we necessarily agree that the rebellion was a good idea either. if, indeed, that rebellion was unfurling the standard of freedom and independence, then there our hearts and our prayers and our benedictions ought to have been. but I don't want to debate so much whether we should have done what we did in Libya, just point out that our taking a side in that internal conflict was an OFFENSIVE use of our military, not a DEFENSIVE one. and our military capability to do things like that, if we wish to continue to do them, is not in the least bit weakened by the cutting of no more than 8% over a ten year period while keeping our military spending way higher than any other nation on earth.

Ron Paul wants the military budget to go down to 2005 levels. it's hard to fathom how people who are so willing to see the waste of government on domestic spending fail to see that the increasingly bloated defense budget might itself be wasteful, are we seriously unable to maintain a strong defense on the same HUGE budget we had in 2005?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Aloysius

[Laudate_Dominum]

Amen to whatever Aloysius just said! :applause: