Posted on 05/15/2007 11:23:43 AM PDT by Unmarked Package
HILLSDALE, Mich. - In a speech to Hillsdale College graduates yesterday about confronting a world filled with evil, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said America should combat radical Islam by bulking up its military.
"There is no safe place if evil is unrestrained," the former Massachusetts governor said during his address at the campus 80 miles northwest of Toledo.
"The weak may hide, but they become weaker still, until at last they are discovered and easily conquered. History teaches us this: The best ally of peace is a strong America."
Mr. Romney proposed adding 100,000 troops and keeping defense spending at 4 percent or more of America's gross domestic product, a remark that garnered applause from the families and friends of Hillsdale's 306 listed graduates. With $580 billion projected to cover the U.S. military and Iraq war this year, defense spending already is above the 4 percent mark.
The 15-minute address, which compared foreign leaders such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, came after a week in which 11 Republican congressmen threatened President Bush with legislative desertion if conditions fail to improve in Iraq by September.
At Hillsdale, Iraq became a rallying point.
Graduates gave a standing ovation to classmate Marine Lance Cpl. Aaron Hummel, who spent much of the past academic year in Iraq patrolling the city of Fallujah. The class raised $6,782 to help Mr. Hummel complete his Hillsdale education next year.
Mr. Romney's only criticism of the war was that nonmilitary resources moved too slowly after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.
He suggested consolidating all U.S. foreign aid agencies into one entity that could deliver social services to poorer nations, explaining that "only Muslims will be able to defeat radical jihad."
(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...
"The right course for America in a world where evil still exists is not acquiescence and weakness, it is assertiveness and strength.
"Following the end of the Cold War, President Clinton began to dismantle our military. He reduced our forces by 500,000. He retired almost 80 ships. Our spending on national defense dropped from over 6% of GDP to 3.8% today. He called it a 'peace dividend.' We got the dividend, but we didn't get the peace. Charles Krauthammer called our blissful disarmament a 'holiday from history.'
"There are still some who are on holiday. They refuse to see Jihad as a global struggle, as a war. They would continue to reduce our military spending to finance social programs. They would celebrate, chanting that they are going to 'give peace a chance.' But it is strength, not weakness, that gives peace a chance.
"Some of our citizens see the evil in the world, but argue that we should simply isolate ourselves from it. But one characteristic of evil is that it seeks domination over others, all others. Germany was poised to conquer one last European island and Japan had attacked our Pacific fleet – there is no safe place if evil is unrestrained. The weak may hide, but they become weaker still, until at last they are discovered, and easily conquered.
"History teaches us this: the best ally of peace is a strong America. As Ronald Reagan observed: 'Of the four wars during my lifetime, none of them began because America was too strong.'"
...
"In my view, a strong America is built upon several pillars. First, is a strong military. Teddy Roosevelt said we should 'speak softly and carry a big stick.' Lately, some of the enemies of democracy think that we speak loudly and carry a small stick.
"I would like to see us strengthen our military by adding at least an additional 100,000 troops. I believe that we must also re-equip our troops, particularly after the loss of our armaments in the current conflicts. I want to accelerate our missile defense system. And we need to make sure that the veterans who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom receive the care, the support and the outpouring of appreciation they deserve. This will mean that defense spending must rise, at least for a time, to 4% of our national economic activity, or more.
"We must always be able to defend America on our own. But we know that our strength is amplified when it is combined with the strength of other nations. America is stronger when we have friends standing with us."
...
"Our military strength depends in large measure on our economic strength. Today, America is the economic superpower. But that is not inevitable."
...
"How must we move to stay ahead, permanently? Raise the bar in education, sharply increase our investment in research and technology, remove the weighty burdens of unnecessary government taxation and regulation, close the plaintiff lawyer's gold mine, and once and for all, actually do what it takes to become energy independent. It makes no sense to send a billion dollars a day out of our economy, often to nations that use it against us."
...
"We can project America's strength and its goodness to the world through our military, our diplomacy, and our economy. But we cannot project more strength and more goodness than we actually have.
"And so we must ask ourselves: what is the source of America's strength?
"In the final analysis, a nation's strength flows from its people. The source of America's strength is the American people – hard working, educated, risk taking, God-loving, family-oriented, sacrificing, patriotic, freedom-loving American people. They always have been the source of our strength and they always will be."
...
"Today, we face a new generation of challenges. Enemies of freedom have attacked, here and on far-flung battlefields. New competition threatens our economic leadership. Our children swim in turbulent waters. In the face of our new generation of challenges, I am confident that your generation and my generation will rise to the occasion. As Abigail Adams wrote: 'Great necessities bring forth great virtues.' The motto of this institution offers the same truth: 'Strength rejoices in the challenge.' You are up to the challenge. You have been raised in good families, taught in an independent-minded institution and schooled in the land of liberty. Together, we will keep America the hope of the world."
We need a general military modernization and buildup across the board...especially in light of what the Chinese are doing.
Pretty good speech. There are a lot of quotable quotes in there I suspect to see some use as taglines in the near future.
After 9/11, the military should have been significantly expanded. Instead, it actually shrunk. I will never forgive W for telling people to go shopping after 9/11 instead of enlisting. He squandered a golden opportunity to rebuild the military. But, hey, seniors have prescription drug coverage—rah!
“History teaches us this: The best ally of peace is a strong America.”...”Mr. Romney proposed adding 100,000 troops and keeping defense spending at 4 percent or more of America’s gross domestic product”
“Mr. Romney’s only criticism of the war was that nonmilitary resources moved too slowly after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.”
So which is it, Brigham? A strong military or a strong nonmilitary?
Talk about pandering to...i really don’t know what. All coming from a man that never served in the military. Nothing wrong with missionary work, God love them. But another chess player that’s never stood on the board himself but is an expert on what we need to do. I think we’ve had enough of those with wolfowitz and cheney. Yeah, that’s right I said Cheney, bring it on. I will say this, at least Cheney didn’t slink off the reservation when Iraq turned to shiite.
Gov. Romney's plan addresses both military and civilian agencies. He elaborated on these two areas (see excerpts below) in a four part strategy to meet new global challenges; the other two parts being energy independence and forming new alliances to combat Jihadists worldwide.
Gov. Romney's experience, knowledge, and credentials in Homeland Security and the War on Terror are impressive and can be reviewed here.
The excerpts below are taken from a major foreign policy speech delivered at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library on April 10, 2007.
We need a stronger military.I propose that we sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapon systems, and strategic defense.We must transform our international civilian resources, to enhance our influence for peace, for security, and for freedom.After President Bush left office in 1993, the Clinton administration began to dismantle our military, in what some called a peace dividend. They took the dividend, but didn't get the peace. It seems that we had come to believe that war and threats and evil men were gone forever. As Charles Krauthammer observed: we took a holiday from history.
Simply look at the neglect of our military
We purchased only a small fraction of what was needed to maintain our strength. Instead, we have lived off the assets that had been purchased in the prior decades. The equipment and armament gap continues to this day.
We wring the useful life out of old and inadequate equipment, starving our budget for purchasing modern and ample armament.
What is the right amount to spend? Secretary Gates has proposed a 10% increase for next year. Bravo. But we will need at least an additional $30 to 40 billion per year over the next several years to modernize our military, address gaps in our troop levels, ease the strain on our National Guard and Reserves and support our wounded soldiers.
A look at our military spending over time is instructive.
Based on my analysis, we should commit to spend a minimum of 4% of GDP on our national defense.
But increase spending must not mean increased waste. If I am fortunate enough to become President, I will convene a team of private sector leaders and defense experts to carry out a stem-to-stern analysis of military purchasing. First, I want to hear about spending on equipment and programs that is more about making a politician's home district happy, than about protecting our nation. That's worse than pork-barrel spending, and it's got to stop. I will work with Congress to install strict lobbying rules and new sunshine provisions to keep a far more watchful eye on self-serving politicians, current and past. And second, I want my team to see if and where we are being fleeced by contractors and suppliers. There will be no sheep allowed in the military purchasing department!
...
Following World War II, America created structures designed to meet the demands of the Cold War. It worked. During the Reagan-Bush years, it became clear that the bureaucratic boundaries in the military between the branches were getting in the way. So the Goldwater-Nichols Act removed barriers to unify efforts across the services. This included establishing "joint commands" with individual commanders fully responsible for their geographic region. Those theaters of responsibility are as shown here.Our non-military resources enjoy no such jointness, no such clear leadership, no such clear lines of authority and responsibility. Too often we struggle to integrate our military and civilian instruments of national power into coherent, timely and effective operations. When facing the need to strengthen the democratic underpinnings of a country like Lebanon, our education, health, banking, energy, commerce, law enforcement and diplomatic resources are in separate bureaucracies, all under separate leadership, all protecting their own powers and their own prerogatives. So while we watched, Hezbollah brought healthcare and schools to the Lebanese. Guess who the people followed when conflict ensued? The same thing happened with Hamas and the Palestinians.
The problem was just as evident in Iraq. While the military moved in rapid order to topple Saddam Hussein, many of our non-military resources moved like they were stuck in tar. They fight over which agency will pay the $11.00 per diem cost of food at the same time that we are spending over $7 billion a month and taking human casualties.
It is high time to truly transform our civilian instruments of national power. We need to enable joint strategies and joint operations. Just as the military has divided the world into common regions for all of its branches, so too the civilian agencies should align along consistent boundaries. And one civilian leader, a Deputy lets call him or her, with authority and responsibility for all agencies and departments, must be fully empowered, just like the single military commander for CENTCOM. These Deputies of our civilian resources must have sufficient authority over the activities in their region. They will be heavy hitters, with recognized reputations around the world. They must be given objectives, budgets, and responsible oversight. They will be measured by their success in their region in improving such things as healthcare, education, and economy, and for their progress in promoting peace and democracy.
So, are you supporting Mr. McCain, Mr. Hunter, Dr. Paul, or Mr. Gilmore? I'm not criticizing those choices. Two of them are my favorite candidates in the race, but if military experience is a requirement for you, you've narrowed your field considerably.
I disagree with the notion that only a candidate with military experience can be an effective wartime president. I have differences with FDR over many things, but I don't think he was a bad wartime president. Woodrow Wilson never served in the military, but he wasn't a bad wartime president either. Ronald Reagan served in the military, but he never saw combat or engaged in hazardous military activities. In that sense, he could fit your definition of the chess player who never stood on the board. I'm not aware that James Madison was ever in the military. He wasn't a good wartime president, but the country couldn't have been prepared for the War of 1812 regardless of who was president.
Bill
“Military needs to be expanded, Romney tells Hillsdale grads”
During open phones on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal yesterday, some guy called in saying Romney has five sons who have never served.
There’s half an Infantry Squad right there.
“but if military experience is a requirement for you, you’ve narrowed your field considerably.”
Not at all. I just abhor opinions on war and the military from those that have no clue on strategy, but can only spew what their hired campaign consultants can drivel together as “coherent strategy”.
Thanks for the clarification. Who is your favorite candidate at this point?
Declared: Of the big three, leaning towards McCain. don’t agree with him on illegal immigration regulation, or campaign finance reform. But I sure as heck don’t agree with Rudy on a lot of issues, and Mitt is sort of an unknown in the south. I think Mitt would be a good vice president, rudy would never take second banana, nor do I think it would be offered, maybe Attorney General.
Undeclared: Fred Thompson (and he is not even prior military!). His common sense approach is broad-based, and resonates with a lot of people, sort of like how Reagan was. Problem could be health issues, and his personal life hasn’t really been looked at hard (Whether or not it should be could be open to question). But man, everytime I read something he said or wrote, I’m always thinking, Fred, how come you are not in the race?
There you have it.
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.