Back to the '30s: The Great American Retreat

It happens after every war. America disarms. And so invites the next attack, and next war. The same haphazard pattern is emerging now -- even before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, much as this administration pretends they are in order to cut the defense budget.

On both those fronts, the enemy is rushing to fill the vacuum left by the American withdrawal. This country's retreat has allowed al-Qaida, its branches and assorted allies and successors, whether the Taliban in Afghanistan or freelance terrorists in Iraq, to advance. At this rate, it may be only a matter of time before the next Benghazi or even the next September 11th, yet this administration has already sounded retreat. And taken not a scalpel but a meat axe to the national defense budget.

Under this just-proposed budget, the country's active-duty forces are to be reduced by more than a tenth and the reserves by 5 percent. Military pay and veterans' benefits would be pared accordingly. (Thank You For Your Service, Vets. The line for unemployment benefits begins just outside the door.)

Out will go various weapons systems good, bad and in-between, including the A-10 Warthog jet and flying fortress, aka the American infantryman's best friend -- well, next to his rifle. Who needs a defense, anyway?

How sum up this retreat from the world and reality in general in a few concise words? A senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, one Randy Forbes (R-Va.), came close: "It is very difficult for anyone to say with a straight face this budget will defend this country."

Second Place goes to Paul Rieckhoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who noted that "Washington is trying to balance the budget on the backs of those who have suffered the most." Veterans of those conflicts haven't sounded as bitter since the fall of Fallujah, which the Taliban have just re-occupied after its liberation cost so much in American blood.

Leave it to our still new secretary of "defense" to rationalize all these cuts. Chuck Hagel sounded like the last of the straight-faced kidders when he said that slicing away at the defense budget would strengthen the country's defenses. The pity is that he may not have been kidding at all but being perfectly serious. Which explains why, as long as he's in office, he'll sound like the new secretary of defense.

Mr. Hagel did mentioned in passing that, oh, yes, slashing away at American defenses might entail certain risks, but went on to explain, "We are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted."

American dominance can no longer be taken for granted. What heartening news that would be for America's enemies and the enemies of freedom everywhere. Except -- though it may come as a surprise to our ever-new secretary of defense -- there has never been a time when American dominance could be taken for granted. Or should be. Nothing -- nothing -- can be assumed in war. Or in peace, for that matter. That's a tried and tested recipe for defeat.

Even now we can hear our old battery commander chewing out some hapless and hopeless sergeant: "You assumed?!" Question mark, exclamation point. The sergeant wasn't a sergeant for long after that. Unfortunately, our current secretary of defense seems to have tenure. Ditto, the less than commanding figure who is currently commander-in-chief of our armed forces, which are now to be less well armed. (The applause you hear in the background comes from capitals like Teheran, Beijing and Moscow, those well-known citadels of freedom.)

American dominance can no longer be taken for granted. As if it ever could have been. There was no taking victory for granted in any of America's wars. Going back to the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, which, to borrow a phrase often attributed to the Duke of Wellington during the Napoleonic wars, was "a damned close-run thing." Thank goodness the French fleet arrived in the nick of time off Yorktown to save the day, and the American cause.

American dominance was scarcely assured during the War of 1812, either, or in our own Civil War, whichever American side you were on. The same goes for the Second World Catastrophe, which this country entered formally only after being caught unprepared at Pearl Harbor.

By then, being caught unprepared had become something of an American tradition. A tradition maintained up to September 11, 2001, and which our current administration seems determined to renew. Indeed, it may be the only thing Obama, Kerry, Hagel and Careless Company, LLC, may be determined about. As this latest defense budget of theirs demonstrates.

American dominance can no longer be taken for granted. It certainly couldn't be in the happy-days-are-here-again years leading up to the Korean War, when the Truman administration was so bent on disarming America that our meager forces were woefully unprepared for that war, too. Indeed, the closest parallel to Chuck Hagel's course as the nation's secretary of defense may be that followed by Harry Truman's incompetent secretary of defense, one Louis A. Johnson, whose idea of defense was to slash, cut and generally shrink the armed forces of the United States.

The result: Our troops paid for those years of deliberate neglect in blood and suffering. At frozen-over places with names like Chosin and Heartbreak Ridge and Pork Chop Hill. ... The Forgotten War was forgotten even while it was still going on. And the Best and Brightest did no better at strategizing in Vietnam with all its rules of (non)engagement, which might as well have been rules for defeat.

And now The Hon. Charles Hagel, secretary of what is called defense by this administration, assures us: "We are entering an era where American dominance ... can no longer be taken for granted." No words could be less assuring, or so complete and concise a summation of this administration's absence of historical perspective or constancy of purpose in foreign policy. The result has been a kind of isolationism-by-accident, for not even that outcome seems planned. For now American foreign policy with all its Pivots and Resets seems a completely ad-hoc, make-it-up-as-you-go-along affair, as feckless as it is pretentious.

It was said, and rightly so, that the previous president was widely hated. And so George W. Bush was -- by every aspiring tyrant and ambitious terrorist and enemy of freedom in the world. This president isn't hated, he's just ignored and despised, for he's become the personification of weakness and drift in American foreign policy. He abandons one ally after another and courts one tyrant after another. As high an opinion as he may have of himself, the world has lost respect for him, friend and foe alike.

It is said in the president's defense that he's really leading -- from behind. There are only two things wrong with that assertion: (1) He's not leading, and (2) he's so far behind he's not even in the picture.

So welcome back to the Carter Years, or even the Twenties and Thirties, the years of Harding and Stimson and the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to simply outlaw war, the years of the Gathering Storm in general. The view from here may be bleak, but it is terribly, terribly familiar.

We cannot afford to be the worlds police force. The last two wars, with all respect to those who fought them, were a complete waste of blood and treasure (and I said so from day one).

We need to pull back, walk softly and carry a big stick. When we do go to war the reasons should be clear and we should destroy everyone and everything and rain down such hell and misery that no one will want to screw with us for 100 years. Get in, get out, and do not rebuild their country unless it is quite clear that we can also rebuild their culture with reasonable effort. (Hello GW Bush).

But, whatever. The West is no longer in a position to rebuild cultures. Ours is now too polluted. Night is falling on planet earth. Prepare.

RE: “The last two wars, with all respect to those who fought them, were a complete waste of blood and treasure.”

Without the September 11 terror attacks, the Afghan war would never have been fought.

Hard to be certain what might have happened in Iraq, but I’ll guess that Saddam was more willing to throw the dice on war since we were already fighting in Afghanistan.

I never understood Bush’s rationale for attacking Iraq since North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan already had nuclear weapon programs, and since Russia, and possibly China, were actively helping some of them.

Just curious - if you had been President on 9/11, how would you have responded, since you would not attack Afghanistan?

I am retired CIA so that is the context for my comments:

First, in my administration most of the senior staff would be educated well enough in Islam and Islamic and world history so that they would understand we are at war with Islam - not terrorists. For the most part that could not be articulated publically but it would be what we based policy on.

I would begin intense, behind the scenes efforts to educate our allies to that fact – at various levels from heads of state and government down to military exchanges. That would be a slow and painful process but given time (more than one President) would yield results.

The same process would take place in the US military, federal law enforcement, US intelligence and Foggy Bottom and I would not hesitate to purge officers who resisted. That is an ugly tactic that the current administration is using well but the stakes are too high to not use it. (When taking office I would have accepted the resignation of unprecedented numbers of SIS and SES so some of that purging would have already taken place).

I would use the CIA to set the Islamic world against itself as Reagan did using false flag operations. Sunni against Shia, country against country, terrorist group against terrorist group etc.

I would use the CIA, SOCOM and other, more benign tools to limit Islam expansion. For example, the Saudi’s have a big program in Africa where they go in and provide villages water and electricity – but only let villagers that convert to Islam use those services. A program like that could be ended quietly and would probably only take a phone call. Comply or face all manner of consequences.

I would use the CIA and SOCOM to destabilize Muslim countries in order to bring about secular regimes – which would in most cases have to be totalitarian in nature. This could be effective in many countries but certainly not all. Tactics would run the gamut from support nations in Africa that have banned Islam up to and including terrorizing individual influential members of Islamic groups, tribes and governments.
Targets would have to be prioritized as what could be done is very limited by the politically correct mindset of the West. This would all have to be covert.

Overtly – I would have hunted Bin Laden and authorized limited strikes on perceived high value terrorist targets in order to satiate the public. I would have never gone into Afghanistan. Iraq would have been a more difficult issue given the intel at the time. Saddam Hussein had WMD’s. He had tons of WMD’s – at one point. However, once you invade in order to destroy his regime you were left with either fixing their culture (not possible) or leaving and watching a bloody and brutal civil war that the US would be blamed for. At the time I was for the invasion but dead set against staying – except we could have declared the north to be Kurdistan, a newly independent country, and set up a massive base there to dominate the entire region. Kurdish Muslims could have been marginalized and the majority Kurdish Christians could have provided use with internal security while we protected them externally. Win win and reasonably cheap and secure.

These are dirty, ugly policies but the world is a dirty, nasty place. And I would rather not watch it march into the second dark age.

I don’t think it’s realistic to believe that a “war” against Islam could have been waged for more than one presidential administration.

The American electorate and the MSM have moved increasingly to the Left, and the GOP, especially after Bush, has grown politically wary of foreign military engagements.

I also disagree with your preferred response to Afghanistan.

A message had to be sent to the world that any national government that overtly helps terrorists attack the USA is going to be destroyed.

I would have committed enormous resources to destroy the Afghan military to hunt down and kill every Taliban leader.

Government bureaucrats and generals care about their lives and their standard of living a lot more than messianic terrorist leaders like bin Laden.

Correct. A war against Islam would not last more than one administration. At least not likely.

Enormous resources to accomplish what? To leave just like every other invader has ever left Afghanistan - in defeat?

Terrorism is a distraction. It is a gnat on an elephant. It serves to make the elephant stomp around and get excited and pay no attention to the real issue which is the religious / political system known as Islam. It allows ‘moderate’ Islam to posture as such when in fact all Muslims (ALL) believe the world must completely be under Sharia law.

The twin towers were blown up. This sounds harsh, but so what. In comparison to what happens daily around the world because of Islam that was nothing.

If you want to send a message to governments about supporting ‘terrorists’ - do it directly and preferably covertly. Do not do it in a way that gets thousands of young Americans killed and that costs trillions of dollars and is guaranteed to fail.

I agree with your last paragraph. Bureaucrats can be influenced. Hence my policy. But your last paragraph conflicts with your second to last. As far as killing Taliban - it is mostly a waste of time. There are literally hundreds of millions of Muslim men willing to take their places.

We have been able to slow down the Taliban. But there are far more efficient means of doing so than another failed land war in Asia.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.