Doing his best impersonation of a Jimmy Carter on steroids, Barry "Almighty" recently announced what he calls a new, leaner military approach to our national defense. So it is then, I can only surmise, that at a time when the world is growing more dangerous on nearly a daily basis, Barry feels that it an excellent time for the U.S. military to now begin to steadily shrink the size of our Army and Marine Corps, reduce forces in Europe and probably make further cuts to the nation’s nuclear arsenal. This is the idiotic plan that was announced by our stellar Commander-in-Chief on Thursday in a preview of how he intends to "transform," there's that word again, the armed forces after a decade of war. The downsizing of the Pentagon, described as being prompted by the country’s dire fiscal problems, means that the military will depend more on coalitions with allies and avoid the large-scale counterinsurgency and nation-building operations that have marked the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But is this really the most effective way to address those aforementioned self-inflected "dire fiscal problems" or, would it, perhaps, make a bit more sense to reel in the costs of some of our of control entitlement programs. It would seem to me that there nothing that should be considered as being more paramount than the defense of the nation.
The strategy review was unveiled by Barry "Almighty" during one of his rare visits to the Pentagon, where he was flanked by Defense Secretary, and "BJ" Clinton retread, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and other officials who sought to project an image of undiminished military power even as they work to prepare themselves for an era of austerity that will necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals. “Yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” our appeasement oriented president said. What a crock! This is yet one more example of his words saying one thing and his pathetically ignorant actions saying something entirely different. Just how does he plan on maintaining any sort of "military superiority" with a military dramatically reduced in size? The list of potential adversaries in the coming years continues to grow in number, with many now salivating over the fact that we are continuing efforts that make us a very tempting target. And I think as time marches on, more and more of them will be pushing the envelope to see just how far it is that they can go in exerting their rather sinister influence.
Some Republican lawmakers ripped Barry’s "new and improved" military strategy geared on austerity, saying it would weaken, considerably, America’s standing in the world. “This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America,” said Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. And Rep. McKeon is exactly right, but leading from behind is what Barry does best. And let's be real here, the weakening of American has been one of Barry's primary objectives since he first came diddy-boppin into the Oval Office on the fateful, and very dark, day back in January 2009. Republican contenders to run against Obama in November have also heightened their criticism of his national security record. But with the GOP reluctant to endorse higher taxes, some Republican candidates and legislators have said the defense budget should not be exempt from further cuts. In contrast to past Pentagon reviews, the new strategy offers some clear "guidance" to the military services about which missions to eliminate and which areas of the sprawling defense establishment to scale back. But should it really be left up to a bunch of leftist bureaucratic bean counters, who, by the way, also possess a deep-seated loathing of all things military, to decide such things? I would say no!
While this brilliant new strategy does not formally reject the idea that U.S. military forces will be called on in the future to bring order to fractured societies in the developing world, it does suggest that any stability operations similar to those conducted during the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan will be of short duration and have far more limited goals. “Nowhere in the document does it say we’re not going to fight land wars. It doesn’t say we’re never going to do stability operations,” said Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “It’s a matter of scope and scale, time, risk, reversibility.” Barry insisted that any cuts to the military will not come at the expense of an expanding U.S. presence in Asia, which he dubbed a “critical region.” To pay for those increases, the strategy suggests a need for significant cuts to the size of U.S. military ground forces in Europe, which has been a major Army operation for decades. Frankly, I've never been a big defender of having substantial numbers of troops in Europe, primarily because I've never felt that the effort, nor the cost, is properly appreciated by the recipients of our generosity. You know, that cast of usual suspects who routinely take great pleasure in being a very substantial thorn in our side. Maybe it is time for them to start ponying up a little more of the cost of their own defense.
And continuing their typical attempts at being vague about specifics, top Barry "Almighty" administration officials revealed few details about which weapons programs will be cut and how many troops will be pared. In the past decade, the Army has grown to about 570,000 troops, up from 482,000 before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current plans call for the Army to shrink to about 520,000 troops, although senior Army leaders said they expect their forces to be cut even further. This supposed 'strategy" document also foreshadows cutbacks in the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, stating: “It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.” Naturally, defense officials declined to elaborate, but they did say they would offer more specific information when they release next year’s proposed Pentagon budget. The United States has about 5,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. The New START nuclear pact with Russia, ratified by the Senate 71-26 in December 2010, mandates that each country reduce the number of nuclear weapons deployed on long-range missiles and bombers to 1,550. Republicans who voted for that debacle were Sens. Lamar Alexander, Robert Bennett, Scott Brown, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Judd Gregg, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Richard Lugar, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, and lastly George Voinovich.
And something I think worth mentioning here, is the fact that there has already been at least one specific example that very clearly demonstrates the foolhardiness, and pure recklessness, of Barry's moronic decision to slash our military comes to us courtesy of China's version of a state-controlled media. It stated that China should respond to Washington’s new “leaner, meaner” national defense strategy by “unit[ing] with all possible forces” and “strengthen[ing] its long-range strike abilities” to deter the United States. The Chinese government has yet to officially react to the strategy, which involves a shift to smaller and more agile military deployments focusing on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East. The document," Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense," refers to potential attempts by “sophisticated adversaries,” using capabilities including electronic warfare, missiles and air defenses, to deny U.S. forces access to and freedom to operate in certain areas. “States such as China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities,” it says. Let's face it, sensing weakness, both have already challenged U.S. freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, two of the world’s most vital waterways. And yet such things seem to be of very little concern to Barry.
This whole cockamamie notion is, quite simply, not an example of good headwork. But it is what Barry has always been determined to do. For whatever reason, he seeks to make this country much more vulnerable to our enemies, strange behavior for a president, to say the least. Appeasement never works, it didn't work for Carter in the 70's and it won't work for Barry in a world that is even a more dangerous place than it was in Carter's time. Now is not the time for America to essentially abdicate its leadership responsibly. We simply cannot afford to. Sure it will remain costly, but just stop and think about the alternatives. Try to imagine a world where a country like Communist Red China is in the lead role. It's not a pretty scenario, by any stretch of the imagination. I fail to understand people like our president who simply cannot bring themselves to recognize the fact that America is, in fact, a force for good in the world, and far from being the world's policeman, fills the requirement of the world's stabilizer. As that old saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum, and with Barry now reducing the level of American influence all across the globe, just such a vacuum is being created, and it's begging to be filled. An when looking at the list of possible candidates willing to take up that little task, there are some very unsavory characters who would love nothing more than to step up. Characters who thrive on chaos and therefore have very little interest in maintaining any level of stability in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment