Strategic Capitulation (Oliver North)

Creators Syndicate ^ | January 6, 2012 | Oliver North

[jazusamo]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military had better get ready to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less. That's the bottom line of the so-called "new strategic guidance" issued this week by President Barack Obama during a brief visit to the Pentagon. Flanked by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama proudly proclaimed to allies and adversaries alike that the United States is heading toward a much less expensive, far smaller and ultimately less capable military than we've had since before World War II. Titled "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense," the 16-page document is the result of a "fundamental review" ordered by the White House in April. It purports to provide a strategic framework for addressing present and future threats to the United States and the means of protecting the nation from them now that the "tide of war" in Iraq and Afghanistan is receding. It doesn't live up to the hype. In a letter accompanying the review, the president claims it was "shaped by America's enduring national security interests." At the Pentagon briefing Jan. 5, he insisted, "The size and the structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around." He also issued a stunning rebuke to his predecessors: "We have to remember the lessons of history. We can't afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past — after World War II, after Vietnam — when our military was left ill-prepared for the future." We can count on seeing video of those words repeated ad nauseam in "re-elect" campaign commercials this summer. But his own "priorities" document makes clear that Obama plans to double down on the "mistakes of the past." He claims that it is now a "national security imperative" to reduce our federal deficit "through a lower level of defense spending." That's a strategy driven by dollars — not by the threats and risks we face. For more than 70 years, the size, structure and capabilities of our military have been driven by retaining the capacity to fight a two-front war. That's how we won World War II, deterred Soviet aggression during the Cold War and eventually brought down the "Evil Empire." This archaic "peace through strength" strategy is not part of the new "Obama Doctrine." According to POTUS and Secretary Panetta, the "Joint Force for the future" will be "smaller and leaner, but will be agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced." They also claim that our austere military "will be prepared to confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world." All this embraces the idea that we can fight our enemies at the times and places of our own choosing. Such a strategy assumes that risks posed by a nuclear-armed Iran in the Persian Gulf, the possibility of Pyongyang's launching another surprise attack across the Korean demilitarized zone, Beijing's military and economic adventurism in the Pacific and a resurgence of radical Islam in the Middle East are sequential events — not simultaneous. In his haste to claim credit for ending what he calls "a decade of war," Obama apparently has forgotten that we did not choose the times and places of the terror attacks on 9/11. The O-Team's planning guidance states that we must "rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region." Yet it also contends that we can reduce our defense budget — by more than $1.1 trillion over the next decade; delay acquisition and fielding of advanced weapons systems, such as ballistic missile defense and the F-35 joint strike fighter; draw down U.S. force levels in Europe and the Middle East; dramatically reduce the size of the active-duty U.S. Army and Marine Corps; increase reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces; and reduce pay and benefits for an "all-volunteer military." How these competing objectives can be achieved is beyond comprehension to anyone familiar with our military. Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the new Obama Doctrine is a "lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America." His critique went downhill from there: "This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs. In order to justify massive cuts to our military, he has revoked the guarantee that America will support our allies, defend our interests, and defy our opponents." All true. But McKeon's most telling rebuke was also a warning to the Obama administration: "The world has always had, and will always have a leader. As America steps back, someone else will step forward."

[jazusamo]

It's clear boy president is after votes for the November election, vote him out!

[jazusamo]

OLIVER NORTH PING!

Please Freepmail me to be added to the Ollie North ping list.

[ConorMacNessa]

The traitorous son of a bitch is selling us out, selling our future out, and consigning us to the dustbin of history! This is much worse than what the left-wing bastards did to us in Vietnam - this is lying down and letting the enemy roll over us! A horrible day for America - another four years of this maggot and there will be nothing left of our great Nation! I only hope that it's not too late to reverse the damage he's done if we turn him out in November!

Etiam non princeps sed usque ad genua, Principis Pacis!

[jazusamo]

Great graphic, it pretty much says it all.

[jazusamo]

I couldn’t agree more. Right after he was elected I had reservations that Obama was against our country. No more, I fully believe that!

[Pat4ever]

Ollie is spot on, as usual. I called Boehner’s office today to register my outrage. Their response was that the courts would declare this unconstitutional (ho-hum). I insisted that they take my info and register my displeasure with that response. We can’t take 4 more years.

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[Old Sarge]

[rightly_dividing]

Obama, the second coming of....Jimmy Carter

[rockinqsranch]

Thanks for the post jaz. I certainly hope enough Americans learned the lesson about inspiring Leftist lies, and will be voting to rid us of these Leftist crackpots in November.

[unkus]

Obama, the second coming of....Jimmy Carter

---

Nonsense. Jimmy Carter isn’t EVIL.

[garjog]

“selling our future out, and consigning us to the dustbin of history”

All part of his plan to “fundamentally transform America”. First bankrupt us with spending and social programs we can’t afford.

Then — Oh looky! Guess we have to gut our armed forces. Can’t afford it anymore. Dang.

[Shery]

He is ensuring the votes of the Paulites, I think. Would not surprise me if Paul gave his acclamation to this move.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

There is an interesting paradox in these cutbacks.

Europeans have long complained about “cowboy” America, that intervenes forcefully when a situation is starting to spiral out of control.

From the European point of view, it is much better to hold endless committee meetings, and try to bore aggressors and tyrants into capitulation, which not surprisingly, almost never happens.

Yet Europeans forget the long term consequences of their actions as well. By not intervening, for example, what will be their *only* means of response, if say, Europe is attacked with a nuclear missile?

Simple, to respond with their own nuclear missiles in a medium sized nuclear war.

So you have to ask yourself, what is better, to be a “cowboy”, or to procrastinate until it’s too late, then overreact?

Obama and many Democrats literally adore the Europeans’ rather silly philosophies and way of doing business, that they like, but never produces results like the way America does business. Yet Obama and many Democrats so *hate* how America does things that they tell themselves the European way *must* be better.

So with these massive cutbacks, they are forcing America to have a defense policy similar to Europe. That is, we will no longer be able to intervene early, and when we do intervene, it will have to be with far harsher, and less discriminating weapons. There will be *more* civilian casualties and more “collateral damage”.

Far less “hearts and minds”, and far more “kill them all and let their heathen gods sort them out.”

But that’s the European way, so it must be better, right?

[NonValueAdded]

He out-Cartered Carter a long time ago.

[TomasUSMC]

so 1.1 trillion over ten years is 110 billion per year less after the yearly increases which means there will be no real decrease. Just odumbi trying to raise more cash from the left. Cut a buck here add a buck there. I wouldn’t mind some conventional arms reducing if we first could just nuke Iran.

Playing the proportional conventional response game and the surgical strike game has shown no positive results in decades. Islam is getting stronger.

Sooner or later they will nuke US.

[TomasUSMC]

Take that pic off

Its got the Anchor and Globe on the uniform.

[Billthedrill]

We can't afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past — after World War II, after Vietnam — when our military was left ill-prepared for the future.

Liberals always accuse other people of doing what they're about to.