War Through Weakness?

· Tuesday, January 31, 2012

One of the memorable slogans from the Reagan administration was "peace through strength." Reagan believed a strong defense was a safeguard against enemy attacks and the best hope of victory should America go to war.

President Obama is taking the opposite approach. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently announced cuts in defense spending of $487 billion over the next 10 years. Supposedly, these cuts will reduce the federal deficit, but Congress always finds new ways to spend money, so I am not optimistic.

The cuts were announced before critical questions were asked: What is America's role in the world in the 21st century? Where does the military fit into that role? The administration thinks a sleeker, more mobile military -- like SEAL Team Six, which has had recent successes taking out Osama bin Laden and rescuing hostages from Somali pirates -- is the way to go, but even the highly-trained SEALs can't confront, say, a nuclear threat from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or China's increasing military power. The administration says it will preserve its manpower and weapons systems in the Middle East and shift resources to Asia.

Ships and planes take time to build. If America is not building them to ward off present and future threats, someone else -- like the Chinese -- will. The world does not remain stagnant and threats are not always obvious.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, says he is "deeply concerned" by the announced defense reductions, including the elimination of "at least 12 new Navy ships over the next five years and retiring at least nine ships earlier than planned."

Akin also worries about what will happen to the estimated 100,000 soldiers and Marines who will become unemployed in a struggling economy.

According to the website U.S. Government Spending.com, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending, defense spending fluctuated in the last century. It hit a peak of 42 percent of GDP during World War II, declining to 10 percent during the Cold War to about 5 percent today.

Reagan's defense buildup followed cuts during the Carter administration. Reagan increased defense spending from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP by 1986. President George W. Bush's administration increased defense spending from 3.6 percent of GDP near the end of the Clinton administration in 1999, to 6 percent in 2010, to confront Islamic extremism.

The Obama administration, usgovernmentspending.com adds, plans to drop defense spending to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015.

Do these reductions parallel a decline in the threats against America and American interests? Quite the opposite. The administration engages in wishful thinking about the so-called "Arab spring," which is devolving into a religious tornado with the radical Muslim Brotherhood calling the shots in Egypt and elsewhere and the Taliban poised to regain control in Afghanistan.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai have agreed that NATO should pull out all combat forces from Afghanistan by next year, not 2014, as planned. This can only encourage the Taliban, who have recently been sending signals they are not the bad guys most people rightly think they are.

A recent Wall Street Journal story noted that public statements by the Taliban make them sound more "moderate," adding, "The big unknown is whether this new rhetoric represents a meaningful transformation -- or is merely designed to sugarcoat the Taliban's real aims."

It's a safe bet to say it's the latter.

The "big unknown" is what a sound U.S. defense strategy should take into account. As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once put it, "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns ... there are some things we de not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

It is to protect not only against the "known knowns," but the "unknown unknowns" that a credible defense strategy should be maintained. Cutting our defenses without a plan of action is an invitation to war.

(c) 2012 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


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


Comments

mmccrindle

All democrat administrations gut the military whenever they can, this one wants to gut the whole country.

Obama's agenda is so very obvious.

Posted January 31, 2012 at 9:12:10 AM


SFJ

I WORK IN DOD IN CIVILIAN STATUS (I'M ALSO RETIRED MILITARY)AND HAVE BEEN IN AND AROUND THE MILITARY (ACTIVE DUTY, CONTRACTOR AND CIVIL SERVANT) SINCE 1966. I AM NOW WITNESS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF A ONCE PROUD MILITARY BY POLITICALLY CORRECT MORONS (BOTH ACTIVE DUTY AND CIVILIAN) WHO KNOW LITTLE ABOUT WHAT THEIR JOBS ARE AND COULDN'T CARE LESS IF THEY DO THEM OR NOT. YES, THERE ARE SOME POCKETS OF DEDICATED/HARD WORKING FOLKS BUT THEIR NUMBER IS DWINDLING. I'M AFRAID THIS IS WHERE OUR COUNTRY IS HEADED NO MATTER WHO GETS ELECTED.

Posted January 31, 2012 at 12:29:05 PM


Holmes Simons

On a daily basis, Obama, the ineligible usurper of the Oval Office, proves that he is as inept at defending this Country as he is at putting. What this Country needs is a defense against HIM, the enemy domestic, the enemy within. Too bad all of those elected to defend us are perjurers dishonoring their oaths and cowards afraid to take a stand for freedom. Just too bad, ain’t it?

Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:56:31 PM


PDK

Like Carter and Clinton before him BHO is gutting the military. He has already defunded the f22s, f35s and missile defense laser.

He wants to cut the funding still further.

Apparently the anti American, pro socialist, pro Islamic, Messianic President Obama wants to weaken America, encouraging aggression from our enemies. Apparently Obama wishes to favor socialism, especially by mouth to his dolt liberal electorate and with money diverted from the military budget to his democrat cronys. Apparently Obama wants to favor his religion, Islam, and the insane Islamics by making our military to weak to handle their many numbers in many places.

Liberals, democrats and Obama, can America survive?

Is Belshazzars handwriting on Americas wall?

Nobama2012, vote republican. Thank you.

Posted January 31, 2012 at 4:35:02 PM


JG

Oh sure... great idea. For example, everyone knows that if you're ever sent to prison, the best defense against getting buggered in the shower is to turn your back on the big hairy inmates leering at you and walk about in a perpetually bent over position. They'll be sure to leave you alone then... I promise ;)

Same thing. Lord help us.

Posted January 31, 2012 at 6:34:45 PM


Dave

This article, and the reactions to it, demonstrate something that is very wrong with the Republican party and the conservative movement in general. Namely, a blind support for more and more defense spending that seems divorced from reality. At bit of perspective is in order here gentlemen.

There is an excellent analysis of the results of the defense budget sequestration in the latest issue of Reason magazine. The budget cuts amount to an annual reduction of $54B compared to current budget forecasts. But, like everything our bloated government does, this is not a cut in defense spending. Rather, it represents a reduction applied against forecast increases in the defense budget. So, we'll see about a 10% reduction compared to the current forecast, but this still represents a 10% increase compared to current levels.

I wish I could post a picture in this reply, but here is a link to a nice chart that shows the historical budget level, and the forecast for future spending with and without the reductions called for: http://www.cato.org/images/Friedman-01062012.jpg. I defy anyone to look and this chart and draw the conclusion that our military will be woefully underfunded as a result.

Like most everyone here, I firmly believe we need a military that is strong enough to ensure our interests will be protected around the world. I also believe that in any organization the size of our military that you can almost always find a way to spend 10% less money and achieve even greater results. That's a lesson most of us would take away from our business experience, and it applies equally to our military.

I'm afraid President Eisenhower was right when we warned us against the increasing influence of the military-industrial complex.

Posted February 1, 2012 at 10:02:29 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