“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