Washington’s leaders appear trapped in a time warp when it comes to making decisions about defense and foreign policy.
Still reveling in the bloodless victory a quarter-century ago over the Soviet Union in the first Cold War, President Obama, his progressive supporters, and some Republican budget hawks more concerned with balancing the budget than funding national security needs cling to the illusion that, since the USSR’s demise, there are no overarching threats from powerful nations. In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that the only real threat to the U.S. came from failed states.
Arguments are frequently made that the U.S. military is funded far better than any potential adversaries. The reality is, of course, that a vast percentage of spending on the armed forces of nations such as Russia and China are simply not reported, a strategy made easier by the absence of a free press in those nations.
Substantially ignored by far too many in government and media are these crucial realities that make the current era the most dangerous in American history:
For the first time in a century, Washington’s alliances do not constitute the most powerful military grouping in existence. That distinction goes to the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean axis.
For the first time in history, the U.S. does not possess the most powerful or modern nuclear force. Since the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia and the New Start Treaty, that distinction belongs to Moscow. Some believe that China’s vast military tunnel system may contain more nuclear weapons than America’s arsenal, as well.
The equipment, weapons and vehicles of America’s conventional forces are old and worn down by overuse. Those of our potential adversaries are fresher.
Get in the sun, or, take vitamin D. canada cialis levitra Foods that help spice up your sexual relationship with the cialis no prescription look at more info partner. It works the same as levitra 40 mg http://respitecaresa.org/christmas-wish-list/ does and contain the same ingredient sildenafil. The order cialis http://respitecaresa.org/event/554/ act of Lovegra holds up for roughly 4-6 hour. Concerns over the diminished armed forces is not restricted to Republicans, conservatives, or hawks.
The U.S. Navy, once the unquestioned master of the world’s oceans, has shrunk to less than half its previous size while facing adversaries who have dramatically increased the size and capabilities of their fleets. The Chinese Navy already has more submarines than the U.S. has, and by 2020, its navy will surpass Washington’s in total numbers. Beijing also possesses some unique weapons, such as land-based missiles that can devastate ships nearly a thousand miles from shore, a true game-changer.
Politico has reported: “We have a crisis in the fleet… Today, at 284 warships, the United States Navy’s fleet is the smallest since World War I. But even that number probably overstates the Navy’s true capability: The Pentagon recently changed the rules by which it counts active warships and if you apply the traditional and more stringent method, the Navy has but 274 warships. [The NY Analysis pegs the number even lower.] Given sequestration, the fleet will continue to decline.”
The U.S. military no longer has the capability to fight a two-front war. The Heritage Foundation notes that “The common theme across the services and the United States’ nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the servicemembers who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type. Thus, though the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”
The American Enterprise Institute opines: “Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, American power has slowly but surely atrophied relative to the burgeoning threats that confront the United States. Seemingly attractive short-term defense cuts carried long-term costs, not only in monetary terms, but also in proliferating risk to American national interests. Military spending has fallen since 1991 by every metric—as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of the federal budget, and in real terms—even as a declining share of the Pentagon budget funds combat-related activities…
“American political leadership has consistently asked the military to do more with less. Without sufficient military credibility to deter or contain conflict, an ever-smaller American military has been sent abroad far more frequently than in the Cold War. If the rosy assumptions about threats to American interests had proved true, none of this would matter. Yet the past decade has seen drastic and widespread negative developments for American interests, from the direct threat of radical Islamist terrorism to China’s unwillingness to cooperate instead of compete and Russia’s delusions of grandeur. These threats to stability might each be soluble in isolation, but together they require sustained application of American economic, diplomatic, and cultural power, each buttressed by credible US military power. If American political leadership continues to underfund and overuse the military, it will not result in a less ambitious foreign policy. It will result only in greater risk to American national interests. A weaker military has resulted in less credible American security guarantees and increased likelihood of conflict. A strong American military will rebuild the trust of our allies and ensure stability for a new American century.”
Decisions over the fate and funding of America’s military have been tied to balance sheets, politics, and conflicting ideologies. It’s time that the only appropriate criteria—the ability to deter enemy aggression—replaced those comparatively trivial considerations.