• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The Washington Times reported yesterday that more troop cuts are
coming for the Army National Guard and Reserve, thanks to a politically
correct Pentagon command structure that already lacks the combat
experience to fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

According to the report, the Pentagon has proposed another
25,000-member troop reduction, paring the Guard by 2.5 percent and the
Reserve by 3.5 percent. Overall the Guard and Reserve “have been
slashed 23 percent and 36 percent, respectively, since 1989,” said the
Times, even though the rudderless Clinton Ship of State has engaged more
American forces in global disputes since any president in recent
memory. Not bad for a draft dodger.

The excuse given by the Pentagon is that more savings — in this case
nearly $1 billion, according to the Defense Department — need to be
shifted in order to “modernize aging equipment,” whatever that is
supposed to mean. And yet the troop slashers at the DoD expect Americans
to believe that in a budget of nearly $280 billion, some $908
million cannot be found to “modernize aging equipment?” What is the
Pentagon doing with all that money?

Here’s a clue: Allowing a military neophyte like Bill Clinton to
spend valuable billions on a plethora of “peacekeeping missions”
that have no bearing whatsoever on U.S. national security. Unnoticed by
the weekend ballgame crowd, American troops have already been in Bosnia
since 1995, though we were “promised” back then that U.S. forces might
spend a only year — perhaps two — there. Now, however, after nearly
five years we are told that we can expect to “remain in Bosnia for
another three years,” at a minimum. And we’ve already set
ourselves up to be in Albania and Kosovo for as long. This coupled with
endless “humanitarian” missions in a variety of locations that have
contributed to the Pentagon having U.S. troops in over 110 countries
today.

Why? Can’t anyone else take care of their own backyard? Is every
other nation on earth too incompetent, or are American leaders just that
arrogant in their desire to be imperialistic?

I have no problem whatsoever in reducing the number of U.S. troops,
provided a few conditions are met first:

  • That Congress does something to strengthen domestic
    military training and defense — perhaps on the Swiss model — which
    would require that “all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45″
    participate. If we’re going to reduce the number of active forces we
    have to compensate for that loss; plus, “home forces” are not going to
    be available for “call-up” unless “home” is threatened by invasion.

  • That Congress requires the number of foreign deployments
    to be cut by two-thirds or more and instead focuses on training the
    remaining active duty military force for the defense of our genuine
    national security interests. To blazes with all this “internationalism”;
    let our military be used solely when our vital national interests are
    being threatened.

Unless these two goals are accomplished, then cutting our forces
even more is more than stupid — it’s criminal. It is a criminal neglect
of our national security and somebody needs to be held accountable
before it’s too late.

How many current and former U.S. military commanders have told
Congress and the White House that we already cannot meet our
overseas deployment needs in terms of personnel? How many of these
people have repeatedly warned our leaders that we cannot even meet our
national security defense requirements — let alone the foreign
deployment requirements — with the number of troops we currently have?
Have these people simply ignored the voluminous evidence supporting
current recruitment shortfalls? In an increasingly dangerous world –
the Russia-China-North Korea alliance comes to mind — what sane person
would want to reduce our ability to defend ourselves even
further
?

To answer those questions, one only needs to understand the
intentions and mindset of the liberal-socialists comprising this
administration. Their goal is not to make or keep the U.S.
superior in terms of military power and readiness because they
believe when we’re more powerful than our enemies we are an inherently
dangerous country. That’s garbage.

No, their goal is to maintain peace through parity and
equality, as if a weaker U.S. could possibly deter the aggression
of a potential — and equally powerful — enemy, either through
diplomacy or threat of military reprisal. “Parity” and “equality” are
not goals a superpower should set for itself; it’s like “dumbing down
national security” — outcome-based military policy, if you will.

How stupid and idealistic can you get?

It was Teddy Roosevelt who admonished U.S. leaders to “speak softly
but carry a big stick.” That is, we should always seek peace and try to
work out our conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy, but always,
always
be ready to unleash overwhelming military power should the
diplomacy fail and our country become at risk.

In 1991 and 1992 President George Bush achieved an incredible
approval rating of some 90 percent for the “overwhelming force” doctrine
he employed against Saddam Hussein. I’m neither supporting nor refuting
the man’s logic for fighting the Gulf War; I’m simply saying the tactic
of using the necessary “overwhelming” force to defeat an enemy in as
short a period of time as possible was correct. And, at least, Bush had
the power to do it, thanks to the belief in overwhelming power by his
predecessor, Ronald Reagan.

And though it may be flawed thinking,
our own nuclear warfare policy has at least, for the past 50 years, been
based on a minimum of equal power shared with other nuclear
powers like Russia and China. But to advocate any less is to commit
national suicide; these liberal-socialists seek to accomplish exactly
that.

The American people pay for — and have a right to — a military that
is capable of defending this country at a moment’s notice with all of
the necessary resources to accomplish that mission. What would be the
point — in historical retrospect — of spending the last 230 years
building the most powerful and economically successful country in
history, only to lose it because we chose to listen to idealists who
prefer weakness to strength? Weak nations have never been able
to “keep the peace” in a belligerent world; strong nations, by
comparison, are like an armed civilian population — they help keep the
peace for everyone.

Cutting our military personnel strength even further, without making
necessary policy changes to compensate, is naïve, foolish and inviting
of disaster.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.