It would be unfair to dismiss the administration’s latest assault on the U.S.’s defense capability as the folly and cowardice some commentators are already alleging. Without a worldwide rival of comparable strength threatening all American strategic interests, it is certainly possible to retrench gradually and support regional forces of stability and, preferably, moderation.
President Roosevelt saw that if Nazi Germany were permitted to retain its conquests of 1938–40, and to continue to enjoy the satellization of unoccupied France, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, and much of the Balkans, it would, in a generation or so, have as large a population and industrial capacity as the United States, especially if it tore away and annexed chunks of the Soviet Union as well. Roosevelt responded with the greatest defense buildup in world history; the extension of U.S. territorial waters in the North Atlantic from three to 1,800 miles; orders to attack German ships on detection; the gift, described as a loan, to Britain and Canada, and later the Soviet Union, of any sinews of war they requested; and the enforced expulsion of any German or Italian influence from the Americas.
President Truman saw that the USSR and international Communism were a mortal military and subversive threat to the West, and responded with NATO, the Marshall Plan, and a comprehensive program of containment, from West Berlin to South Korea. Of course, both those strategic responses were successful.
Advertisement
There is no such threat now. Terrorism is a dreadful nuisance, but it lacks central direction and a great and powerful host country devoted altogether to its conduct, and it is incapable of attracting the intellectual and moral support of more than a few homicidal psychopaths and genocidists.
In these circumstances, full advantage can be taken of steadily more precise and efficient defense technology, and the steady proliferation of more capable secondary powers, eager to preserve and reinforce their independence, in every theater.
The most unambiguous success of the George W. Bush administration was the new relationship with India. President Obama had a very positive trip to the Far East at the end of 2011, and it is clear that China — which will not be able to maintain the fiction of an inexorable economic rise much longer — in attempting to assert its primacy in the Far East, is galvanizing its neighbors, who are uniformly unenthused by such a prospect, to the heightened practice of self-reliance and collective security.
The Chinese have effectively been sent packing by the twitching hermit junta in Burma, and their hegemonic antics in the South China Sea have backfired. In modern times, hostile challenges to the established maritime power have never been successful. The leading naval power is always the country that doesn’t really need a large army to assure its own borders: first Britain and then America. The Turks failed against the maritime Mediterranean West at Lepanto in 1571, 17 years before the Spanish Armada was defeated by the British. Napoleon could never focus on naval matters even at the height of his power, and the Germans drove the British into alliance with England’s ancient rivals, France and Russia, by challenging British naval supremacy before World War I. The German High Seas Fleet then put to sea for only three inconclusive days, at Jutland, in all of that war. The U.S. took the scepter of the seas from Britain as a friendly wartime ally in World War II, and saw off a strenuous naval-construction challenge by the Soviet Union from 1965 to 1990.
The alarms being set off now about the Chinese navy are a little hard to take seriously. An improvised aircraft carrier, plans for catamaran aircraft carriers (an insane concept), and new anti-ship surface-to surface missiles should not overawe the United States Navy. The Chinese are never going to exchange fire with the U.S. Navy anyway, and the idea that they will keep U.S. heavy units out of the South China Sea or the Straits of Formosa with this sort of saber-rattling is eyewash.
Hopefully, a new president a year from now will rationalize the defense policy but the cuts are not a bad idea. The Navy is already thinking about new crewing policies on warships.
Of course, competence cannot be assumed ever from this bunch. Getting the economy going and increasing oil production and the XL pipeline will help with strategic risks.
There is always a disconnect between the needs of defense on a practical scale, as Mr. Black desires, and the ever-necessary need for deterrence.
There is no doubt that our military budget can be reduced. It is the method of reduction that is important and where the Obama plan will fail, and all other military budget cut plans have failed. The need for deterrence -- that perception of an ever-present unassailable shield -- is unquestionably a requirement. Unfortunately, it is a necessity that when supported, gets one labeled as a "war monger".
Mr. Black, you may be correct from a practical standpoint, but you are dead wrong nonetheless. Unquestioned military superiority is our best hope for stability and the reduction of aggressions and hopefully, the real, and only, deterrent we have for wars.
The Army and Marines would be better off with a 7.62 NATO firing rifle and a rip-off of an RPG in their ranks than some "Star Wars" electronics what pukes out in sand or mud.
The US Navy just could use some good ships in the littoral duty. They don't need multi-billion dollar air craft carriers. The US Navy would be better served by making a licensed copy of the German Navy's Gepard-class gun boats and using those for littoral service. They are a fraction the cost of the LCS and have better firepower. 40 copies of the Gepard would be more than enough for the Navy needs.
Last, but not least, the USAF needs to be updated. They will need no less than 300 new F-15s to replace some of the long-in-the-tooth early 1980s model F-15s. Second, the USAF could use 1000 new F-16 C block 50+ jets. Those two models can give decades of service to the United States.
We don't have to blow the budget to update the US military. The Navy needs good and inexpensive littorial combat ships of the Gepard class. The Marines and Army needs a better rocket and rifle. The Air Force just needs some newer aircraft to replace some very old aircraft that were made way back when MTV played music.
I am sorry but as much I respect Mr. Black, his scenario is too rosy for me to agree with, and anyone hoping it will make Obama's cuts in defense spending less painful is deluding themselves.
Right now, the Navy especially, and the rest of the military is receiving less money to maintain their current forces, let alone modernize and expand their capabilities. They need more money to keep their equipment and the forces up-to-date and conduct the development of future weapon systems.
At the same time, while it is entirely possible China and Iran will fall because of internal stresses or coalitions of their neighbors, those are probabilities, not certainties. It is also possible they will last for decades and decades, and far more probable they will last long enough for them to do damage via war to the region or the world. We need to be prepared for those eventualities by having a strong and capable military while we are hoping for the best. That means we can not cut defense like Obama is proposing and we have to give serious thought to putting more money into the actual military.
If we allow optimism and naviete to run lose over the reality of power and capability...Well, Obama and his fellow believers are proof positive of the dangers of that.
Agreed. There's plenty of room to cut, and plenty of bloat in the Pentagon. "Big Budgets" does not necessarily equal "Smart Defense". The more I look at the history of WWII, the more I'm disturbed at how our defense procurement policies seem to be similar to the Third Reich's: fewer numbers of expensive, but high performance weapons instead of many affordable ones. The US and Soviets, of course, won on the later strategy, and China is embracing that strategy as well. F-22's do us no good if they're unaffordable.
That's a bad historical comparison. The reason why Allied procurement was better than Axis was the Allies sought a better balance of adquate versus superior weapons. In fact, the US and the Soviets tried to make the best weapons they could as long as they could build enough of them. The Germans failed to do so because of the politics of the Third Reich. Some Allied weapons were good enough - others were the best in their field. It came to balance.
Note ALL militaries eventually try to substitute smaller numbers of very capable gear in place of larger numbers of adquate weapons. Even the Chinese. If nothing else, the lack of manpower forces you to adopt equipment that is more effective and require less personnel (And hence, minimizing casualties - a lesson the US has followed since the Civil War.). We can argue on what is the proper balance for procurement - but getting more advance gear which can destroy an opposition equiped with less advance equipment, is certainly worth pursing.
There is bloat and waste that can be cut from the military. But some of what people think is bloat and waste are actually essential. Cutting those is not a good idea.
In World War II we made some terrible decisions about weapons, chiefly the M4 Sherman tank. We had the M28 ready to mass produce. The losses in the armored divisions after Normandy were 600% !
The Germans had better weapons but they had longer to make them and test them. There is no excuse for the M4, though. We almost did it again. Read Rumsfeld's story of the M1 Abrams we almost didn't have.
One hardly knows where to begin. An assessment of the necessary funding levels for the military would begin with a precise understanding of American's strategic interests, then apply an expert knowledge of current and feasible military systems and force levels to estimate budgetary requirements. Presumably the planners at the Pentagon do something like that - Mr. Black does neither.
A few vague platitudes are no substitute for the first of these requirements, especially when they included such gems as
"Terrorism is a dreadful nuisance, but it lacks central direction and a great and powerful host country devoted altogether to its conduct, and it is incapable of attracting the intellectual and moral support of more than a few homicidal psychopaths and genocidists."
No powerful host country for terrorists? Flush with petrodollars, Saudi Arabia is funding the support of Wahabism worldwide. Does Mr. Black think it an accident that the majority of the 9/11 attackers (I believe it was 15) were Saudis? Iran is already the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism and openly funds, harbors, trains, supports, and supplies terrorists. And just wait until the Muslim Brotherhood consolidates its control of all those countries involved in the "Arab Spring".
Nor is Islamic terrorism short of popular support. I don't have the numbers handy, but surely Mr. Black must have seen a few of the polls taken in Muslim countries. He phrased it differently than G. W. Bush, but this is the "tiny minority of extremists" fantasy all over again.
I'm no more expert than Mr. Black is on which defense systems are currently necessary and which are feasible for the future, but when you see our ground forces greatly strained by relatively small conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, what conclusion can be drawn other than that we can't afford to cut them further? Indeed, common sense would suggest that an increase would be prudent.
Finally, most conservatives are not just suspicious that the defense cuts are being made to avoid reductions in the income-redistributing social programs that allow the Democratic Party to buy votes, we know it for a fact! Do you think it's some kind of accident or coincidence that the Dems refuse to cut even one dime from entitlements, or that their sole contribution to the sequestration formula of the late, unlamented "supercommittee" was to insist that the cuts come from Defense? It may be even worse: Obama and his circle, like the Leftists they are, believe American power to be a force for evil, and would probably want to reduce it even if they couldn't use the savings for their favored purposes.
There's a lot more that could be said about this article, but life is short.
Mr. Black didn't suggest eliminating the defense budget and a lot of people in the US don't think we can fight terrorism on terrorist terms - especially with Islamist politicians and their habitual use of the lie when speaking to infidels.
I will add: to consider that money cut from defense will be used to fund entitlements is valid, but mostly hyperbole. Any defense savings contemplated won't be worth a tinker's darn in the grand scheme called entitlement spending.
There is one kind of cool point being made these days having to do with the positive value of defense spending as social spending - and conservatives need to flesh that idea out more and run with it - perhaps a bit quietly but run none the less.
Love fortress America, loath world's policeman and surely closing bases in Europe (Europe!) is a start.
Surely there are conservative commentators who can take a hard look at hundreds, if not thousands, of bases world wide that can be closed and not lose one combat-ready soldier from either the Army or Marine Corps.
Remember Mayaguez? Nah, probably not. Desert One? Perhaps. Grenada? Sure, as a "victory" I suppose. All with dilapidated equipment and a demoralized force. That's our future, folks. The Chinese hardly need a quality force, they just need the will to attack Taiwan and anyone who has been there knows they have it. We are telegraphing a lack of political will and our land forces already show it. The USN didn't have the wear & tear of the desert but its equipment is constantly worn down. How much mothballing can we expect and how few "smart" weapons and other munitions will be put in the inventory? The Chinese can simply overwhelm us with quantity over our ever-diminishing quality. 2017 or so sounds about right, Obama will be a lame duck in the oval office, mouthing off memoirs all day to a ghostwriter about how all his failures were everyone else's fault. Deadlined equipment will be ever-increasing. Discrimination and sexual harassment charges and counter-charges will be rising up in our openly gay, prosecute anyone who complains military. Things can ripen pretty quickly. Germany, 1930, anyone? Look up "Mayaguez Incident" and the phrase "back to the future."
All the president’s men (and women) are giving aid and comfort to our enemy, promulgating the enemies propaganda, and letting the media trash our service men and women, and looking to prosecute our Marines for merely mictrating.
Meanwhile our enemy hunts down civilians and soldier alike, cuts their heads off, chops of their limbs (usually while alive) and burns their remainsor feeds them to the dogs and this is ignored.
In short, our government is supporting the enemy and attacking our military.
Hmmm - One blogger raised a concern as soon as Panetta was nominated - Mark Rudd (Think Weather Underground) wrote this analysis just after the 2008 elections...
"Obama is a very strategic thinker. He knew precisely what it would take to get elected and didn’t blow it. He used community organizing methods to mobilize a base consisting of many people who had never voted before or who regularly don’t vote….But he also knew that what he said had to basically play to the center to not be run over by the press, the Republicans, scare centrist and cross-over voters away. He made it.
So he has a narrow mandate for change, without any direction specified. What he’s doing now is moving on the most popular issues — the environment, health care, and the economy. He’ll be progressive on the environment because that has broad popular support; health care will be extended to children, then made universal, but the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance corporations will stay in place, perhaps yielding some power; the economic agenda will stress stimulation from the bottom sometimes and handouts to the top at other times. It will be pragmatic…
And I agree with this strategy. Anything else will court sure defeat. Move on the stuff you can to a small but significant extent, gain support and confidence. Leave the military alone because they’re way too powerful. For now, until enough momentum is raised. By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget if security is being increased through diplomacy and application of nascent international law.
By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget…"
Lots of room to cut in the Defense Budget - not that there's much hope that Obama will get it right. But at least he's lopping some big numbers off, unlike say what some of his other agencies are doing ... External Link
More and more I get the eery feeling that I now know how any level headed Germans felt in 1937. The world is on the verge of massive upheaval, and I and my family have nowhere to go.
I'm not sure what Mr. Black is getting at. Prior to World War II FDR reduced our military until we were 12th in the world behind Greece. In spite of repeated warnings from General MacArthur, who was in the Philippines at the time, that the Japanese were a growing threat to the region FDR decreased our presence in the area, emboldening Hirohito.
Displaying weakness to our enemies only stands to increase their confidence in our lack of will to defend ourselves. Mac Arthur well knew that morale and will were at the heart of success in military campaigns, but if you're lacking the right tools for the job morale will get low.
As for the battle of Lepanto fought against the Turks by a smaller Christian fleet, the success of that campaign was attributed to Divine intervention. It may be difficult to ask the Almighty to intervene on our behalf in a country where abortion to term is legal and the population is forced to pay for it with our tax dollars, where children who make it to birth are corrupted with sexual messages in all forms of media as well as the public school, and where the institution of marriage, a pillar of society, is being destroyed. Sure, there are still plenty of good Christian people in America, but we can get a good idea of how they're treated by watching the media spit on Tim Tebow.
Today Apple announced that it is no longer selling iPhones in Chinese stores due to widespread rioting from desperate consumers looking to get their hands on the device.
And this is the country I'm supposed to worry about?
smithson, Yes. Stores got mobbed here in the U.S. for Jordan shoes right before Christmas...someone even killed? What seriously does that have to do with warfighting? Sure, the Chinese are capitalists now but if they take Taiwan in a blitz, what would Obama do? Fight or capitulate? He's sure telling them right now. Generally if the Party thinks everything's OK then they won't bother, but if there is cultural unrest (Depression, anybody?) and they need to ramp up some unity taking Taiwan would do nicely. You've obviously never been to the mainland or talked to native Chinese.
Perhaps you have an iPhone and can use it to get a clue?
The security text I needed to enter for this comment is "touchy feely," which I find hilarious considering that such a statement perfectly describes your response
Seriously, why are you so hostile? I was just expressing skepticism at the idea that countries whose economies are so deeply intertwined would suddenly start World War III. Can it happen? Of course it can. But I believe in America and am not losing sleep over it. We are not as weak as you think we are, Obama or no Obama.
(As an aside, please don''t try to tell me that prior to WW2 countries were just as interdependent as they are now....America was not the preeminent cultural and innovative power that it is today...Japan did not plan Pearl Harbor from a McDonalds).
By the way, I've been to China three times. Also been to Japan (5 times) and Korea (twice). And guess what? That does not make me any more or less qualified to speak about their government. Only a fool would use a "visit" as the basis for their opinions on a country with 2 billion people.
