Author Topic: Playing Politics with Our Security  (Read 155 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 255,430
Playing Politics with Our Security
« on: March 07, 2014, 09:25:50 AM »

March 7, 2014
Playing Politics with Our Security
By Warren Beatty

Stephen E. Ambrose, in Citizen Soldier, wrote about how Americans' superior weapons were taken away by the unexpected Normandy hedgerows, and how the war subsequent to Operation Overlord became one not of generals and colonels to fight, but of captains, lieutenants, and NCOs.  He wrote about how, in the past when faced with a new situation, the Army would take time, study the problem, figure out ways to maximize weapons utilization, and develop new doctrine and training methods.

The primary problem then was time. The Army didn't have the luxury of time to develop a new doctrine to address hedgerow combat, nor to train soldiers accordingly. The Germans saw to it that time was not available. So WWII was taken out of the hands of doctrine-writing generals and placed in the hands of company grade personnel who had fight with the weapons, training, and doctrine provided.  They developed new doctrine and training methods as they experimented and learned what worked.  But the experimentation didn't always work as planned, causing many casualties.  Few generals and colonels were killed or wounded, but many captains, lieutenants, and NCOs were.

That is exactly what is currently happening in the form of Pentagon budget cuts proposed by Secretary of Defense and chief RINO Chuck Hagel (an Obama appointee).  Hagel continues to call for a smaller high-tech military.  He says that a large military is no longer needed.  Hagel says cuts are necessary "... in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities like special operations forces and cyber resources."

And he says that his proposal is far better than sequestration cuts.  Hagel, on February 24, 2014, said:

Our recommendations beyond fiscal year 2015 provide a realistic alternative to sequestration-level cuts, sustaining adequate readiness and modernization most relevant to strategic priorities over the long term.

Let's not forget whose idea sequestration originally was: Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama's.

To further underline the fact that Hagel is playing politics, consider this statement: “Our recommendations favor a smaller and more capable force -- putting a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining platforms that can defeat more technologically advanced adversaries.”  [emphasis mine]  Hagel calls for a rapidly deployable force, but nowhere does he mention the time such a force needs to train, nor does he mention the time required to develop the doctrine needed to deploy it.

But, in my (been there) opinion, what Hagel says is just to cover his ultimate intention, which is to make more money available for Democrats to buy more votes.  And the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agrees. A CBO report finds that mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, is projected to rise $85 billion, or 4 percent, to $2.1 trillion this year. To find that money, the military budget must be cut.

Senator John (RINO) McCain blasted Hagel's budget, saying:


    I must say your timing is exquisite.  Coming over here with a budget when the world is probably more unsettled since the end of World War II.  The invasion of Crimea, Iran negotiations collapsed, China more aggressive in the South China Sea, North Korea fired more missiles in the last few days, Syria turning into a regional conflict.

    I believe that, when we are sending the signal that we are cutting defense, I think in this very dangerous world that we live in, is a serious mistake.

    There are savings that could be made in defense, but when we're making cuts this size, it concerns me a great deal, especially since we're increasing domestic spending. 

Domestic spending up, military spending down. Coincidence?  I don't think so!  To reinforce that opinion, only two days after Hagel's announcement, Obama called for $300 billion to be spent on roads, bridges, and mass-transit. More vote buying.

And Hagel's budget-cut proposal comes as (Communist) China expands their defense budget by 12.2 percent.

More history: Sgt. Eldridge Benefield, speaking about the complete destruction of Aachen, Germany, during WWII in 1944, said: "I hope I never live to see anything like this happen in America. But sometimes I wish people over there [in America] could at least see it. Sometimes I think they don't understand what it's like."

Ambrose quoted Benefield in 1997, so it's no surprise. Obama has had more than 15 years to ponder Benefield's quote. Yet he still places politics above historical facts. On September 11, 2001, America got a sample of what Benefield spoke of.  America is at war!  Yet Obama still doesn't admit terrorists want to destroy us.  He, when confronted with the truth, tried to cover up his inactions. And he goes along with Hagel's proposals.

What's most ironic about Hagel is that he was an Army sergeant in Vietnam.  He is the first enlisted man to become Secretary of Defense.  He knows firsthand what it means to serve on the front lines.  He knows that the unexpected happens, and that time is required to react to it.  But he seems to have forgotten that front-line troops have to work and die or be wounded with weapons and doctrine and training provided.

Mr. Hagel, high-tech is fine, but it cannot buy time. There is absolutely no substitute for sound doctrine and training. Or have you forgotten that?  I think George Santayana said it best: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  Perhaps, Chuck Hagel, you should remember the past.  But, hey, why should you remember?  It's not your life or body.

Just what does Hagel, and therefore Obama, hope to achieve through Defense Budget cuts?  Sure, more money will be available for Democrats to buy the votes of a majority of the low-information voters, but the price will be high.  When (not if) we get into another war, who will cry the loudest about sons dying, about our unpreparedness?  My bet is that it will be the low-information voters who reelected the Hagel enabler Obama, who have themselves forgotten the past.

What's saddest is that the MSM will ignore lessons from the past and tell the world what a great thinker and money saver Chuck Hagel is.

But that's just my opinion

Support the USO

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo