Tweet
I know some will dismiss article this over the first four words, but anyway ...
February 01, 2009
by Mark Whittington
USS Ronald Reagan
According to Fox News, President Barack Obama has demanded that the Department of DefenseObama Proposes Military Funding Cutscut its budget request for Fiscal Year 2010 by ten percent, about fifty five billion dollars. The brunt of the cuts will fall on weapons systems.
The proposed military funding cuts come not only during a time of war, but while Congress is demanding that the military expand to meet its commitments. Also, ironically, President Obama's defense funding cuts are being proposed while at the same time he is demanding a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package consisting of domestic spending increases.
Barack Obama's apparent desire to cut back military spending while expanding its size carries within it the very real danger of recreating the Jimmy Carter era "hollow military." The hollow military of the 1970s, in the wake of the Vietnam War, was strong on paper, but because of inadequate funding lacked the necessary weapons, supplies, and training to effectively carry out the national security missions of the United States.
The proposed Barack Obama budget cuts would seem to be dangerous to the point of recklessness in a time when the United States is preparing to fight a major campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan while maintaining other worldwide commitments. The proposed defense funding cuts also sends a signal of weakness to America's enemies.
Considering Barack Obama's wiliness to spend profligately on virtually everything else, one wonders why he had decided to skimp on national defense. It doesn't make sense, even from an economic stimulus perspective. Tens of thousands of people work in industries that manufacture tanks, planes, and ammunition. Defense funding cut backs would tend to depress defense industries, helping to defeat the purpose of an economic stimulus policy.
One reason for the proposed Obama defense cutbacks may be tied into the shift in foreign policy the Obama administration is pursuing, concentrating more on diplomacy than had the Bush administration, the Bush administration used the US military as a tool of American foreign policy. The liberation of Iraq, for instance, while controversial, has had the salutary effect of creating the first real democracy in the Arab world, as one might note the successful and largely peaceful provincial elections that just concluded in that country. Creating democracies where there were none, reasoned the Bush foreign policy team, is not only a worthy goal in and of itself, but also tends to lend to peace and stability in the long run.
The threat of force is also a good diplomatic tool, which might prove to have salutary benefits for every problem ranging from Iran's quest for nuclear weapons to checking the expansionist desires of Russia. The liberation of Iraq proved that the United States was willing to use force if necessary. The threat of it happening again causes America's enemies to at the very least proceed with caution. One example of this occurred soon after the fall of Baghdad when Libya, afraid that it might be next, agreed to give up all of its weapons of mass destruction.
The Obama administration, it would seem, desires to eschew the use of military force or even the threat of it. It therefore follows that when ones pursues a relatively pacifist foreign policy that one need not spend as much on national defense.
The problem is that a pacifist foreign policy and a weak military tends to invite military disasters. President Carter's Presidency was all but destroyed by the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran as well as the unchecked Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. President Clinton's Presidency was damaged severely by the Blackhawk Down episode in Somalia when eighteen American Army Rangers were killed and their bodies but on grotesque display.
As sure as night follows day, Barack Obama's proposed military funding cuts will likely result in another military debacle as America's enemies exploit the opening that provides. America's standing in the world, which relies more on fear and respect than affection, will be harmed. American servicemen an dperhaps American civilians will needlessly die. Barack Obama's Presidency will be irreparably damaged. If only for the latter if not the two former reasons, Barack Obama should rethink his approach to military spending.
February 01, 2009
by Mark Whittington
USS Ronald Reagan
According to Fox News, President Barack Obama has demanded that the Department of DefenseObama Proposes Military Funding Cutscut its budget request for Fiscal Year 2010 by ten percent, about fifty five billion dollars. The brunt of the cuts will fall on weapons systems.
The proposed military funding cuts come not only during a time of war, but while Congress is demanding that the military expand to meet its commitments. Also, ironically, President Obama's defense funding cuts are being proposed while at the same time he is demanding a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package consisting of domestic spending increases.
Barack Obama's apparent desire to cut back military spending while expanding its size carries within it the very real danger of recreating the Jimmy Carter era "hollow military." The hollow military of the 1970s, in the wake of the Vietnam War, was strong on paper, but because of inadequate funding lacked the necessary weapons, supplies, and training to effectively carry out the national security missions of the United States.
The proposed Barack Obama budget cuts would seem to be dangerous to the point of recklessness in a time when the United States is preparing to fight a major campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan while maintaining other worldwide commitments. The proposed defense funding cuts also sends a signal of weakness to America's enemies.
Considering Barack Obama's wiliness to spend profligately on virtually everything else, one wonders why he had decided to skimp on national defense. It doesn't make sense, even from an economic stimulus perspective. Tens of thousands of people work in industries that manufacture tanks, planes, and ammunition. Defense funding cut backs would tend to depress defense industries, helping to defeat the purpose of an economic stimulus policy.
One reason for the proposed Obama defense cutbacks may be tied into the shift in foreign policy the Obama administration is pursuing, concentrating more on diplomacy than had the Bush administration, the Bush administration used the US military as a tool of American foreign policy. The liberation of Iraq, for instance, while controversial, has had the salutary effect of creating the first real democracy in the Arab world, as one might note the successful and largely peaceful provincial elections that just concluded in that country. Creating democracies where there were none, reasoned the Bush foreign policy team, is not only a worthy goal in and of itself, but also tends to lend to peace and stability in the long run.
The threat of force is also a good diplomatic tool, which might prove to have salutary benefits for every problem ranging from Iran's quest for nuclear weapons to checking the expansionist desires of Russia. The liberation of Iraq proved that the United States was willing to use force if necessary. The threat of it happening again causes America's enemies to at the very least proceed with caution. One example of this occurred soon after the fall of Baghdad when Libya, afraid that it might be next, agreed to give up all of its weapons of mass destruction.
The Obama administration, it would seem, desires to eschew the use of military force or even the threat of it. It therefore follows that when ones pursues a relatively pacifist foreign policy that one need not spend as much on national defense.
The problem is that a pacifist foreign policy and a weak military tends to invite military disasters. President Carter's Presidency was all but destroyed by the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran as well as the unchecked Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. President Clinton's Presidency was damaged severely by the Blackhawk Down episode in Somalia when eighteen American Army Rangers were killed and their bodies but on grotesque display.
As sure as night follows day, Barack Obama's proposed military funding cuts will likely result in another military debacle as America's enemies exploit the opening that provides. America's standing in the world, which relies more on fear and respect than affection, will be harmed. American servicemen an dperhaps American civilians will needlessly die. Barack Obama's Presidency will be irreparably damaged. If only for the latter if not the two former reasons, Barack Obama should rethink his approach to military spending.
Comment