Downsizing Defense with a Trojan Elephant

| February 18, 2013 | 11 Comments

Can anyone seriously doubt that when we have an anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, Euro-socialist president serving as the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, that America’s military, as currently constituted, is in serious trouble? While fundamentally changing America’s economy to follow the downward trajectory of those various but failing socialist experiments collectively known as the European Union, do you suppose it hasn’t occurred to the nomenklatura of the Obama regime that those countries have downsized their military forces to help fund their workers’ paradises? The biggest, Britain, France and Germany, have significantly reduced their forces since embarking on their socialist paths.

The shrinking of those formerly powerful militaries is the major reason for America’s being policeman to the world. Consider for a moment that our current president doesn’t even want to police our borders, much less the world. Why then, if he wants to emulate Europe economically, would he not duplicate their military policies and shrink our standing forces leaving the world’s policeman role to some other country, one with a growing economy and military, say China for instance?

Beginning with the Bolsheviks, the Left has always realized that many of their goals are not palatable to the ordinary folks, so deception and manipulation are necessary to implement their policies. Blaming your own misdeeds on the political opposition is a proven tactic and made infinitely easier with a gullible and compliant media eager to do precisely that. As Sequestration, with its huge military budget cuts, looms, Obama and the Democrats, aided by the media, are trying to convince Americans that evil, intransigent Republicans are entirely responsible for whatever hardships befall our armed forces. When you have the New York Times giving you cover, it becomes much easier to carry out your blatant deceptions right under the collective nose of the American people.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution, Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno, has outlined what is in store for our Army; from Army Times:

Odierno told Congress earlier this week that sequestration might force the Army to cull another 100,000 troops from its ranks. Speaking at Brookings he went further, estimating that beginning with the 80,000 already scheduled, “in the end, it’ll be over 200,000 soldiers that we will have to take out of the active duty component National Guard and Army Reserve” if sequestration is implemented for the long term.

“We’ll take almost a 40 percent reduction in our brigade combat teams once we’re finished,” he cautioned.

When looking at the Army’s bottom line, Odierno said that if the fiscal 2014 budget is implemented without sequestration, the Army will have taken a 45 percent reduction in its budget since 2008, a number that rises to over 50 percent with sequestration.

And that’s just the Army; the other branches are to get hammered as well. Those are reductions of European proportions, exactly what the left wing of the Democrat party has long sought. So what better way to accomplish all this than put a useful idiot Republican in charge of the Defense Department to preside over the debacle? Is there any other possible reason why such a totally partisan president as Obama would pick a totally unqualified, former Republican senator with absolutely no large institution executive experience, like Chuck Hagel, other than the fact he will make an excellent scapegoat when at some future date America finally wakes up and realizes she’s been neutered? If you were truly concerned with America maintaining her military readiness during a downsizing of such huge proportions, wouldn’t you want the best executive you could find, perhaps someone with experience in such reductions in force? Wouldn’t strong managerial skills be the pre-eminent qualifier for the job? Aren’t there plenty of Democrats out there with the requisite credentials, far better qualifications than the current nominee? Yet Obama insists on Hagel? Shouldn’t alarm bells be going off all over Washington as to why?

It is for that reason Senate Republicans should be opposed to Hagel, not the content of his past speeches in which he expressed views inimical to Israel or favorable to Iran. Obama and Harry Reid are trying to roll a huge Trojan elephant right through the doors of the Pentagon to tear down the walls of our national defense from the inside, and our team is focused on the usual political nit-picking. Don’t misunderstand me, Hagel’s positions on Israel and Iran, as well as getting at the truth of Benghazi, are important, but they are nothing compared to the damage Hagel will do as Obama’s inside-the-Pentagon hatchet man.

Can’t you just picture what’s coming? Suppose Israel is attacked by enemies emboldened by America’s military weakness and lack of commitment to our long-time ally? And we’re caught totally unprepared to respond. Who’s going to be the fall guy do you think? Even if that catastrophe never occurs, every time Republicans and conservatives complain about another announced military reduction, the media will provide the true culprits, Obama and the Democrats, cover by pointing out that the SECDEF, who recommended the cut, just happens to be a Republican.

But you can bet the farm they’ll never acknowledge that he’s a deliberately planted Trojan Elephant.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Martinjmpr says:

    Well, OK, but honestly, isn’t this what the American people voted for? It’s not like Obama and the Democratic party have ever been cagey about their attitudes towards the military and towards national defense as a whole.

    Furthermore, before we start acting like the sky is falling, it’s worth remembering that for most of this country’s history, the military establishment was held more or less in contempt by the political and social elite. The post-WWII adulation of the military is, from a historical standpoint, something of an anomoaly and something that was driven by the Cold War and fears of Soviet Hegemony, particularly over Europe.

    Look at the status of the US military during most of the 19th century. With the exception of the Civil War, after the War of 1812, for the remainder of the 19th century the enlisted ranks of the military were looked down on as the last refuge of scoundrels, criminals, whoremongers, drunkards, and immigrants who nobody else wanted (ever wonder why the 7th Cavalry’s regimental song was an Irish Ballad? It’s because the Army of that era was composed of large numbers of immigrants who couldn’t find work anywhere else.) And officers hardly fared better – the fifty year old Liuetenants and sixty year old captains fighting the indians during the plains campaigns were often portrayed – correctly – as ignorant buffoons who couldn’t catch an indian unless the indian was dead drunk (as so many of the officers themselves were, too.)

    Even in our recent history, I’m old enough to remember the 1970’s when the reaction to a son’s decision to join the army would automatically be met with the question “Why? Couldn’t you find a real job?”

    Various sources will cite poll after poll that exclaims that “The American People support a strong defense” but a more accurate way to phrase that would be “the American people support a strong defense as long as it doesn’t cost them anything and as long as it’s somebody else’s sons and daughters going off to do the fighting.”

    We’ve let our military deteriorate before. We’ve always gotten a rude wake-up call, and we’ve always managed to come back from those initial setbacks. This is just part of the pendulum swing of American politics. Sooner or later something will happen somewhere and the pendulum will swing back.

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    Norks setting off another — and bigger — underground nuke test last week. How long before they do an atmospheric test?

    Russian TU-95s (Bear bombers) loaded with cruise missiles tipped with nuclear warheads circling Guam. Scare tactic, or just a yank at the sleeve?

    Do I see buzzards up there? Wonder what they want. Hmmm….

  3. Stacy0311 says:

    There’s not going to be much of a demise for Hagel to preside over. Leon “leavin on a jet plane” Panetta pretty much set the stage for destroying the morale of the military.
    DADT repeal was one thing, but “first thing smokin out of here” Leon took it further. No pay raise next year, women in combat MOS’s and the final bitch slap in the face, the Drone Medal. I’m staying in for a while longer to mitigate what I can at my level, but I don’t see it getting better anytime soon. And when I hit 30, I’m gone.

  4. Al T. says:

    I played in this game before – the ’70’s sucked. Glad I’m done.

  5. dnice says:

    I think this is a little more than the regular ups and downs of military spending. There is something sinister lurking.

    I think its more along the lines of what Brad Thor wrote about in Full Black (see http://www.amazon.com/Full-Black-Thriller-Brad-Thor/dp/1416586628 ).

    When my boss was telling how the Adminstration was f’in with Merchant Marines (from their football team to their Cdr.) i was like wow no branch is exempt and they are out to make everything into their political apparatus.

  6. streetsweeper says:

    The TU-95’s buzzing Guam is an old Cold War tactic, PH. Nothing new there, fly a bomber or two a mile or so into your enemy’s airspace, watch the radar and monitor commo’s for the fighter jets to scramble and be hauling tail the opposite direction back into the relative safety of international airspace. IIRC, the Bear doesn’t need to drop altitude to trip alarms, it simply has to be present on radar.

  7. streetsweeper says:

    OOps…that aside, its the 70’s again and maybe with a bit more of a twist.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    @6 – I know, Street, it worse than having a flashback to the Summer of Love and having to wade through the hippies pilfering stuff at the grocery store.

  9. DaveO says:

    What is old is new again.

    This is the world Obama grew up in: peace marches (against the US), anti-nuke marches (against the US), anti-US imperialism marches: all the marches ordered by the KGB in the USSR. Obama, like the rest of the red diaper babies, was shocked when the USSR imploded – but learned by watching those former commissars hold on to the levers of power, become billionaires, and have both a life of fabulous comfort, money to escape accountabilitiy, and power to implement their childhood dream: the destruction of the US.

    Fortunately for Obama, enough Americans are willing to sit on their Lazy-boys, eating McDonald’s, and tooling around in their Lexuses pitying themselves that Obama will succeed.

    By taking the US military

  10. Tom Huxton says:

    From the piramids, to Boulder Dam to the Interstate Highway System, public works projects stimulate the economy and train workers in skills necessary for the future. While driving us into debt, I donot see governmment building helo carriers or missile frigates. Those projects would stimulate local economys and train the next generation of skilled tradesmen.
    Contracting civilian companies for military support does not train soldiers for needed skills either.

  11. PintoNag says:

    I don’t remember who on TAH recommended the following books, but I want to send out a thanks.

    Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” and “The Sixth Column.”

    Pretty profound reading in our current political climate. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *