On Defense

· Wednesday, January 11, 2012

I want to start this rant by explaining where I come from as a person. My parents grew up in the depression, my father worked in FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps, and he joined the army at age 24, well before WWII started, and stayed in the Army until he retired with 31 years of service. I in turned joined the military at age 18, deciding to enlist in the Navy to sail the seas and see the world. I only stayed in the Navy 4 years, but joined the Army after a brief time as a civilian and retired with 21 years of service. Now one would say I am biased towards the military, and they would be correct. That being said, I have a problem when I hear that the President and Congress want to slash the defense budget.

The Congress has power to do certain things granted to them by Article 1, section 9 of our Constitution, which states; "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." The article goes on about many other powers and continues to mention defense in various forms, but this first paragraph I feel states the most important and obvious things our founders felt Congress's job was. Notice after collecting taxes, duties and other fees it states "provide for the common Defence." Now the fact that it is listed second after fiscal matters in that paragraph is an indicator of how important the authors thought having a strong military and protecting our country was.

So when I hear that defense is the first thing congress wants to cut I am outraged. Our founders knew that we would face enemies in our countries future, as they were facing in their present. They knew that a strong military would help secure the nations borders as well as the peace. I am not the first person to point out that peace it more easily kept with a strong military, but I saw first hand how we drew down after the fall of the Soviets, and how that affected readiness, morale and retention. Then when the Islamo-Facists attacked on 9/11 we had to build up our military again, but nowhere close to the pre-Clinton years. I was told in leadership schools about the draw down after WWII and how a battle lost badly by the US in Korea taught us a lesson that we just never seem to get. That lesson is that there will always be a bad guy out there somewhere. We don't need to reduce the military as a way to save money, at the risk of future defeats and needless loss of life. Santayana said, "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

We cannot afford another Task Force Smith, the doomed unit that lost the Battle of Osan because the US didn't have a properly trained and outfitted Army. And that is what we will have if the defense budget is cut. I saw how the military has to make do with less, but is still expected to perform all tasks necessary to remain battle ready. That leads to more accidents, failed missions, and lost battles, and all those inevitably lead to deaths of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. This comment from our President about the military being leaner and quicker is misinformed and ignorant of the fact that one size does not fit all in warfare. We have light and heavy Divisions in the US Army for a reason, you need both, plus armor and a whole list of units that are crucial; for winning a war.

I was told early on in my military career that a soldier does not want war, he wants peace more than the civilian does because the soldier will go to war if there is one. And the soldier knows that with a strong military, bad guys will think twice about starting anything. Now obviously it doesn't stop the aggression completely, but it makes it easier to deal with acts of aggression if your military is ready to go.

If they want a suggestion on what to cut in the budget they should start with their own pay, staff and operating expenses, not to mention pensions and healthcare. Then tackle the so-called entitlement programs, but that is another rant. De Oppresso Liber


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

wjmccrindle

It is easy to cut defense when your goals are the same as Islam, destroy America and turn the country into a tyranical socialist euro utopia, complet with pockets of sharia controlled areas (Detroit) that endanger any Christian who might be so bold as to venture in there. The Marxist Statist controlled Democrat Party is a treasonous entity that will enslave and destroy the usefull idiots who vote for them.

Posted January 11, 2012 at 5:18:44 PM


BoFromTexas

I have heard many stories of waste in the military, such as, "Sergeant, we have not spent our budget, so go bury that whole bucnh of (whatever) and we will order new equipment."

Poor leadership causes this sort of behavior. On the other hand, our technology has kept us well ahead of the bad guys, who are plenty numerous. It is our technology that costs a lot to keep on the cutting edge, and Obama wants to slash our technological advantage to the point where we have no advantage. We do not need to be on the ground slugging it out and losing fine young men when guys with joysticks in safe locations (like Nebraska) can take the fight to the enemy in their country. Our aircraft carriers put the fear of God into the bad guys because they deliver death from above. We need a bunch of carriers, and I would prefer we park one next to each rogue country, and dare them to spit on the sidewalk. Write a note to your representative and senator and tell them to cut entitlements, not military spending. Yes, that spending includes retirement and medical benefits, but I have not seen too many Army colonels or Navy captains driving around Lincolns or Cadillacs while serving in their respective services. Military life is not a bed of roses.

Posted January 11, 2012 at 5:23:54 PM


Jay D Alexander

WE CAN TAKE IT,Inc.

David

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, will be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation."

- George Washington

My congressman here in St Petersburg, FL is chair of the House Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. He has the power, not you or I to make Defense cuts in February!

I have been asking Congressman Bill Young him to sponsor now cosponsor legislation that would bring back the "Tree Army" the one that began you fathers career in the Army and was backed mostly by the funding of the Dept of the Army back then under General Douglas MacArthur and his aide de camp Major Ike Eisenhower.

I am also a veteran and was in intervention in the Republic of Panama in 1989. After the service I did a stint as a summer temp park ranger in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (now racked with 9% unemployment). It was a nice relief to enjoy nature for awhile. It help settled my nerves after being in a combat area. We have returning vets that are committing suicide every 40 hours now and this may help many who saw combat to get re-acclimatized back into society by doing a good project in natural surroundings for our communities and nation. I have been advocating for the Civilian Conservation Corps for years now. I imagine your father enjoyed the 3 C's more than the Army. Out of the 3.5 and 1/2 million support staff only 50,000 are alive today and are living treasures. Your Dad is a national treasure for his service in the Civilian Conservation Corps!

Many young American and veterans are 'leading lives of quiet desperation' as they did 8 decades ago in the Great Depression. Citizens are one paycheck away from being HOMELESS!

In broad terms, I assert that modern society, acting through its government, owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation or dire want of any of its fellow men and women who try to maintain themselves, but cannot. ~ FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

The Civilian Conservation Corps demonstrated that there was absolutely no conflict between the preservation of the environment and the creation of jobs! It was the most successful federal work program in history, and the government's most lasting environmental effort as well.

Public works employment generally achieves two critical goals for the U.S. -- a much-needed employment boost in the short term and the establishment of new and lasting national infrastructure in the long term. Mind you all that our policy of exploitation of others natural resources will lead us in to maybe WW3 and will not be fought over OIL but over H2O. Are we going to ship our water overseas too like we do our 1,000 year old red woods for the cost of a big mac?

VETERANS there is legislation in Washington calling for the re-establishment of the CCC!

The bill is called the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps Act [H.R.494] sponsored by one who sits on the same Appropriations subcommittee - Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur, of the is a job creation program that re-establishes a Civilian Conservation Corp that puts to work unemployed and underemployed civilians to advance useful public works projects aimed at safeguarding natural resources and developing new transportation and infrastructure.

As president and founder of a grassroots non-profit named - We Can Take It, Inc. We Can take It ask you all to do something that is PROACTIVE to make contact your Member of Congress at (202)224-3121 and tell you want your representative to co-sponsor HR 494. we still need a bill in the US Senate and you can contact your two Senators to create a bill that will reflect HR 494 in the Senate. For more information visit http://www.wecantakeit.org. Your support greatly appreciated. My contact information is on the website if you are interested in pushing the bill through.

Posted January 17, 2012 at 4:38:56 PM


David Leonhardt

Jay D,

Sorry I can't get on the band wagon for a FDR type program. Our government is too large, and we need to shrink everything except the Military. The government can't fix all things, and shouldn't try.

Posted January 23, 2012 at 10:49:35 AM


David Leonhardt

Jay D,

Sorry I can't get on the band wagon for a FDR type program. Our government is too large, and we need to shrink everything except the Military. The government can't fix all things, and shouldn't try.

Posted January 23, 2012 at 11:06:51 AM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund